Use this search engine to generate custom tables of orbital and/or physical parameters for all asteroids and comets (or a specified sub-set) in our small-body database. If this is your first time here, you may find it helpful to read our tutorial. Otherwise, simply follow the steps in each section: 'Search Constraints', 'Output Fields', and finally 'Format Options'. If you want details for a single object, use the Small Body Browser instead.

You can check the fields description in the documentation: current Full database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/full/?bash; Historical Full database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/history/full/?bash.

Full Google Database is a combination of the Advanced Google SERP Database and Google Keyword Database.

Google SERP Database offers millions of SERPs collected in 67 regions with most of Google’s advanced SERP features, including featured snippets, knowledge graphs, people also ask sections, top stories, and more.

Google Keyword Database encompasses billions of search terms enriched with related Google Ads data: search volume trends, CPC, competition, and more.

This database is available in JSON format only.

You don’t have to download fresh data dumps in JSON – we can deliver data straight to your storage or database. We send terrabytes of data to dozens of customers every month using Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure Blob, Eleasticsearch, and Google Big Query. Let us know if you’d like to get your data to any other storage or database.

You can check the fields description in the documentation: current Keyword database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/keywords/?bash; Historical Keyword database: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/google/history/keywords/?bash. You don’t have to download fresh data dumps in JSON or CSV – we can deliver data straight to your storage or database. We send terrabytes of data to dozens of customers every month using Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure Blob, Eleasticsearch, and Google Big Query. Let us know if you’d like to get your data to any other storage or database.

Canada Internet Usage: Search Engine Market Share: Mobile: Haosou data was reported at 0.010 % in 28 Sep 2024. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.010 % for 27 Sep 2024. Canada Internet Usage: Search Engine Market Share: Mobile: Haosou data is updated daily, averaging 0.010 % from Sep 2024 (Median) to 28 Sep 2024, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.010 % in 28 Sep 2024 and a record low of 0.010 % in 28 Sep 2024. Canada Internet Usage: Search Engine Market Share: Mobile: Haosou data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statcounter Global Stats. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Canada – Table CA.SC.IU: Internet Usage: Search Engine Market Share.

The fields description may be found here: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/backlink_summary/?bash

DataForSEO Backlink Summary Database encompasses millions of domains enriched with backlink data and other related metrics. You will get a comprehensive overview of a domain’s backlink profile, including the number of inbound links, referring domains and referring pages, new & lost backlinks and referring domains, domain rank, backlink spam score, and more.

This database is available in both JSON and CSV formats.

Business Listings Database is the source of point-of-interest data and can provide you with all the information you need to analyze how specific places are used, what kinds of audiences they attract, and how their visitor profile changes over time.

The full fields description may be found on this page: https://docs.dataforseo.com/v3/databases/business_listings/?bash

Tandem mass spectrometry-based proteomics experiments produce large amounts of raw data, and different database search engines are needed to reliably identify all the proteins from this data. Here, we present Compid, an easy-to-use software tool that can be used to integrate and compare protein identification results from two search engines, Mascot and Paragon. Additionally, Compid enables extraction of information from large Mascot result files that cannot be opened via the Web interface and calculation of general statistical information about peptide and protein identifications in a data set. To demonstrate the usefulness of this tool, we used Compid to compare Mascot and Paragon database search results for mitochondrial proteome sample of human keratinocytes. The reports generated by Compid can be exported and opened as Excel documents or as text files using configurable delimiters, allowing the analysis and further processing of Compid output with a multitude of programs. Compid is freely available and can be downloaded from http://users.utu.fi/lanatr/compid. It is released under an open source license (GPL), enabling modification of the source code. Its modular architecture allows for creation of supplementary software components e.g. to enable support for additional input formats and report categories.

The Ultimate Arabic News Dataset is a collection of single-label modern Arabic texts that are used in news websites and press articles.

