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.
139
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
139 results for “Delphi”
Ranking data for the eo-Delphi project
<p>The eo-Delphi project (https://osf.io/8f3aj/) created consensus for a core set of outcomes for future studies evaluating the effects of oral corticosteroid therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients stratified by eosinophil levels. The dataset presented here reports individual ranking scores for proposed outcomes.</p>
Data from a three-phase Delphi study used to investigate Knowledge Infrastructure for Research Data in Norway, KIRDN_Data; PhD project
<p>A modified three-phase Delphi study was used to explore the knowledge infrastructure for research data in Norway. The study includes different stakeholders involved in research data sharing. A Delphi study is characterised by the use of an expert panel to elicit opinions on a shared reality from different perspectives. Data collection is performed in several rounds with the intention of reaching consensus or solving an issue. </p> <p>A group of 24 experts took part in the study. The group consisted of policy-makers, representatives of national service providers, and researchers and research support staff from four Norwegian universities. The participants were invited based on their involvement in the development of policies, infrastructure or data-related research support. The research support staff were recruited to include representatives from different research support services at the universities, including libraries, research offices and IT departments. While the researchers were selected from based on their receival of EU funding with requirements of data management plans.</p> <p>Data were collected in three phases. The first phase, the ‘exploration phase’, was conducted using open interviews lasting approximately one hour in January/February 2018. The purpose of this phase was to obtain an initial overview of the panel members opinions’ on issues regarding research data management.</p> <p>In the second phase, the ‘evaluation phase’, conducted in August/September 2018, participants answered a survey containing nine questions on topics such as data stewardship, DMPs, ethical aspects of data sharing and core functions in a research data infrastructure. The survey was designed to further explore issues and tensions uncovered in the first interviews. Several of the questions were formulated as statements that the participants were asked to agree or disagree upon. </p> <p>The third, ‘concluding phase’ was conducted using interviews in March/April 2019. These interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were based on results from the questionnaire as well as the first interview. Participants were asked whether they had thoughts on the preliminary findings of the study. </p> <p>Based on requests from some of the participants, the questions were sent to all participants prior to the data collection, in all three phases. The participants were also sent the transcripts from the interviews and were asked for permission to share the complete material or parts of the data material to which they contributed. </p>
2-round Delphi study on digital technologies in vegetable farming in Switzerland
<p>This dataset contains survey data including the codebook for a 2-round Delphi study we conducted in Switzerland in autumn 2020. Selected experts were asked to describe the future of digital technologies in vegetable farming in Switzerland.</p>
INDICATORS TO EVALUATE THE LABOUR INSERTION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN CONVENTIONAL COMPANIES IN SPAIN: QUANTITIATIVE DATA SET OF DELPHI STUDY (PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3)
<p><span>The level of labor integration of people with disability (PwD) is notably lower than that of people without disabilities. In order to evaluate the success of the labor market integration of people with disabilities, it is necessary to establish a series of indicators that go beyond hiring rates. Hence, the objective of this study is to develop a list of indicators with their specified individual weight that will serve to evaluate the success of the labor market insertion of PwD in conventional companies. </span></p> <p><span>Methodology: </span></p> <p><span>The Delphi method was used. </span></p> <p><span>PHASE 1</span></p> <p><span>In Phase 1, an open-ended questionnaire was distributed to 48 human resources and disability experts. <span><br></span></span></p> <p><span>PHASE 2</span></p> <p><span>Based on the theoretical dimensions obtained, a list of 52 indicators was drawn up and the experts were asked to evaluate the importance of each item using a scale of 0 to 10 points. In addition, in this second questionnaire, they were encouraged to propose improvements in the final wording of the items, as well as in the relevance and denomination of the dimensions into which they had been grouped. No suggestions were received to modify the wording or to incorporate additional items.