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.
575
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
575 results for “Quality assessment”
MiRoR15-P1-Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
<p>Database, data extraction form, R codes and protocol related to: Superchi C, González JA, Solà I, Cobo E, Hren D, Boutron I. <em>Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review</em>. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(48):1–14. DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x</a></p> <p> </p>
MiRoR15-P2-Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
<p>Survey questionnaire, anonymised survey data, and codebook related to: Superchi C, Hren D, Blanco D, Rius R, Recchioni A, Boutron I, González JA. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open 2020;0:e035604. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604</p>
New Challenges in Point Cloud Visual Quality Assessment: A Systematic Review (Dataset)
<p>This dataset is a collection of annotated information on the scientific papers screened and analyzed for the systematic review of the literature in Point Cloud Visual Quality Assessment. </p> <p>The data is structured as follows:</p> <ul> <li>General information <ul> <li>Document title</li> <li>Authors</li> <li>Year of publication</li> <li>Venue (Conference or Journal title)</li> <li>Citations (number)</li> <li>URL/DOI</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>About the content <br> <ul> <li>Content Type: Point clouds (PC), Colored Point clouds (CPC), Meshes, Dynamic Point Clouds (DPC)</li> <li>Content source: Source of the content used in a subjective QA test or the evaluation of one or more QA metrics</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>About metric benchmarks <ul> <li>Subjective Ground-truth Data: Dataset(s) Source of the subjective scores used as ground-truth in a QA metric benchmark</li> <li>Assessed Metrics: Types of metrics assessed in a benchmark (JPEG standards, IQM, NR, State-of-the-art, others)</li> <li>Performance Measures: PLCC, SROCC, KRCC, RMSE, OR, others</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>About Objective QA metrics <ul> <li>Metric: Name given to the metric introduced in this paper</li> <li>Base: 3D-based or Projection-based</li> <li>Categories: Categories that characterize the approach of the proposed metric (Feature-based, Learning-Based, Perceptual-based, IQM, others) </li> <li>Reference: Full-Reference (FR), Reduced-Reference (RR) or No-Reference (NR)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>About Subjective QA experiments <ul> <li>Display: Type of display (2D, 3D, AR, MR, VR) and interaction approach (passive, interactive, 3DoF, 6DoF) used in the described experiment.</li> <li>Rendering: Type of rendering used to display the stimuli (Points, Squares, Cubes, Surface)</li> <li>Lab/Remote: The experiment was run in one or more lab environments, or remotely (Lab, Cross-Lab, Remote)</li> <li>Rating: Subjective rating methodology used in the experiment (ACR, DSIS, PWC, others)</li> <li>Dataset: Name of the new subjective dataset if the experiment's results were published.</li> <li>Observers: Number of observers </li> <li>Distortion type: Types of distortions applied to the stimuli and assessed in the experiment</li> </ul> </li> </ul>
Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems for Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs): dataset
<p>The dataset contains tabular information on the elements of best practice in scholarly publishing found in a set of documents (high-level recommendations and principles, indexation criteria and specific assessment guidelines used on the national and institutional levels). The set of documents subject to analysis (58 items) were identified by the DIAMAS project team members (bibliographic metadata are provided in IPSP-best-practice-documents.xml and IPSP-best-practice-documents.ris).</p> <p>The dataset was compiled by the DIAMAS project team using an analysis matrix that included the general information about the documents (title, issuing entity, scope and purpose, etc.) and the the seven core components of scholarly publishing identified in the Diamond Open Access Action Plan (2022) and revised by the DIAMAS project team.</p> <p>More information about the data collection methodology can be found in the report D3.1 IPSP Best Practices Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems for Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7859172">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7859172</a>), which is based on this dataset.