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.
20
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
20 results for “expert evaluation”
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>
Expert judgements for evaluating deduplication of OpenAIRE Research Graph
<p>Expert judgments used to evaluate the deduplication algorithm used for constructing the OpenAIRE Research Graph.</p> <p>Each expert assigned each group with one of the following predetermined classes (that also indicate whether contained entities are equivalent or not):</p> <ul> <li>AMBIGUOUS: At least one DOIs is invalid (no metadata are available) (N/A)</li> <li>DELETED-DUPLICATES: DOIs once pointing to the same research object, currently deleted. (TRUE)</li> <li>MULTI-PUBLISHED: Article published in more than one locations (full or abstract) (TRUE)</li> <li>VERSIONS: Multiple versions of the same research object (e.g. pre-prints, post-prints etc). (TRUE)</li> <li>ERRONEOUS: Unrelated set of objects. (FALSE)</li> <li>PAPER-EXTENSIONS: Extended version of a conference paper in a journal. (FALSE)</li> <li>PART-OF-A-GROUP: Multiple parts of the same research object (e.g. multi-part publication, photos of the same collection etc). (FALSE)</li> <li>SUPPLEMENTARY: A publication and its supplementary material (including errata). (FALSE)</li> </ul> <p>The following are provided:</p> <ul> <li>OpenAIRE identifier</li> <li>Judgement</li> <li>Count of numbers in group</li> <li>DOIs in group</li> </ul>
Dataset_Experts_Evaluation_for_Integrated_MCDM_Approach_for_PGT_Selection_in_SES
<p>Template and Dataset containing experts' evaluation for the case study of the research paper entitled "Evaluation_for_Integrated_MCDM_Approach_for_PGT_Selection_in_SES"</p>
Confirmation Bias in Web-Based Search: A Randomized Online Study on the Effects of Expert Information and Social Tags on Information Search and Evaluation
<p>ABSTRACT</p> <p>Background: The public typically believes psychotherapy to be more effective than pharmacotherapy for depression treatments. This is not consistent with current scientific evidence, which shows that both types of treatment are about equally effective.</p> <p>Objective: The study investigates whether this bias towards psychotherapy guides online information search and whether the bias can be reduced by explicitly providing expert information (in a blog entry) and by providing tag clouds that implicitly reveal experts’ evaluations.</p> <p>Methods: A total of 174 participants completed a fully automated Web-based study after we invited them via mailing lists. First, participants read two blog posts by experts that either challenged or supported the bias towards psychotherapy. Subsequently, participants searched for information about depression treatment in an online environment that provided more experts’ blog posts about the effectiveness of treatments based on alleged research findings. These blogs were organized in a tag cloud; both psychotherapy tags and pharmacotherapy tags were popular. We measured tag and blog post selection, efficacy ratings of the presented treatments, and participants’ treatment recommendation after information search.</p> <p>Results: Participants demonstrated a clear bias towards psychotherapy (mean 4.53, SD 1.99) compared to pharmacotherapy (mean 2.73, SD 2.41; <em>t</em><sub>173</sub>=7.67, <em>P</em><.001, <em>d</em>=0.81) when rating treatment efficacy prior to the experiment. Accordingly, participants exhibited biased information search and evaluation. This bias was significantly reduced, however, when participants were exposed to tag clouds with challenging popular tags. Participants facing popular tags challenging their bias (n=61) showed significantly less biased tag selection (<em>F</em><sub>2,168</sub>=10.61, <em>P</em><.001, partial eta squared=0.112), blog post selection (<em>F</em><sub>2,168</sub>=6.55, <em>P</em>=.002, partial eta squared=0.072), and treatment efficacy ratings (<em>F</em><sub>2,168</sub>=8.48, <em>P</em><.001, partial eta squared=0.092), compared to bias-supporting tag clouds (n=56) and balanced tag clouds (n=57). Challenging (n=93) explicit expert information as presented in blog posts, compared to supporting expert information (n=81), decreased the bias in information search with regard to blog post selection (<em>F</em><sub>1,168</sub>=4.32, <em>P</em>=.04, partial eta squared=0.025). No significant effects were found for treatment recommendation (<em>P</em>s>.33).</p> <p>Conclusions: We conclude that the psychotherapy bias is most effectively attenuated—and even eliminated—when popular tags implicitly point to blog posts that challenge the widespread view. Explicit expert information (in a blog entry) was less successful in reducing biased information search and evaluation. Since tag clouds have the potential to counter biased information processing, we recommend their insertion.</p>
Results of the evaluation about the expert interviews regarding the benefits of a digital procurement workspace.