</span></p> <p><span>PHASE 3</span></p> <p><span>Once the scores of all the participants had been collected, a third questionnaire was sent out with the aim of achieving a statistical consensus within the group of experts. In this questionnaire, each panel member was informed of their degree of agreement or disagreement in relation to the group as a whole, without revealing the identity of the other participants. In other words, each participant was provided with information on the average rating of the group and their own initial rating (from Phase 2) of each of the 52 indicators, offering them the option to modify their response if they considered it appropriate. If they chose to change their assessment, they were asked to justify their reasons.</span></p> <p><span><span>To assess the possible convergence of opinion, the change in the responses received in the third phase with respect to the second phase was analyzed. We examined whether there had been variations in the scores given by the experts in the second phase once the group's mean ratings had been received. For this purpose, the “proportion of experts” statistic was used to verify that the average value of the responses in this third phase was within a range from [-0.5 to +0.5], compared to the average value of the scores in the second phase. In the case of non-convergence of opinion, this methodology allows for as many rounds as necessary until convergence is achieved. </span></span></p> <p><span><span>THIS DATA SET COLLECT THE ANSWERS OF THE EXPERTS OF PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3.</span></span></p>
Results of the Web-Delphi process to INAMI stakeholders (three rounds)
<p>IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 3 (Testing the framework with empirical applications), Results of the Web-Delphi process to INAMI stakeholders (three rounds), about the views of stakeholders regarding “The relevance of the following value aspects for the evaluation of new medicines in this disease context is” (2020)</p> <p>For details on the Web-Delphi process, see: IMPACT HTA, Work Package 7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 3, Deliverable 7.3 (Testing the framework with empirical applications), Testing the IMPACT-HTA Value Framework in collaboration with HTA agencies: Case studies on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Spinal Muscular Atrophy (2021), Aris Angelis (LSHTM, LSE), Mónica Oliveira (IST), Teresa Rodrigues (IST), Liliana Freitas (IST), Carlos Bana e Costa (IST), Panos Kanavos (LSE)</p>
IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 2nd Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized in a single panel
<p>IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized in a single panel (all stakeholder groups in a single panel, 2 rounds), about the views of stakeholders regarding “This aspect should be considered in the evaluation of new medicines on a common basis” (2019)</p> <p>For details on the Web-Delphi process, see: IMPACT HTA, Work Package 7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2, Deliverable 7.2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Advancing knowledge and MCDA tools to assist HTA agencies in evaluating medicines on a common basis (2021) Oliveira, M.D. (IST), Panos Kanavos (LSE), Bana e Costa, C. (IST)</p>
IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 1st Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized into 6 separate parallel panels
<p>IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 1<sup>st</sup> Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized into 6 separate parallel panels (one panel per stakeholder group, 2 rounds), about the views of stakeholders regarding “This aspect should be considered in the evaluation of new medicines on a common basis” (2019)</p> <p>For details on the Web-Delphi process, see: IMPACT HTA, Work Package 7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2, Deliverable 7.2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Advancing knowledge and MCDA tools to assist HTA agencies in evaluating medicines on a common basis (2021) Oliveira, M.D. (IST), Panos Kanavos (LSE), Bana e Costa, C. (IST)</p>
Online Real-Time Delphi Survey for the research project "MENARA" - Compilation of all Comments to Closed and Open Questions
<p><strong>Looking into the Futures: Delphi Survey about the MENA region</strong></p> <p>In order to get a more realistic overview of the situation and trends, of the potentials, problems and potentials of the countries of the MENA region a Real Time Delphi survey was conducted. This is an important tool of modern future research. It was managed by the IZT- Institute for Future Studies in Berlin. A group of 139 experts and researchers from different institutes and organizations were invited to participate at the Online Real-Time Delphi Survey (RTD) about possible and likely futures of the MENA region. The experts were asked to answer questions and provide their opinions on twelve topics such as social unrest, youth unemployment, urbanization, gender equality, security etc. In this dataset all comments to the closed and the open questions are compiled.</p> <p>The output was one of the basic material used for the creation of future regional scenarios for mid-term (2025) and long-term (2050) time horizons. Focus scenarios were produced in order to exemplify selected characteristic and important future options, in terms of chances and risks (e.g. energy futures).</p>