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>****Dataset contents****</strong></p> <p>IPSPs_best-practices-overview.csv</p> <p>IPSPs_best-practices-overview.ods</p> <p>IPSP-best-practice-documents.xml</p> <p>IPSP-best-practice-documents.ris</p> <p>README.txt</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>****Column headers and field types***</strong></p> <p>Title (original) (text)</p> <p>Title (English) (text)</p> <p>Publication date (date, DD/MM/YY)</p> <p>Last accessed (date, DD/MM/YY)</p> <p>URL (text-web address)</p> <p>Scope (text, controlled)</p> <p>Type of document (text, controlled)</p> <p>Original language (text)</p> <p>Other languages (text)</p> <p>Entity issuing the document (text)</p> <p>Entity responsible for the assessment (text)</p> <p>Scope of the assessment (text, controlled)</p> <p>Scope of assessment: region or country (text)</p> <p>Disciplines’ coverage (text)</p> <p>Periodicity of the assessment (text)</p> <p>Reassessment frequency? If yes: periodicity (text)</p> <p>Benefits linked to the assessment (text)</p> <p>(1) Funding (text)</p> <p>(2) Ownership and governance (text)</p> <p>(3) Open science practices (text)</p> <p>(4) Editorial quality, editorial management and research integrity (text)</p> <p>(5) Technical service efficiency (text)</p> <p>(6) Visibility (including indexation), communication, marketing and impact (text)</p> <p>(7) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (text)</p>
Multifaceted quality assessment of gene repertoire annotation with OMArk
<p>Dataset associated to the OMArk paper.</p><p>Contain eight archives:</p><p>Supplementary_Tables</p><p>The Supplementary Table files referred to in the paper</p><p>OMAmerDB:</p><p>The OMAmer database constructed using the whole dataset of the OMA database (November 2022 Release) and used in the paper. An OMAmer database is necessary to run OMArk.</p><p>Simulation:<br>Proteomes with artificially introduced errors, contaminants or depleted completeness, used to assess OMArk's performance. The archive contains the generated proteomes (Simulated_Data) and their OMArk quality assessments (omark). They also contains the OMAmer results (OMAmerResults) that were used to run OMArk and BUSCO completeness assessments (BUSCO).</p><p>*Note that for storage efficiency, only the non-redundant part of the data (added errors, added contamination, random fraction of proteomes) are stored there. The full modified proteome can be regenerated from these data and the source proteomes.</p><p>Reference Proteomes:</p><p>The UniProt Reference Proteomes (Proteomes) (2021_04) and their proteome quality assesment results according to OMArk. The archive contains the source proteome FASTA (Source folder), OMAmer results for these proteomes (omamer folder) , OMArk results (omark folder), and BUSCO completeness assesments (BUSCO folder). It also contains a subfolder that contains part of the Contamination detection experiment (Contamination folder).</p><p>Ensembl_Metazoa_AssemblyChange.<br><br>Contains Ensembl Metazoa proteomes with version change between version 52 and 54 as well as their quality assesment resuls for both version. The archive contains the source proteomes FASTA (Source folder), a Splice file that group together all proteins coded by the same gene (Splice folder), omamer results for the proteomes (omamer folder) and the omark results (omark folder)</p><p>MissingGenesBLAST<br><br>Contains sequences of HOGs considered as missing in the Human proteome, that was used to look for sequences in the human genome.</p><p>Ensembl_NCBI_Results</p><p>Contains OMArk and BUSCO results for Ensembl and NCBI proteomes. These results were then used to evaluate OMArk biais due to source of proteomes in the OMA database.</p><p>Notebooks<br>Jupyter Notebooks that were used to perform the analysis described in the paper<br><br> </p>
Missouri reservoir water quality data from the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP), the Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program (LMVP), and the Reservoir Observer Student Scientists (ROSS) program
This dataset of limnological water quality data continues from Jones et al., 2024, starting in 2017 until 2021. It is from 195 reservoirs, the majority of which are in the state of Missouri (MO) in the USA collected by the University of Missouri Limnology Lab. Water quality parameters analyzed in the MU Limnology Lab during this time frame include: areal pigment absorption coefficient, alkalinity, alpha (light utilization efficiency P-E parameter), ammonium (NH4), ammonium-debt, anatoxin, chlorophyll a (corrected and uncorrected for pheophytins), chloride, cylindrospermopsin, seston d13C, seston d15N, dissolved turbidity, dissolved organic carbon, Ek (light saturation P-E parameter), FVFM (maximum quantum yield of PSII for photochemistry), gross primary production, microcystin, nitrate & nitrite (NO3), nitrate-debt, particulate nitrogen, particulate phosphorus, phosphorus-debt, pheophytin, particulate carbon, particulate inorganic matter, particulate organic matter, phycocyanin (PHYCO), saxitoxin, Secchi disk depth, silica, soluble reactive phosphorus, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and urea. Most of the samples were collected during the summer months (May-September) when the reservoirs were thermally stratified, but a few were taken during the rest of the year (October-April). The majority of samples were taken at the deepest point in the reservoir directly up-reservoir of the dam. Sampling was conducted from a boat most of the time, but a few samples were taken from shorelines and drinking water treatment intake pipes. Most of the data come from the Statewide Lake Assessment Project (SLAP) and the Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program (LMVP) funded by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. This data represents duplicate or triplicate water samples collected from either the water surface, integrated over the depth of the epilimnion, or from discrete dep
