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.
47
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
47 results for “public perception”
Swiss public's acceptance and sustainability perceptions of food produced with chemical, digital and mechanical weed control measures and the influence of information source on technology perception in agriculture
<p><span>This data was obtained from an online survey conducted with the Swiss public from the two biggest language regions (German and French) in Switzerland. The survey was conducted in February 2023. Participants were recruited through a professional panel provider and quotas were used for age, gender and language region. The final sample contained </span><span>542 respondents. </span><span>In the first part of the survey, respondents provided basic sociodemographic information. In the second part, their sustainability perceptions regarding four different weed management practices (full-surface spraying, hoeing machine, spot spraying and precise spraying) were investigated. Respondents were then assigned to one of five information source groups, in which information on a hoeing and a milking robot was presented, using 5 different information sources (male/female farmer, male/female scientist, no source). Technology perception was assessed using several questions and aspects. Finally, respondents answered several questions assessing their attitudes towards the perception of farmers, food technology neophobia, chemophobia and the importance of naturalness. The survey can be used and adapted to different contents, aiming to investigate public perception of smart farming technologies and the influence of information sources on technology perception. </span></p>
A comparative dataset on public perceptions of multiple risks during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and Sweden
<p>These datasets are the result of two nation-wide surveys conducted in Italy and Sweden in August 2020 and in november 2020. The surveys (which are identical in the two rounds) explore the respondents' risk perception, preparedness, knowledge, and experience regarding a set of hazards, namely: epidemics, floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfires, terror attacks, domestic violence, economic crises, and climate change. </p> <p>The data files include the questionnaire survey (the Italian and Swedish versions as well as the English translation) and the two datasets of all the answers to the two surveys. Each column in the dataset refers to an item in the survey (e.g. a question or a sub-question), and each row represents a single respondent. </p> <p>For additional information on the August 2020 dataset, see <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00778-7">Mondino et al. (2020)</a>.</p>
Public Transit Infrastructure and Heat Perceptions in Hot and Dry Climates (June-July, 2018; Phoenix, Arizona, USA)
Increasing the use of public transit is an important sustainability goal targeted by many cities worldwide. However, cities in hot and warming climates risk to compromise residents’ health and thermal comfort by incentivizing public transit use and, thus, subjecting them to prolonged heat exposure. This dataset contains data collected during a study on the relationships between public transit infrastructures, microclimate and heat perceptions in the hot and dry city of Phoenix, Arizona. A field campaign at six Phoenix bus stops was held between June 6 and July 27, 2018. Filed campaign consisted of surveying bus riders at bus stops and measuring microclimate variables at sun exposed and shaded locations at bus stops. Standard, advertising and art bus stop types along an arterial Phoenix road in South Mountain Village neighborhood were sampled. Standard and advertising bus stop shelters were metal with no landscaping, art stops had a larger polycarbonate canopy, integrated artwork, trees and landscaping features. Eighty-three participants filled out the survey, 241 microclimate measurements and 1003 surface temperatures at bus stops were taken. Data were collected at three intervals: 7:00-9:00am, 12:00-2:00pm, and 3:00-5:00pm. Differences between sun and shade, as well as heat perceptions were analyzed using statistical methods. The research team has found that certain infrastructure types are more effective in reducing particular microclimate variables, for instance, trees were most effective in reducing air temperature by as much as 1.3°C on average, and shade from vertical advertising sign was most effective in reducing mean radiant temperature by an average of 11°C. Many surface temperatures of sun exposed materials sampled at bus stops exceeded skin burn thresholds. Study participants perceived stops with improved infrastructure and landscaping as slightly cooler. Data collected in this study gives a glimpse of current microclimate conditions at Phoenix bus stops
Data on public perceptions of, attitudes towards, and values for managing urban green infrastructure for carbon, biodiversity, and well-being outcomes in Helsinki, Finland
<p>A public participatory GIS -survey dataset detailing public perceptions of, attitudes towards, and values for managing urban green infrastructure for carbon, biodiversity, and well-being outcomes in Helsinki, Finland.</p>
Public perceptions of an avian reintroduction aiming to connect people with nature
<p>Full raw dataset (quantitative and qualitative) and R code for quantitative analyses, associated with the publication "Public perceptions of an avian reintroduction aiming to connect people with nature" <em>People and Nature</em>. Survey responses are presented here anonymised. Please note that where the term 'Proactive' sample is used this is referred to as the 'Self selecting' sample in the associated journal article.</p>
Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of Court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world
<p>Have perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court polarized, much like the rest of American politics? Because of the Court's unique role, for many years it remained one of the few institutions respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the Court's dramatic shift to the right in recent years—highlighted by its <em>Dobbs</em> decision in 2022—potentially upends that logic. Using both 8 waves of panel data and 18 nationally representative surveys spanning two decades, we show that while there was little evidence of partisan polarization in earlier years, in 2022 and 2023, such patterns are clear in favorability, trust, legitimacy, and support for reform. Factors that used to protect the Court—like knowledge about it and support for key democratic values—no longer do so. The Court has also become more important to voters, and will likely remain a political flashpoint, with disquieting implications for the Court's place in our polity.</p>
Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic
<div> <div> <div> <div> <p>Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div>
Citizen science at public libraries: Data on librarians and users perceptions of participating in a citizen science project in Catalunya, Spain
<p>As libraries struggle to keep pace with the changing societal landscape, emerging practices such as citizen science (CS) initiatives are being incorporated to reinforce the idea of public libraries as gathering, meeting, and collaboration spaces within the context of shared community and shared learning resources. However, there is little empirical evidence of whether the most open and participatory ways that CS puts forward can converge with and be nurtured by the essence of public libraries. Also, the roles of librarians and users in the ‘next generation public library’ have been under-developed. As the number of CS initiatives at public libraries grows, so does the need to collect evidence on the impact and the capacity of assimilation of CS practices. The data describes librarians and users' perceptions of participating in a citizen science project. Two hands-on activities for librarians of the Barcelona Network of Public Libraries were implemented. One was a training course for 30 librarians from 24 libraries which allowed them to envisage citizen science implementation in each library. The second activity consisted in the co-creation of a citizen social science project. 40 library users, 7 librarians from 3 different cities, and professional scientists, were involved. The data on librarians and users' perception was collected through participant observation, surveys, and a focus group to identify strengths and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries. The data covers librarians and users attitudes towards citizen science, their motivations to participate, their perceived ability to implement a citizen science project (as for librarians) or to contribute to science (as for library users), and the participants intention to keep engaged with citizen science, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Responses to closed-ended survey questions are analyzed at a descriptive level. The qualitative feedback from the focus group and the open-ended survey question on motivations is subjected to a thematic analysis. The data offers interesting insights to identify opportunities and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries, contributing to the debate over the public library's mission as local community hub.</p> <p>The dataset is formed by 5 tables:</p> <ol> <li>Librarians_pre.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, expected impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Librarians_post.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, perceived impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the end of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Users_first_phase.csv: data on users profiles, motivation, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_second_phase.csv: data on users profiles and motivation collected at the middle of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_last_phase.csv: data on users profiles, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and perceived impact of the project collected at the end of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_pre)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [rol_1] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Director</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Support technician</li> <li>Service support</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_1] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_1] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [know_1] Have you already heard about citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_1] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_lib_pre1] Do you believe that library users are able to participate in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_lib_pre2] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Expected impacts</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [exp_lib_pre] To what extent do you believe that citizen science may bring positive impacts to your library?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_pre1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_lib_pre2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_post)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [years_2] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [back_2] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [sat_1] To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [att_lib_post1] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [att_lib_post2] What are/could be the potential barriers to users engagement in citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [imp_lib] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [se_lib_post1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_post2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Intention to keep engaged</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [eng_lib] To what extent are you motivated to keep engaged with citizen science?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Focus group guide (Librarians)</strong></p> <p><strong>Opening questions</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> To start with…. Are you satisfied with the project?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Yes, no, why? Was it fun/interesting/challenging/enriching….</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Do you feel you have learned something new?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> About your library’s environment, users, science and citizen science... Is there anything special that you will take with you after the project?