Dataset Search Results

This dataset is derived from the raw dataset (https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-4163883_V1) and collects entity mentions that were manually determined to be noisy, non-chemical entities.

These data and code enable replication of the findings and robustness checks in "No buzz for bees: Media coverage of pollinator decline," published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2020)". In this paper, we find that although widespread declines in insect biomass and diversity are increasing concern within the scientific community, it remains unclear whether attention to pollinator declines has also increased within information sources serving the general public. Examining patterns of journalistic attention to the pollinator population crisis can also inform efforts to raise awareness about the importance of declines of insect species providing ecosystem services beyond pollination. We used the Global News Index developed by the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to track news attention to pollinator topics in nearly 25 million news items published by two American national newspapers and four international wire services over the past four decades. We provide a link to documentation of the Global News Index in the "relationships with articles, code, o. We found vanishingly low levels of attention to pollinator population topics relative to coverage of climate change, which we use as a comparison topic. In the most recent subset of ~10 million stories published from 2007 to 2019, 1.39% (137,086 stories) refer to climate change/global warming, while only 0.02% (1,780) refer to pollinator populations in all contexts and just 0.007% (679) refer to pollinator declines. Substantial increases in news attention were detectable only in U.S. national newspapers. We also find that while climate change stories appear primarily in newspaper “front sections”, pollinator population stories remain largely marginalized in “science” and “back section” reports. At the same time, news reports about pollinator populations increasingly link the issue to climate change, which might ultimately help raise public awareness to effect needed policy changes.

This dataset was developed as part of a study that assessed data reuse. Through bibliometric analysis, corresponding authors of highly cited papers published in 2015 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in nine STEM disciplines were identified and then surveyed to determine if data were generated for their article and their knowledge of reuse by other researchers. Second, the corresponding authors who cited those 2015 articles were identified and surveyed to ascertain whether they reused data from the original article and how that data was obtained. The project goal was to better understand data reuse in practice and to explore if research data from an initial publication was reused in subsequent publications.

