About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Non-Hispanic population of White Earth by race. It includes the distribution of the Non-Hispanic population of White Earth across various race categories as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the Non-Hispanic population distribution of White Earth across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

With a zero Hispanic population, White Earth is 100% Non-Hispanic. Among the Non-Hispanic population, the largest racial group is White alone with a population of 76 (100% of the total Non-Hispanic population).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (for Non-Hispanic) for the White Earth
• Population: The population of the racial category (for Non-Hispanic) in the White Earth is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of White Earth total Non-Hispanic population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for White Earth Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

Alexa Answers from alexaanswers.amazon.com

The Alexa Answers community helps to improve Alexa’s knowledge and answer questions asked by Alexa users. Which contains some very quirky and hard question like Q: what percent of the population has blackhair A: The most common hair color in the world is black and its found in wide array of background and ethnicities. About 75 to 85% of the global population has either black hair or the deepest brown shade. Q: what was the world population… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/theblackcat102/alexa-qa.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 16

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

I applied bits of text mining, natural langauge processing, and data science to a pair of annual editions of Race and Ethnic Relations, and below is a summary of what I learned.

Analysis of ‘QS World University Rankings 2017-2022’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/prasertk/qs-world-university-rankings-2021 on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Acknowledgements

data source: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022 image credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/newly-graduated-people-wearing-black-academy-gowns-throwing-hats-up-in-the-air-267885/

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

The MNIST database of handwritten digits, available from this page, has a training set of 60,000 examples, and a test set of 10,000 examples. It is a subset of a larger set available from NIST. The digits have been size-normalized and centered in a fixed-size image. It is a good database for people who want to try learning techniques and pattern recognition methods on real-world data while spending minimal efforts on preprocessing and formatting. The original black and white (bilevel) images from NIST were size normalized to fit in a 20x20 pixel box while preserving their aspect ratio. The resulting images contain grey levels as a result of the anti-aliasing technique used by the normalization algorithm. the images were centered in a 28x28 image by computing the center of mass of the pixels, and translating the image so as to position this point at the center of the 28x28 field. With some classification methods (particuarly template-based methods, such as SVM and K-nearest neighbors),

This is five years of police use of force data for all 468 New Jersey municipal police departments and the New Jersey State Police compiled by NJ Advance Media for The Force Report.

When police punch, pepper spray or use other force against someone in New Jersey, they are required to fill out a form detailing what happened. NJ Advance Media filed 506 public records requests and received 72,607 forms covering 2012 through 2016. For more data collection details, see our Methodology here. Data cleaning details can be found here.

We then cleaned, analyzed and compiled the data by department to get a better look at what departments were using the most force, what type of force they were using, and who they were using it on. The result, our searchable database, can be found at NJ.com/force. But we wanted to make department-level results — our aggregate data — available in another way to the broader public.

Below you'll find two files:

• UOF_BY_DEPARTMENTS.csv, with every department's summary data, including the State Police. (This is important to note because the State Police patrols multiple towns and may not be comparable to other departments.)
• UOF_STATEWIDE.csv, a statewide summary of the same data.

For more details on individual columns, see the data dictionary for UOF_BY_DEPARTMENTS. We have also created sample SQL queries to make it easy for users to quickly find their town or county.

It's important to note that these forms were self-reported by police officers, sometimes filled out by hand, so even our data cleaning can't totally prevent inaccuracies from cropping up. We've also included comparisons to population data (from the Census) and arrest data (from the FBI Uniform Crime Report), to try to help give context to what you're seeing.

What about the form-level data?

We have included individual incidents on each department page, but we are not publishing the form-level data freely to the public. Not only is that data extremely dirty and difficult to analyze — at least, it took us six months — but it contains private information about subjects of force, including minors and people with mental health issues. However, we are planning to make a version of that file available upon request in the future.

Data analysis FAQ

What are rows? What are incidents?
Every time any police officer uses force against a subject, they must fill out a form detailing what happened and what force they used. But sometimes multiple police officers used force against the same subject in the same incident. "Rows" are individual forms officers filled out, "incidents" are unique incidents based on the incident number and date.

