cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.17632/4wv9pff6b3.1
title: Local Seismic Cultural Noise data of National Capital Region, India

description: Local Seismic Noise waveforms recorded by the Seismic Sensing Nodes, developed by CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh, India), placed in five locations of NCR, India from Oct'14 - Feb'19 are collected. This database contains 38030 tri-axial seismic noise accelerograms and corresponding metadata. The metadata and raw waveform data are stored in a BSON formatted files titled header.bson and accelerogram.bson respectively.

Each accelerogram record contains header information regarding Peak Ground Acceleration ( tri-axial PGA) at the sensor site. Some of the local noise records also contain signals generated due to strong distant earthquakes or insignificant local tremors from nearby fault regions. These records are significantly less in number and recorded partially in separate event files. Hence, due to the unconfirmed nature of sources, these files are included in this local noise dataset.
DOI: 10.17632/vtb8ym2vgd.1
title: LINF_260014800

description: lmmlA | Polycystin cation channel
Leishmania infantum (strain JPCM5)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6476611
title: Examining the interaction between free-living bacteria and iron in the global ocean

description: The model outputs, relevant data, and MATLAB scripts to reproduce the figures shown in the manuscript "Examining the interaction between free-living bacteria and iron in the global ocean" by Anh Le-Duy Pham, Olivier Aumont, Lavenia Ratnarajah, and Alessandro Tagliabue. Please contact the corresponding author Anh Pham (anh.pham@locean-ipsl.upmc.fr or anhlpham78@ucla.edu) for any questions.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6476610
title: Examining the interaction between free-living bacteria and iron in the global ocean

description: The model outputs, relevant data, and MATLAB scripts to reproduce the figures shown in the manuscript "Examining the interaction between free-living bacteria and iron in the global ocean" by Anh Le-Duy Pham, Olivier Aumont, Lavenia Ratnarajah, and Alessandro Tagliabue. Please contact the corresponding author Anh Pham (anh.pham@locean-ipsl.upmc.fr or anhlpham78@ucla.edu) for any questions.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19636881
title: MinimalDataset_CWchord_Langenbucher.xlsx

description: This dataset us used for conversion of measured CW chord to angle alpha and vice versa
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19636881.v1
title: MinimalDataset_CWchord_Langenbucher.xlsx

description: This dataset us used for conversion of measured CW chord to angle alpha and vice versa
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19636755
title: Retrospective Dataset of MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) and MD Anderson Dysphagia Index (MDADI) Toxicity Outcomes for Patients Receiving Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery and/or [Chemo]Radiotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-Risk Oropharyngeal Cancer.