Delphi Study: Exploring the Implications of Large Language Models on the Science System
<p><strong>Sample description:</strong> Our target audience consisted of researchers working in the fields of science, technology, and society with a specific interest in Large Language Models (LLMs).</p> <p><strong>Collection method: </strong>Participants were recruited through the professional and personal networks of the authors, as well as the Alexander von Humboldt Institute (HIIG), using a combination of generic emails via LimeSurvey and personal contacts.</p> <p><strong>Description. </strong>The aim of this study was to explore the impact of large language models, specifically ChatGPT, on scholarly practice and academic writing, targeting researchers and experts in the fields of artificial intelligence, science, and technology who publish their research and scientific work. The two-stage Delphi survey sought to identify and assess the potential opportunities and challenges associated with the use of ChatGPT in academic work and scientific writing, with a specific focus on research impact rather than university teaching. Phase 1 yielded 72 responses, while Phase 2 had 52 responses.</p> <p>To conduct our analysis, we developed two distinct codebooks (see Files ChatGPT Delphi Codebook Phase 1.csv and ChatGPT Delphi Codebook Phase 2.csv) for the Delphi study. The first codebook was created by examining approximately half of the responses, extracting relevant information, and generating codes through inductive reasoning. We then categorized and developed subcodes based on these initial codes, assigning them to each participant's answers using deductive reasoning. For example, when addressing the potential applications of ChatGPT and other language models (LLMs), we identified six subcategories with precise definitions and illustrative examples. The analysis in Phase 1 led to the formulation of ranking questions for Phase 2, focusing on determining the most frequently utilized applications of ChatGPT and other LLMs based on the established codes.</p> <p>During Phase 2, we introduced two additional open-ended questions to explore the impact of ChatGPT and LLMs on the scientific system and society, aiming to envision future scenarios. The analysis of these questions in the second codebook followed a similar approach to Phase 1, including inductive reasoning for code generation and deductive reasoning for assigning codes to the answers. We observed overlapping codes with the Phase 1 codebook and assigned them to the second codebook. Additionally, we noted a shift in the connotation of certain answers from neutral in Phase 1 to being perceived as either positive or negative consequences of ChatGPT and other LLMs. This observation prompted the bifurcation of specific codes to capture the nuanced perspectives. For instance, applications such as reducing administrative tasks initially seen as valuable aids for researchers were sometimes viewed as potential causes for job replacement, implying negative outcomes.</p> <p>For detailed information on the analytical approach employed, including references to these methodologies, please refer to the methodology chapter in the official publication.</p> <p><strong>Content</strong></p> <ol> <li> <p>Questionaire-ChatGPT-Delphi-Phase1-Limesurvey-Export.pdf – This file file is an exported version of the Phase 1 questionnaire from Limesurvey. It includes the description, socio demographic questions, content questions, and a request for participant naming.</p> </li> <li> <p>Questionaire-ChatGPT-Delphi-Phase2-Limesurvey-Export.pdf – This file file is an exported version of the Phase 2 questionnaire from Limesurvey. It includes the description, socio demographic questions, content questions, and a request for participant naming.</p> </li> <li> <p>ChatGPT Delphi - Results Phase 1.pdf – This file contains the responses and corresponding questions from Phase 1 of the Delphi study. The responses provided by the participants are in the form of open-ended answers. As part of this publication, we have ensured the anonymity of the participants.</p> </li> <li> <p>ChatGPT Delphi - Results Phase 2. pdf – This file contains the responses and corresponding questions from Phase 2 of the Delphi study. It encompasses the ranking answers provided by the participants, as well as two open-ended answers. To maintain anonymity consistently, all participants have been anonymized again in this publication of our results.</p> </li> <li> <p>ChatGPT Delphi Codebook Phase 1.pdf – This file contains the Phase 1 codebook, which presents the primary codes, their respective subcodes, detailed definitions, and noteworthy examples.</p> </li> <li> <p>ChatGPT Delphi Codebook Phase 2.pdf – This file contains the Phase 1 codebook, which provides a comprehensive overview of the primary codes within the given scenario. It includes their corresponding subcodes, detailed definitions, and notable examples to enhance understanding and interpretation.</p> </li> </ol>