Arabic news data was collected by web scraping techniques from many famous news sites such as Al-Arabiya, Al-Youm Al-Sabea (Youm7), the news published on the Google search engine and other various sources.

• The data we collect consists of two Primary files:

UltimateArabic: A file containing more than 193,000 original Arabic news texts, without pre-processing. The texts contain words, numbers, and symbols that can be removed using pre-processing to increase accuracy when using the dataset in various Arabic natural language processing tasks such as text classification.

UltimateArabicPrePros: It is a file that contains the data mentioned in the first file, but after pre-processing, where the number of data became about 188,000 text documents, where stop words, non-Arabic words, symbols and numbers have been removed so that this file is ready for use directly in the various Arabic natural language processing tasks. Like text classification.

• We add two samples of data collected by web scraping techniques:

Sample_Youm7_Politic: An example of news in the "Politic" category collected from the Youm7 website.

Sample_alarabiya_Sport: An example of news in the "Sport" category collected from the Al-Arabiya website.

• The data is divided into 10 different categories: Culture, Diverse, Economy, Sport, Politic, Art, Society, Technology, Medical and Religion.

The chemistry search engine market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing demand for efficient information retrieval in the chemical sciences. The market, currently valued at approximately $250 million in 2025, is projected to expand significantly over the forecast period (2025-2033), fueled by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15%. This growth is primarily attributed to several key factors. Firstly, the escalating number of chemical compounds and related research necessitates sophisticated search tools capable of handling vast datasets and diverse data types (CAS registry numbers, MSDS sheets, market prices, etc.). Secondly, the integration of these search engines into R&D workflows within both enterprise and individual settings streamlines research processes, accelerating drug discovery, material science advancements, and overall chemical innovation. Furthermore, the rising adoption of digital tools within the chemical industry and the increasing accessibility of high-speed internet globally further contribute to market expansion. While data privacy concerns and the need for consistent data standardization across different databases represent potential restraints, ongoing technological advancements are continually improving the reliability and user experience of these search engines. The market segmentation reveals a balanced distribution across application types (enterprise and individual users) and query types (CAS No., MSDS, market price information, R&D data, etc.). North America currently holds the largest market share, followed by Europe and Asia Pacific. However, the Asia Pacific region exhibits considerable growth potential due to rapid industrialization and a surge in research and development activities. The competitive landscape is characterized by a mix of established players like ChemSpider and PubChem, along with specialized providers offering niche capabilities. The strategic partnerships between these companies and leading chemical manufacturers are expected to drive further growth and integration within the industry. The predicted market value in 2033, considering the CAGR, suggests a significant expansion, with potential to exceed $1 billion, creating lucrative opportunities for innovators in this dynamic sector.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to

establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data

Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered.
Search methods We first compiled a list of known domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review:

Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection.
Not even one quarter of the domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation.

See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

Unconventional epitopes presented by HLA class I complexes are emerging targets for T cell targeted immunotherapies. Their identification by mass spectrometry required development of novel methods to cope with the large number of theoretical candidates. Methods to identify post-translationally spliced peptides led to a broad range of outcomes. We here investigated the impact of three common database search engines – i.e. Mascot, Mascot+Percolator and PEAKS DB – as final identification step, as well as the features of target database on the ability to correctly identify non-spliced and cis-spliced peptides. We used ground truth datasets measured by mass spectrometry to benchmark methods’ performance and extended the analysis to HLA class I immunopeptidomes. PEAKS DB showed better precision and recall of cis-spliced peptides and larger number of identified peptides in HLA class I immunopeptidomes than the other search engine strategies. The better performance of PEAKS DB appears to result from better discrimination between target and decoy hits and hence a more robust FDR estimation, and seems independent to peptide and spectrum features here investigated. Head of the research group Molecular Immunology at King’s College London and the Francis Crick Institute, London (UK). Email: michele.mishto@kcl.ac.uk,

N- and O-glycan databases of MSFragger-Glyco