Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
46
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
46 results for “Co-design”
Co-design – Part 1: Workshops to explore current imaginaries behind smart home technologies development and use
<h3>Description</h3> <p>This qualitative dataset is the <strong>first part</strong> of a PhD study on co-designing smart home technologies, and represents the data collected during a series of independent <strong>in-person workshops</strong> with professionals developing smart technology, its early-adopters, and late/non-adopters. The data collected during the subsequent parts of the referred study are also available at Zenodo.</p> <h3> </h3> <h3>Documents from workshop with professionals</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P1_WSP-PRO-TRANSCR_R02.docx</strong> (transcription of the workshop's audio recordings)</li> <li><strong>P1_WSP-PRO-VIS_000 </strong>till _<strong>013.jpg</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Documents from workshop with early-adopters</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P1_WSP-EA-TRANSCR_R01.docx</strong> (transcription of the workshop's audio recordings)</li> <li><strong>P1_WSP-EA-VIS_000 </strong>till _<strong>011.jpg</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Documents from workshop with late/non-adopters</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P1_WSP-LN-TRANSCR_R00.docx</strong> (transcription of the workshop's audio recordings)</li> <li><strong>P1_WSP-LN-VIS_000 </strong>till _<strong>012.jpg</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> <h3> </h3> <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> <p>This study is part of the GECKO Project (<a href="https://gecko-project.eu/">https://gecko-project.eu/</a>) and has received funding from the European Commission under the Horizon2020 MSCA-ITN-2020 Innovative Training Networks programme, Grant Agreement No 955422 (<a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422</a>).</p>
Co-design – Part 2: Workshop with professionals, early-adopters, and late/non-adopters to design interventions for a more responsible and just future with smart home technologies
<h3>Description</h3> <p>This qualitative dataset is the <strong>second part</strong> of a PhD study on co-designing smart home technologies, and represents the data collected during a series of two <strong>in-person workshops</strong>: one with professionals developing smart technology and its early-adopters, and a second one with late/non-adopters of smart technology. The first workshop had four groups of participants and the second three groups. The data is divided by each group. The data collected during the previous and subsequent parts of the referred study are also available at Zenodo.</p> <h3> </h3> <h3>Documents from workshop with professionals and early-adopters</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G1-TRANSCR_R00.docx</strong> (transcription of group 1 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G1-VIS_000 </strong>to <strong>_005</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G2-TRANSCR_R00.docx </strong>(transcription of group 2 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G2-VIS_000 </strong>to<strong> _008</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G3-TRANSCR_R00.docx </strong>(transcription of group 3 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G3-VIS_000 </strong>to<strong> _004</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G4-TRANSCR_R00.docx </strong>(transcription of group 4 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-PA-G4-VIS_000 </strong>to<strong> _002</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Documents from workshop with late/non-adopters</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G1-TRANSCR_R00</strong> (transcription of group 1 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G1-VIS_000 </strong>and<strong> _001</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G2-TRANSCR_R00</strong> (transcription of group 2 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G2-VIS_000 </strong>to<strong> _003</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G3-TRANSCR_R00</strong> (transcription of group 3 audio recordings) <ul> <li><strong>P2_WSP-LN-G3-VIS_000 </strong>to<strong> _002</strong> (participant-generated visual data)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> <p>This study is part of the GECKO Project (<a href="https://gecko-project.eu/">https://gecko-project.eu/</a>) and has received funding from the European Commission under the Horizon2020 MSCA-ITN-2020 Innovative Training Networks programme, Grant Agreement No 955422 (<a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422</a>).</p>
Integrating Co-design activities in agile development
<p>Within the Cos4Cloud project the agile methodologies recommended the instrument of co-design digests. This instrument was intended to form a bridge between co-design and the actual agile development process. During the project, the final process was elaborated closely with the co-design team, and was documented in the project's wiki page.</p> <p>The process includes the following steps:</p> <ul> <li>Set up a co-design digest page in the wiki</li> <li>co-design session is taking place</li> <li>results are collected in a co-design report (as it used to be)</li> <li>essential feedback/requirement will be added to the digest page</li> <li>Note to the developer team to review and update the digest table</li> <li>Developer team refines and decides on each entry in the digest table and links to user</li> <li>stories in their backlog (does not have to be accessible, though)</li> <li>Developer team updates the digest table during development of related user stories</li> <li>(decisions, implementation status, changes to the story, ...)