description: Fully anonymized data from 2 publications is presented: <br> 1-Hutcheson KA, Warneke CL, Yao CMKL, Zaveri J, Elgohari BE, Goepfert R, Hessel AC, Kupferman ME, Lai SY, Fuller CD, Gunn GB, Garden AS, Johnson F, Ferrarotto R, Lewin JS, Gross ND; MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Dysphagia After Primary Transoral Robotic Surgery With Neck Dissection vs Nonsurgical Therapy in Patients With Low- to Intermediate-Risk Oropharyngeal Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Nov 1;145(11):1053-1063. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.2725. PMID: 31556933; PMCID: PMC6763976. <br> 2-Hemmati M, Barbon C, Mohamed,ASR van Dijk LV, Moreno, AC Gross ND, Goepfort RP, Lai SY, Hutcheson KA, Schaefer A, Fuller CD, for the MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Optimized decision support for selection of transoral robotic surgery or (chemo)radiation: Quantified pre-therapy risk stratification for patient-reported and clinician-graded swallowing impairment and toxicity. medRxiv 2021.06.12.21258794; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.12.21258794 <br> Cohort Description from [1]: "This case series study was a secondary analysis of prospective registry data from 257 patients enrolled from March 1, 2015, to February 28, 2018, at a single academic institution who, according to the AJCC Staging Manual, 7th edition TNM classification, had low- to intermediate-risk human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma possibly resectable by trans-oral robotic surgety (TORS). Patients were stratified by primary treatment (75 underwent TORS and 182 received radiotherapy). Modified barium swallow (MBS) studies graded per Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck Module (MDASI-HN) questionnaires were administered at standard intervals." <br> The enclosed data sheets include anaonymized case data showing average MDASI and composite MDADI scores for baseline (pre-therapy), 3-6 month surveillance interval, and 18-24 months post-therapy; one sheet contains case-level data, while the other represents group summary data by therapy cohort by modality of therapy delivered ("CRT"= Definitive chemoradiotherapy; "RTonly"= Definitive radiotherapy; "TORS + CRT"= Priamry TORS followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy; "TORS+RT" =Priamry TORS followed by adjuvant radiotherapy; "TORSonly"= Definitive TORS. <br> Deatials on the scoring of the MDASI-HN are described herein: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.072 <br> Specifics of MDADI scoring are described in: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25778 and doi:10-1001/pubs.Arch Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.-ISSN-0886-4470-127-7-ooa00162. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19636755.v1
title: Retrospective Dataset of MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) and MD Anderson Dysphagia Index (MDADI) Toxicity Outcomes for Patients Receiving Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery and/or [Chemo]Radiotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-Risk Oropharyngeal Cancer.

description: Fully anonymized data from 2 publications is presented: <br> 1-Hutcheson KA, Warneke CL, Yao CMKL, Zaveri J, Elgohari BE, Goepfert R, Hessel AC, Kupferman ME, Lai SY, Fuller CD, Gunn GB, Garden AS, Johnson F, Ferrarotto R, Lewin JS, Gross ND; MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Dysphagia After Primary Transoral Robotic Surgery With Neck Dissection vs Nonsurgical Therapy in Patients With Low- to Intermediate-Risk Oropharyngeal Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Nov 1;145(11):1053-1063. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.2725. PMID: 31556933; PMCID: PMC6763976. <br> 2-Hemmati M, Barbon C, Mohamed,ASR van Dijk LV, Moreno, AC Gross ND, Goepfort RP, Lai SY, Hutcheson KA, Schaefer A, Fuller CD, for the MD Anderson Head and Neck Cancer Symptom Working Group. Optimized decision support for selection of transoral robotic surgery or (chemo)radiation: Quantified pre-therapy risk stratification for patient-reported and clinician-graded swallowing impairment and toxicity. medRxiv 2021.06.12.21258794; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.12.21258794 <br> Cohort Description from [1]: "This case series study was a secondary analysis of prospective registry data from 257 patients enrolled from March 1, 2015, to February 28, 2018, at a single academic institution who, according to the AJCC Staging Manual, 7th edition TNM classification, had low- to intermediate-risk human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma possibly resectable by trans-oral robotic surgety (TORS). Patients were stratified by primary treatment (75 underwent TORS and 182 received radiotherapy). Modified barium swallow (MBS) studies graded per Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck Module (MDASI-HN) questionnaires were administered at standard intervals." <br> The enclosed data sheets include anaonymized case data showing average MDASI and composite MDADI scores for baseline (pre-therapy), 3-6 month surveillance interval, and 18-24 months post-therapy; one sheet contains case-level data, while the other represents group summary data by therapy cohort by modality of therapy delivered ("CRT"= Definitive chemoradiotherapy; "RTonly"= Definitive radiotherapy; "TORS + CRT"= Priamry TORS followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy; "TORS+RT" =Priamry TORS followed by adjuvant radiotherapy; "TORSonly"= Definitive TORS. <br> Deatials on the scoring of the MDASI-HN are described herein: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.072 <br> Specifics of MDADI scoring are described in: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25778 and doi:10-1001/pubs.Arch Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.-ISSN-0886-4470-127-7-ooa00162. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>
DOI: 10.34740/kaggle/dsv/3510936
title: voice-spectrograms
DOI: 10.3886/icpsr24240.v1
title: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Hate Crime Data, 1993 [Record-Type Files]
title: Version 1

