dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
the Foundation of Technology, Innovation, and Research Thuringia (STIFT), and the German Sepsis Society. JKR and CSH receive CSCC research grants. DS is funded in full by the Center for Sepsis Control and Care (CSCC). The CSCC is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany, FKZ: 01EO1002. References 1. Seymour CW, Rea TD, Kahn JM, Walkey AJ, Yealy DM, Angus DC: Severe sepsis in pre-hospital emergency care: analysis of incidence, care, and outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012, 186:1264-1271. 2. Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L: Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions. QJM 2001, 94:521-526. January 2011 to December 2013, before and after SC implementation. (Analysis by STATA. ) All urgent admissions recorded in the minimum basic data set in patients over 14 years from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013 were included.
The authors are grateful to R Flavell (Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, USA) and A Zychlinsky (Max Planck Institute, Berlin, Germany) for respectively the CASP1 knockout mice and the IL-1β/IL-18 double knockout mice. They thank B Lambrecht for fruitful discussions. TVB holds a postdoctoral fellowship from the FWO, PB is paid by VIB. Research in the Vandenabeele group is funded by European grants (FP6 ApopTrain, MRTN-CT-035624; FP7 EC RTD Integrated Project, Apo-Sys, FP7-200767; Euregional PACT II), Belgian grants (Interuniversity Attraction Poles, IAP 7/32), Flemish grants (Research Foundation Flanders, FWO G. 0875. 11, FWO G. 0973. 11 and FWO G. 0A45. 12N, FWO G. 0787. 13N, Methusalem), Ghent University grants (MRP, GROUP-ID consortium), a grant from the Foundation against Cancer, F94 and grants from Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB).
In order to detect barriers to opening up public data, we start in section 2 with a state of play of the main existing initiatives within different sectors. Next to Public Sector Information (PSI) and Open Government Data (OGD) in general, we discuss geographic data, cultural heritage, and scientific research. These sectors were chosen because the variety of nature of the content, the absence of obvious legal barriers to disclosure of the data such as trade secret or confidentiality, and the existence of large initiatives for making public data available. While there are other sectors such as crime data, legal data or business data, the types of data that have been included already give us a broad spectrum of issues that can be transposed to many other sectors. After that, we address in section 3 the legal, cultural and institutional barriers, and group them into general categories.
Public Sector Information The European Commission has a long history of efforts in opening up data to the public. Most of these efforts have concentrated on the availability of public sector data as a resource for the information industry. Since 1989, the Commission had been paving the road towards the adoption of the 2003 Directive on the re-use of public sector information (PSI directive)  [2] ,  [27]. This directive established a minimum set of rules that governs the re-use and the practical means of facilitating the re-use of documents held by public bodies of the Member States of the European Union (Article 1 of the PSI directive). Its objective is twofold: on the one hand, it proposes measures to facilitate the obtaining of PSI (e. g. regarding formats, time limits for responding to applications, transparency measures); on the other hand it wants to ensure a level playing field between the PSI users and holders.
While the PSI directive encouraged the availability of PSI for re-use, it did not oblige the Member States and the public sector bodies to make their data available, so it did not establish an actual right to re-use public sector documents. It also allowed the imposing of conditions and charges (within certain limits) on the re-use of data, so the data are not open under the terms defined in this paper, i. e. requiring accessibility and reusability. In many of the Member States the PSI directive did not have a large impact, but some Member States actively tried to promote the re-use of PSI and dedicated time and resources to developing a policy, platform and culture that actively encouraged re-use, for example the United Kingdom (Site 2), the Netherlands (Site 3), and France (Site 4). Yet, the full potential of PSI still remains untapped.
Open Government Data While the regulations and policy documents on PSI show a top-down approach to the opening up of public sector data, at the same time a more collaborative approach has emerged, focusing on open government data (OGD). It is not based on the economic potential of data held by the public sector, but rather on government accountability, transparency and public participation. It is supported by civil society advocates for freedom of information and fundamental rights. The proponents of open government data demand for data that can be used for any purpose without any restriction (other than Share Alike copyleft-like licensing conditions) and under a maximum charge of the cost of dissemination. OGD has been taken up as a policy objective by a number of European countries. The most important example is the United Kingdom, where then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, advised by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, decided to start a process for opening up public sector data to the public for any use.