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the cocreation process</strong></p> <p><strong>3.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt most comfortable?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> For example, has it been easier to lead the activity and/or involve and retain the community? Did you find it entertaining?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt less at ease?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> What was challenging during the cocreation process?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> To what extent do you feel more capable of implementing and leading a citizen science project in your library right now?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>For example, in the case of both more crowdsourcing and of cocreated projects that actively involve the community</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the perceived impact</strong></p> <p><strong>6. </strong>To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> in line with what you discussed at the beginning of the project, you expected it to promote participation, new connections among participants, improve the library perceptions and stimulate the participants’ critical thinking...Do you think that citizen science may meet these expectations?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on citizen science at public libraries</strong></p> <p><strong>7.</strong> To what extent can citizen science (in its most ‘extreme’ form of participation) be imagined as an activity within the library that promotes more active user participation?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Through for example cocreation, experimentation, and hands-on learning activities...</p> <p><strong>8. </strong>Do you think that the activity has brought new knowledge? What new knowledge has the activity brought from your perspective?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Knowledge of the scientific process, knowledge of the community or new users...</p> <p>9. What could be the opportunities and barriers of introducing citizen science at public libraries? And the barriers?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Like for example improving the perception of the library, actively involving certain users...What could be the ‘return’ for the community? What impact can citizen science projects have on making the environment more dynamic from libraries?</p> <p><strong>10. </strong>More generally, what could be the ‘added value’ of the introduction of citizen science within the library’s range of activities?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Is it a fun activity that promotes socialization, for example? Or that allows to generate new knowledge? Or that highlights the library’s social value? Or, also, that may offer new uses and new roles to the library? Can it foster a sense of community with the library as a connector? What other impacts can be generated in your environment?</p> <p><strong>Closing</strong></p> <p><strong>11.</strong> Do you see yourselves the next year, implementing a citizen science project as part of the library’s range of activities? And adopting an existing one?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>Are you motivated to get more involved with citizen science projects? What kind of projects? What level of user involvement do you expect? What barriers do you see to users’ involvement? What benefits and opportunities do you think you can bring to the library?</p> <p><strong>12.</strong> We have now reached the end of the discussion. Anyone want to add anything else?</p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_first_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_1] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_3] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_2] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user not associated with local associations</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [back_3] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_2] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Motivations to participate</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [mot_us] What did motivate you to participate in the project?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_us_pre1] To what extent do you believe that your library is responsive to the community needs?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [att_us_pre2] To what extent to you believe your library is able to face local challenges based on users' active participation?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [conf_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 4 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to positively contribute to the library and your community?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_second_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_3] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_5] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_4] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_5] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [mot_us2] To what extent are you motivated to carry out the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_last_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_2] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_4] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_3] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_4] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [part_3] To how many cocreation sessions have you participated?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>None</li> <li>1</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [sat_2] To what extent are you satisfied with the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_us_post] To what extent do you believe that the project has positively changed your perception of the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [conf_us_post] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [imp_us] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Figure 3 in Public risk perceptions associated with Asian carp introduction and corresponding response actions
Figure 3. The proportion of participants perceiving risk associated with eleven different management responses to a potential invasion of Asian carp in Michigan as being low, medium or high risk, 2017 (n = 2,788).