Library Service Platforms (LSPs) characteristics classification via DELPHI method raw data
<p>The purpose of the research that is related to the dataset is to identify the innovative features of the LSPs (Library Service Platforms) that differentiate them from the LMS (Library Management Systems), as well as to evaluate their importance, based on the opinions of the Greek information scientists. The method used is the Delphi 2-round questionnaire. The dataset contains the results of the Delphi method. Each sheet contains the ranking results from a group of 17 experts from two rounds of the DELPHI method.</p>
Delphi survey on clinical signs and symptoms at primary health facilities
<p>Data from a Delphi survey conducted among 30 primary health care workers in Tanzania.</p> <p>The Delphi survey was based on a recent Delphi study among international experts on predictors of sepsis in children under five and included questions about each clinical element based on three domains: 1. Reliability of measurement, 2. Frequency of finding an abnormal value, and 3. Level of training required. Additionally, availability of instruments to measure vital signs and other challenges in collecting each element were evaluated. The answers were classified using a 5-point Likert scale: minimal, moderate, high, not applicable, I don’t know. The answer options for the availability of vital sign instruments were yes/no/I don’t know. We also collected data on the professional background and expertise of the participants. </p>
Figure 1. Azure management portal and VM with two Delphi desktop apps-Early Warning of Heat/Cold Waves as a Smart City Subsystem: A Retrospective Case Study of Non-anticipative Analog Methodology
<p><br> Nowadays, only D-Wave Systems Company produces commercially the 2nd generation<br> adiabatic quantum computer with up to 512 flux qubits (project code name ″Vesuvius″). They are<br> microscopic loops of niobium metal that are capable of quantum behavior at low temperatures.<br> Hence, electrical currents in the loops can flow in clockwise (+1) or counterclockwise (-1)<br> direction, or both, when in quantum superposition. Qubits are connected to neighbors according to<br> the topology of quantum processor. The hardware is controlled by a framework of Josephson<br> junctions that allow individual qubit values to be stored and read, and to influence the states of<br> neighboring qubits.</p>
Delphi Study Data: Rounds 1 and 2 for Enhancing Efficiency and Transparency in Ghana's Rental Housing Market
<p><span>The dataset includes responses from two rounds of a Delphi study conducted among experts in the real estate sector, policymakers, and government officials in Ghana. The data captures both quantitative and qualitative insights on factors influencing rental housing decisions.</span></p> <ul> <li><span>Round 1</span><span>: Initial ratings of factors such as rental cost, proximity to work, landlord responsiveness, and availability of amenities.</span></li> <li><span>Round 2</span><span>: Pairwise comparisons of the top factors identified in Round 1, used for AHP analysis to determine their relative importance.</span></li> </ul>
Consensus recommendations for opioid agonist treatment following the introduction of emergency clinical guidelines in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national Delphi study
<p>Anonymous Delphi survey likert scale responses (round 1 (S1-S32) and 2 (R2S1-R2S15)) <a href="https://zenodo.org/api/files/92371fe3-6af6-4044-ba3f-83a26b2fe471/Delphi_likert_responses_ano.csv?versionId=7c3aaa7b-8b43-43da-bfeb-fe644f33d3e2">Delphi_likert_responses_ano.csv</a> and corresponding statements in <a href="https://zenodo.org/api/files/92371fe3-6af6-4044-ba3f-83a26b2fe471/STATEMENTS_REPO.csv?versionId=ada85e7c-ba48-4f61-8e1a-d90dab9b4f05">STATEMENTS_REPO.csv</a>.</p>
Asthma control conundrum in clinical practice – Data from a two-stage Delphi survey and literature review
<p>Definitions and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and practice often vary, as highlighted in the manuscript, “Is asthma control more than just an absence of symptoms? An expert consensus statement”. Furthermore, the authors discussed differences between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in terms of understanding and managing asthma. Given these disparities, there is a need for consensus regarding what constitutes well-controlled asthma and, especially, how best it can be measured and recorded. This dataset describes and provides more detail on the methodology from a two-stage Delphi survey and a structured literature review, which were designed to reach a consensus definition of asthma control and alleviate misalignments between patients and HCPs.</p>