In January 2010, the web portal data. gov. uk was launched (Site 5) and in 2012, a right to data was included in the Freedom of Information Act to emphasise that data sets requested under the Act should be provided in a machine-readable format enabling reuse  [47]. Also in 2012, the Open Data Institute was founded, an independent non-profit institute promoting research and good practice in open data (Site 28). Other EU countries are also embracing OGD. Since March 2010, the Dutch central government has adopted a policy to make its data available via the central portal (Site 6) under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) public domain dedication, signalling that data can be used for any purpose without restrictions (Site 4). In France, the Prime Minister launched in December 2011 the data portal (Site 7), which was expected to enable the dissemination of as much data as possible, under easy and open conditions and free of charge  [31].
Geographic and Environmental Data Geographic and environmental data are a particularly valuable category of PSI. On the level of the European Union, several policy initiatives can be mentioned. First, the 2003 directive on access to environmental information holds a right for citizens to request environmental information from public authorities and obligations for public bodies to actively disseminate information and create electronic databases holding environmental information  [26]. This directive is based on the 1998 Convention on access to information, public participation to decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, generally referred to as the Aarhus Convention  [48]. Next, the 2007 Directive establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE)  [28]  aims to enable the exchange of geographic data between public authorities for performing their public tasks relating to the environment and to give the public access to view and download services for geographic data.
Cultural Data Cultural data encounters public domain works and the metadata describing these works. Public domain works are being made available online to the public in the form of digital reproductions databases curated in databases at transnational level (such as the Europeana project (Site 15), national level or on websites of cultural heritage institutions themselves. Mere digitalization does not create copyright, but the absence of a binding framework for cultural data leaves Member States and cultural heritage institutions alone to implement platforms policies or working contracts. There is no mandate to distribute public domain cultural data as open data. The EC issued in 2006 a recommendation on digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material  [11]  asking national legislation to identify barriers to the use of works which are in the public domain, for example administrative acts required for each reproduction.
Obstacles to Opening Data Even though the momentum for opening up government data has been growing considerably and continuously in the last few years, many barriers still remain and a large part of the potential of public sector data still remains unfulfilled. In this section, we discuss the main common issues and barriers that need to be tackled to develop a true open data ecosystem in the European Union. These issues and barriers do not only relate to legal conflicts, but also to the political and institutional landscape and other cultural factors. They have been identified by literature research, discussions with PSI officers and participation to the LAPSI network. Obstacles discussed include overlapping regulations  (3. 1) , the relationship between open data and privacy (3. 2), the applicability of copyright and database rights, licensing incompatibilities (3.
Copyright and Licensing Many of these obstacles seem to be based on a sense of ownership by the public bodies over their data. Similarly to privacy, governments can choose as an excuse to make full use of the prerogatives offered by copyright and database rights, allowing them to control any usage and modification of their work. The copyrighted status of PSI work constitutes a barrier to the clearing of rights, therefore to access and reuse. The copyright legal framework grants to the creator of works the exclusive right to control the reproduction and the modification of works. In addition to copyright law, the access and reuse of data can be governed by database law granting producers the exclusive right to control extraction and re-utilization of the whole or a substantial part of the data  [24] , which encompasses the state and public institutions gathering information they produce, collect and/or curate on a website portal.
The conditions of use of the data can be determined either by the database terms of use or by copyright law, but also by the provisions governing the contracts of the civil servants, private employees or external contractors working for the public, government, geographic, environment, cultural or research institutions and drafting the metadata, which creates complexity and doubt at the institutions level in the absence of unified guidelines. It is not clear whether the state as an administrative entity is the right holder and has the rights to decide of the dissemination policy and apply an open license to its data in order to not exercise fully copyright prerogatives. Copyright as embedded in labour law and public market regulation lacks clarity, preventing the state to decide on its distribution policy when it does not own the content he ordered and funded.
Exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights could provide a breathing space for access to PSI and reuse. But these exceptions are not operationally broad in the digital environment. Many Member States did not implement in their national transposition of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) [25] workable exceptions for education, science, libraries and museums. Such exceptions were optional and an absence thereof lead to the impossibility for schools to display PSI material in educational material or national libraries to archive copyrighted works. Besides, these exceptions target categories of users, while open data means accessibility and reusability for all. Copyright and database law are completed by private regulation and contract law to define websites terms of use and reuse.