Figure 2 in Public risk perceptions associated with Asian carp introduction and corresponding response actions
Figure 2. Percentage of participants perceiving risk associated with nine different socioeconomic risks from a potential Asian carp invasion in Michigan, 2017 (n = 2,788). Colorcoded peaks on the radar indicate a higher percentage of participants perceived that socioeconomic risk as being more salient to the biological invasion compared to other risks depicted with the same color.
Figure 1 in Public risk perceptions associated with Asian carp introduction and corresponding response actions
Figure 1. Proportion of participants perceiving five different types of environmental impacts from a potential invasion of Asian Carp in Michigan as being low, medium or high risk, 2017 (n = 2,788).
Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of Court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Public Management for Local Development: Perception from the Administrative Area of a Municipality in Peru
<p><strong>Abstract:</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective:</strong> To analyze the perception of the administrative department of a municipality regarding public management.</p> <p><strong>Method</strong>: Qualitative approach through interviews. The sample consisted of 30 employees from the administrative department of a municipality in Peru.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: It was found that the employees seem to have a clear understanding of the applied public management model and the organization of the administrative area. Responses regarding the management of financial, human, and material resources vary in accuracy and detail, suggesting a possible lack of knowledge in some areas. It is important to enhance communication clarity on these topics and provide precise information to ensure effective and transparent management within the municipality.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong>: Municipality employees demonstrate an understanding of their roles and face challenges in teamwork and bureaucracy. There is some confusion regarding the "New Public Management" and a lack of knowledge in resource management. Improving training, streamlining procedures, and fostering team participation in planning are crucial aspects. Furthermore, implementing periodic assessments is recommended to enhance administrative efficiency.</p>
Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Keyphrase Extraction Data Cited in "What Everyone Says: Public Perceptions of the Humanities in the Media"
<p>This repository contains Wilcoxon rank sum test and keyphrase extraction data cited in the WhatEvery1Says (WE1S) Project's article "What Everyone Says: Public Perceptions of the Humanities in the Media". The organization of the materials is discussed below.</p> <p><strong>Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test</strong></p> <p>All data and results from Wilcoxon rank sum testing can be found in the <code>wilcoxon-tests</code> folder of the extracted zip file <code>we1s_about_the_humanities.zip</code>. The Wilcoxon rank sum test identifies specific words that appear significantly more in one group of documents as compared to another, thus providing researchers with an understanding of what words are “distinctive” to each group. Further information on WE1S's use of Wilcoxon rank sum testing can be found at <a href="https://we1s.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/M-15-Wilcoxon-Test.pdf">https://we1s.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/M-15-Wilcoxon-Test.pdf</a>.</p> <p>Each subdirectory in the <code>wilcoxon-test</code> folder contains the data and results of a particular comparison experiment based on a metadata category such as whether the data contained articles published by public or private institutions. Each data file is a <code>.txt</code> file representing a sample of the overall data from the collection. The <code>README</code> file provides information on the collection used, the sample size, and the nature of the comparison. The results for the test are in a file called <code>results.csv</code>.</p> <p>The <code>results.csv</code> file for each test includes a row for each term included in the test. Each row displays the term, the term's raw count in each category compared (count 1 and count 2), the difference between the 2 counts (count 1 minus count 2), the percentage change in the counts, the Wilcoxon statistic, and the Wilcoxon p-value. Sorting the csv by the Wilcoxon stat from greatest to least will cause the terms most strongly associated with category 1 to come to the top (category 1 is the category listed first in the title field of the README.md file for each test), while sorting it by the Wilcoxon stat from least to greatest will cause the terms most strongly associated with category 2 to come to the top (category 2 is the category listed second). The p-value column provides you with information about how confident you can be about each comparison's significance.</p> <p><strong>Keyphrase Extraction</strong></p> <p>All data and results from Wilcoxon rank sum testing can be found in the <code>keyphrase-extraction</code> folder of the extracted zip file <code>we1s_about_the_humanities.zip</code>. Keyphrase extraction generates a list of the most significant words or phrases (1-6 words long) within individual documents. WE1S takes the top ten keyphrases in each document and ranks them according to their frequency across the collection. WE1S uses the SGRank algorithm for keyphrase extraction, and because this algorithm is computationally intensive, WE1S limits keyphrases to lemmatized nouns and proper nouns within a window of 70 words to either side of candidate keyphrases. Further information on WE1S's use of keyphrase extaction can be found at <a href="https://we1s.