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.
641
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
641 results for “data validation”
WILLOW - Norther: data set for the full-scale validation of model-based virtual sensing methods for an operational offshore wind turbine
<h1><em><strong>1. General description </strong></em></h1> <p>This data set contains as-build design information, as well as full-scale vibration response measurements from an operational offshore wind-turbine. The turbine is part of the Norther wind farm which is located in the Belgian North Sea<em> </em>and includes a total of 44 Vestas V164 (8.4MW) wind turbines on monopile foundations, see <a href="../api/records/11093262/draft/files/Fig1_Norther_locaction.png/content" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fig1_Norther_locaction.png</a>. This data set is intended to verify and validate model-based virtual sensing algorithms, using data as well as modeling information from a real turbine. </p> <h2><em><strong>1.1 Summary of the shared structural information</strong></em></h2> <p>The included information entails a detailed description of the geometric properties of the monopile and transition piece, distributed and lumped structural masses . All information shared in this record is conform the as-designed documentation. An example of the lumped masses considered in the model input files is presented in "<a href="../api/records/11093262/draft/files/Fig2_Sensor_Network.png/content" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fig2_Sensor_Network.png"</a></p> <h2><em><strong>1.2 Summary of the shared geotechnical information</strong></em></h2> <p>Monopiles are distinguished by the significant role of soil-structure interaction. Ground reaction is most typically included in the structural model as non-linear p-y curves. Different p-y curves are available for a certain number of soils in the standards applicable to offshore structures (API RP 2GEO, 2011, and ISO 19901-4:2016(E), 2016).</p> <p>The required soil properties to define p-y curves according to the API framework are given in the soil profile provided in a separate Excel. Rather than symbols, the name of the soil properties is generally used as column header (e.g., <em>Undrained shear strength</em>). Therefore, it is straightforward to identify each soil parameter. The only soil parameter that might lead to confusion is:</p> <ul> <li><em>"epsilon50 [-]" </em>represents the vertical strain at half the maximum principal stress difference in a static undrained triaxial compression test on an undisturbed soil sample.</li> </ul> <p>It's worthy to note that estimates for the small shear strain stiffness, referred to as Gmax, are also included. Despite not being required as an input to define the API p-y curves, this parameter remains a key input for other soil reaction frameworks than the API (e.g., PISA). </p> <h2><em><strong>1.3 Summary of the shared measurement data</strong></em></h2> <p>Two sets of measurement data have been curated for validation purposes; the first interval has been collected during parked conditions, whereas the second interval has been collected during rated operational conditions. Both records have a length of 2 hours, and are subdivided into 10-minute data sets. Furthermore 1Hz SCADA data has been made available for the selected intervals. All different data sources are time synchronized and have been subjected to several internal quality checks. </p> <p>The sensor network on NRT-WTG is illustrated in in <strong>Fig. 2, </strong>whereas a description of the sensor types is presented in <strong>Tab.1.</strong> The acceleration sensors are installed in the horizontal plane, and measure tangential (Y) and orthogonal (X) to the wall, where the positive Y direction is pointing clockwise and the positive X direction is pointing inwards. All strain sensors are installed vertically and are located on the inside of the wall.</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Data type </strong></td> <td><strong>Sensor type</strong></td> <td><strong>Fs (Hz)</strong></td> <td> <p><strong>Level mLAT (m)</strong></p> </td> <td><strong>Description </strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Acceleration (g) </td> <td>Piezo-electric acc. sensor (<strong>ACC</strong>)</td> <td>30</td> <td>15, 69, 97 </td> <td>3 Bi-directional accelerometers at different levels. LAT 15 installed at 240 degree heading; LAT 69 and 97 at 60 degree.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Strain (micro strain)</td> <td>Resistive strain gauge (<strong>SG</strong>)</td> <td>30</td> <td>14</td> <td>6 SGs: equally spaced around the inner circumference of the can. Headings: 50, 110, 170, 230, 290, 350 degree.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Strain (micro strain)</td> <td>Fiber-Bragg Grating strain gauge (<strong>FBG</strong>)</td> <td>100</td> <td>-17, -19</td> <td>2 FBGs per level at 165 and 255 degree respectively.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Table 1. Description of sensor types.</strong></p> <p>The FBG strain time series have been synchronized with the SG time series using using a cross-correlation based approach. Therefore the SG data has been used to genereate refrence strain time series at the headings of the FBG sensors; the FBG data is subsequently synchronized with regard to this reference time series. No synchronization of the acceleration data was needed, since these are collected using the same data aquisition system as the SG data. </p> <p>The SG strain time series have been calibrated and temperature compensated, whereas this is not the case for the FBG strain time series. The latter have a yet to be determined calibration offset. </p> <p>In conjunction to the sensor channels presented in <strong>Tab. 1</strong>, 1 Hz SCADA data is provided. A summary of the provided SCADA parameters, all sampled at 1Hz, is presented in <strong>Tab 2.