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.
25
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
25 results for “cost-benefit”
Fig 2 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
Fig 2: Average share of various cost in IMC poly-culture and GIFT mono-sex culture in T1 & T2 (2018-19)
Propaten Randomized Investigation on Cost-benefit and Efficacy
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01601873. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
cost-benefit analysis data of the Wuxikou water control project
<p>A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) data for evaluating the long-term profitability and economic benefits of Wuxikou Water Control Project.</p>
Fig 1 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
Fig 1: Location of the experimental side, Jodamu, Cuttack, Odisha
Table 4 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 4:</b> Growth and production of IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>Growth-production data T1 T2</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Initial avg. weight (g)</th><td>19</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><th>Final avg. weight (g)</th><td>816</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><th>Survival rate (%)</th><td>91</td><td>93.75</td></tr><tr><th>Production (kg/pond/9 months)</th><td>3383</td><td>8000</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/ha/9 months)</th><td>8457.5</td><td>20000</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 2 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 2:</b> Fish stocking & production data-IMC poly-culture & GIFT Tilapia mono-sex culture in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Tank Pond Area Stocking Date of No. (ha) (no) Stocking</b></th><th><b>Types of fish Stocking</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during stocking (August-2018)</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during final Total FCR harvest (May-June-2020) production (kg)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><b>Length in (cm) Weight (g) Length in (cm)</b></td><td><b>Weight (g)</b></td><td><b>Weight in (kg)</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T1</th><td></td><td>4000</td><td></td><td><i>Catla</i></td><td>9-12 18-23</td><td>28.3-39.6</td><td>980-1070</td><td>1682</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>0.4</td><td>05.09.2020 <i>Rohu</i></td><td>10-12 18-24</td><td>28.0-41.3</td><td>700-750</td><td>880</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><i>Mrigala</i></td><td>8-11 15-19</td><td>29.4-37.6</td><td>680-720</td><td>821</td></tr><tr><th>T2</th><td>0.4</td><td>6400</td><td>GIFT tilapia 15.09.2020 (<i>O. niloticus</i>)</td><td>6-7 8-9</td><td>28.3-32.1</td><td>1333</td><td>8000</td><td>1.2</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 3 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 3:</b> Comparision of operational cost, production and economic profit of IMC polyculture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia culture during 2018-19 at Jodamu village of district Ciuttack, Odisha</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT Tilapia culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Operational Cost</b></th><td><b>Expenditure Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr) (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>I. Expenditure</b></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Watering/de-watering charges</th><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td></tr><tr><th>Bleaching Powder 50kg@Rs30/kg</th><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td></tr><tr><th>Organic Manure 1000kg@Rs 0.5/kg</th><td>500</td><td>1,250</td><td>500</td><td>1,250</td></tr><tr><th>DAP fertilizer 20kg@ 20/kg</th><td>400</td><td>1,000</td><td>400</td><td>1,000</td></tr><tr><th>Lime-800kg (IMC), 1000kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 10/kg</th><td>8,000</td><td>20,000</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>GNOC-25kg (IMC), 42kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 22/kg</th><td>550</td><td>1325</td><td>924</td><td>2310</td></tr><tr><th>Soyabin 21kg @Rs 30/kg</th><td>630</td><td>1,575</td><td>630</td><td>1,575</td></tr><tr><th>Curd 120 kg @ 40/kg</th><td>4800</td><td>12000</td><td>4800</td><td>12000</td></tr><tr><th>Yeast 5kg @ Rs 200/kg</th><td>1000</td><td>2500</td><td>1000</td><td>2500</td></tr><tr><th>Ricebran 80kg @ Rs 15.5/kg</th><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td></tr><tr><th>Joggery-100kg (IMC), 208kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 23/kg</th><td>2,300</td><td>5,750</td><td>4,784</td><td>11,960</td></tr><tr><th>IMC seed4000pc @ Rs 5/pc and GIFT seed cost 6400pc @ Rs 2/pc</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>12,800</td><td>32,000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC-F. Feed 5500kg @ Rs 40/kg and GIFT tilapia F. Feed 9800kg @ Rs 40/kg</th><td>2,20,000</td><td>5.50,000</td><td>3,92,000</td><td>9,80,000</td></tr><tr><th>Transport @ Rs10000/time</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Man power for pond preparation, bio-security installation, Management, Feeding, 10,000 netting, watch and ward, marketing etc. @ 200/man day (IMC & GIFT)</th><td>25,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Miscellaneous expenditure (medicine, aeration, transaction and coordination)</th><td>5,000</td><td>12,500</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>Total expenditure</th><td>2,98,920</td><td>7,47,300</td><td>5,03,578</td><td>15,22,070</td></tr><tr><th><b>IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia Production and economic profit (2018-19)</b></th></tr><tr><th><b>II. Gross Income from GIFT tilapia</b></th><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/yr)</th><td>3383</td><td>8457.5</td><td>8000</td><td>20000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC & GIFT Cost of fish @ Rs 160 & 140/kg (Rs)</th><td>5,41,280</td><td>13,53,300</td><td>11,20,000</td><td>28,00,000</td></tr><tr><th>Net income from fish (Gross