Göttingen Research Online / Data
Not a member yet
2383 research outputs found
Sort by
Tree Species Maps Germany - Model Weights
No full textThese model weights were generated by training on 5-fold cross-validation on the S2GNFI dataset (https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00094435). The corresponding code can be found at https://github.com/maxfreu/Sen2-classification
Replication Data for: Makarov & Sollich, accepted in PNAS on 4 Dec 2025
No full textThe notebook KMC_random_walk_publish.nb generates a trajectory of a random walker on a fluctuating lattice. The trajectory itself is NOT saved, but the mean squared displacement msd(t) has been recorded in the data_for_fig4.nb notebook, which generates fig 4 of the paper
Replication data for "Meat transfer patterns reflect the multi-level social system of Guinea baboons"
No full textData for replication of analyses in the manuscript (O'Hearn et al. 2025. iScience
Replication Data for: No pronounced sibling rivalry at transition to siblinghood in wild Assamese macaques (Macaca assamensis)
No full textObservational data on the social behavior of wild Assamese macaque mothers and offspring collected with focal animal sampling and continuous recording at Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand
Data are stored in separate spread sheets, one for each of the different statistical models
Tree Species Maps Germany - Observation Counts
No full textThese maps depict how many valid satellite observations were used at each location and year. Pixels that did not contain snow, any form of cloud or cloud shadow were counted as valid. Lower counts can be related to worse performance
Subject positions in Old Italian
No full textRepository accompanying the project "Low verbs, lower subjects: Word order in Old Italian". This repository includes the following files and directories:
- `CAnDA_poster.pdf` – the poster presented at CAnDA
- `subject_position_data.csv` – the annotated dataset (221 clauses)
- `models/` – CSV output files from the regression models:
- `mdl_focus_aux_tidy.csv` – coefficients for the Focus Auxiliary interaction model
- `mdl_contrastive_tidy.csv` – coefficients for the Contrastive-only model
- `plots/` – PDF plots generated from the data:
- `plot_by_auxiliary_dodged.pdf` – bar chart of preverbal proportions by focus and auxiliary
- `plot_contrastive_vs_null.pdf` – bar chart of preverbal proportions of focused subjects by contrastivity
- `scripts/` – R scripts for data analysis and visualization:
- `models_subject_position.R` – fits the logistic regression models and saves outputs
- `plots_subject_position.R` – generates the raw-data plot
Replication data for: Minimal Actin Cortices: The αD-Helix of Ezrin’s C-ERMAD Governs F-Actin Binding
No full textoriginal data sets for Figure 3 and Figure 6 in the publication: Minimal Actin Cortices: The αD-Helix of Ezrin’s C-ERMAD Governs F-Actin Bindin
Mothers optimally sample information for their child and children learn best from maternal sampling
No full textAccording to recent computational approaches, when children are presented with information by knowledgeable others, children can make the pedagogical inference that their partner has chosen the best possible data in order for them to learn from (Bonawitz &Shafto, 2016, 2017). But do caregivers –the child’s first teachers –really choose the best possible data for their child to learn? The current study examined the extent to which caregivers (and their children)sample information to fill gaps in children’s knowledge of object-label associations. Furthermore, we examined the repercussions of such pedagogical sampling in terms of children’s retention of labels for objects they elicited as opposed to labels elicited by their mothers. The results suggest that mothers are worthy of the pedagogical assumption in that they not only choose information tailored to fill their child’s knowledge gaps, but that children also appear to learn best when information is specifically elicited by their caregivers. In contrast, children did not sample information that fills gaps in their knowledge of the object-label associations presented. Our findings speak to the pedagogical role of caregivers in interactions with their childrenand the power of social learning in early childhood
An examination of measures of young children's interest in natural object categories
No full textDevelopmental research utilizes various different methodologies and measures to study the cognitive development of young children; however, the reliability and validity of such measures have been a critical issue in all areas of research practices. To address this problem, particularly in the area of research on infants’ interests, we examined the convergent validity of previously reported measures of children’s interests in natural object categories, as indexed by (1) parents’ estimation of their child’s interest in the categories, (2) extrinsic (overt choices in a task), (3) intrinsic (looking time toward objects), and (4) physiological (pupil dilation) responses to objects of different categories. Additionally, we also examined the discriminant
validity of all the aforementioned measures against the well-established and validated
measure of parents’ estimations of children’s vocabulary knowledge. Children completed two tasks: (a) an eye-tracking task, where they were presented with images from a range of defined categories, which collected indices of looking time and pupillary activity; (b) a sticker-choice task, where they were asked to choose between two sticker-images from two different categories belonging to the range of categories assessed in the previous task. Parents completed two questionnaires to estimate (i) their child’s interests and (ii) vocabulary knowledge in the categories presented. We first analyzed the discriminant validity between the two parent measures, and found a significant positive association between them. Our successive analyses showed no strong or significant associations between any of our measures, apart from a significant positive association between children’s looking time and parents’ estimations of children’s vocabulary knowledge. From our findings, we conclude that measures of infants’ interests thus far may not have sufficient reliability to adequately capture any potential relationship between these measures, or index different components of interest in young children. We suggest next steps for further validation studies in infant research