The dataset is based on a snapshot of PubMed taken in December 2018 (NLMs baseline 2018 plus updates throughout 2018), and for ORCIDs, primarily, the 2019 ORCID Public Data File https://orcid.org/. Matching an ORCID to an individual author name on a PMID is a non-trivial process. Anyone can create an ORCID and claim to have contributed to any published work. Many records claim too many articles and most claim too few. Even though ORCID records are (most?) often populated by author name searches in popular bibliographic databases, there is no confirmation that the person's name is listed on the article. This dataset is the product of mapping ORCIDs to individual author names on PMIDs, even when the ORCID name does not match any author name on the PMID, and when there are multiple (good) candidate author names. The algorithm avoids assigning the ORCID to an article when there are no good candidates and when there are multiple equally good matches. For some ORCIDs that clearly claim too much, it triggers a very strict matching procedure (for ORCIDs that claim too much but the majority appear correct, e.g., 0000-0002-2788-5457), and sometimes deletes ORCIDs altogether when all (or nearly all) of its claimed PMIDs appear incorrect. When an individual clearly has multiple ORCIDs it deletes the least complete of them (e.g., 0000-0002-1651-2428 vs 0000-0001-6258-4628). It should be noted that the ORCIDs that claim to much are not necessarily due nefarious or trolling intentions, even though a few appear so. Certainly many are are due to laziness, such as claiming everything with a particular last name. Some cases appear to be due to test engineers (e.g., 0000-0001-7243-8157; 0000-0002-1595-6203), or librarians assisting faculty (e.g., ; 0000-0003-3289-5681), or group/laboratory IDs (0000-0003-4234-1746), or having contributed to an article in capacities other than authorship such as an Investigator, an Editor, or part of a Collective (e.g., 0000-0003-2125-4256 as part of the FlyBase Consortium on PMID 22127867), or as a "Reply To" in which case the identity of the article and authors might be conflated. The NLM has, in the past, limited the total number of authors indexed too. The dataset certainly has errors but I have taken great care to fix some glaring ones (individuals who claim to much), while still capturing authors who have published under multiple names and not explicitly listed them in their ORCID profile. The final dataset provides a "matchscore" that could be used for further clean-up. Four files: person.tsv: 7,194,692 rows, including header 1. orcid 2. lastname 3. firstname 4. creditname 5. othernames 6. otherids 7. emails employment.tsv: 2,884,981 rows, including header 1. orcid 2. putcode 3. role 4. start-date 5. end-date 6. id 7. source 8. dept 9. name 10. city 11. region 12 country 13. affiliation education.tsv: 3,202,253 rows, including header 1. orcid 2. putcode 3. role 4. start-date 5. end-date 6. id 7. source 8. dept 9. name 10. city 11. region 12 country 13. affiliation pubmed2orcid.tsv: 13,133,065 rows, including header 1. PMID 2. au_order (author name position on the article) 3. orcid 4. matchscore (see below) 5. source: orcid (2019 ORCID Public Data File https://orcid.org/), pubmed (NLMs distributed XML files), or patci (an earlier version of ORCID with citations processed through the Patci tool) 12,037,375 from orcid; 1,06,5892 from PubMed XML; 29,797 from Patci matchscore: 000: lastname, firstname and middle init match (e.g., Eric T MacKenzie vs 00: lastname, firstname match (e.g., Keith Ward) 0: lastname, firstname reversed match (e.g., Conde Santiago vs Santiago Conde) 1: lastname, first and middle init match (e.g., L. F. Panchenko) 11: lastname and partial firstname match (e.g., Mike Boland vs Michael Boland or Mel Ziman vs Melanie Ziman) 12: lastname and first init match 15: 3 part lastname and firstname match (David Grahame Hardie vs D Grahame Hardie) 2: lastname match and multipart firstname initial match Maria Dolores Suarez Ortega vs M. D. Suarez 22: partial lastname match and firstname match (e.g., Erika Friedmann vs Erika Friedman) 23: e.g., Antonio Garcia Garcia vs A G Garcia 25: Allan Downie vs J A Downie 26: Oliver Racz vs Oliver Bacz 27: Rita Ostrovskaya vs R U Ostrovskaia 29: Andrew Staehelin vs L A Staehlin 3: M Tronko vs N D Tron'ko 4: Sharon Dent (Also known as Sharon Y.R. Dent; Sharon Y Roth; Sharon Yoder) vs Sharon Yoder 45: Okulov Aleksei vs A B Okulov 48: Maria Del Rosario Garcia De Vicuna Pinedo vs R Garcia-Vicuna 49: Anatoliy Ivashchenko vs A Ivashenko 5 = lastname match only (weak match but sometimes captures alternative first name for better subsequent matches); e.g., Bill Hieb vs W F Hieb 6 = first name match only (weak match but sometimes captures alternative first name for better subsequent matches); e.g., Maria Borawska vs Maria Koscielak 7 = last or first name match on "other names"; e.g., Hromokovska Tetiana (Also known as Gromokovskaia, T. S., Громоковська Тетяна) vs T Gromokovskaia 77: Siva Subramanian vs Kolinjavadi N. Sivasubramanian 88 = no name in orcid but match caught by uniqueness of name across paper (at least 90% and 2 more than next most common name) prefix: C = ambiguity reduced (possibly eliminated) using city match (e.g., H Yang on PMID 24972200) I = ambiguity eliminated by excluding investigators (ie.., one author and one or more investigators with that name) T = ambiguity eliminated using PubMed pos (T for tie-breaker) W = ambiguity resolved by authority2018

This dataset contains data used in publication "Institutional Data Repository Development, a Moving Target" submitted to Code4Lib Journal. It is a tabular data file describing attributes of data files in datasets published in Illinois Data Bank 2016-04-01 to 2021-04-01.