</li> <li>Occasionally development team is reminded to update the digests</li> </ul> <p>Partners were invited to adopt this intermediary step to densify, and evaluate the outcome of co-design sessions before further integrate them into the actual agile development process.</p> <p>For one co-design session 52°North and Science for Change prepared a session where participants were asked to think in user stories. The outcome was a list of user stories which only had to be reviewed and refined. For such sessions the development teams chose to make evaluation and integration into the backlog an ad-hoc task and skipped the extra creation of a digest to avoid duplicated work. A proximity of co-design output and agile input naturally accelerates the intermediary step of a Co-design digest and its integration work or (in the extreme) even makes it superfluous.</p>
Co-design - Part 4: Evaluative interviews with professionals, early-adopters, and late/non-adopters about the co-design process
<h3>Description</h3> <p>This qualitative dataset is the <strong>fourth part</strong> of a PhD study on co-designing smart home technologies, and represents the data collected during a <strong>online semi-structured interviews </strong>with professionals developing smart technology, its early-adopters, and late/non-adopters. The interviews were conducted at Microsoft Teams. The data collected during the previous parts of the referred study are also available at Zenodo.</p> <h3> </h3> <h3>Documents from focus group</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P4_INTV-P</strong><em>X</em><strong>-TRANSCR.docx</strong><strong> </strong>(transcriptions of online interviews with professionals)</li> <li><strong>P4_INTV-A</strong><em>X</em><strong>-TRANSCR.docx </strong>(transcriptions of online interviews with early-adopters)</li> <li><strong>P4_INTV-N</strong><em>X</em><strong>-TRANSCR.docx </strong>(transcriptions of online interviews with late/non-adopters)</li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> <p>This study is part of the GECKO Project (<a href="https://gecko-project.eu/">https://gecko-project.eu/</a>) and has received funding from the European Commission under the Horizon2020 MSCA-ITN-2020 Innovative Training Networks programme, Grant Agreement No 955422 (<a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422</a>).</p>
Co-design – Part 3: Focus group with professionals, early-adopters, and late/non-adopters to better detail each intervention designed, who would be involved, and how it would happen
<h3>Description</h3> <p>This qualitative dataset is the <strong>third part</strong> of a PhD study on co-designing smart home technologies, and represents the data collected during a <strong>online focus group</strong> with professionals developing smart technology, its early-adopters, and late/non-adopters. The meeting was conducted at Microsoft Teams with the support of an visual board on Miro. The data collected during the previous and subsequent parts of the referred study are also available at Zenodo.</p> <h3> </h3> <h3>Documents from focus group</h3> <ul> <li><strong>P3_FG-PAN-TRANSCR_R00.docx </strong>(transcription of focus group audio recordings)</li> </ul> <p> </p> <h3>Acknowledgements</h3> <p>This study is part of the GECKO Project (<a href="https://gecko-project.eu/">https://gecko-project.eu/</a>) and has received funding from the European Commission under the Horizon2020 MSCA-ITN-2020 Innovative Training Networks programme, Grant Agreement No 955422 (<a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/955422</a>).</p>
Supporting information of a study for the definition and evaluation of a graphical user interface for housing co-design
<p>This dataset is from a study that intends to define, prototype and test a graphical user interface for a housing co-design system. To define the requirements of the interface, we conducted interviews with professionals of architecture, urbanism and social sciences areas, as well as with housing cooperatives and inhabitants of these institutions. An interface solution was prototyped, tested and refined. Then we conducted a heuristic evaluation and a summative evaluation. Such evaluations involved the testing of a high-fidelity prototype, to receive feedback from UX/UI experts, potential users (inhabitants) and architects.</p> <p>S1_File refers to the interview protocol used with the three groups of interviewees. We share the English and Portuguese versions of the interviews with professionals and the original (Portuguese) and translated versions of the remaining ones since these were conducted in Portuguese.</p> <p>S2_File is a dataset reporting the results of the interviews. Each question includes the answers given and the identification (anonymized) of the interviewees who responded to that question.</p> <p>S3_File describes the usability issues identified by the experts during the heuristic evaluation of the high-fidelity prototype. The first page organizes the issues by severity (left) and priority (right). The remaining pages have a table for each issue, including rows for problem designation, heuristic violated, problem description, solution proposal, severity degree, and an image of the interface pointing to the referred issue.</p> <p>S4_File refers to the results of the heuristic evaluation. It includes the identification of each issue, which expert (anonymized) identified such issue, and the heuristic it violates, with the sum of the times each heuristic was violated at the end of each column. At the right, a table presents the consolidation of issues, organized by priority, with columns identifying the issue, severity level, frequency, and priority.