</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Parameter</strong></td> <td><strong>Unit</strong></td> <td><strong>Description</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wind speed</td> <td>m/s</td> <td>Wind speed as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wind direction</td> <td>°</td> <td>Wind direction relative to North (0°) as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Yaw angle</td> <td>°</td> <td>Yaw orientation of the nacelle relative to North (0°) as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Pitch angle</td> <td>°</td> <td>Rotor blade pitch as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rotor speed</td> <td>rpm</td> <td>Rotor speed in rotations per minute as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Power</td> <td>kW</td> <td>Active power of the turbine as recorded in the turbine SCADA</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Table 2. </strong>List of provided SCADA parameters</p> <p> </p> <p>A summary of the selected intervals and relevant corresponding scada parameters is given in <strong>Tab 3</strong>.</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Scenario </strong></td> <td><strong>T1 (UTC)</strong></td> <td><strong>T2 (UTC) </strong></td> <td><strong>Windspeed</strong></td> <td><strong>RPM </strong></td> <td><strong>Pitch </strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Parked</td> <td> <p>03/07 01:30</p> </td> <td> <p>03/07 03:30</p> </td> <td>< 4.5 m/s</td> <td>~1</td> <td>~18 °</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rated</td> <td> <p>05/07 22:30</p> </td> <td> <p>06/07 00:30 </p> </td> <td>~15 m/s</td> <td>10.5</td> <td>8.1°</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Table 3. </strong>Selected data intervals and relevant scada parameters</p> <p> </p> <h1><em><strong>2. Included in this version </strong></em></h1> <h2><em><strong>2.1 Version - 0.1.0</strong></em></h2> <ul> <li>Relevant Design information can be found in: <ul> <li>Geometry data for NRT-WTG: "WILLOW-Geometry_v4.xlsx"</li> <li>Best estimate soil profile: "WILLOW-BE_soil_profile.xlsx"</li> </ul> </li> <li>Acceleration, strain and scada data can be found in the following parquet files: <ul> <li>Measurement data for the parked case: "NRT-WTG_Parked.parquet.gz"</li> <li>Measurement data for the rated case: "NRT-WTG_Rated.parquet.gz"</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <h1><em><strong>3. Importing parquet files </strong></em></h1> <p>To import the measurement data into Python it is recommended to use pandas:</p> <pre>import pandas as pd<br># Read Parquet file with Pandas: relative_file_path = '<a href="../api/records/11093262/draft/files/NRT-WTG_Parked.parquet.gz/content" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NRT-WTG_Parked.parquet.gz</a>' data = pd.read_parquet(relative_file_path ) <br><br>Once the dataframe has been imported, the users can process/re-arrange the raw data according the their needs; it should be noted that the imported dataframe contains NAN values - these are caused by the different sampling rates of the provided signals. </pre>
Data associated with the following publication: Developing the Playground Play Value and Usability Audit Tool (PVUA): An Evaluation of Content Validity via an Expert Panel
<p>This data set contains the supporting data associated with the following publication:</p> <p>Morgenthaler, T., Loebach, J., Lynch, H., Pentland, D., Kottorp, A., & Schulze, C. (in press). Developing the Playground Play Value and Usability Audit Tool (PVUA): An Evaluation of Content Validity via an Expert Panel. Children, Youth and Environments. [DOI was not yet available when the data set was published]</p> <p>The data set includes the following files:</p> <ul> <li>read me file [contains all relevant information to understand and reuse this data set] </li> <li>13 additional files [for description, see read me file]</li> </ul> <p>For more information, please contact the lead researcher, Thomas Morgenthaler (tom.morgenthaler@gmail.com or 121101888@umail.ucc.ie)</p> <p> </p>
OpenFOAM cases of the paper "Development and validation of an open-source CFD model for the efficiency assessment of data centers"
<p>This dataset contains the<em> underling data</em> for the paper "Development and validation of an open-source CFD model for the efficiency assessment of data centers”, submitted for the consideration and open review in Open Research Europe (ORE).</p> <p><strong>Validation1.tar.xz:</strong> OpenFOAM files and scripts for the simulation of flow and thermal structures in an enclosed environment (Wang and Chen, 2009).</p> <p><em>Wang, Miao; Chen, Qingyan (2009). Assessment of Various Turbulence Models for Transitional Flows in an Enclosed Environment (RP-1271). HVAC&R Research, 15(6), 1099–1119. doi:10.1080/10789669.2009.10390881</em></p> <p><strong>Validation2-kOmegaSSTModel.tar.xz:</strong> OpenFOAM files and scripts for the simulation of forced convection in a room (Zhang et al. 2007) using k-omega SST turbulence model. </p> <p><em>Zhao Zhang, Wei Zhang, Zhiqiang John Zhai & Qingyan Yan Chen (2007) Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part 2—Comparison with Experimental Data from Literature, HVAC&R Research, 13:6, 871-886, DOI: 10.1080/10789669.2007.10391460</em></p> <p><strong>Validation2-RNGkEpsilonModel.tar.xz:</strong> OpenFOAM files and scripts for the simulation of forced convection in a room (Zhang et al. 2007) using RNG k-epsilon turbulence model. </p> <p><em>Zhao Zhang, Wei Zhang, Zhiqiang John Zhai & Qingyan Yan Chen (2007) Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part 2—Comparison with Experimental Data from Literature, HVAC&R Research, 13:6, 871-886, DOI: 10.1080/10789669.2007.10391460</em></p> <p><strong>Validation3.tar.xz:</strong> OpenFOAM files and scripts for the simulation of strong natural convection in a model fire room (Murakami et al. 1995).