This dataset contains data from extreme-disagreement analysis described in paper “Aaron M. Cohen, Jodi Schneider, Yuanxi Fu, Marian S. McDonagh, Prerna Das, Arthur W. Holt, Neil R. Smalheiser, 2021, Fifty Ways to Tag your Pubtypes: Multi-Tagger, a Set of Probabilistic Publication Type and Study Design Taggers to Support Biomedical Indexing and Evidence-Based Medicine.” In this analysis, our team experts carried out an independent formal review and consensus process for extreme disagreements between MEDLINE indexing and model predictive scores. “Extreme disagreements” included two situations: (1) an abstract was MEDLINE indexed as a publication type but received low scores for this publication type, and (2) an abstract received high scores for a publication type but lacked the corresponding MEDLINE index term. “High predictive score” is defined as the top 100 high-scoring, and “low predictive score” is defined as the bottom 100 low-scoring. Three publication types were analyzed, which are CASE_CONTROL_STUDY, COHORT_STUDY, and CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY. Results were recorded in three Excel workbooks, named after the publication types: case_control_study.xlsx, cohort_study.xlsx, and cross_sectional_study.xlsx. The analysis shows that, when the tagger gave a high predictive score (>0.9) on articles that lacked a corresponding MEDLINE indexing term, independent review suggested that the model assignment was correct in almost all cases (CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY (99%), CASE_CONTROL_STUDY (94.9%), and COHORT STUDY (92.2%)). Conversely, when articles received MEDLINE indexing but model predictive scores were very low (<0.1), independent review suggested that the model assignment was correct in the majority of cases: CASE_CONTROL_STUDY (85.4%), COHORT STUDY (76.3%), and CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY (53.6%). Based on the extreme disagreement analysis, we identified a number of false-positives (FPs) and false-negatives (FNs). For case control study, there were 5 FPs and 14 FNs. For cohort study, there were 7 FPs and 22 FNs. For cross-sectional study, there were 1 FP and 45 FNs. We reviewed and grouped them based on patterns noticed, providing clues for further improving the models. This dataset reports the instances of FPs and FNs along with their categorizations.

Tab-separated value (TSV) file. 14745 data rows. Each data row represents publication metadata as retrieved from Crossref (http://crossref.org) 2023-04-05 when searching for retracted publications. Each row has the following columns: Index - Our index, starting with 0. DOI - Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for the publication Year - Publication year associated with the DOI. URL - Web location associated with the DOI. Title - Title associated with the DOI. May be blank. Author - Author(s) associated with the DOI. Journal - Publication venue (journal, conference, ...) associated with the DOI RetractionYear - Retraction Year associated with the DOI. May be blank. Category - One or more categories associated with the DOI. May be blank. Our search was via the Crossref REST API and searched for: Update_type=( 'retraction', 'Retraction', 'retracion', 'retration', 'partial_retraction', 'withdrawal','removal')

This dataset provides a 50-state (and DC) survey of state-level tax credits modeled after the federal New Markets Tax Credit program, including summaries of the tax credit amount and credit periods, key definitions, eligibility criteria, application process, and degree of conformity to federal law.

This dataset provides a 50-state (and DC) survey of state-level enterprise zone laws, including summaries and analyses of zone eligibility criteria, eligible investments, incentives to invest in human capital and affordable housing, and taxpayer eligibility.

This is part of the Cline Center’s ongoing Social, Political and Economic Event Database Project (SPEED) project. Each observation represents an event involving civil unrest, repression, or political violence in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Philippines (1979-2009). These data were produced in an effort to describe the relationship between exploitation of natural resources and civil conflict, and to identify policy interventions that might address resource-related grievances and mitigate civil strife. This work is the result of a collaboration between the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Construction Engineer Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) and the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research (CCASR). The project team selected case studies focused on nations with a long history of civil conflict, as well as lucrative natural resources. The Cline Center extracted these events from country-specific articles published in English by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB) from 1979-2008 and the CIA’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) 1999-2004. Articles were selected if they mentioned a country of interest, and were tagged as relevant by a Cline Center-built machine learning-based classification algorithm. Trained analysts extracted nearly 10,000 events from nearly 5,000 documents. The codebook—available in PDF form below—describes the data and production process in greater detail.

