Dataset Card for Alpaca

I have just performed train, test and validation split on the original dataset. Repository to reproduce this will be shared here soon. I am including the orignal Dataset card as follows.

  Dataset Summary

Alpaca is a dataset of 52,000 instructions and demonstrations generated by OpenAI's text-davinci-003 engine. This instruction data can be used to conduct instruction-tuning for language models and make the language model follow instruction better.… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/disham993/alpaca-train-validation-test-split.

Including the split of real and null reactions for training, validation and test

Node classification on PubMed with 60%/20%/20% random splits for training/validation/test.

Dataset

This dataset was created by IMT2022053

Released under Apache 2.0

Contents

Node classification on Film with 60%/20%/20% random splits for training/validation/test.

Cross-validation is a common method to validate a QSAR model. In cross-validation, some compounds are held out as a test set, while the remaining compounds form a training set. A model is built from the training set, and the test set compounds are predicted on that model. The agreement of the predicted and observed activity values of the test set (measured by, say, R2) is an estimate of the self-consistency of the model and is sometimes taken as an indication of the predictivity of the model. This estimate of predictivity can be optimistic or pessimistic compared to true prospective prediction, depending how compounds in the test set are selected. Here, we show that time-split selection gives an R2 that is more like that of true prospective prediction than the R2 from random selection (too optimistic) or from our analog of leave-class-out selection (too pessimistic). Time-split selection should be used in addition to random selection as a standard for cross-validation in QSAR model building.

Node classification on Texas with 60%/20%/20% random splits for training/validation/test.

Many e-shops have started to mark-up product data within their HTML pages using the schema.org vocabulary. The Web Data Commons project regularly extracts such data from the Common Crawl, a large public web crawl. The Web Data Commons Training and Test Sets for Large-Scale Product Matching contain product offers from different e-shops in the form of binary product pairs (with corresponding label "match" or "no match") for four product categories, computers, cameras, watches and shoes.

In order to support the evaluation of machine learning-based matching methods, the data is split into training, validation and test sets. For each product category, we provide training sets in four different sizes (2.000-70.000 pairs). Furthermore there are sets of ids for each training set for a possible validation split (stratified random draw) available. The test set for each product category consists of 1.100 product pairs. The labels of the test sets were manually checked while those of the training sets were derived using shared product identifiers from the Web via weak supervision.

The data stems from the WDC Product Data Corpus for Large-Scale Product Matching - Version 2.0 which consists of 26 million product offers originating from 79 thousand websites.

TripAdvisor Review Rating Split Dataset

This dataset contains 80,000 TripAdvisor reviews with corresponding ratings. It is derived from the original TripAdvisor dataset available here and was created to train different models for a university project in the class of NLP.

  Dataset Structure

Training Set: 30,400 examples Validation Set: 1,600 examples Test Set: 8,000 examples

Each set is balanced, ensuring equal representation of all sentiment labels.

  Label

The… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nhull/tripadvisor-split-dataset-v2.

Bats play crucial ecological roles and provide valuable ecosystem services, yet many populations face serious threats from various ecological disturbances. The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) aims to assess status and trends of bat populations while developing innovative and community-driven conservation solutions using its unique data and technology infrastructure. To support scalability and transparency in the NABat acoustic data pipeline, we developed a fully-automated machine-learning algorithm. This dataset includes audio files of bat echolocation calls that were considered to develop V1.0 of the NABat machine-learning algorithm, however the test set (i.e., holdout dataset) has been excluded from this release. These recordings were collected by various bat monitoring partners across North America using ultrasonic acoustic recorders for stationary acoustic and mobile acoustic surveys. For more information on how these surveys may be conducted, see Chapters 4 and 5 of “A Plan for the North American Bat Monitoring Program” (https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-208). These data were then post-processed by bat monitoring partners to remove noise files (or those that do not contain recognizable bat calls) and apply a species label to each file. There is undoubtedly variation in the steps that monitoring partners take to apply a species label, but the steps documented in “A Guide to Processing Bat Acoustic Data for the North American Bat Monitoring Program” (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181068) include first processing with an automated classifier and then manually reviewing to confirm or downgrade the suggested species label. Once a manual ID label was applied, audio files of bat acoustic recordings were submitted to the NABat database in Waveform Audio File format. From these available files in the NABat database, we considered files from 35 classes (34 species and a noise class). Files for 4 species were excluded due to low sample size (Corynorhinus rafinesquii, N=3; Eumops floridanus, N =3; Lasiurus xanthinus, N = 4; Nyctinomops femorosaccus, N =11). From this pool, files were randomly selected until files for each species/grid cell combination were exhausted or the number of recordings reach 1250. The dataset was then randomly split into training, validation, and test sets (i.e., holdout dataset). This data release includes all files considered for training and validation, including files that had been excluded from model development and testing due to low sample size for a given species or because the threshold for species/grid cell combinations had been met. The test set (i.e., holdout dataset) is not included. Audio files are grouped by species, as indicated by the four-letter species code in the name of each folder. Definitions for each four-letter code, including Family, Genus, Species, and Common name, are also included as a dataset in this release.