description: In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Batch Header File DS2: Incident Record File
description: Hate crime incidents reported by law enforcement agencies in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: state, county, jurisdiction
description: computer-assisted self interview (CASI); self-enumerated questionnaireThe original hierarchical file has been split into two files: a Batch Header File and an Incident Record File. The Batch Header File contains a record for each law enforcement agency whether or not they reported an incident. The Batch Header File variables are merged into the Incident Record File for those agencies that reported an incident.Each victim-type variable has been split into eight separate flag variables to record each victim type. Previously, the variables were eight-character strings that contained the first letter of each victim type in any order.
DOI: 10.3886/icpsr24260.v2
title: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, 1994-1995: [United States]
title: Version 2

description: These data provide information on the population and characteristics of public and private juvenile facilities in operation in the United States on February 15, 1995. Annual data for the 1994 calendar year are included as well. Questions designed to categorize each facility were asked of facility administrators concerning the number of adults held, the juvenile majority's custodial authority, reason for custody, and access to the community, as well as the facility's security arrangements, capacity, age, plans for renovation, type of administration, and setting. Extensive data on the total juvenile residential population of each facility were also gathered. The total population is broken down by admission type, legal status, type of offense, race, and age. The collection also contains information on the population's movement and average length of stay, as well as each facility's average daily population, personnel by race, number, and staff position, educational, treatment, and medical programs available, annual expenditures, court orders and consent decrees, and number of juvenile deaths that year.
description: Residential programs and group homes in operation on February 15, 1995, were included in the census if they housed three or more residents, if at least 50 percent of the residents were juveniles, and if accused or adjudicated delinquents and status offenders constituted at least 1 percent of their average daily population. In California, however, all California Youth Authority Facilities were included in the census. Juvenile facilities operated as part of adult jails were excluded, as were nonresidential facilities, facilities exclusively for drug or alcohol abusers or nonoffenders, and federal juvenile correctional facilities.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Public Facilities Data DS2: Private Facilities Data
description: Public and private juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities in operation in the United States on February 15, 1995. Smallest Geographic Unit: state
description: self-enumerated questionnaire
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19638516
title: FER-2013-Dataset-With-Face-Masks-main.zip

description: Dataset for convolutional neural network
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6478383
title: maxATAC Blacklist Resources

description: This data upload contains the hg38 resources uses to make the maxATAC blacklist. <strong>Files Included:</strong> hg38_maxatac_blacklist.bed: V1 maxATAC blacklist hg38-blacklist.v2.bed: V2 blacklist from ENCODE project + Boyle lab hg38_gaps.bed: UCSC table browser list of annotated gaps hg38_centromeres.bed: UCSC table browser list of annotated centromeres hg38_segmental_dups_chrM.bed: UCSC table browser list of segmental duplications that are specific to chrM <em><strong>hg38_maxatac_blacklist_V2.bed: V2 maxATAC blacklist</strong></em>
description: 3433 Orchard Court
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc29dz7y
title: CCDC 2127630: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Huijun Li, Yanan Wang, Zhouqing Xu|2022|Dalton Trans.|51|6332|doi:10.1039/D2DT00264G
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc29gt3q
title: CCDC 2129393: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Sayeed Ahmed, Akhilesh Kumar, Narottam Mukhopadhyay, Francesc Lloret, Rabindranath Mukherjee|2022|New J.Chem.|46|7711|doi:10.1039/D2NJ00126H
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc29jgw6
title: CCDC 2130998: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Yi-Rong Li, Yun-Fang Zhang, Yuan-Yuan Tang, Han-Yue Zhang|2022|Chem.Commun.|58|5148|doi:10.1039/D2CC00818A
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc29jgx7
title: CCDC 2130999: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Yi-Rong Li, Yun-Fang Zhang, Yuan-Yuan Tang, Han-Yue Zhang|2022|Chem.Commun.|58|5148|doi:10.1039/D2CC00818A
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2b8ytd
title: CCDC 2153564: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Ebru Keskin, Ummuhan Solmaz, Ilkay Gumus, Hakan Arslan|2022|Polyhedron|219|115786|doi:10.1016/j.poly.2022.115786
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2b9ddg
title: CCDC 2153985: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Karolina Gutmańska, Anna Ciborska, Zbigniew Hnatejko, Anna Dołęga|2022|Polyhedron|220|115831|doi:10.1016/j.poly.2022.115831
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2bf5nm
title: CCDC 2157620: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Yuhan Yuan, Chuanlin Shi, Xiaoyun Wu, Wenlong Li, Chunxia Huang, Lijun Liang, Jing Chen, Yi Wang, Yunjun Liu|2022|J.Inorg.Biochem.|232|111820|doi:10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2022.111820
DOI: 10.3886/icpsr24386.v1
title: Correlates of War Project: Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Data, 1816-2001
title: Version 1