</p> <p><em>Murakami, S., S. Kato, and R. Yoshie. 1995. Measurement of turbulence statistics in a model fire room by LDV. ASHRAE Transactions 101(2):287–301.</em></p> <p><strong>Validation4.tar.xz:</strong> OpenFOAM files and scripts for the simulation of thermal distribution in an open-aisle data center (Abdelmaksoud et al. 2013).</p> <p><em>W.A. Abdelmaksoud, T.Q. Dang, H. Ezzat Khalifa, R.R. Schmidt Improved computational fluid dynamics model for open-aisle air-cooled data center simulations J. Electron. Packag., 135 (2013), pp. 030901-30913</em></p> <p><strong>Results_Validation1.tar.xz:</strong> Simulation results of the Validation case 1.</p> <p><strong>Results_Validation2.tar.xz:</strong> Simulation results of the Validation case 2.</p> <p><strong>Results_Validation3.tar.xz:</strong> Simulation results of the Validation case 3.</p> <p><strong>Results_Validation4.tar.xz:</strong> Simulation results of the Validation case 4.</p> <p><strong>layout.csv:</strong> Input file for the Validation case 4.</p>
Wind measurement data from the publication: "Development of a load model validation framework applied to synthetic turbulent wind field evaluation"
<h3>Dataset description:</h3> <p>This datasat represents supplementary material used in the contribution "Development of a load model validation framework applied to<br>synthetic turbulent wind field evaluation" by Meyer, Huhn and Gottschall.</p> <p>Wind measurements from the Testfeld BHV are made available. For installation details, see the mentioned reference.</p> <p> </p> <h3>File description:</h3> <ul> <li>Lidar_HWS.nc - Horizontal wind speed measurements (10 min averages) from a WindCube V2 vertical profiler for one day with a low-level jet occurrence ( <div> <div>2021-04-20)</div> </div> </li> <li>Cups_HWS.nc - Horizontal wind speed measurements (10 min averages) from cup anemometer installed on a met mast for the same day</li> <li>Ensemble_averaged_Spectra.nc - Ensemble averaged spectra for neutral and near neutral situations from a Gill Windmaster at 110m above ground level, used to fit the Mann and KSEC model parameters</li> </ul> <h3> </h3> <h3>Referencing:</h3> <p>When used, please cite like the following:</p> <p>Meyer, Paul J., Matthias L. Huhn, and Julia Gottschall. 2024. "Development of a Load Model Validation Framework Applied to Synthetic Turbulent Wind Field Evaluation" <em>Energies</em> 17, no. 4: 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17040797</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
ERA5 based training, validation and evaluation data for retrievals combining 22-58 GHz with 175-340 GHz microwave radiometer measurements during MOSAiC
<p>This data set is used for the training, validation and evaluation of retrievals of temperature and specific humidity profiles, as well as integrated water vapour from simlulated or measured microwave brightness temperatures (TBs), which are described in <strong>[1]</strong>.</p> <p>The data set consists of yearly files (2001-2018, 6-hourly resolution) that include data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts's ERA5 reanalysis <strong>[2]</strong> and simulated TBs in the microwave spectrum. TB simulations were performed with PAMTRA <strong>[3,4]</strong> on the native ERA5 model level resolution at frequencies of a low frequency Humidity and Temperature Profiler (HATPRO, 22-58 GHz) and of a Low Humidity Profiler (LHUMPRO-243-340, aka MiRAC-P, 175-340 GHz). Afterwards, the ERA5 model level data has been interpolated to a new height grid (dimension 'z'), of which the lowest 43 indices equal the height grid of the retrieval that is developed with this data set. The upper 11 indices are included for additional TB simulations needed for the information content estimation performed and are not used for the retrievals to avoid the tropopause.</p> <p>The trained retrieval is applied to observations from the HATPRO and MiRAC-P that were installed onboard the research vessel Polarstern during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition.</p> <p><strong>[1]:</strong> Walbröl, A., Griesche, H. J., Mech, M., Crewell, S., and Ebell, K.: Combining low- and high-frequency microwave radiometer measurements from the MOSAiC expedition for enhanced water vapour products, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 6223-6245, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6223-2024, 2024.</p> <p><strong>[2]:</strong> Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.</p> <p><strong>[3]:</strong> Mech, M., Maahn, M., Kneifel, S., Ori, D., Orlandi, E., Kollias, P., Schemann, V., and Crewell, S.: PAMTRA 1.0: the Passive and Active Microwave radiative TRAnsfer tool for simulating radiometer and radar measurements of the cloudy atmosphere, Geoscientific Model Development, 13, 4229–4251, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4229-2020, 2020.</p> <p><strong>[4]:</strong> Mech, M., Maahn, M., Ori, D., Kneifel, S., and Orlandi, E.: PAMTRA Package – Passive and Active Microwave TRANsfer, available at: https://github.com/igmk/pamtra (last access: 6 September 2020), 2019c.</p>