This dataset contains the files used to perform the work savings and recall evaluation in the study titled "Data from Testing a filtering strategy for systematic reviews: Evaluating work savings and recall."

This dataset provides a 50-state (and DC) survey of state-level Opportunity Zones laws, including summaries of states' Opportunity Zone tax preferences, supplemental tax preferences, and approach to Opportunity Zones conformity. Data was last updated on January 14, 2022.

The data file contains a list of articles and their RCT Tagger prediction scores, which were used in a project associated with the manuscript "Evaluation of publication type tagging as a strategy to screen randomized controlled trial articles in preparing systematic reviews".

The data file contains a list of articles with PMIDs information, which were used in a project associated with the manuscript "Evaluation of publication type tagging as a strategy to screen randomized controlled trial articles in preparing systematic reviews".

This dataset is derived from the COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI references (opencitations.net). Silvio Peroni, David Shotton (2020). OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1): 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00023 We have curated it to remove duplicates, self-loops, and parallel edges. These data were copied from the Open Citations website on May 6, 2023 and subsequently processed to produce a node list and an edge-list. Integer_ids have been assigned to the DOIs to reduce memory and storage needs when working with these data. As noted on the Open Citation website, each record is a citing-cited pair that uses DOIs as persistent identifiers.

To generate the bibliographic and survey data to support a data reuse study conducted by several Library faculty and accepted for publication in the Journal of Academic Librarianship, the project team utilized a series of web-based online scripts that employed several different endpoints from the Scopus API. The related dataset: "Data for: An Examination of Data Reuse Practices within Highly Cited Articles of Faculty at a Research University" contains survey design and results. <br /> 1) <b>getScopus_API_process_dmp_IDB.asp</b>: used the search API query the Scopus database API for papers by UIUC authors published in 2015 -- limited to one of 9 pre-defined Scopus subject areas -- and retrieve metadata results sorted highest to lowest by the number of times the retrieved articles were cited. The URL for the basic searches took the following form: https://api.elsevier.com/content/search/scopus?query=(AFFIL%28(urbana%20OR%20champaign) AND univ*%29) OR (AF-ID(60000745) OR AF-ID(60005290))&apikey=xxxxxx&start=" & nstart & "&count=25&date=2015&view=COMPLETE&sort=citedby-count&subj=PHYS<br /> Here, the variable nstart was incremented by 25 each iteration and 25 records were retrieved in each pass. The subject area was renamed (e.g. from PHYS to COMP for computer science) in each of the 9 runs. This script does not use the Scopus API cursor but downloads 25 records at a time for up to 28 times -- or 675 maximum bibliographic records. The project team felt that looking at the most 675 cited articles from UIUC faculty in each of the 9 subject areas was sufficient to gather a robust, representative sample of articles from 2015. These downloaded records were stored in a temporary table that was renamed for each of the 9 subject areas. <br /> 2) <b>get_citing_from_surveys_IDB.asp</b>: takes a Scopus article ID (eid) from the 49 UIUC author returned surveys and retrieves short citing article references, 200 at a time, into a temporary composite table. These citing records contain only one author, no author affiliations, and no author email addresses. This script uses the Scopus API cursor=* feature and is able to download all the citing references of an article 200 records at a time. <br /> 3) <b>put_in_all_authors_affil_IDB.asp</b>: adds important data to the short citing records. The script adds all co-authors and their affiliations, the corresponding author, and author email addresses. <br /> 4) <b>process_for_final_IDB.asp</b>: creates a relational database table with author, title, and source journal information for each of the citing articles that can be copied as an Excel file for processing by the Qualtrics survey software. This was initially 4,626 citing articles over the 49 UIUC authored articles, but was reduced to 2,041 entries after checking for available email addresses and eliminating duplicates.