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/M-14-Keyphrase-Extraction.pdf">https://we1s.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/M-14-Keyphrase-Extraction.pdf</a>.</p> <p>Each subdirectory in the <code>keyphrase-extraction</code> folder contains the data and results of keyphrase extraction on a particular collection. Details of the collection and resulting files can be found in each subdirectory. Each list of keyphrases is in a file called <code>SGRank.csv</code>, which lists the keyphrases and their number of occurrences in the collection. The article additionally cites keyphrases that are shared with the terms in the public topic model produced by Andrew Goldstone and Ted Underwood, “The Quiet Transformations of Literary Studies: What Thirteen Thousand Scholars Could Tell Us,” <em>New Literary History</em> 45, no. 3 (2014): 359–84, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0025">https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0025</a>. The list of terms is derived from the public visualization at <a href="https://www.sas.rutgers.edu/virtual/ag978/quiet/#/words">https://www.sas.rutgers.edu/virtual/ag978/quiet/#/words</a>. Keyphrases extracted from WE1S data were split into single-word terms and compared with the list of vocabulary in Goldstone and Underwood's word list (<code>quiet_transformations_wordlist.txt</code>) to compile lists of shared vocabulary. These lists are given in files called <code>shared_terms.txt</code>.</p> <p>Note that keyphrases were extracted for corpora produced using the Python <a href="https://textacy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html">Textacy</a> library. Because these corpora contain the full text of articles with intellectual property restrictions they cannot be reproduced here.</p>
Impact of disease characteristics and knowledge on public risk perception of Zoonoses
<p>Zoonoses represent a global public health threat. Understanding lay perceptions of risk associated with these diseases can better inform proportionate policy interventions that mitigate their current and future impacts. While individual zoonoses (e.g. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) have received scientific and public attention, we know little about how multiple zoonotic diseases vary relative to each other in lay risk perceptions. To this end, we examined public perceptions of eleven zoonoses across twelve qualitative attributes of risk among the UK public (n = 727, volunteer sample), using an online survey. We found that attribute ratings were predominantly explained via two basic dimensions of risk related to public knowledge and dread. We also show that, despite participants reporting low familiarity with most of the diseases presented, zoonoses were perceived as essentially avoidable. These findings imply that infection is viewed as dependent upon actions under personal control which has significant implications for policy development.</p>
Survey results for: Public perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provided by beach nourishment and eelgrass restoration in southern Sweden
<p>Ecosystem-based protection is becoming a viable adaptation option to conventional engineered solutions to rising sea levels and coastal erosion. While the environmental and biological ecosystem services provided by ecosystem-based adaptation measures such as beach nourishment and/or seagrass plantations are being acknowledged and analysed, less attention has been paid to the social or cultural dimensions of these services. This paper builds upon the emerging body of research that explores cultural ecosystem services in coastal areas and how they are perceived by the people who live, work and recreate in these areas. The aim of the paper is to take stock of and understand public and stakeholder perceptions of the cultural ecosystem services that may accrue through eelgrass (<em>Zostera marina</em>) restoration in tandem with beach nourishment in Southern Sweden. The empirical research is based on an online open-ended questionnaire in the coastal municipalities of Båstad, Trelleborg, Ystad and Kristianstad. The results demonstrate that virtually all respondents had noticed a change in the coastline in recent years, mainly that the coastline had retreated. While beach nourishment measures were recognized among respondents to counter the shoreline erosion, there was very little understanding of the role that eelgrass plantations can play in creating biodiversity and benefits for society. Still, most acknowledged the importance of making room for water and biodiversity at the coast, stating how the coastline was valued for primarily health and spiritual reasons. This knowledge will help local, regional, and national decision-makers and regulatory authorities to make evidence-based choices for coastal protection, by complementing the analysis of environmental and physical ecosystem-services with cultural and socio-economic considerations. Nature-based solutions such as eelgrass reintroduction or beach nourishment should be tailored to the values, perspectives, and perceptions of the local communities to help ensure their continued contribution to biodiversity.</p>
Missing the (tipping) point: the effect of information about climate tipping points on public risk perceptions in Norway [Dataset]
<p>This is all the data used for the redaction of the research paper "Missing the (tipping) point: the effect of information about climate tipping points on public risk perceptions in Norway".</p> <p> </p> <p>The dataset is contained in Excel files (.xlsx) and code for statistical analysis can be found in R files (.R)</p>
Tourists' perceptions of water quality in Finland, dataset, related to article "Browning of Boreal Lakes: Do Public Perceptions and Governance Meet the Biological Foundations?"
