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.
9
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
9 results for “FAIR evaluator”
EOSC Task Force on FAIR Metrics and Data Quality: FAIR Evaluation community survey 2023
<p>The EOSC-A FAIR Metrics and Data Quality Task Force (TF) supported the European Open Science Cloud Association (EOSC-A) by providing strategic directions on FAIRness (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and data quality. The Task Force conducted a survey using the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/">EUsurvey tool</a> between 15.11.2022 and 18.01.2023, targeting both developers and users of FAIR assessment tools. The survey aimed at supporting the harmonisation of FAIR assessments, in terms of what it evaluated and how, across existing (and future) tools and services, as well as explore if and how a community-driven governance on these FAIR assessments would look like. The survey received 78 responses, mainly from academia, representing various domains and organisational roles. This is the anonymised survey dataset in csv format; most open-ended answers have been dropped. The codebook contains variable names, labels, and frequencies.</p>
FAIR Evaluations of University and College Repositories at DataCite Using MetaDIG Mappings for Four Use Cases.
<p>This spreadsheet has the results of an evaluation of FAIRness of 387 University and College DataCite repositories using techniques developed in the MetaDIG project. It is possible to compare scores from different repositories and to create rose diagrams showing the results for any of the repositories.</p>
Comparison results of FAIR Evaluation tools
<p>We studied and compared three automated FAIRness evaluation tools namely F-UJI, the FAIR Evaluator, and FAIR Checker examining three aspects: 1) tool characteristics, 2) the evaluation metrics, and 3) metrics tests for three public datasets. We find significant differences in the evaluation results for tested resources, along with differences in the design, implementation, and documentation of the evaluation metrics and platforms.</p> <p>This data is the comparison results we summarized from the study. All results are reported in our manuscript. This data is the supplementary material of the manuscript. </p>
Data and code for EDI overview paper, data collection characteristics, FAIR evaluation, downloads, and citations
The Environmental Data Initiative (EDI) is a trustworthy, stable data repository and data management support organization for the environmental scientist. EDI provides tools and support that allow the environmental researcher to easily integrate data publishing into the research workflow. Almost ten years since going into production, these data and code were used to provide a general description of EDI’s collection of data and its data management philosophy and placement in the repository landscape. They show how comprehensive metadata and the repository infrastructure lead to highly findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data by evaluating compliance with specific community proposed FAIR criteria. Finally, they provide measures and patterns of data (re)use, assuring that EDI is fulfilling its stated premise.
Evaluation notebook and files for FAIR Workbench user evaluation
<p>This archive contains the Jupyter notebook and associated (image) files used in the June 2021 evaluation of the FAIR Workbench.</p>
Fairlex: A multilingual benchmark for evaluating fairness in legal text processing
<p>We present a benchmark suite of four datasets for evaluating the fairness of pre-trained legal language models and the techniques used to fine-tune them for downstream tasks. Our benchmarks cover four jurisdictions (European Council, USA, Swiss, and Chinese), five languages (English, German, French, Italian, and Chinese), and fairness across five attributes (gender, age, nationality/region, language, and legal area). In our experiments, we evaluate pre-trained language models using several group-robust fine-tuning techniques and show that performance group disparities are vibrant in many cases, while none of these techniques guarantee fairness, nor consistently mitigate group disparities. Furthermore, we provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of our results, highlighting open challenges in the development of robustness methods in legal NLP.</p>
Questionnaire used in FAIR Workbench user evaluation
<p>A pdf copy of the Questionnaire filled out by users at the end of the FAIR Workbench user evaluation study. The questions regarded the evaluation notebook, published here: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5045448</p>
Comparison tables for evaluating FAIR Digital Object and Linked Data
<p>RO-Crate and tables from the paper "<em>Evaluating FAIR Digital Object and Linked Data as distributed object systems</em>" <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.07436">https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.07436</a></p> <p>We systematically evaluate FDO and its implementations as a global distributed object system, by using five different conceptual frameworks that cover interoperability, middleware, FAIR principles, EOSC requirements and FDO guidelines themself.</p> <ul> <li>table1.html<br> Considering FDO and Web according to the quality levels of the Interoperability Framework for Fast Data (Delgado 2016)</li> <li> <p>table2.html<br> Mapping the Metamodel concepts from the Interoperability Framework for Fast Data (Delgado 2016) to equivalent concepts for FDO and Web.</p> </li> <li> <p>table3.html<br> Checking FDO guidelines (Bonino et al. 2019; Anders et al. 2023) against its current implementations as DOIP (DONA 2018) and Linked Data Platform (LDP) (Bonino da Silva Santos, Guizzardi, and Sales 2022), with suggestions for required additions</p> </li> <li> <p>table4.html<br> Comparing FAIR Digital Object (with the DOIP 2.0 protocol (DONA 2018)) and Web technologies (using Linked Data) as middleware infrastructures (Zarras 2004)</p> </li> <li> <p>table5.html</p> <p>Assessing RDA’s FAIR Data Maturity Model (FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group 2020; Bahim et al. 2020) (first 2 columns) against the FDO guidelines (Bonino et al. 2019), FDO implemented with the protocol DOIPv2 (DONA 2018), Linked Data Platform (LDP) (Bonino da Silva Santos, Guizzardi, and Sales 2022) and examples from Linked Data practices in general. (— indicates Unspecified, may be possible with additional conventions)</p> </li> </ul> <p>A web rendering of this RO-Crate is available at <a href="https://w3id.org/ro/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8075229">https://w3id.org/ro/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8075229</a></p>
Templates for FAIRness evaluation criteria - RDA-SHARC ig
<p>The SHARC Interest Group of the Research Data Alliance was established to improve research crediting and rewarding mechanisms for scientists who wish to organise their data (and material resources) for community sharing. This requires that data are findable and accessible on the Web, and comply with shared standards making them interoperable and reusable in alignment with the FAIR principles. It takes considerable time, energy, expertise and motivation. It is imperative to facilitate the processes to encourage scientists to share their data. To that aim, supporting FAIR principles compliance processes and increasing the human understanding of FAIRness criteria – i.e., promoting FAIRness literacy – and not only the machine-readability of the criteria, are critical steps in the data sharing process. Appropriate human-understandable criteria must be the first identified in the FAIRness assessment processes and roadmap. This document is a reusable template that aims to support FAIRification assessment with human understandable criteria. The level of compliance for each criterion can be used to prioritise the most appropriate and sufficient training, support and actions.</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.