Galápagos Archipelago Refined Analysis Validation data
<p>This dataset includes (near) surface data variables from the <a href="https://data.klima.tu-berlin.de/GAR/">GAR</a> dataset for the model validation period from 2022-04-01 to 2023-03-31.</p> <p>As this data is part of the GAR dataset, please find additional data at <a href="https://data.klima.tu-berlin.de/GAR/">https://data.klima.tu-berlin.de/GAR/</a></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/">netCDF</a> format is self-describing, so that all needed metadata are included within the files.</p> <p>The file names are composed with the following structure:</p> <p><model-setup>_<horizontal-resolution>_<time-resolution>_<variable-name>.nc</p> <p>The shorthands in the file names represent the following:</p> <p><strong>MM</strong> = Name of the model setup, described in Schmidt et al. (unpublished)</p> <p><strong>d02km</strong> = domain with a grid spacing of 2 km</p> <p><strong>2d</strong> = spatial dimensions (2d data, single level)</p> <p><strong>3d_press</strong> = spatial dimensions (3d data, pressure level)</p> <p><strong>d</strong> = time frequency of the data (daily)</p> <p><strong>m</strong> = time frequency of the data (monthly)</p> <p><strong>y</strong> = time frequency of the data (yearly)</p> <p><strong>psfc</strong> = surface (sfc) pressure</p> <p><strong>q2</strong> = water vapor mixing ratio (qv) st 2 m</p> <p><strong>q</strong> = mixing ratio</p> <p><strong>prcp</strong> = total precipitation (step-wise)</p> <p><strong>et</strong> = actual evapotranspiration (step-wise)</p> <p><strong>t2</strong> = temperature (temp) at 2 m</p> <p><strong>theta</strong> = potential temperature</p> <p><strong>sh2 </strong>= specific humidity at 2 m</p> <p><strong>rh2 </strong>= relative humidity at 2 m</p> <p><strong>u10</strong> = 10 m u-wind component</p> <p><strong>v10</strong> = 10 m v-wind component</p> <p><strong>ws10</strong> = 10 m wind speed</p> <p><strong>w</strong> = w-wind component</p> <p><strong>wd10</strong> = 10 m wind direction</p> <p><strong>hgt </strong>= surface height</p> <p><strong>landmask </strong>= landmask</p> <p> </p> <p>The data is in accordance with the <a href="https://cfconventions.org/">CF Conventions</a> CF-1.8</p>
Data files belonging to the paper "Dealing with clustered samples for assessing map accuracy by cross-validation"
<p>Mapping of environmental variables often relies on map accuracy assessment through cross-validation with the data used for calibrating the underlying mapping model. When the data points are spatially clustered, conventional cross-validation leads to optimistically biased estimates of map accuracy. Several papers have promoted spatial cross-validation as a means to tackle this over-optimism. Many of these papers blame spatial autocorrelation as the cause of the bias and propagate the widespread misconception that spatial proximity of calibration points to validation points invalidates classical statistical validation of maps. In the paper related to these data, we present and evaluate alternative cross-validation approaches for assessing map accuracy from clustered sample data. </p> <p> </p> <p>The study area is western Europe, constrained in the north at 52° latitude and at -10° and 24° longitude The projection is IGNF:ETRS89LAEA (Lambert azimuthal equal area projection).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Files:</strong></p> <p>agb.tif = above ground biomass (AGB) map from version 3 of the 2017 CCI-Biomass product (<a href="https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8">https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8</a>)<br> AGBstack.tif = covariates used for predicting AGB<br> aggArea.tif = coarse grid used for simulation in the model-based methods<br> ocs.tif = soil organic carbon stock (OCS) map (0-30 cm) from Soilgrids (<a href="https://www.isric.org/explore/soilgrids">https://www.isric.org/explore/soilgrids</a>)<br> OCSstack.tif = covariates used for predicting OCS<br> strata.xxx = 100 compact geo-strata (ESRI shape) created with the spcosa package; used for generating clustered samples<br> TOTmask.tif = mask of the area covered by the covariates</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Details and data sources of the covariates in AGBstack.tif and OCSstack.tif:</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Name</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Description</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Note</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>ai</p> </td> <td> <p>Aridity Index</p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></p> </td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>bio1</p> </td> <td> <p>Mean annual air temperature [°C]</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>bio5</p> </td> <td> <p>Mean daily maximum air temperature of the warmest month [°C]</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>bio7</p> </td> <td> <p>Annual range of air temperature [°C]</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>bio12</p> </td> <td> <p>Annual precipitation [kg/m<sup>2</sup>]</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>bio15</p> </td> <td> <p>Precipitation seasonality [kg/m<sup>2</sup>]</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>gdd10</p> </td> <td> <p>Growing degree days heat sum above 10°C</p> </td> <td><a href="https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/">https://chelsa-climate.org/downloads/</a></td> <td>Version 2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>clay</p> </td> <td> <p>Clay