<p>Tourists' perceptions of water quality in Finland, dataset, related to article "Browning of Boreal Lakes: Do Public Perceptions and Governance Meet the Biological Foundations?" by Albrecht et al. (2022).<br> <br> <strong>Article abstract:</strong><br> "Surface water browning, also known as brownification, is an acute environmental issue concerning inland waters. We adopt an interdisciplinary perspective and combine limnology, ecology, environmental law, tourism, and economics to build a theoretical framework to understand the consequences and management needs concerning water browning, generate a research agenda, and pinpoint acute research needs. Using a systematic review approach, we identify gaps of knowledge and address the impacts of browning on lake ecosystem functioning. To support the biological information, we present primary survey data to define the recreational use and public perception of waters in Finland. We identified an urgent need for the development of indicators of brownification beyond EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) to be able to balance the costs of browning with terrestrial activities that increase browning. Despite a considerable body of research already exists, there is still a need for better understanding of the biogeochemical processes related to browning to progress towards ecosystem-based management of inland waters. Public perception of the quality of waterbodies in Finland was largely in agreement with the proportion of waterbodies classified to meet the good or excellent ecological status, but recreational fishers may value different aspects of water quality compared to the classification based on WFD. Consequently, to build an interdisciplinary understanding of how browning affects boreal lakes and their uses, we suggest improvements for environmental regulation concerning the impact assessment of terrestrial land use activities and ecosystem-based management of inland waters."</p>
Deidentified public survey data for: Patterns and perceptions of nicotine use among U.S. adolescents and young adults receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder
<p>Nicotine use among U.S. youth is cause for concern, as previous studies have shown that nicotine use in adolescence increases the risk of developing substance use disorders later in life. This exploratory study aimed to understand patterns of nicotine use and perceptions of various nicotine products among adolescents and young adults (AYA) receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We administered an adapted version of the National Youth Tobacco Survey via REDCap to AYA (n=32) receiving outpatient care in the Medication-Assisted Treatment of Addiction at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. Thirty (97%) participants had tried a combustible cigarette and 27 (90%) had tried an electronic cigarette. By age 13, nineteen (61%) participants had tried combustible cigarettes and eight (25%) had tried opioids. Twenty-two (71%) participants reported smoking combustible cigarettes every day for the past 30 days, and 15 (48%) reported smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day on average. Only ten (32%) participants reported e-cigarette use in the last 30 days. Participants universally agreed that tobacco products are dangerous, and twenty (67%) current tobacco users reported that they planned to quit in the next year. Nicotine use patterns among AYA receiving MOUD differ from that previously shown in the general population, primarily by high prevalence of nicotine use in early adolescence and high current combustible cigarette use. Interventions such as universal screening for nicotine use before age 13 and tailored smoking cessation programs for AYA with OUD may help optimize care for these individuals.</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.