• Cleaned_Dataset.csv – The combined CSV files of all scraped documents from DABI, e-LiS, o-bib and Springer.
• Data_Cleaning.ipynb – The Jupyter Notebook with python code for the analysis and cleaning of the original dataset.
• ger_train.csv – The German training set as CSV file.
• ger_validation.csv – The German validation set as CSV file.
• en_test.csv – The English test set as CSV file.
• en_train.csv – The English training set as CSV file.
• en_validation.csv – The English validation set as CSV file.
• splitting.py – The python code for splitting a dataset into train, test and validation set.
• DataSetTrans_de.csv – The final German dataset as a CSV file.
• DataSetTrans_en.csv – The final English dataset as a CSV file.
• translation.py – The python code for translating the cleaned dataset.

Many e-shops have started to mark-up product data within their HTML pages using the schema.org vocabulary. The Web Data Commons project regularly extracts such data from the Common Crawl, a large public web crawl. The Web Data Commons Training and Test Sets for Large-Scale Product Matching contain product offers from different e-shops in the form of binary product pairs (with corresponding label “match” or “no match”) for four product categories, computers, cameras, watches and shoes. In order to support the evaluation of machine learning-based matching methods, the data is split into training, validation and test sets. For each product category, we provide training sets in four different sizes (2.000-70.000 pairs). Furthermore there are sets of ids for each training set for a possible validation split (stratified random draw) available. The test set for each product category consists of 1.100 product pairs. The labels of the test sets were manually checked while those of the training sets were derived using shared product identifiers from the Web weak supervision. The data stems from the WDC Product Data Corpus for Large-Scale Product Matching - Version 2.0 which consists of 26 million product offers originating from 79 thousand websites. For more information and download links for the corpus itself, please follow the links below.

Putnam-AXIOM Splits for ZIP-FIT

This repository contains the train, validation, and test splits of the Putnam-AXIOM dataset specifically for use with the ZIP-FIT methodology research. The dataset is split as follows:

train: 150 examples validation: 150 examples test: 222 examples

These splits are derived from the original 522 Putnam problems found in the main Putnam-AXIOM repository.

  Main Repository

The full dataset with original problems and variations is available… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/zipfit/Putnam-AXIOM-for-zip-fit-splits.

Pothole Dataset

https://i.imgur.com/7Xz8d5M.gif" alt="Example Image">

This is a collection of 665 images of roads with the potholes labeled. The dataset was created and shared by Atikur Rahman Chitholian as part of his undergraduate thesis and was originally shared on Kaggle.

Note: The original dataset did not contain a validation set; we have re-shuffled the images into a 70/20/10 train-valid-test split.

Usage

This dataset could be used for automatically finding and categorizing potholes in city streets so the worst ones can be fixed faster.

The dataset is provided in a wide variety of formats for various common machine learning models.

FSOCO dataset split into train (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) set. Ready for Ultralytics YOLO training.

This is an open source - publicly available dataset which can be found at https://shahariarrabby.github.io/ekush/ . We split the dataset into three sets - train, validation, and test. For our experiments, we created two other versions of the dataset. We have applied 10-fold cross validation on the train set and created ten folds. We also created ten bags of datasets using bootstrap aggregating method on the train and validation sets. Lastly, we created another dataset using pre-trained ResNet50 model as feature extractor. On the features extracted by ResNet50 we have applied PCA and created a tabilar dataset containing 80 features. pca_features.csv is the train set and pca_test_features.csv is the test set. Fold.tar.gz contains the ten folds of images described above. Those folds are also been compressed. Similarly, Bagging.tar.gz contains the ten compressed bags of images. The original train, validation, and test sets are in Train.tar.gz, Validation.tar.gz, and Test.tar.gz, respectively. The compression has been performed for speeding up the upload and download purpose and mostly for the sake of convenience. If anyone has any question about how the datasets are organized please feel free to ask me at shiblygnr@gmail.com .I will get back to you in earliest time possible.