Anonymised answers to the Delphi 2 survey
<p>The MESOC project adopted a modified version of the Delphi methodology, based on two consecutive survey rounds involving experts from all over the world in late 2021 - early 2022 on the topic of assessing the societal value of culture, the results of which have been discussed in an expert workshop held in Athens in May 2022. </p> <p>The second survey went more in-depth into the topics of social impact evaluation of culture and into the typologies of transition variables and related proxies that may serve to detect the transformational changes induced by cultural projects and policies. The influence of these variables has been analysed through the lens of the three main dimensions of the MESOC project: Health and Wellbeing; People Engagement and Participation; Urban and Territorial Renovation.</p> <p>Invited experts were representatives of different groups that play an important role in the researched field, namely:</p> <ul> <li>Academics and consultants;</li> <li>Directors / managers of cultural projects;</li> <li>Public administration and policy makers, and private foundations supporting cultural projects aiming at social impact.</li> </ul> <p>The criteria for identifying the experts to be consulted were to have a sample composed by half academic and consultant specialists of culture and creativity and the other half by professionals from the cultural private and public sector. The second group was mainly chosen by the partners, starting from the participants in the first survey round, the results of which are also made available here on Zenodo.</p> <p>As a byproduct of the survey, an interactive set of reusable and empirically validated guidelines for academics and practitioners willing to replicate the MESOC approach on a different scale can be retrived online at: https://www.mesoc-project.eu/resources/methodological-guidelines/interactive</p>
Anonymised answers to the Delphi 1 survey
<p>The MESOC project adopted a modified version of the Delphi methodology, based on two consecutive survey rounds involving experts from all over the world in late 2021 - early 2022 on the topic of assessing the societal value of culture, the results of which have been discussed in an expert workshop held in Athens in May 2022. </p> <p>The first survey was aimed at exploring the typologies of social impacts, the transformative effects of cultural experiences by function and typology of cultural projects, the elements of local context that affect the impact generation process, and at sharing a first set of conceptual reflections on the topic. The influence of these variables has been analysed through the lens of the three main dimensions of the MESOC project: Health and Wellbeing; People Engagement and Participation; Urban and Territorial Renovation.</p> <p>invited experts were representatives of different groups that play an important role in the researched field, namely:</p> <ul> <li>Academics and consultants;</li> <li>Directors / managers of cultural projects;</li> <li>Public administration and policy makers, and private foundations supporting cultural projects aiming at social impact.</li> </ul> <p>The criteria for identifying the experts to be consulted were to have a sample composed by half academic and consultant specialists of culture and creativity and the other half by professionals from the cultural private and public sector. The first group was mainly selected from the authors featured in the literature database created by the MESOC project and available online at: https://www.mesoc-project.eu/resources/online-repository.</p> <p> </p>
Pain Experiences of Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain and Central Sensitization: A comparative Group Delphi Study
<p>Central sensitization (CS) is regarded as an important contributing factor for chronification of musculoskeletal pain (MSP). It is crucial to identify CS, as targeted multimodal treatment may be indicated. The primary objective of this study was therefore to explore pain experience of individuals with MSP+CS in order to gain a better understanding of symptoms in relation to CS from a patient perspective. The secondary objective was to investigate whether pain experiences of patients with MSP+CS differ from those of individuals with neuropathic pain (NP).</p>
Sarcophagus Delphi
Sarcophagus, 2nd century AD. Current location 38.480016, 22.499799. Info found on the museum sign. Source: Objaverse 1.0 / Sketchfab
Web-Delphi data
<p>Dataset contains raw data used to support all data analysis presented in the manuscript (submitted)"<span lang="EN-US">A framework for collaborative identification of geographical information for map-based dashboards to support pandemic response policy-making</span>". M Ribeiro, T Rodrigues, R Roquette, L Azevedo, MJ Pereira, C Dias, CB e Costa, M Oliveira </p> <p> </p>
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.