description: The Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) (v3.10) data, compiled by the Correlates of War Project, provides information about conflicts in which one or more states threaten, display, or use force against one or more other states between 1816 and 2001. Five datasets are included with this collection. The first dataset comprises essential attributes of each militarized interstate dispute from January 1, 1816, through December 31, 2001, while the second dataset includes participants in each of these disputes. The third dataset comprises essential elements of each militarized interstate incident from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 2001, including incidents that belong to disputes that began in 1992 and continued into 1993, while the fourth dataset includes participants in each of these incidents. The fifth dataset contains dyadic militarized interstate disputes, of which each dyadic MID has exactly two states involved, on opposite sides of the MID. Generated from the incident-level data, these data are from the years 1993 through 2001, and additionally are provided for MIDs that were ongoing as of December 31, 1992.
description: inap.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: MIDA: Essential Attributes of Each Militarized Interstate Dispute (Version 3.10) DS2: MIDB: Participants in Each of the Disputes in MIDA (Version 3.10) DS3: MID-I: Essential Elements of Each Militarized Interstate Incident (Version 3.10) DS4: MID-IP: Participants in Each of the Incidents in MID-I (Version 3.10) DS5: Dyadic Militarized Interstate Dispute Data (Version 3.10)
description: One or more independent sovereign states which threaten, display, or use force against one or more other independent sovereign states between 1816 and 2001. Smallest Geographic Unit: independent sovereign state
description: Please anticipate that this collection will be updated in the future, as changes and corrections are made to the existing data and additional data are added.Additional details about the Correlates of War Project can be found at the Correlates of War Web Site.
DOI: 10.23641/asha.19617564.v1
title: Effect of anchor terms on perceptions of gender (Houle et al., 2022)