income-expenditure) (Rs)</th><td>2,42,360</td><td>6,05,900</td><td>6,31,172</td><td>15,77,930</td></tr><tr><th>Return on expenditure (%)</th><td>81.07</td><td>0.81</td><td>125.33</td><td>103.67</td></tr><tr><th>Cost benefit ratio (C:B)</th><td>0.810</td><td>0.81</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.25</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 1 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 1:</b> Ranges and mean values (± SD) of water parameters in T1 &T2</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC poly-culture</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT tilapia mono-sex</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td></tr><tr><th>Temp (°C)</th><td>21.1</td><td>33</td><td>26.3±4.56</td><td>21.2</td><td>34.1</td><td>27.7±6.5</td></tr><tr><th>Transparency (cm)</th><td>24.33</td><td>35.67</td><td>27.71± 0.86</td><td>25.00</td><td>36.00</td><td>29.29± 0.81</td></tr><tr><th>DO (ppm)</th><td>4.3</td><td>7.5</td><td>6.07±1.35</td><td>4.5-</td><td>6.0</td><td>5.3±0.51</td></tr><tr><th>pH</th><td>7.0</td><td>8.4</td><td>7.5±0.55</td><td>6.0</td><td>8.0</td><td>7.5±0.35</td></tr><tr><th>Alkalinity mg/l</th><td>86.7</td><td>114.7</td><td>100.4±12.8</td><td>80.1</td><td>114.0</td><td>98.3±14.2</td></tr><tr><th>Ammonia mg/l</th><td>0.51</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.55±0.05</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.58±0.04</td></tr></tbody></table>
Supplementary material 2 from: Rajmis S, Thiele J, Marggraf R (2016) A cost-benefit analysis of controlling giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) in Germany using a choice experiment approach. NeoBiota 31: 19-41. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.8103
Exemplary choice set and details of scenario benefit calculations : Explanation note: In Suppl. material 2 we present an exemplary choice set used in the choice experiment and some details of econometric analysis.
Supplementary material 1 from: Rajmis S, Thiele J, Marggraf R (2016) A cost-benefit analysis of controlling giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) in Germany using a choice experiment approach. NeoBiota 31: 19-41. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.8103
Details of scenario cost calculations : Explanation note: In Suppl. material 1 we present some cost calculation details of different infested area types and sizes.
Effectiveness or Orthopedic Intervention in Osteoporosis Management After a Fracture of the Hip With Cost-Benefit Analysis
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02239523. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vancomycin Powder in High Risk Spine Surgery Patients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01566422. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 12.
Cost-benefit Evaluation of a Transdiagnostic Psychological Treatment for Emotional Disorders in Primary Care
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04847310. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 33.
Data from: Ecology drives natural variation in an extreme antipredator trait: a cost-benefits analysis integrating modeling and field data
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Insectivorous bats integrate social information about species identity, conspecific activity, and prey abundance to estimate cost-benefit ratio of interactions
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Natural variation in preparation for nutrient depletion reveals a cost-benefit tradeoff
Maximizing growth and survival in the face of a complex, time-varying environment is a common problem for single-celled organisms in the wild. When offered two different sugars as carbon sources, microorganisms first consume the preferred sugar, then undergo a transient growth delay, the "diauxic lag," while inducing genes to metabolize the less preferred sugar. This delay is commonly assumed to be an inevitable consequence of selection to maximize use of the preferred sugar. Contrary to this view, we found that many natural isolates of Saccharomyces cerevisiae display short or nonexistent diauxic lags when grown in mixtures of glucose (preferred) and galactose. These strains induce galactose utilization (GAL) genes hours before glucose exhaustion, thereby "preparing" for the transition from glucose to galactose metabolism. The extent of preparation varies across strains, and seems to be determined by the steady-state response of GAL genes to mixtures of glucose and galactose rather than by induction kinetics. Although early GAL gene induction gives strains a competitive advantage once glucose runs out, it comes at a cost while glucose is still present. Costs and benefits correlate with the degree of preparation: strains with higher expression of GAL genes prior to glucose exhaustion experience a larger upfront growth cost but also a shorter diauxic lag. Our results show that classical diauxic growth is only one extreme on a continuum of growth strategies constrained by a cost–benefit tradeoff. This type of continuum is likely to be common in nature, as similar tradeoffs can arise whenever cells evolve to use mixtures of nutrients.
Supplementary material 2 from: Vimercati G, Davies SJ, Hui C, Measey J (2021) Cost-benefit evaluation of management strategies for an invasive amphibian with a stage-structured model. NeoBiota 70: 87-105. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.70.72508
Supplementary material B
Supplementary material 1 from: Vimercati G, Davies SJ, Hui C, Measey J (2021) Cost-benefit evaluation of management strategies for an invasive amphibian with a stage-structured model. NeoBiota 70: 87-105. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.70.72508
Supplementary material A
Data from: Natural variation in preparation for nutrient depletion reveals a cost-benefit tradeoff
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Biomarker Cost-Benefit Analysis of EFNEP
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05558085. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
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.