What are the odds ratios, and how did you calculate them?
We wanted a simple way of showing readers the disparity between black and white subjects in a particular town. So we used an odds ratio, a statistical method often used in research to compare the odds of one thing happening to another. For population, the calculation was (Number of black subjects/Total black population of area)/(Number of white subjects/Total white population of area). For arrests, the calculation was (Number of black subjects/Total number of black arrests in area)/(Number of white subjects/Total number of white arrests in area). In addition, when we compared anything to arrests, we took out all incidents where the subject was an EDP (emotionally disturbed person).

What are the NYC/LA/Chicago warning systems?
Those three departments each look at use of force to flag officers if they show concerning patterns, as way to select those that could merit more training or other action by the department. We compared our data to those three systems to see how many officers would trigger the early warning systems for each. Here are the three systems: - In New York City, officers are flagged for review if they use higher levels of force — including a baton, Taser or firearm, but not pepper spray — or if anyone was injured or hospitalized. We calculated this number by identifying every officer who met one or more of the criteria. - In Los Angeles, officers are compared with one another based on 14 variables, including use of force. If an officer ranks significantly higher than peers for any of the variables — technically, 3 standards of deviation from the norm — supervisors are automatically notified. We calculated this number conservatively by using only use of force as a variable over the course of a calendar year. - In Chicago, officers are flagged for review if force results in an injury or hospitalization, or if the officer uses any level of force above punches or kicks. We calculated this number by identifying every officer who met one or more of the criteria.

What are the different levels of force?
Each officer was required to include in the form what type of force they used against a subject. We cleaned and standardized the data to major categories, although officers could write-in a different type of force if they wanted to. Here are the major categories: - Compliance hold: A compliance hold is a painful maneuver using pressure points to gain control over a suspect. It is the lowest level of force and the most commonly used. But it is often used in conjunction with other types of force. - Takedown: This technique is used to bring a suspect to the ground and eventually onto their stomach to cuff them. It can be a leg sweep or a tackle. - Hands/fist: Open hands or closed fist strikes/punches. - Leg strikes: Leg strikes are any kick or knee used on a subject. - Baton: Officers are trained to use a baton when punches or kicks are unsuccessful. - Pepper spray: Police pepper spray, a mist derived from the resin of cayenne pepper, is considered “mechanical force” under state guidelines. - Deadly force: The firing of an officer's service weapon, regardless of whether a subject was hit. “Warning shots” are prohibited, and officers are instructed not to shoot just to maim or subdue a suspect.

The World Health Organization estimates that almost 300 million people suffer from depression worldwide. Depression is the most common mental health disorder and shows racial disparities in disease prevalence, age of onset, severity of symptoms, frequency of diagnosis, and treatment utilization across the United States. Since depression has both social and genetic risk factors, we propose a conceptual model wherein social stressors are primary risk factors for depression, but genetic variants increase or decrease individual susceptibility to the effects of the social stressors. Our research strategy incorporates both social and genetic data to investigate variation in symptoms of depression (CES-D scores). We collected data on financial strain (difficulty paying bills) and personal social networks (a model of an individual’s social environment), and we genotyped genetic variants in five genes involved in stress reactivity (HTR1a, BDNF, GNB3, SLC6A4, and FKBP5) in 135 African Americans residing in Tallahassee, Florida. We found that high financial strain and a high percentage of people in one’s social network who are a source of stress or worry were significantly associated with higher CES-D scores and explained more variation in CES-D scores than did genetic factors. Only one genetic variant (rs1360780 in FKBP5) was significantly associated with CES-D scores and only when the social stressors were included in the model. Interestingly, the effect of FKPB5 appeared to be strongest in individuals with high financial strain such that participants with a T allele at rs1360780 in FKBP5 and high financial strain had the highest mean CES-D scores in our study population. These results suggest that material disadvantage and a stressful social environment increases the risk of depression, but that individual-level genetic variation may increase susceptibility to the adverse health consequences of social stressors.