This dataset was developed as part of a study that examined the correlational relationships between local journal authorship, local and external citation counts, full-text downloads, link-resolver clicks, and four global journal impact factor indices within an all-disciplines journal collection of 12,200 titles and six subject subsets at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Library. While earlier investigations of the relationships between usage (downloads) and citation metrics have been inconclusive, this study shows strong correlations in the all-disciplines set and most subject subsets. The normalized Eigenfactor was the only global impact factor index that correlated highly with local journal metrics. Some of the identified disciplinary variances among the six subject subsets may be explained by the journal publication aspirations of UIUC researchers. The correlations between authorship and local citations in the six specific subject subsets closely match national department or program rankings. All the raw data used in this analysis, in the form of relational database tables with multiple columns. Can be opned using MS Access. Description for variables can be viewed through "Design View" (by right clik on the selected table, choose "Design View"). The 2 PDF files provide an overview of tables are included in each MDB file. In addition, the processing scripts and Pearson correlation code is available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-0931140_V1">https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-0931140_V1</a>.

This dataset contains R codes used to produce the figures submitted in the manuscript titled "Understanding the multifaceted geospatial software ecosystem: a survey approach". The raw survey data used to populate these charts cannot be shared due to the survey consent agreement.

This data comes from a scoping review associated with the project called Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science. The data summarizes the fields that have been explored by existing research on retraction, a list of studies comparing retraction in different fields, and a list of studies focused on retraction of COVID-19 articles.

This geodatabase serves two purposes: 1) to provide State of Illinois agencies with a fast resource for the preparation of maps and figures that require the use of shape or line files from federal agencies, the State of Illinois, or the City of Chicago, and 2) as a start for social scientists interested in exploring how geographic information systems (whether this is data visualization or geographically weighted regression) can bring new meaning to the interpretation of their data. All layer files included are relevant to the State of Illinois. Sources for this geodatabase include the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey, City of Chicago, Chicago Public Schools, Chicago Transit Authority, Regional Transportation Authority, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Trained models for multi-task multi-dataset learning for text classification as well as sequence tagging in tweets. Classification tasks include sentiment prediction, abusive content, sarcasm, and veridictality. Sequence tagging tasks include POS, NER, Chunking, and SuperSenseTagging. Models were trained using: <a href="https://github.com/socialmediaie/SocialMediaIE/blob/master/SocialMediaIE/scripts/multitask_multidataset_classification_tagging.py">https://github.com/socialmediaie/SocialMediaIE/blob/master/SocialMediaIE/scripts/multitask_multidataset_classification_tagging.py</a> See <a href="https://github.com/socialmediaie/SocialMediaIE">https://github.com/socialmediaie/SocialMediaIE</a> and <a href="https://socialmediaie.github.io">https://socialmediaie.github.io</a> for details. If you are using this data, please also cite the related article: Shubhanshu Mishra. 2019. Multi-dataset-multi-task Neural Sequence Tagging for Information Extraction from Tweets. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3342220.3344929

