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

Historical Dataset of Life Work/project Search is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2021-2023),Asian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2022-2023),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2021-2023),Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2021-2023)

Complete dataset of “Film Circulation on the International Film Festival Network and the Impact on Global Film Culture”

A peer-reviewed data paper for this dataset is in review to be published in NECSUS_European Journal of Media Studies - an open access journal aiming at enhancing data transparency and reusability, and will be available from https://necsus-ejms.org/ and https://mediarep.org

Please cite this when using the dataset.

Detailed description of the dataset:

1 Film Dataset: Festival Programs

The Film Dataset consists a data scheme image file, a codebook and two dataset tables in csv format.

The codebook (csv file “1_codebook_film-dataset_festival-program”) offers a detailed description of all variables within the Film Dataset. Along with the definition of variables it lists explanations for the units of measurement, data sources, coding and information on missing data.

The csv file “1_film-dataset_festival-program_long” comprises a dataset of all films and the festivals, festival sections, and the year of the festival edition that they were sampled from. The dataset is structured in the long format, i.e. the same film can appear in several rows when it appeared in more than one sample festival. However, films are identifiable via their unique ID.

The csv file “1_film-dataset_festival-program_wide” consists of the dataset listing only unique films (n=9,348). The dataset is in the wide format, i.e. each row corresponds to a unique film, identifiable via its unique ID. For easy analysis, and since the overlap is only six percent, in this dataset the variable sample festival (fest) corresponds to the first sample festival where the film appeared. For instance, if a film was first shown at Berlinale (in February) and then at Frameline (in June of the same year), the sample festival will list “Berlinale”. This file includes information on unique and IMDb IDs, the film title, production year, length, categorization in length, production countries, regional attribution, director names, genre attribution, the festival, festival section and festival edition the film was sampled from, and information whether there is festival run information available through the IMDb data.

2 Survey Dataset

The Survey Dataset consists of a data scheme image file, a codebook and two dataset tables in csv format.

The codebook “2_codebook_survey-dataset” includes coding information for both survey datasets. It lists the definition of the variables or survey questions (corresponding to Samoilova/Loist 2019), units of measurement, data source, variable type, range and coding, and information on missing data.

The csv file “2_survey-dataset_long-festivals_shared-consent” consists of a subset (n=161) of the original survey dataset (n=454), where respondents provided festival run data for films (n=206) and gave consent to share their data for research purposes. This dataset consists of the festival data in a long format, so that each row corresponds to the festival appearance of a film.

The csv file “2_survey-dataset_wide-no-festivals_shared-consent” consists of a subset (n=372) of the original dataset (n=454) of survey responses corresponding to sample films. It includes data only for those films for which respondents provided consent to share their data for research purposes. This dataset is shown in wide format of the survey data, i.e. information for each response corresponding to a film is listed in one row. This includes data on film IDs, film title, survey questions regarding completeness and availability of provided information, information on number of festival screenings, screening fees, budgets, marketing costs, market screenings, and distribution. As the file name suggests, no data on festival screenings is included in the wide format dataset.

3 IMDb & Scripts

The IMDb dataset consists of a data scheme image file, one codebook and eight datasets, all in csv format. It also includes the R scripts that we used for scraping and matching.

The codebook “3_codebook_imdb-dataset” includes information for all IMDb datasets. This includes ID information and their data source, coding and value ranges, and information on missing data.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_aka-titles_long” contains film title data in different languages scraped from IMDb in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to a title in a given language.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_awards_long” contains film award data in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to an award of a given film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_companies_long” contains data on production and distribution companies of films. The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a particular company of a particular film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_crew_long” contains data on names and roles of crew members in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to each crew member. The file also contains binary gender assigned to directors based on their first names using the GenderizeR application.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_festival-runs_long” contains festival run data scraped from IMDb in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to the festival appearance of a given film. The dataset does not include each film screening, but the first screening of a film at a festival within a given year. The data includes festival runs up to 2019.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_general-info_wide” contains general information about films such as genre as defined by IMDb, languages in which a film was shown, ratings, and budget. The dataset is in wide format, so that each row corresponds to a unique film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_release-info_long” contains data about non-festival release (e.g., theatrical, digital, tv, dvd/blueray). The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a particular release of a particular film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_websites_long” contains data on available websites (official websites, miscellaneous, photos, video clips). The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a website of a particular film.

The dataset includes 8 text files containing the script for webscraping. They were written using the R-3.6.3 version for Windows.

The R script “r_1_unite_data” demonstrates the structure of the dataset, that we use in the following steps to identify, scrape, and match the film data.

The R script “r_2_scrape_matches” reads in the dataset with the film characteristics described in the “r_1_unite_data” and uses various R packages to create a search URL for each film from the core dataset on the IMDb website. The script attempts to match each film from the core dataset to IMDb records by first conducting an advanced search based on the movie title and year, and then potentially using an alternative title and a basic search if no matches are found in the advanced search. The script scrapes the title, release year, directors, running time, genre, and IMDb film URL from the first page of the suggested records from the IMDb website. The script then defines a loop that matches (including matching scores) each film in the core dataset with suggested films on the IMDb search page. Matching was done using data on directors, production year (+/- one year), and title, a fuzzy matching approach with two methods: “cosine” and “osa.” where the cosine similarity is used to match titles with a high degree of similarity, and the OSA algorithm is used to match titles that may have typos or minor variations.