content [g/kg] of the 0-5cm layer</p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://soilgrids.org/">https://soilgrids.org/</a></p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>Only used for AGB</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>sand</p> </td> <td> <p>Sand content [g/kg] of the 0-5cm layer</p> </td> <td><a href="https://soilgrids.org/">https://soilgrids.org/</a></td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>pH</p> </td> <td> <p>Acidity (Ph(water)) of the 0-5cm layer</p> </td> <td><a href="https://soilgrids.org/">https://soilgrids.org/</a></td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>glc2017</p> </td> <td> <p>Landcover 2017</p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/lc">https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/lc</a>, reclassified to: closed forest, open forest, natural non-forest veg., bare & sparse veg. cropland, built-up, water</p> </td> <td> <p>Categorical variable</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>dem</p> </td> <td> <p>Elevation</p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/copernicus-land-monitoring-service-eu-dem">https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/copernicus-land-monitoring-service-eu-dem</a></p> </td> <td> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>cosasp</p> </td> <td> <p>Cosine of slope aspect</p> </td> <td> <p>Computed with the terra package from elevation</p> </td> <td>Computed @25m resolution; next aggregated to 0.5km</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>sinasp</p> </td> <td> <p>Sine of slope aspect</p> </td> <td>Computed with the terra package from elevation</td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>slope</p> </td> <td> <p>Slope</p> </td> <td>Computed with the terra package from elevation</td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>TPI</p> </td> <td> <p>Topographic position index</p> </td> <td>Computed with the terra package from elevation</td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>TRI</p> </td> <td> <p>Terrain ruggedness index</p> </td> <td>Computed with the terra package from elevation</td> <td>as above</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>TWI</p> </td> <td> <p>Topographic wetness index</p> </td> <td> <p>Computed with SAGA from 500m resolution (aggregated) dem</p> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>gedi</p> </td> <td> <p>Forest height</p> </td> <td> <p><a href="https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/gedi">https://glad.umd.edu/dataset/gedi</a></p> </td> <td> <p>Zone: NAFR</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>xcoord</p> </td> <td> <p>X coordinate</p> </td> <td> <p>Using a mask created from the other covariates</p> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>ycoord</p> </td> <td> <p>Y coordinate</p> </td> <td>Using a mask created from the other covariates</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Dcoast</p> </td> <td> <p>Distance from coast</p> </td> <td> <p>Using a land mask created from the other covariates</p> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Experimental validation data for in silico OA study
<p>The folder contains, ALP assay and PCR data, experimental protocols as well as scripts for plotting and analysis.</p> <p>This is related to the following git repository: https://github.com/Rapha-L/Experimental_validation_for_insilicoOA </p>
Navigating deep learning strategies for large-area land cover mapping using very-high-resolution imagery in Senegal: Validation Data
<p><span><span>R</span><span>apid</span><span> advances in deep learning</span><span> for</span> <span>land cover </span><span>classification of </span><span>trees, shrubs and </span><span>very small</span> <span>agricultur</span><span>al</span> <span>fields</span> <span>using</span> <span>very high</span><span>-</span><span>resolution satellite </span><span>data </span><span>(< 2 m</span><span>)</span><span>,</span><span> has tremendous potential</span> <span>for resolving </span><span>current</span><span> challenges </span><span>in </span><span>quantifying</span> <span>land cover </span><span>change </span><span>in</span> <span>sub-</span><span>Saharan</span> <span>African (SSA</span><span>)</span><span>,</span> <span>due to</span> <span>growing </span><span>demand for food resources</span><span>.</span> <span>We</span> <span>conducted experiments </span><span>with</span><span> different training strategies for scaling up </span><span>UNet</span> <span>convolutional neural network </span><span>models for regional land cover mapping with multispectral </span><span>WorldView</span><span> (WV</span><span>)</span><span>-2 and –3,</span><span> imagery</span><span> in</span><span> three distinct regions of Senegal </span><span>which</span> <span>has</span><span> complex </span><span>seasonal wet/dry conditions and </span><span>cropland-savanna mosaics. </span></span></p> <p>The validation exercise of this research consisted in validating more than 70,000 km<sup>2</sup> across Senegal. The infrastructure was setup in the NASA SMCE system with a total of twelve George Mason University (GMU) students participating as operators. These operators validated more than 59 WV-2 and -3 images, each consisting of 200 stratified points in 5,000 x 5,000-pixel images. This effort resulted in a total of ~35,000 aggregated observations that are available through the eo-validation API for public consumption. Each validation point from this dataset has three individual observations.</p>
Datasets and results from: "Random Forest Classification and Solar Flares Data: Analysis and Validation"