Missouri reservoir water quality data (2022 - current) from the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP)
This dataset of limnological water quality data continues from North et al., 2025, starting in 2022 until present. The data is from reservoirs, primarily within the state of Missouri (MO) in the USA collected by the University of Missouri Limnology Lab. Water quality parameters analyzed in the MU Limnology Lab during this time frame include: ammonium (NH4), anatoxin, chlorophyll a (corrected and uncorrected for pheophytins), chloride, cylindrospermopsin, dissolved organic carbon, microcystin, nitrate & nitrite (NO3), pheophytin, particulate inorganic matter, particulate organic matter, phycocyanin, saxitoxin, Secchi disk depth, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids, and urea. Most of the samples were collected during the summer months (May-September) when the reservoirs were thermally stratified, but a few were taken during the rest of the year (October-April). The majority of samples were taken at the deepest point in the reservoir directly up-reservoir of the dam. Sampling was conducted from a boat most of the time, but a few samples were taken from shorelines and drinking water treatment intake pipes. The bulk of the data come from the Statewide Lake Assessment Project (SLAP), funded by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. This data represents duplicate or triplicate water samples collected from either the water surface, integrated over the depth of the epilimnion, or from discrete depths in the hypolimnion.
Quality assessment of biomass pellets available on the market: Example from Poland
<p><strong>Submitted data was used to write an article</strong>: Drobniak, A., Jelonek, Z., Mastalerz, M., Jelonek, I., Widziewicz-Rzońca, K., Quality assessment of biomass pellets available on the market: Example from Poland. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33452-1</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Funding acknowledgments</strong>: The project is co-financed by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange within the Polish Returns Programme (BPN/PPO/2021/1/00005/DEC/1), the National Science Center, Poland (2022/01/1/ST10/00024), and the research activities co-financed by the funds granted under the Research Excellence Initiative of the University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Article Abstract</strong>: This study evaluates the quality of 30 biomass pellets sold for residential use in Poland. It provides data on their physical, chemical, and petrographic properties and compares them to existing standards and the information provided by the fuel producers. The results reveal considerable variations in the quality of the pellets and show that some of the purchased samples are not within the DINplus and/or ENplus certification thresholds. Among all 30 purchased samples, only one passes the quality thresholds set by the PL-US BIO, a newly established quality certification in Poland that combines quality assessment following DINplus with optical microscopy analysis. The primary issues causing a decrease in pellet quality include elevated ash and fines content, compromised mechanical durability, too low ash melting temperature, and additions of undesired additions like bark, inorganic matter, and petroleum products. Our research highlights the need for improved fuel quality control measures, and transparent and accurate product labeling, as well as the need for a comprehensive and publicly available national database of solid biomass fuel producers and fuels sold. These are essential steps toward increasing customers’ awareness and trust, encouraging them to embrace biomass fuels as reliable and sustainable sources of energy.</p> <p> </p>
Machine learning-based quality assessment of Antarctic margins salinity - code, data and figures
<p>The submission contains the data, functions and code needed to reproduce the figures in Sohail et al., 2025</p>
Subjective Quality Assessment of Foveated Omnidirectional Images in Virtual Reality (FOIQA)
<p>This study presents a novel dataset called 'Foveated Omnidirectional Image Quality Assessment' (FOIQA) for the subjective quality evaluation of foveated 2D omnidirectional images. This dataset addresses the limitations of existing datasets by leveraging a high-resolution head-mounted display and a gaze-contingent evaluation approach. We provide individual opinion scores, mean opinion scores, and gaze data associated with both the test and reference images. </p>
