Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 29 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.
29 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.