<p>The paper "A next-generation Digital Procurement Workspace focusing on Information Integration, Automation, Analytics, and Sustainability" evaluates the set requirements and discovers the benefits of the Digital Procurement Workspace. For that, expert interviews in a qualitative and quantitative manner were conducted. The qualitative evaluation results are summarized here based on Mayring's (Mayring, 2000) methods.</p>
The Awareness Assessment Model (expert panel evaluation)
<p>The dataset of the expert panel evaluation, described in the paper "The Awareness Assessment Model: Measuring Awareness and Collaboration Support Over Participant's Perspective"</p>
The visualization of the collected data corresponding to the following paper: "The development of a Self-Rated ICF-based questionnaire (HEAR-COMMAND Tool) to evaluate Hearing, Communication, and Conversation disability: multinational experts' and patients' perspectives"
<p>These two PDF files include the data collected for a study conducted by Afghah et.al, 2022. They include the responses of the participant in this study to a newly developed self-rated ICF-based questionnaire. One file includes the responses to 30 demographic questions and the other one 88 ICF-based questions. The presented data were collected in Germany, the USA, and Egypt as well as overall data.</p> <p>The design of the questionnaire is described here:<br> Afghah, T., Alfakir, R., Meis, M., van Leeuwen, L. M., Kramer, S. E., Hammady, M., Youssif, M., & Wagener, K. C. (2021). The development of a Self-Rated ICF-based questionnaire (HEAR-COMMAND Tool) to evaluate hearing, communication, and conversation disability: multinational experts' and patients' perspectives. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5534360.</p> <p>This study was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project ID: 352015383 – SFB 1330, C4.</p>
EXPERT CTO: Evaluation of the XIENCE PRIME™ LL and XIENCE Nano™ Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent Coronary Stents, Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01435031. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Experts views on information evaluation and verification: source reliability, content credibility and audiovisual material checking
<p>Experts can be asked about nformation evaluation and verification: source reliability, content credibility and audiovisual material checking.</p> <p>OER available at: <a href="https://multimedia.ciberimaginario.es/genially/2020/CRESCEnt/4.2.1/">https://multimedia.ciberimaginario.es/genially/2020/CRESCEnt/4.2.1/</a> </p>
Insulin Pump-RT Advisor (IPRA©): a Decision Support Software for Diabetic Patients Treated by Insulin Pump and Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Experimental Study. Evaluation by an Expert Patient
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01883024. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Evaluation of Spirometry Expert Support in General Practice
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00131157. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.
Territorial Implementation and Evaluation of a Multiple Sclerosis Expert Patient Program
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04988880. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Evaluation of Handheld Colonoscopy Force Monitor by Expert Endoscopists in the Performance of Colonoscopy
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00797914. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Clinical Evaluation of the BlueDop Vascular Expert for Assessing Peripheral Arterial Disease
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05073510. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Expert and Novice Evaluations of Piano Performances
<p>This dataset was collected to compare performance assessment criteria used by experts and novices. Beyond the 83 amateur piano performance audio recordings (in the WAV format) and the 803 evaluation entries of these performances, the dataset also contains each player's self-identified skill level, seven digital scores (in the MusicXML format), and 83 audio-to-score alignment files indicating the starting time in the audio of each musical note in the scores.</p> <p>The included CSV file contains 83 rows, each row representing one piano performance. Each performance was evaluated by four professional piano instructors, and by five or six randomly chosen peer players (one of whom could be the performer him/herself as the player information was never shared). The columns in the CSV file specify each performance’s score name, its player (identified by a number from 1 to 21), as well as the numerical and textual evaluations from the four instructors and from the peer players.</p> <p>More information can be found on the project website: https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~yjiang3/papers/ismir23/.</p>
Evaluation of the Impact of an Expert Opinion During the Management of Patients With Severe Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulants.
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05928091. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Evaluation of Individual Health Coaching Sessions Provided by a Patient Expert As Part of Therapeutic Education for Patients Registered At the Chronic Pain Consultation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06811077. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Evaluating AI and Human Expert Decisions in Colorectal Cancer
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07045207. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Methodology to Transfer High Volumes of Data for Distant Expert Radiographic Evaluation of Pelvic Ring Injuries
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07115602. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 0. Publications: 0.
evaluation of expert yellow pages
<p>Evaluation of expert yellow pages</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.