Adapting the Harmonized Data Quality Framework for Ontology Quality Assessment
<p>Ontologies play an important role in the representation, standardization, and integration of biomedical data, but are known to have data quality (DQ) issues. We aimed to understand if the Harmonized Data Quality Framework (HDQF), developed to standardize electronic health record DQ assessment strategies, could be used to improve ontology quality assessment. A novel set of 14 ontology checks was developed. These DQ checks were aligned to the HDQF and examined by HDQF developers. The ontology checks were evaluated using 11 Open Biomedical Ontology Foundry ontologies. 85.7% of the ontology checks were successfully aligned to at least 1 HDQF category. Accommodating the unmapped DQ checks (n=2), required modifying an original HDQF category and adding a new Data Dependency category. While all of the ontology checks were mapped to an HDQF category, not all HDQF categories were represented by an ontology check presenting opportunities to strategically develop new ontology checks. The HDQF is a valuable resource and this work demonstrates its ability to categorize ontology quality assessment strategies.</p>
Quality Assessment in DevOps: Automated Analysis of a Tax Fraud Detection System
<p>The dataset includes the results of the performance analysis of Big Blu case study under different workloads, number of available resources and execution demand of activities</p>
Assessing Quality Variations in Early Career Researchers' Data Management Plans: Quantitative Data of the Content Analysis
<p>The data includes the numerical results of the ranking of the data management plans created during the Basics of Research Data Management (BRDM) courses worth 3 ECTS credits in the years 2020 - 2022. The ranking was made using the Finnish DMP Evaluation Guidance (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4729831). Additionally, the data contains the results of the analysis of the best RDM practices included in the DMPs.</p> <p>Note 1: The comma-separated coded CSV version 1 (5.2.2024) may not open correctly on MacOS. You can use the comma-delimited CSV file version 2 or 3 (31.5.2024).</p> <p>Note 2: Versions 1 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data) and 3 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data_ver_3) contain evaluations of DMPs, best practices for data management, as well as methods for data sharing, storage, and preservation. In version 2 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data_ver_2), the methods for data sharing, storage, and preservation are missing.</p> <p>Data is related to the research article https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.873.</p>
CVD2014 - A database for evaluating no-reference video quality assessment algorithms
<p>The CVD video database is developed to provide an useful tool for researchers in the validation and developing processes of no-reference (NR) objective video quality assessment (VQA) algorithms. It consists of 234 videos from five different scenes captured by 78 different cameras (mobile phones, compact camera, video camera, SLR). The subjective experiments are conducted following the Single-Stimulus (SS) procedure to collect ratings of video quality.</p> <p><strong>Setup</strong></p> <p>We implement our experiments according to the Single Stimulus methodology using VQone MATLAB toolboxon high quality monitors (Eizo ColorEdge CG241W) with 1920x1200 pixel resolution in a dark room (ambient light < 20 lux). Video stimuli were displayed at their original size of VGA (640 x 480) or HD (1280 x 720). The subjects viewing distance (80 cm) was controlled by a string hanging from a ceiling and they were instructed to keep their head steady next to it. The monitors were calibrated to according to sRGB (target values were: 6500 K, 80 lux, and gamma 2.2) using EyeOne Pro calibrator (X-rite co.). The laboratory setup is showed in the figure below.</p> <p><strong>Subjects</strong></p> <p>Subjects (n = 30, 30, 28, 33, 30, 32 and 27 for Tests 1 - 7 respectively) were naïve in a sense that they did not study or work with image quality or related fields. They were recruited through student mailing lists consisting mainly humanities and behavioral science students. Subjects’ vision was controlled for the near visual acuity, near contrast vision (near F.A.C.T.) and color vision (Farnsworth D15) before the participation. They received movie tickets as a reward.</p> <p><strong>Procedure</strong></p> <p>Subjects evaluated one video sample at a time and all video samples of one scene were presented in a row. The order of video samples and scenes was randomized. Subjects had the option to view video samples again as many times as they wanted.