This dataset contains data for temporal validity change prediction, an NLP task that will be defined in an upcoming publication. The dataset consists of five columns.

• target - A Tweet ID. This column must be manually rehydrated via the Twitter API to obtain the tweet text.
• follow_up - A synthetic follow-up tweet that semantically relates to the target tweet.
• context_only_tv - The expected temporal validity duration of the target tweet, when read in isolation.
• combined_tv - The expected temporal validity duration of the target tweet, when read together with the follow-up tweet.
• change - The TVCP task label, i.e., whether the temporal validity duration of the target tweet is decreased, unchanged (neutral), or increased by the information in the follow-up tweet.

The duration labels (context_only_tv, combined_tv) are class indices of the following class distribution:
[no time-sensitive information, less than one minute, 1-5 minutes, 5-15 minutes, 15-45 minutes, 45 minutes - 2 hours, 2-6 hours, more than 6 hours, 1-3 days, 3-7 days, 1-4 weeks, more than one month]

Different dataset splits are provided.

• "dataset.csv" contains the full dataset.
• "train.csv", "val.csv", "test.csv" contain an 80-10-10 train-val-test split.
• "train[0-4].csv" and "test[0-4].csv" respectively contain training and test data for one of 5 folds for 5-fold cross-validation. The train file contains 80% of the data, while the test file contains 20%. To replicate the original experiments, the train file should be sorted by the preprocessed target tweet text, then the first 12.5% of target tweets should be sampled to generate validation data, leading to a 70-10-20 train-val-test split.

Description: Downsized (256x256) camera trap images used for the analyses in "Can CNN-based species classification generalise across variation in habitat within a camera trap survey?", and the dataset composition for each analysis. Note that images tagged as 'human' have been removed from this dataset. Full-size images for the BorneoCam dataset will be made available at LILA.science. The full SAFE camera trap dataset metadata is available at DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6627707. Project: This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: Machine learning and image recognition to monitor spatio-temporal changes in the behaviour and dynamics of species interactions Funding: These data were collected as part of research funded by:

NERC (NERC QMEE CDT Studentship, NE/P012345/1, http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pcode=NE%2FP012345%2F1&cookieConsent=A) This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.

XML metadata: GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available here Files: This dataset consists of 3 files: CT_image_data_info2.xlsx, DN_256x256_image_files.zip, DN_generalisability_code.zip CT_image_data_info2.xlsx This file contains dataset metadata and 1 data tables:

Dataset Images (described in worksheet Dataset_images) Description: This worksheet details the composition of each dataset used in the analyses Number of fields: 69 Number of data rows: 270287 Fields:

filename: Root ID (Field type: id) camera_trap_site: Site ID for the camera trap location (Field type: location) taxon: Taxon recorded by camera trap (Field type: taxa) dist_level: Level of disturbance at site (Field type: ordered categorical) baseline: Label as to whether image is included in the baseline training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) increased_cap: Label as to whether image is included in the 'increased cap' training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_individ_event_level: Label as to whether image is included in the 'individual disturbance level datasets split at event level' training, validation (val) or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_1: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 1' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_2: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 2' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 3' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 4' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance level 5' training or test set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_2: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 2 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 3 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_1_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 3 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_2_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3 and 4 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_pair_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 4 and 5 (pair)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_3: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 3 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_2_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_1_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3 and 4 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_2_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_triple_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 3, 4 and 5 (triple)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_3_4: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_3_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_2_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_1_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 3, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_quad_2_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 2, 3, 4 and 5 (quad)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_combined_event_level_all_1_2_3_4_5: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at event level: disturbance levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (all)' training set, or not included (NA) (Field type: categorical) dist_camera_level_individ_1: Label as to whether image is included in the 'disturbance level combination analysis split at camera level: disturbance

The training and validation data are subsets of the training split of the Imagenet 2012. The test set is taken from the validation split of the Imagenet 2012 dataset. Each data set includes 50 images per class.

Annotated masks and Sentinel-1/-2 images split into training, validation, and test sets. Used for training convolutional neural network for small reservoir mapping.

- manet_sentinel.ckpt: PyTorch model checkpoint file containing model weights.

- annotations.zip: Contains binary reservoir masks (0 is non-reservoir, 1 is reservoir) split into training, validation, and test sets.

- images.zip: Contains Sentinel-1/-2 images split into training, validation, and test sets with the following bands:

1. Blue
2. Green
3. Red
4. Near-infrared
5. Sentinel-1 SAR VV
6. Sentinel-1 SAR VH
7. NDVI
8. NDWI
9. Gao's NDWI
10. MNDWI