The script “r_3_matching” creates a dataset with the matches for a manual check. Each pair of films (original film from the core dataset and the suggested match from the IMDb website was categorized in the following five categories: a) 100% match: perfect match on title, year, and director; b) likely good match; c) maybe match; d) unlikely match; and e) no match). The script also checks for possible doubles in the dataset and identifies them for a manual check.

The script “r_4_scraping_functions” creates a function for scraping the data from the identified matches (based on the scripts described above and manually checked). These functions are used for scraping the data in the next script.

The script “r_5a_extracting_info_sample” uses the function defined in the “r_4_scraping_functions”, in order to scrape the IMDb data for the identified matches. This script does that for the first 100 films, to check, if everything works. Scraping for the entire dataset took a few hours. Therefore, a test with a subsample of 100 films is advisable.

The script “r_5b_extracting_info_all” extracts the data for the entire dataset of the identified matches.

The script “r_5c_extracting_info_skipped” checks the films with missing data (where data was not scraped) and tried to extract data one more time to make sure that the errors were not caused by disruptions in the internet connection or other technical issues.

The script “r_check_logs” is used for troubleshooting and tracking the progress of all of the R scripts used. It gives information on the amount of missing values and errors.

4 Festival Library Dataset

The Festival Library Dataset consists of a data scheme image file, one codebook and one dataset, all in csv format.

The codebook (csv file “4_codebook_festival-library_dataset”) offers a detailed description of all variables within the Library Dataset. It lists the definition of variables, such as location and festival name, and festival categories, units of measurement, data sources and coding and missing data.

The csv file “4_festival-library_dataset_imdb-and-survey” contains data on all unique festivals collected from both IMDb and survey sources. This dataset appears in wide format, all information for each festival is listed in one row. This

This dataset tracks annual white student percentage from 2021 to 2023 for Life Work/project Search vs. Florida and St. Johns School District

This dataset tracks annual asian student percentage from 2021 to 2023 for Life Work/project Search vs. Florida and St. Johns School District

This dataset tracks annual hispanic student percentage from 2021 to 2023 for Life Work/project Search vs. Florida and St. Johns School District

This dataset tracks annual black student percentage from 2021 to 2023 for Life Work/project Search vs. Florida and St. Johns School District

This dataset tracks annual two or more races student percentage from 2022 to 2023 for Life Work/project Search vs. Florida and St. Johns School District

Data Description Managed turfgrass is a common component of urban landscapes that is expanding under current land use trends. Previous studies have reported high rates of soil carbon sequestration in turfgrass, but no systematic review has summarized these rates nor evaluated how they change as turfgrass ages. We conducted a meta-analysis of soil carbon sequestration rates from 63 studies. Those data, as well as the code used to analyze them and create figures, are shared here. Dataset Development We conducted a systematic review from Nov 2020 to Jan 2021 using Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Michigan Turfgrass Information File Database. The search terms targeted were "soil carbon", "carbon sequestration", "carbon storage", or “carbon stock”, with "turf", "turfgrass", "lawn", "urban ecosystem", or "residential", “Fescue”, “Zoysia”, “Poa”, “Cynodon”, “Bouteloua”, “Lolium”, or “Agrostis”. We included only peer-reviewed studies written in English that measured SOC change over one year or longer, and where grass was managed as turf (mowed or clipped regularly). We included studies that sampled to any soil depth, and included several methodologies: small-plot research conducted over a few years (22 datasets from 4 articles), chronosequences of golf courses or residential lawns (39 datasets from 16 articles), and one study that was a variation on a chronosequence method and compiled long-term soil test data provided by golf courses of various ages (3 datasets from Qian & Follett, 2002). In total, 63 datasets from 21 articles met the search criteria. We excluded 1) duplicate reports of the same data, 2) small plot studies that did not report baseline SOC stocks, and 3) pure modeling studies. We included five papers that only measured changes in SOC concentrations, but not areal stocks (i.e., SOC in Mg ha-1). For these papers, we converted from concentrations to stocks using several approaches. For two papers (Law & Patton, 2017; Y. Qian & Follett, 2002) we used estimated bulk densities provided by the authors. For the chronosequences reported in Selhorst & Lal (2011), we used the average bulk density reported by the author. For the 13 choronosequences reported in Selhorst & Lal (2013), we estimated bulk density from the average relationship between percent C and bulk density reported by Selhorst (2011). For Wang et al. (2014), we used bulk density values from official soil survey descriptions. Data provenance In most cases we contacted authors of the studies to obtain the original data. If authors did not reply after two inquiries, or no longer had access to the data, we captured data from published figures using WebPlotDigitizer (Rohatgi, 2021). For three manuscripts the data was already available, or partially available, in public data repositories. Data provenance information is provided in the document "Dataset summaries and citations.docx". Recommended Uses We recommend the following to data users: Consult and cite the original manuscripts for each dataset, which often provide additional information about turfgrass management, experimental methods, and environmental context. Original citations are provided in the document "Dataset summaries and citations.docx". For datasets that were previously published in public repositories, consult and cite the original datasets, which may provide additional data on turfgrass management practices, soil nitrogen, and natural reference sites. Links to repositories are in the document "Dataset summaries and citations.docx". Consider contacting the dataset authors to notify them of your plans to use the data, and to offer co-authorship as appropriate.

The studies of ball possession percentage.

Approaches to determining reliability and validity and the associated findings for newly developed tools for each study included in phase 2 analysis.

Studies of the ball possession strategies.

Studies of the patterns of ball recovery.

Overview of the included studies.