</p> <p><strong>Data</strong></p> <p>The results are processed and reported in the form of Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for the tested video samples. In addition, we provide the whole raw data from the subjective experiments instead of just pre-calculated mean opinion scores from each video sample. This allows further analyses to be made by those who wish to use this database and gives them better opportunity to utilize the data to its full potential.</p> <p>Realignment study (test 7) contains the data from the additional study in which the mappings from the test and scene specific quality scales (test 1-6) to the global quality scale were formed. The global scale is valuable when studying and developing VQA algorithms. With the global scale, all of the samples (234 video samples in the case of the CVD2014) are in the same scale, and the performance analysis for algorithms can be conducted with a high number of samples.</p> <p><strong>If you use this database in your research, we kindly ask that you follow The Copyright notice below and cite the following paper:</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>M. Nuutinen, T. Virtanen, M. Vaahteranoksa, T. Vuori, P. Oittinen and J. Häkkinen, "CVD2014—A Database for Evaluating No-Reference Video Quality Assessment Algorithms," in <em>IEEE Transactions on Image Processing</em>, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 3073-3086, July 2016. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2016.2562513</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>-----------COPYRIGHT NOTICE STARTS WITH THIS LINE------------</p> <p>Copyright (c) 2014 The University of Helsinki<br> All rights reserved.</p> <p>Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, modify, and distribute this database (the videos, the images, the results and the source files) and its documentation for any purpose, provided that the copyright notice in its entirely appear in all copies of this database, and the original source of this database,Visual Cognition research group (www.helsinki.fi/psychology/groups/visualcognition/index.htm) and the Institute of Behavioral Science (www.helsinki.fi/ibs/index.html) at the University of Helsinki (www.helsinki.fi/university/), is acknowledged in any publication that reports research using this database. Individual videos and images may not be used outside the scope of this database (e.g. in marketing purposes) without prior permission.</p> <p>The database and our paper are to be cited in the bibliography as: M. Nuutinen, T. Virtanen, M. Vaahteranoksa, T. Vuori, P. Oittinen and J. Häkkinen, "CVD2014—A Database for Evaluating No-Reference Video Quality Assessment Algorithms," in <em>IEEE Transactions on Image Processing</em>, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 3073-3086, July 2016.<br> doi: 10.1109/TIP.2016.2562513</p> <p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</p> <p>LIMITATION OF LIABILITY</p> <p>UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI SHALL IN NO CASE BE LIABLE IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY LOSS OF REVENUE, PROFIT, BUSINESS OR GOODWILL OR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE COST, DAMAGES OR EXPENSE OF ANY KIND HOWEVER CAUSED OR HOWEVER ARISING UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THIS DATABASE.</p> <p>THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE DATABASE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.</p> <p>THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF FINLAND, EXCLUDING ITS RULES FOR CHOICE OF LAW.</p> <p>-----------COPYRIGHT NOTICE ENDS WITH THIS LINE------------</p>
On the Use of Artificially Degraded Manuscripts for Quality Assessment of Readability Enhancement Methods - Dataset & Code
<p>This object contains the dataset and python code used for the paper:</p> <p>S. Brenner and R. Sablatnig. On the Use of Artificially Degraded Manuscripts for Quality Assessment of Readability Enhancement Methods. Accepted for OAGM Workshop 2019<strong>, </strong>Steyr, Austria.</p> <p>The dataset is a modified subset of the UCL Multispectral Processed Images of Parchment Damage Dataset (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/000.ds.1469099">10.14324/000.ds.1469099</a>). The accompanying code documents how the modified version was created and how the evaluations described in the paper were performed.</p>
Model quality assessment: Results of human ratings, prompts, models as .csv and answers of the LLM
<p>This is the dataset for the paper "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77908-4_7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Assessing Model Quality Using Large Language Models</a>" and contains the following files of the assessment of the model quality:</p> <ul> <li>Results of the human ratings</li> <li>Prompts</li> <li>Models as .csv</li> <li>Answers of the LLM</li> </ul> <p>The graphical representation of the models is linked under Related works.</p>
Dataset linking to the publication "An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020"