</p> <p>S5_File is the script given to potential users to experiment with the interface during the summative evaluation. This script guides the user through the tasks to perform since the prototype does not have all the features functioning.</p> <p>S6_File refers to the questionnaires applied during the summative evaluation with inhabitants. It includes a preliminary questionnaire, a Single Ease Question (SEQ) questionnaire, a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire, and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) questionnaire.</p> <p>S7_File refers to the results of the summative evaluation with inhabitants (potential users).</p> <ul> <li>Page A refers to the preliminary questionnaire with demographic information such as age, gender, education, relationship with digital technologies, etc. Each field corresponds with each inhabitant (anonymised) and the sum and percentage. In the middle, a table presents a summary of the consolidation. In the right possible relations are presented. </li> <li>Page B presents the results of the SEQ questionnaire, identifying the ratings each inhabitant (anonymized) gave each task. A summary of such values is at the right. </li> <li>On page C, the result of each rating for the SUS questionnaire given by each inhabitant (anonymized) is shown. At the bottom is the calculation of the SUS score.</li> <li>Page D presents the GUI questionnaire results for each inhabitant (anonymized), with the average and SD identified for each question. A summary of such results is on the right.</li> <li>Page E holds the notes taken by the researchers based on their observations regarding task performance. The information is organized in tables for each step of each task and includes the completeness, attempts, and time taken for each inhabitant (anonymized) to complete such task. Also, the sum, percentage, average, and SD are registered. Next to each task is a table identifying how many participants accomplished the task at the first attempt.</li> <li>Page F refers to the strong and weak aspects identified by the inhabitants. Strong and weak aspects are identified, as well as which inhabitant (anonymized) has identified them. The sum and percentage are also given. At the right, there is a table with the consolidation of results by combining similar answers. </li> </ul> <p>S8_File refers to the results of the discussion with architects after experiencing the interface. Such results relate to the positive and negative aspects that the architects identified in the interface and its usefulness for architecture. The left table identifies the strong and weak aspects that architects (anonymized) identified and the sum and percentage associated with them. The table on the right consolidates such results, with similar responses combined.</p>
Microclimate simulation output: "Between vision and action: the predicted effects of co-designed green infrastructure solutions on environmental burdens"
<p>The following microclimate simulation dataset supports the paper "Between vision and action: the predicted effects of co-designed green infrastructure solutions on environmental burdens" by Mathias Schaefer, published in Urban Ecosystems (2022).</p> <p>"T0Simulation_11082020_output" contains data about the status quo simulation of the area of interest (500 m x 500 m x 60 m), whereas "T1Simulation_11082020_output" shows the results of the Green Infrastructure scenario described in the research article above. Please ensure enough memory space on your device, as both files have a size of approximately 25 GB (unzipped).</p> <p>The output files can be visualized with the ENVI-met Leonardo extension. The ENVI-met LITE-version is freely available and can be downloaded at the <a href="https://envi-met.info/doku.php?id=files:download">ENVI-met homepage</a>. Alternatively, the included .NETCDF files can be imported as a multidimensional raster dataset in ArcGIS Pro.</p> <p>Files in the folder "atmosphere" represent meteorological parameters such as potential air temperature [°C], relative humidity [%], or wind speed [m/s]. Air pollution calculations like particulate matter concentrations [µg/m³] can be found in the folder "pollutants". The folder "buildings" contains building data for 3D visualizations of surface temperatures [°C].</p>
Co-design of a citizen science study: unlocking the potential of eDNA for volunteer freshwater monitoring
<ol> <li>Citizen science is increasingly being promoted as a means of gathering more data to help inform the management of ecosystems. Involving the participants in the design of data collection activities is a form of co-design often proposed by those calling for a translational ecology.</li> <li>In addition, novel monitoring approaches have the potential to improve the quality of data collected by citizen scientists. We explored the potential of environmental DNA (eDNA) for vertebrate (mainly fish) species monitoring through a co-designed catchment monitoring strategy. </li> <li>Having been introduced to the potential of eDNA, citizen scientists designed and executed an eDNA-based survey of a small chalk stream catchment to explore questions of concern.</li> <li>The eDNA monitoring approach provided data about fish and other vertebrate diversity in the catchment which would have otherwise required sampling approaches difficult for citizen scientists. These data give a preliminary answer to some of the citizen scientists' priority questions and are comparable to fish data collected through traditional electrofishing surveys.</li> <li>Recommendations are offered for co-design and the use of novel research techniques by citizen scientists.</li> </ol>
'Thriving With Bipolar Disorder': Co-design and Evaluation of a Peer-Led Education Program Focused on Quality of Life
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06878937. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 13.