States and public institutions are using a variety of licenses on their platforms, from restrictive terms of use to open licenses. Restrictive terms of use will for instance reserve commercial rights, or allow only personal use. They all aim at making data as broadly available as possible, but nevertheless may contain hidden or visible legal restrictions to reuse, be incompatible among each other or contain legal internal incompatibilities  [8] ,  [39] ,  [41]. Attempts are being led to reach compatibility by inserting compatibility clauses within the text of the licenses, accepting that derivative works and datasets may be re-licensed not only under the same license, but also under.
Competition Besides legal obstacles to opening data, cultural and institutional reasons observed in the course of the LAPSI European Network are slowing down the process. On the one hand, open data can be seen as an unfair competitor for private providers and on the other hand, the public sector may consider commercial reuse of open data an unfair appropriation of the common good. Interestingly enough, OGD may be felt as an attack to private sector business model and a possible distortion of competition. Large companies have started to build up their own databases, either because they could not get access to comparable public sector data or because these data were not suitable for their purposes. Examples of this are road databases created by companies such as Teleatlas (now TomTom) and Navteq (now Nokia).
These companies have made very large investments in their databases, and would understandably be unhappy if comparable government road databases would be made openly available for any use, including use by possible new competitors and business clients. This discussion was held in the Netherlands when the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Rijkswaterstaat) intended to make its road database freely available for re-use, including for commercial purposes. This was highly contested by some private sector mapping companies, who considered this unfair competition by the government  [33]. Comparable discussions could also arise with regard to e. g. company registers, address data, and other large databases for which private sector alternatives have been developed over the years. For such databases, conflicts may arise between the interests of potential new users of openly available government data and existing private sector market players.
In order to mitigate the concerns of the public bodies, the UK Open Government Licence for instance requires that the re-user does not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source [45] and the French government license states that The re-use shall not mislead third parties or misrepresent the content of the Information, its source and its time of last update (Site 24). French standard licences of the Agency for the State's Intellectual Property (APIE) forbid any modification or alteration, leaving it unclear whether they mean actual legitimate use such as abridgement, translation, visualization or the mash-up of datasets, or whether they are only referring to a restriction on tampering with the raw data  [3]. Whether or not such provisions are legally required in a government licence is debatable.
It is a general legal obligation of all citizens to refrain from such illegitimate use, whether or not this is made explicit in a licence. Yet, their inclusion seems to make public bodies more comfortable with opening up their data to the public. However, a recent study in the Netherlands has shown that the fear of public bodies for possible liability claims is unrealistically high and that the liability risks are fairly small and can be limited to a great extent by clear guidelines and implementation measures  [6]. Then, we observed that the lack of clarity in the legal framework and internal conflicts were the two reasons posing practical limitations to the actions of Public Sector Bodies. Overlapping regulations have been identified between PSI and OGD legislations, which have different scope and requirements.
Implementation Guidelines While many of the barriers that were described above have some roots in the lack of legal framework, a large part of them will already be eliminated or considerably reduced by increasing the awareness of public bodies, policy makers and users of the potential of open data and educating them on the actual risks of open data rather than the perceived ones. The lack of willingness can often also be caused by a lack of resources. Many public bodies, particularly those for whom the creation of data is not their core business but only a side-product of their other activities, simply do not have the human, technical or financial resources to dedicate the necessary attention to opening up their data and adding metadata. It is crucial that public sector bodies in charge of developing datasets are not left alone with the mission of opening them.
Many public bodies for which the production and delivery of data is not a prime activity are not equipped to deal with the conflicts mentioned above and are dependent on guidance and support from the higher administrative level in order to determine their policy for disseminating public sector data. Besides, some Member States were satisfied with just transposing the directive into law without complementing it with an implementation policy or practical measures to aid the public bodies in adjusting -or even designing -their data policies. This has limited the actual impact of the PSI directive to a considerable extent  [35]. Technical implementation guidelines should target at least two levels: the format allowing reuse, and the ability for datasets to be located by search engines in a distributed manner with ad hoc metadata and/or through the development and the provision of national repertoires to host the data of institutions which cannot develop their own platform.
First, institutions may release their data, but in a format that does not allow to its fullest extent access and reuse. Open data should be reusable and therefore made available in an open format which can be processed by any application and software, in order to deliver adaptable data, not inert data  [50]. In February 2013, 25% and 84% of data were delivered in a proprietary, closed format on the UK data•gov•uk and French data•gouv•fr portals (Site 25). The June 2013 PSI directive requests data to be made available in open and machine readable format. Data should be modifiable, not only to make derivatives, but also to be transferred to other media, formats, visualisation tools or platforms. Technology can create barriers in the same way that royalty fees and rights clearance are restricting the availability of data to be effectively searched and processed by any data mining or aggregating programme.