<p>This dataset links to the study “An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020”. This study is published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” which can be found at <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b</a>. The dataset contains two files, one csv file, and one shape file. The two files contain the same data to meet the different users' needs. The dataset contains variables for assessing national forest monitoring data sources i.e., RS and/or NFI. Separate indicators namely 'Use of RS', and 'Use of NFI' were used to analyze the two data sources (RS and NFI). The description of each variable for these two indicators contained in the dataset is given in the Table below.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The description of the variables in the datase</strong>t <strong>for country capacity assessment</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Variables Name</strong></td> <td><strong>Description of the variables</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Country</td> <td>Country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ISO_A3_CODE</td> <td>ISO A3 Code for country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ADM0_CODE</td> <td>ADMO Code for country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CONTINENT</td> <td>Continent</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Region</td> <td>Region</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_05</td> <td>Use of remote sensing (RS) for forest area (change) monitoring 2005 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc_05</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2005 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd _10</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2010 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _10</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2010 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_15</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2015 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _15</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2015 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_20</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2020 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _20</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2020 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>DRS05_20</td> <td>Difference ‘use of RS’ 2005-2020</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_05</td> <td>Use of national forest inventories (NFI) for forest monitoring 2005 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc_05</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2005 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd _10</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2010 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _10</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2010 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_15</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2015 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _15</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2015 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_20</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2020 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _20</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2020 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>DNFI05_20</td> <td>Difference ‘Use of NFI’ 2005-2020</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Indicators and Scores in the above Table for showing the use of RS and NFI data for forest monitoring in Figure 1 (1a, 1b, and 2a, 2b) are related in the following way.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The indicator values and scores of the country capacity assessment</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Indicator</strong></td> <td><strong>Score</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Low</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Limited</td> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Intermediate</td> <td>2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Good</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Very Good</td> <td>4</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The capacity changes from 2005 to 2020 in Figure 1 (1c & 2c) are related in the following way.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The indicator values and levels for country capacity changes</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Capacity change values</strong></td> <td><strong>Capacity change levels</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1,2,3,4</td> <td>Increase</td> </tr> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>No change</td> </tr> <tr> <td>-1,-2,-3,-4</td> <td>Decrease</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Does size matter? Quality assessment of the size property in research data repositories