<p><strong>Instructions for the data and code repository</strong></p> <p>Results, post-processing workflow, and datasets for the research paper titled "Random Forest Classification and Solar Flares Data: Analysis and Validation".</p> <p>The folder contains three .csv files: the complete dataset (dataset.csv), the balanced training dataset (train_dataset.csv), and the testing dataset (test_dataset.csv).</p> <p>The folder also contains the result files from the research (.csv output files with predictions and .html files with evaluation metrics, etc.) exported from the JASP software. The number in each file name corresponds to the number of trees utilized in Random Forest modelling.</p> <p>In addition, the Python script for the post-processing workflow is provided, with comments located in the script.</p> <p>The soft range X-ray irradiance and VLF amplitude data were obtained from:<br> National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Available online: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/. Accessed on: 24th June 2023. <br> Worldwide archive of low-frequency data and observations (WALDO) Available online: https://waldo.world/. Accessed on: 24th June 2023.</p>
Dataset of publication "Derivation and validation of a reference data-based real gas model for hydrogen"
<p>In this repository, a new real gas model for hydrogen based on the Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties Database (REFPROP) v10.0 is provided for the use in the simulation software OpenFOAM v2012. The model is valid in a temperature and pressure range of 150-400 K and 0.1-1000 bar, respectively. Usage beyond this range is not recommended as it may lead to unrealistic results.</p>
Auxiliary files and data to generate eddy flux and validate 2D model for MALTA
<p>This repository contains the following directories to accompany the manuscript 'A Zonally-Averaged Global Atmospheric Transport Model for Long-lived Trace Gases', submitted to JAMES:</p><p>1) <strong>GEOSChem </strong>This directory contains the run directory template and (slurm) runscript to generate the tracer fields used to generate the eddy fluxes. The GEOSChem model will have to be installed locally to run this, and the run directory built to your local area. It may be easiest to just copy the relevant bits in /Tracer_2D_template/ (i.e., the .rc files, /RestartFiles/, input.geos, reset_restart.py and species_database.yml) into a GEOSChem Transport run directory and change the directories in the copied files. If using slurm on an HPC, just change the directories in the runtracers_inputs.sh script to match that of your own HPC. Else, a different script will have to be written copying the slurm functionality.</p><p>2) <strong>GEOSChem_SF6 </strong>This directory contains the monthly mean SF6 mole fractions generated using GEOSChem used to validate the 2D model MALTA. Emissions come from the EDGAR v4.2 emissions inventory. Emissions after 2008 continue to use 2008 as the emissions value.</p><p>3) <strong>CFC11_inversion</strong> This directory contains the relevant script and files to quantify emissions of CFC-11 using an output mole fraction from the TOMCAT 3D model using MALTA, and compare these to the TOMCAT emissions used to generate the mole fractions. The directory paths at the beginning of the main script in CFC11_inversion.py must be changed to point to the remaining files in the /CFC11_inversion/ directory, and a save directory must be specified, before running locally. MALTA must be installed to run this.</p><p>4) <strong>singapore.dat </strong>This file contains the QBO winds above Singapore, taken from https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/index.html</p><p> </p>
Data from: Validating a practical methodology for thatch - mat - soil distinction in turfgrass soils
<p><span>We described a <a name="_Hlk163223211"></a>practical method for the distinction of thatch, mat and soil layers in turfgrass soils, being a combination of visually and manually observable characteristics. For two widely different turfgrass species, we analyzed total organic matter (TOM) and dry bulk density (ρd) in thin slices of 6 mm (between 0 and 10 cm soil depth), resulting in clear patterns for both soil properties with increasing depth. Statistical analysis of TOM patterns resulted in similar boundary depths between calculated and observed layers, validating our practical method for the distinction of thatch, mat and soil layers as a reliable method. </span><span>Furthermore, we characterized thatch, mat and soil layer by different TOM fractions. <span>TOM was fractionalized into three distinctive and functional pools of organic matter: (1) visible organic matter (VOM), consisting of mainly non-decomposed plant structures, (2) decomposed organic matter (DOM), consisting of mainly decomposed plant structures with its associated microbial biomass, and (3) soil organic matter (SOM), being the background value or recalcitrant native organic matter in a soil and its local microbial biomass.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>We distinguished thatch, mat and soil layer based on visual and manual observable characteristics of the layers and a protocol as described in Evers et al. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1002/its2.148. This study was conducted on a well-established turfgrass demonstration field with monoculture plots of turfgrass varieties (turfgrass seed company DLF; Moerstraten, the Netherlands; 51°32'27'' N 4°20'54" E) 3.5 years after sowing, reflecting the result of organic matter accumulation over these initial years of turfgrass establishment. The climate regime was marine with cool to medium summer temperatures and mild winters (Cfb/Cfa according to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification system (Peel, et al., 2007)). The field was built on a sandy soil (Hortic Anthrasol as described in the FAO/UNESCO soil map of the world (2006)). Sampling of the soil took place in June 2016 before the field was sown. We tested our methodology with two turfgrass species, slender creeping red fescue (<em>Festuca rubra trichophylla </em>(Frt), variety Beudin of DLF) <span>as an example of a spreading turfgrass</span><em> </em><span>and perennial ryegrass (<em>Lolium perenne </em></span>(Lp)<em>,</em> variety Duparc of DLF) as an example of a bunch-type grass, as these two species were expected to differ widely in thatch and mat depth. The individual plot size for each variety was approximately 1 m<sup>2</sup> (0.8 x 1.2 m). Plots of each species were sampled at the end of February 2020. A subplot of 0.25 m<sup>2</sup> (0.5 m x 0.5 m) in the center of one plot per species was selected, to avoid contamination with other varieties (at least 90% pure monoculture), and it was marked with a metal frame. From the 25 cells of 5 x 5 cm in this frame, nine evenly dispersed cells were chosen to take a set of soil samples of 10 cm depth, using a core sampler with 2.8 cm diameter, for thatch-mat and mat-deeper soil boundary observation and TOM and <em>ρ</em><sub>d</sub> analyses. A<span>nother set of nine samples was taken next to the previous cells for VOM analyses. </span>Every fresh 10 cm soil core was first photographed (Canon Powershot S5 camera, 24 megapixels; Canon Europe, Amstelveen, the Netherlands), judged on thatch-mat and mat-deeper soil boundaries following the method described in supplementary information, and then sliced into 14 subsamples of 6 mm each plus a 16 mm subsample at the bottom, starting to measure just below the green canopy with an accurate ruler (Sola HK ¼ W12, EU-accuracy class 3), for analyzing TOM and <em>ρ</em><sub>d</sub>.in every subsample. TOM and <em>ρ</em><sub>d</sub> were analyzed after samples were dried at 105°C for 24 h. VOM was analyzed after a<span>ll sediment per slice was carefully washed off with tap water in a fine sieve (approximately 600 µm (27 mesh)), after which the remaining (dead and living) plant biomass, mainly roots and rhizomes, was dried at 65 °C for at least 48 h. SOM was determined separately in the bulk soil of the study site and is 2.6% of the dry matter. DOM was calculated via subtraction of VOM and SOM from TOM</span></span></span></p> <p><span>Based on the analyzed TOM content of the 14 slices per nine replicates, the boundaries of distinctive layers were calculated. For this, we rescaled the TOM results per replicate via the normalized function <em>F </em>(χ) = (χ-χ<sub>min</sub>)/(χ<sub>max</sub>-χ<sub>min</sub>) into values between 0 and 1 to overcome scale differences between replicates but keeping distributions the same. Per turfgrass species, the best fitted line, i.e., the smallest <em>rse</em>, and its 95%-confidence interval through all 135 points was iteratively calculated by non-linear least square regression with the nls function of R (version 3.5.2; 2018-12-20). For the fitting of the statistical models, either a logistic function (<em>F </em>(χ) = α/(1+e<sup>-(βχ+γ)</sup>) or a bell-shaped Gaussian function (<em>G </em>(χ) = αe<sup>-((χ-β)^2/2γ^2)</sup>) was used, based on the best fit for the respective turfgrass species. The characteristics of these mathematical functions were used to explain the TOM-dynamics in the soil. To this end, the turning points of the curves were calculated by finding where the first derivative of both functions equals zero, i.e., solving <em>F’</em> (χ) = 0 and <em>G’ </em>(χ) = 0 respectively. The inflection points of each curve were determined by analyzing the second derivative, i.e., identifying the points where the second derivative <em>F’’</em> (χ) or <em>G’’</em> (χ) = 0, indicating changes in concavity. The inflection points and turning points indicated changes in TOM content in the turfgrass soil profile as likely boundaries between distinctive soil layers. </span><span>Differences in parameters between distinctive soil layers and turfgrass species were determined based on the calculated means of parameters per nine replicates of soil slices Normality of residuals and the equality of variances was checked with diagnostic plots and Levene’s test, respectively. Normally distributed means were compared with one-way ANOVA for a 3-layered soil system, followed by either Tukey post hoc tests in case of equality of variance, or by the Games-Howell post hoc test in case of no equality of variance, or with a one sample t-test for a 2-layered soil system. </span></p>
Data for the publication "Retrieving ice-nucleating particle concentration and ice multiplication factors using active remote sensing validated by in situ observations"
<p>This repository contains the data for the paper:</p> <p>Wieder, J., Ihn, N., Mignani, C., Haarig, M., Bühl, J., Seifert, P., Engelmann, R., Ramelli, F., Kanji, Z. A., Lohmann, U., and Henneberger, J.: Retrieving ice nucleating particle concentration and ice multiplication factors using active remote sensing validated by in situ observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-67, in review, 2022.</p> <p>More information can be found in the README files.</p> <p>Note that the scripts to reproduce the figures of the publication are available on request.</p>
SCEC Broadband Platform Release 22.4.0 Validation Data