This dataset contains all the code, notebooks, datasets used in the study conducted to measure the spatial accessibility of COVID-19 healthcare resources with a particular focus on Illinois, USA. Specifically, the dataset measures spatial access for people to hospitals and ICU beds in Illinois. The spatial accessibility is measured by the use of an enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2FCA) method (Luo & Qi, 2009), which is an outcome of interactions between demands (i.e, # of potential patients; people) and supply (i.e., # of beds or physicians). The result is a map of spatial accessibility to hospital beds. It identifies which regions need more healthcare resources, such as the number of ICU beds and ventilators. This notebook serves as a guideline of which areas need more beds in the fight against COVID-19. ## What's Inside A quick explanation of the components of the zip file * `COVID-19Acc.ipynb` is a notebook for calculating spatial accessibility and `COVID-19Acc.html` is an export of the notebook as HTML. * `Data` contains all of the data necessary for calculations: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `Chicago_Network.graphml`/`Illinois_Network.graphml` are GraphML files of the OSMNX street networks for Chicago and Illinois respectively. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `GridFile/` has hexagonal gridfiles for Chicago and Illinois &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `HospitalData/` has shapefiles for the hospitals in Chicago and Illinois &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `IL_zip_covid19/COVIDZip.json` has JSON file which contains COVID cases by zip code from IDPH &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `PopData/` contains population data for Chicago and Illinois by census tract and zip code. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `Result/` is where we write out the results of the spatial accessibility measures &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * `SVI/`contains data about the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) * `img/` contains some images and HTML maps of the hospitals (the notebook generates the maps) * `README.md` is the document you're currently reading! * `requirements.txt` is a list of Python packages necessary to use the notebook (besides Jupyter/IPython). You can install the packages with `python3 -m pip install -r requirements.txt`

This dataset include data pulled from the World Bank 2009, the World Values Survey wave 6, Transparency International from 2009. The data were used to measure perceptions of expertise from individuals in nations that are recipients of development aid as measured by the World Bank.

Hype - PubMed dataset Prepared by Apratim Mishra This dataset captures ‘Hype’ within biomedical abstracts sourced from PubMed. The selection chosen is ‘journal articles’ written in English, published between 1975 and 2019, totaling ~5.2 million. The classification relies on the presence of specific candidate ‘hype words’ and their abstract location. Therefore, each article might have multiple instances in the dataset due to the presence of multiple hype words in different abstract sentences. The candidate hype words are 36 in count: 'major', 'novel', 'central', 'critical', 'essential', 'strongly', 'unique', 'promising', 'markedly', 'excellent', 'crucial', 'robust', 'importantly', 'prominent', 'dramatically', 'favorable', 'vital', 'surprisingly', 'remarkably', 'remarkable', 'definitive', 'pivotal', 'innovative', 'supportive', 'encouraging', 'unprecedented', 'bright', 'enormous', 'exceptional', 'outstanding', 'noteworthy', 'creative', 'assuring', 'reassuring', 'spectacular', and 'hopeful'. File 1: hype_dataset.csv Primary dataset. It has the following columns: 1. PMID: represents unique article ID in PubMed 2. Hype_word: Candidate hype word, such as ‘novel.’ 3. Sentence: Sentence in abstract containing the hype word. 4. Abstract_length: Length of article abstract. 5. Hype_percentile: Abstract relative position of hype word. 6. Hype_value: Propensity of hype based on the hype word, the sentence, and the abstract location. 7. Introduction: The ‘I’ component of the hype word based on IMRaD 8. Methods: The ‘M’ component of the hype word based on IMRaD 9. Results: The ‘R’ component of the hype word based on IMRaD 10. Discussion: The ‘D’ component of the hype word based on IMRaD File 2: hype_removed_phrases.csv Secondary dataset with same columns as File 1. Hype in the primary dataset is based on excluding certain phrases that are rarely hype. The phrases that were removed are included in File 2 and modeled separately. Removed phrases: 1. Major: histocompatibility, component, protein, metabolite, complex, surgery 2. Novel: assay, mutation, antagonist, inhibitor, algorithm, technique, series, method, hybrid 3. Central: catheters, system, design, composite, catheter, pressure, thickness, compartment 4. Critical: compartment, micelle, temperature, incident, solution, ischemia, concentration 5. Essential: medium, features, properties, opportunities 6. Unique: model, amino 7. Robust: regression 8. Vital: capacity, signs, organs, status, structures, staining, rates, cells, information 9. Outstanding: questions, issues, question, challenge, problems, problem, remains 10. Remarkable: properties 11. Definite: radiotherapy, surgery 12. Bright: field