<p>Code and data for master's thesis on quality assessment of the size property in research data repositories. Research questions:</p> <ul> <li> <p> For what semantic concepts is the size property of repositories being used?</p> </li> <li> <p>What kind of quality factors can be detected when assessing the size property in a registry for research data repositories?</p> </li> <li> <p>Which automated and intellectual measures can improve the quality of the size property?</p> </li> </ul> <p>Method 1: Data analysis of size and related properties over all re3data records</p> <ul> <li> <p>Property selection</p> </li> <li> <p>Data extraction from API</p> </li> <li> <p>Data normalization</p> </li> <li> <p>Typing of patterns: mainly units of size</p> </li> <li> <p>Analysis: ~quantitative, mainly univariate, but also some multivariate / time</p> </li> </ul> <p>[Included in the publication:</p> <p>Method 2: Case Study of size in individual repositories</p> <ul> <li> <p>Repository selection: purposive sampling</p> </li> <li> <p>Data capture from GUI / API</p> </li> <li> <p>Analysis: ~qualitative]</p> </li> </ul>
A subjective image quality assessment dataset of color graded inverse tone-mapped HDR images
<p>A subjective image quality assessment dataset that includes quality scores of HDR images generated by nine inverse tone mapping methods. The images in the dataset show a wide variety of artifacts commonly present in dynamic range expanded HDR images. Twelve image pairs comprised of an LDR image and its corresponding HDR version were used to conduct the subjective assessment study. These images contain scenes with a wide range of light conditions, representing challenging situations for dynamic range expansion methods.</p> <p>The image quality dataset includes subjective quality scores for 108 inverse HDR images obtained by the different dynamic range expansion methods, scaled in Just Objectionable Differences (JODs). In addition, it includes the raw data from pairwise comparisons obtained from subjective experimentation. The raw data is composed of 6480 trials collected from 15 human observers.</p> <p><strong>Files included</strong></p> <ul> <li>List of images used in our experiments (images.csv).</li> <li>LDR images used as input (ldr.zip).</li> <li>HDR images used as reference (hdr.zip).</li> <li>Inverse tone-mapped HDR images evaluated in our study (hdr_itmo.zip).</li> <li>Pairwise comparison results and JOD scores (subjective-scores.zip)</li> <li>The objective quality scores of the inverse tone-mapped HDR images, computed by each quality metric assessed (objective-scores.zip).</li> </ul> <p> </p>
Landsat Quality Assessment (LTQA)
<p>We developed a suite of quality metrics that characterize the annual and year-to-year frequency of satellite observations, their year-to-year recurrence, and their within-year distribution. These equate the quality of individual observations as reported by the data providers, and limitations to the usability of these data caused by cloud cover. This dataset includes a zip file for each of the following metrics:</p> <ul> <li><strong>nrTiles -</strong> Number of Landsat tiles used to compute quality metric.</li> <li><strong>imageFrequency - </strong>Number of collected images.</li> <li><strong>monthFrequency - </strong>Number of months with collected images.</li> <li><strong>maxQuality - </strong>Maximum image quality.</li> <li><strong>totalQuality - </strong>Number of collected images, weighted by the quality of each image.</li> <li><strong>lastYear - </strong>Closest year with usable data<strong>, </strong>from the start of the time-series to the reference year.</li> <li><strong>distributionBalance - </strong>Average of the maximum monthly image quality.</li> <li><strong>distributionQuality - </strong>Ratio between the distribution balance of the first and second half of the year.</li> </ul> <p>We calculated these quality metrics for each descending tile as drawn in the World Reference System 2 (WRS-2), and for each year. Then, for each year, we combined the tile-specific metrics by averaging them into global grids with a 1-km resolution using the script "map_landsat_quality.py". This was executed in python 3.10. and the associated module requirements are recorded in the file "requirements.txt". All tile-specific metrics, which is an input for the python script, are provided through the file "LTQA_metadata.csv".</p> <p>The calculation of quality metrics is informed by metadata of all unique acquisitions obtained through the Landsat’s bulk metadata service. This considers images acquired with Landsat 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, but disregards those from Landsat’s Multispectral Scanner System (MSS). The original metadata is provided through the file "LTQA_metadata.zip", which also includes the R code used in the calculation of quality metrics, and a data structure that can be updated to generate new values.</p> <p>We calculated these metrics are calculated annually discounting those unusable due to 100% cloud cover or advanced image degradation.</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.