INNOVATEDIGNITY: Co-designing Digital Health Technologies With Older People in Homecare Settings.
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04884711. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 8.
IMAGINATOR 2.0: Co-design and Early Evaluation of a Novel Blended Digital Intervention Targeting Self-harm in Young People
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06311084. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Data from CoFish: co-designing citizen science between fishers and scientists to monitor the phosphorus distribution across two Lake Geneva basins
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Co-design of a citizen science study: Unlocking the potential of eDNA for volunteer freshwater monitoring
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Co-designing conservation interventions through participatory action research in the Indian Trans-Himalaya
<ol> <li> <span>Community-based conservation, despite being more inclusive than fortress conservation, </span><span>has been criticized for being a top-down implementation of external ideas brought to local communities for conservation's benefit. This is particularly true for Changpas, the pastoral people of Changthang in trans-Himalayan India who live alongside unique wildlife. </span> </li> <li><span>Our main aim was to co-design conservation interventions through participatory action research. We worked with two Changpa communities, to understand issues faced by them. Subsequently, we co-designed context-sensitive interventions to facilitate positive human-nature interactions. We did so by integrating the PARTNERS (Presence, Aptness, Respect, Transparency, Empathy, Responsiveness, Strategic Support) principles with the Trinity of Voice (Access, Standing, and Influence). </span></li> <li><span>In Rupsho, we facilitated focus group discussions (FGDs) led by the community. We found livestock depredation by wildlife was primarily facilitated by the weather. This led to co-designing of a new corral design which was piloted with seven households, safeguarding 2,385 pashmina goat and sheep. Approximating the value of each sheep/goat to be USD125, this intervention amounts to a significant economic protection of USDc.42,500 for each household. This is along with intangible gains of trust, ownership, and improved self-esteem. </span></li> <li><span>In Tegazong, a restricted area adjoining the Indo-China border with no previous research records, we worked with 43 Changpa people to co-create research questions of mutual interest. Wildlife presence and reasons for livestock loss were identified as areas of mutual interest. The herders suggested they would record data in a form of their choice, for six months, while they live in their winter pastures. This participatory community monitoring revealed nutrition and hypothermia to be a key cause of livestock death. Subsequently, we delimited two previously untested interventions: lamb cribs and provisioning of locally-sourced barley as feed supplement. The wildlife monitoring recorded the first record of Tibetan Gazelle <em>Procapra picticuadata</em>, outside of their known distribution, in Tegazong. </span></li> <li><span>We aim to highlight the benefits of co-designing projects with local communities that link research and conservation, while also discussing the challenges faced. Ultimately, such projects are needed to ensure ethical knowledge generation and conservation that aims to be decolonial and inclusive.</span></li> </ol>
Effectiveness and Implementation of a Digital Intervention for Pediatric Chronic Pain Co-designed With Patients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05917626. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Co-design of a Digital Health Solution to Monitor Persisting Symptoms Related to COVID-19 Using Voice
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05546918. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Improving Sedation Practice in Critically Ill Adult Patients Using a Co-designed Sedation Protocol
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07032987. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 18.
Co-designing conservation interventions through participatory action research in the Indian Trans-Himalaya
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Health education videos as part of Co-design Activity 2
<p>Five videos were produced for the selected health contents regarding diabetes. They were overlaid with a smartphone frame because they were later tested during Co-evaluation Activity 2. These videos are as follows:</p> <p>1. Brief information about diabetes (can be opened with a video player program) </p> <p>2. How the human body gets energy (can be opened with a video player program) </p> <p>3. Common symptoms of diabetes (can be opened with a video player program)</p> <p>4. Why people become diabetics (can be opened with Internet Explorer)</p> <p>5. Brief information about treatment and self-management (can be opened with a video player program)</p>
Participatory Design Materials: Co-designing Child-Robot Relational Norm Intervention to Regulate Children's Handwriting Posture
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.