description: <strong>Background: </strong>Studies investigating auditory perception of gender expression vary greatly in the specific terms applied to gender expression in rating scales. <strong>Purpose: </strong>This study examined the effects of different anchor terms on listeners’ auditory perceptions of gender expression in phonated and whispered speech. Additionally, token and speaker cues were examined to identify predictors of the auditory-perceptual ratings. <strong>Method: </strong>Inexperienced listeners (<em>n</em> = 105) completed an online rating study in which they were asked to use one of five visual analog scales (VASs) to rate cis men, cis women, and transfeminine speakers in both phonated and whispered speech. The VASs varied by anchor term (<em>very female/very male, feminine/masculine, feminine female/masculine male, very feminine/not at all feminine, </em>and <em>not at all masculine/very masculine</em>). <strong>Results: </strong>Linear mixed-effects models revealed significant two-way interactions of gender expression by anchor term and gender expression by condition. In general, the <em>feminine female/masculine male</em> scale resulted in the most extreme ratings (closest to the end points), and the <em>feminine/masculine</em> scale resulted in the most central ratings. As expected, for all speakers, whispered speech was rated more centrally than phonated speech. Additionally, ratings of phonated speech were predicted by mean fundamental frequency (<em>f</em><sub>o</sub>) within each speaker group and by smoothed cepstral peak prominence in cisgender speakers. In contrast, ratings of whispered speech, which lacks an <em>f</em><sub>o</sub>, were predicted by indicators of vocal tract resonance (second formant and speaker height). <strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current results indicate that differences in the terms applied to rating scales limit generalization of results across studies. Identifying the patterns across listener ratings of gender expression provide a rationale for researchers and clinicians when making choices about terms. Additionally, beyond <em>f</em><sub>o</sub> and vocal tract resonance, predictors of listener ratings vary based on the anchor terms used to describe gender expression. <br> <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Gender and femininity/masculinity rating scales types by study. <br> <strong>Supplemental Material S2. </strong>Full model outputs. <br> Houle, B., Goudelias, D., Lerario, M. P., & Levi, S. V. (2022). Effect of anchor term on auditory-perceptual ratings of feminine and masculine speakers.<em> Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research</em>. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00476
DOI: 10.23641/asha.19617564
title: Effect of anchor terms on perceptions of gender (Houle et al., 2022)

description: <strong>Background: </strong>Studies investigating auditory perception of gender expression vary greatly in the specific terms applied to gender expression in rating scales. <strong>Purpose: </strong>This study examined the effects of different anchor terms on listeners’ auditory perceptions of gender expression in phonated and whispered speech. Additionally, token and speaker cues were examined to identify predictors of the auditory-perceptual ratings. <strong>Method: </strong>Inexperienced listeners (<em>n</em> = 105) completed an online rating study in which they were asked to use one of five visual analog scales (VASs) to rate cis men, cis women, and transfeminine speakers in both phonated and whispered speech. The VASs varied by anchor term (<em>very female/very male, feminine/masculine, feminine female/masculine male, very feminine/not at all feminine, </em>and <em>not at all masculine/very masculine</em>). <strong>Results: </strong>Linear mixed-effects models revealed significant two-way interactions of gender expression by anchor term and gender expression by condition. In general, the <em>feminine female/masculine male</em> scale resulted in the most extreme ratings (closest to the end points), and the <em>feminine/masculine</em> scale resulted in the most central ratings. As expected, for all speakers, whispered speech was rated more centrally than phonated speech. Additionally, ratings of phonated speech were predicted by mean fundamental frequency (<em>f</em><sub>o</sub>) within each speaker group and by smoothed cepstral peak prominence in cisgender speakers. In contrast, ratings of whispered speech, which lacks an <em>f</em><sub>o</sub>, were predicted by indicators of vocal tract resonance (second formant and speaker height). <strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current results indicate that differences in the terms applied to rating scales limit generalization of results across studies. Identifying the patterns across listener ratings of gender expression provide a rationale for researchers and clinicians when making choices about terms. Additionally, beyond <em>f</em><sub>o</sub> and vocal tract resonance, predictors of listener ratings vary based on the anchor terms used to describe gender expression. <br> <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Gender and femininity/masculinity rating scales types by study. <br> <strong>Supplemental Material S2. </strong>Full model outputs. <br> Houle, B., Goudelias, D., Lerario, M. P., & Levi, S. V. (2022). Effect of anchor term on auditory-perceptual ratings of feminine and masculine speakers.<em> Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research</em>. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00476
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6478393
title: Examples for submission to CONCUR'22

description: These are the examples we discussed in our submission "Regular Model Checking Upside-Down: An Invariant-Based Approach" to CONCUR'22.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19638588
title: Codebook.pdf

description: <strong>Codebook to students’ responses to the open-ended questions </strong> <br>