<p>This package includes the set of validation plots generated with the Broadband Platform Release 22.4.</p> <p>Fabio Silva, Kevin Milner, & Philip Maechling. (2022). SCECcode/bbp: Broadband Platform Release v22.4.0 (v22.4.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7062972</p> <p>The following folders include:</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-a - Broadband validation runs using ground motions from 17 historical events.</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-a-all - Broadband validation runs using ground motions from 17 historical events (same as above, but includes additional GoF plots such as maps and distance)</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-b - Broadband verification runs against NGA-West 2 GMPEs.</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-converge - Convergence plots for each method and event</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-tables - Summary tables for each method, along with aggregate results from all methods/events per distance and period range. Also includes Dreger figure 3 plots (see references below for more information)</p>
Validation data for a Microwave Exposure Prototype for In Vitro Growth Inhibition of Plasmodium falciparum
<p>The dataset presented in this article revolves around the validation of an innovative irradiation device designed for <em>in vitro</em> malaria tests. The motivation stems from the escalating need for new malaria treatments due to the high mortality rates, the absence of an effective vaccine, and rising antimalarial drug resistance. The theoretical background for generating this data is based on prior studies indicating that microwave exposure can non-thermally kill malaria parasites by interacting with hemozoin crystals within infected erythrocytes, a process in which healthy cells remain unaffected, probably due to the absence of these crystals. This dataset aims to provide a thorough validation of the device's biological and electrical efficacy, by providing models to simulate various parameters such as the magnetic and electric field strength, and experimentally validate the biological effects on parasite viability under controlled microwave exposure. This contribution is pivotal for advancing research in electromagnetic therapy as a potential treatment for malaria, providing a foundational dataset for future experimental and theoretical work.</p>
caseysaenger/ForamMgCa_PSM: files and scripts for revised version of manuscript "Calibration and validation of environmental controls on planktic foraminifera Mg/Ca using global core-top data".
<p>files and scripts for revised version of manuscript "Calibration and validation of environmental controls on planktic foraminifera Mg/Ca using global core-top data". Saenger, C. and M. N. Evans. Resubmitted to Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, May 3, 2019.</p>
Snow-Cloud Validation Masks for Multispectral Satellite Data.
<p>Geotiffs of manually validated snow, cloud, & clear-sky snow free pixels for 13 Landsat 8 images. These acquisitions are of mid-latitude mountainous regions that contain both snow and cloud cover. Four spectral libraries of snow and cloud are also provided. These are the snow and cloud spectra extracted from both these 13 scenes and the 13 L8 SPARCS Cloud Validation Masks that contained both snow and cloud. 1&2.) Snow and cloud top-of-atmosphere reflectance for the eight Landsat 8 OLI 30 meter optical bands, aggregated from the 26 scenes. 3&4.) The top-of-atmosphere reflectance for the eight Landsat 8 OLI 30 meter optical bands of all snow misidentified as cloud and cloud misidentified as snow by CFMASK, the cloud mask that ships in the BQA file of Landsat 8 Collection 1.</p>
Visual and inertial data for validation of gliding models of ornithopters
<p>This dataset contains data from different gliding flights with an ornithopter in low wind conditions. For each experiment, the inertial information is provided.</p> <p>Additionally, the flights have been recorded from three different points of view to track and triangulate its position. The videos are provided and the position of the camera has been determined using a Leica Total Station system with submillimeter accuracy. A sample of the 2D track of the ornithopter is provided for each video and experiment. The tracking along the three cameras are synchronized.</p> <p> </p> <p>------Camera Pose structure------</p> <p> </p> <p>Three cameras with four points: three to measure orientation and the last one the lens position. The last two points are the measured fall.<br> Camera 1 -> top left, bottom left and top right.<br> Camera 2 -> top left, top rigth and bottom right.<br> Camera 3 -> top left, bottom left and top right.<br> Then there are 14 rows. The pattern is: Point1, Point2, Point3 and Lens Position.</p> <p>------IMU structure------</p> <p>time, quaternion w, quaternion x, quaternion y, quaternion z, accelerometer x, accelerometer y, accelerometer z, Gyroscope x, Gyroscope y, Gyroscope z, magnetometer x ,magnetometer y ,magnetometer z<br> units: time->ms, accelerometer->g, gyroscope->ยบ/s</p> <p> </p>
Experimental data for validation of a variational RANS level III flow model: water waves over an array of obstacles and Ogee weir flows
<p>Experimental dataset for the validation of a variational RANS level III flow model. The experimental data correspond to experiments on unsteady of water waves over an array of obstacles and steady curved flows over an Ogee weir. The experiments were conducted at the Hydraulics Laboratory at the Univeristy of Córdoba. </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.