Technical barriers include protection measures that prevent to copy the file or download the dataset in its entirety, compulsory registration or design features that make search and automatic processing more difficult  [8]. The absence of indexing or the lack of metadata describing the data will also make the data cognitively difficult to interpret and reuse. But as many public bodies will not be ready for this, it should currently be a priority for central government to encourage the availability of public sector data in whatever format there is, and focus on getting the data out there, rather than imposing technical demands that would delay the availability of the data (such as is arguably the case in INSPIRE), but be compliant with open data principles in terms of open format. The lack of resources to develop technical solutions to distribute data in open format with semantic and legal metadata can be overcome by raising awareness on existing solutions.
An incentive or a mandate from central government will often be needed for the public bodies to invest resources in their metadata. For instance, a strong incentive was given by the INSPIRE directive, which imposes obligations on the Member States and public bodies to create metadata for all the geographic data under the directive  [28]. Simplicity of expression of the use conditions is vital. While in an ideal world with a common framework as suggested below, the conditions of use for datasets from different public sector data providers across countries would be harmonised, this may currently still be unfeasible, due to the differences in business models and national legal frameworks governing these data providers. Therefore, the focus should be on meeting the user's need for simplicity. Only when such simplicity is fully achieved for all public sector data providers, a truly useful harmonisation process can be started.
The purpose is to include in a single document conditions related to the waiving of copyright and database right allowing the broadest extend of accessibility and reusability such as a CC0. It should also address the branches of law which have been left out of the scope of the PSI Directive and most existing open licenses, therefore opening up to potential conflicts of laws, fear for the data provider to be held accountable and uncertainty for the data reuser. With regard to competition issues, clear guidelines should be made for public bodies to determine which are their core tasks and a decision tool to determine whether they should undertake a particular commercial activity or not and under which circumstances they may have an effect on the market. Liability and tort law are the elephant in the room of open licenses as most of them organize a full disclaimer of liability for the data provider  [10].
Scientific data gather publications and underlying data (text, images, software, metadata, audiovisual recordings, databases, data, which may include copyrighted and personal information). The online availability of publications started by the grassroots movement of Open Access to scientific publications led by academics and librarians supported by non-profits and public research institutions [44]  (site 19), either by uploading articles in institutional repositories (green road) or by publishing in an Open Access journal (golden road). In 2006, an EC Study recommended "Research funding agencies (. ) should [e]stablish a European policy mandating published articles arising from EC-funded research to be available after a given time period in open access archives. " [7]. Since then, the EC led numerous consultations and studies on the topic (Site 20), and since 2008 runs a pilot under the Seventh Research Framework Programme grant program, mandating publications to be deposited in an open archive with an embargo of maximum six months[42].
Panning of GFPDLs As the HBoV1, 2 and 3 are the major HBoV species detected in humans, we screened the epitopes in VP2 by GFPDLs using the full-length VP2 genes of HBoV1, 2 and 3 (GenBank accession numbers: JQ240469, JQ240470 and HM132056, respectively)  [10]. The gIIIp display-based phage vector pCom3XV (a gift from Dr. Yuxian He at MOH Key Laboratory of Systems Biology of Pathogens, IPB, CAMS) was used to express the desired polypeptide as a gIIIp fusion protein. The library affinity selection was performed as previously described using mouse antisera against VP2 proteins of HBoV1, 2 and 3, and human polyclonal sera  [19]. For GFPDL panning using mouse and human antisera, equal volumes of sera collected from five mice or five humans were pooled.
Peptides and conjugates The immunodominant peptides -P1 ( 1 MSDTDIQDQQPDTVDAPQNT 20 ), and P2 ( 162 EHAYP-NASHPWDEDVMPDL 180 ), corresponding to the VP2 protein of HBoV1 strain 111-BJ07 (GenBank accession number JQ240469), were selected for immunization experiments (Table  1 ). To improve their immunogenicity, these peptides were synthesized and conjugated to KLH (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). To  fine tune the epitope map of antibody binding sites on P1 and P2 peptides, a series of short peptides (unconjugated) homologous to the P1 and P2 peptides were synthesized by Sangon Biotech (Shanghai, China). Each peptide was purified to achieve a purity of $95% by high performance liquid chromatography. Each peptide was then verified by mass spectrometry.