This data was used for a review and meta-analysis on personal space in human-robot interaction by the contributors of this data. Some of the information had to be gained from email contact or estimated from figures and text of the source article.

Inferring human-scene contact (HSC) is the first step toward understanding how humans interact with their surroundings. While detecting 2D human-object interaction (HOI) and reconstructing 3D human pose and shape (HPS) have enjoyed significant progress, reasoning about 3D human-scene contact from a single image is still challenging. Existing HSC detection methods consider only a few types of predefined contact, often reduce body and scene to a small number of primitives, and even overlook image evidence. To predict human-scene contact from a single image, we address the limitations above from both data and algorithmic perspectives. We capture a new dataset called RICH for “Real scenes, Interaction, Contact and Humans.” RICH contains multiview outdoor/indoor video sequences at 4K resolution, ground-truth 3D human bodies captured using markerless motion capture, 3D body scans, and high resolution 3D scene scans. A key feature of RICH is that it also contains accurate vertex-level contact labels on the body

Dataset Card for "meta-shepherd-human-data"

Original Dataset: https://github.com/facebookresearch/Shepherd

  Example

Question: Where on the planet would you expect a bald eagle to live?

Here are the options: Option 1: colorado Option 2: outside Option 3: protection Option 4: zoo exhibit Option 5: world

Please choose the correct option and justify your choice:

Answer: Bald eagles are found throughout most of North America, from Alaska and Canada south to… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/philschmid/meta-shepherd-human-data.

The Cat & Dog Segmentation Dataset is crafted for the media & entertainment and tourism industries, featuring a broad collection of internet-collected images with resolutions varying from 367 x 288 to 3456 x 4608 pixels. This dataset focuses on contour segmentation and includes diverse annotations such as humans, cats, dogs, and environmental elements like walls, tables, grass, and water surfaces, among others.

HPS Dataset is a collection of 3D humans interacting with large 3D scenes (300-1000 $m^2$, up to 2500 $m^2$). The dataset contains images captured from a head-mounted camera coupled with the reference 3D pose and location of the person in a pre-scanned 3D scene. 7 people in 8 large scenes are captured performing activities such as exercising, reading, eating, lecturing, using a computer, making coffee, dancing. The dataset provides more than 300K synchronized RGB images coupled with the reference 3D pose and location.

The dataset can be used as a testbed for ego-centric tracking with scene constraints, to learn how humans interact and move within large scenes over long periods of time, and to learn how humans process visual input arriving at their eyes.

Here are a few use cases for this project:

1. Retail Analytics: Store owners can use the model to track the number of customers visiting their stores during different times of the day or seasons, which can help in workforce and resource allocation.

2. Crowd Management: Event organizers or public authorities can utilize the model to monitor crowd sizes at concerts, festivals, public gatherings or protests, aiding in security and emergency planning.

3. Smart Transportation: The model can be integrated into public transit systems to count the number of passengers in buses or trains, providing real-time occupancy information and assisting in transportation planning.

4. Health and Safety Compliance: During times of pandemics or emergencies, the model can be used to count the number of people in a location, ensuring compliance with restrictions on gathering sizes.

5. Building Security: The model can be adopted in security systems to track how many people enter and leave a building or a particular area, providing useful data for access control.

Human life is precious and in the event of any unfortunate occurrence, highest efforts are made to safeguard it. To provide timely aid or undertake extraction of humans in distress, it is critical to accurately locate them. There has been an increased usage of drones to detect and track humans in such situations. Drones are used to capture high resolution images during search and rescue purposes. It is possible to find survivors from drone feed, but that requires manual analysis. This is a time taking process and is prone to human errors. This model can detect humans by looking at drone imagery and can draw bounding boxes around the location. This model is trained on IPSAR and SARD datasets where humans are on macadam roads, in quarries, low and high grass, forest shade, and Mediterranean and Sub-Mediterranean landscapes. Deep learning models are highly capable of learning complex semantics and can produce superior results. Use this deep learning model to automate the task of detection, reducing the time and effort required significantly.Using the modelFollow the guide to use the model. Before using this model, ensure that the supported deep learning libraries are installed. For more details, check Deep Learning Libraries Installer for ArcGIS.Fine-tuning the modelThis model can be fine-tuned using the Train Deep Learning Model tool. Follow the guide to fine-tune this model.InputHigh resolution (1-5 cm) individual drone images or an orthomosaic.OutputFeature class containing detected humans.Applicable geographiesThe model is expected to work well in Mediterranean and Sub-Mediterranean landscapes but can also be tried in other areas.Model architectureThis model uses the FasterRCNN model architecture implemented in ArcGIS API for Python.Accuracy metricsThis model has an average precision score of 82.2 percent for human class.Training dataThis model is trained on search and rescue dataset provided by IPSAR and SARD.LimitationsThis model has a tendency to maximize detection of humans and errors towards producing false positives in rocky areas.Sample resultsHere are a few results from the model.

This dataset is about book series. It has 1 row and is filtered where the books is Algorithms, humans, and interactions : how do algorithms interact with people? : designing meaningful AI experiences. It features 10 columns including number of authors, number of books, earliest publication date, and latest publication date.

PASS (Pictures without humAns for Self-Supervision) is a large-scale dataset of 1,440,191 images that does not include any humans and which can be used for high-quality pretraining while significantly reducing privacy concerns. The PASS images are sourced from the YFCC-100M dataset.

The total amount of data created, captured, copied, and consumed globally is forecast to increase rapidly, reaching 149 zettabytes in 2024. Over the next five years up to 2028, global data creation is projected to grow to more than 394 zettabytes. In 2020, the amount of data created and replicated reached a new high. The growth was higher than previously expected, caused by the increased demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as more people worked and learned from home and used home entertainment options more often. Storage capacity also growing Only a small percentage of this newly created data is kept though, as just two percent of the data produced and consumed in 2020 was saved and retained into 2021. In line with the strong growth of the data volume, the installed base of storage capacity is forecast to increase, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 19.2 percent over the forecast period from 2020 to 2025. In 2020, the installed base of storage capacity reached 6.7 zettabytes.

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020.

Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

10,109 people - face images dataset includes people collected from many countries. Multiple photos of each person’s daily life are collected, and the gender, race, age, etc. of the person being collected are marked.This Dataset provides a rich resource for artificial intelligence applications. It has been validated by multiple AI companies and proves beneficial for achieving outstanding performance in real-world applications. Throughout the process of Dataset collection, storage, and usage, we have consistently adhered to Dataset protection and privacy regulations to ensure the preservation of user privacy and legal rights. All Dataset comply with regulations such as GDPR, CCPA, PIPL, and other applicable laws.

The "Forest Proximate People" (FPP) dataset is one of the data layers contributing to the development of indicator #13, “number of forest-dependent people in extreme poverty,” of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) Global Core Set of forest-related indicators (GCS). The FPP dataset provides an estimate of the number of people living in or within 5 kilometers of forests (forest-proximate people) for the year 2019 with a spatial resolution of 100 meters at a global level.

For more detail, such as the theory behind this indicator and the definition of parameters, and to cite this data, see: Newton, P., Castle, S.E., Kinzer, A.T., Miller, D.C., Oldekop, J.A., Linhares-Juvenal, T., Pina, L. Madrid, M., & de Lamo, J. 2022. The number of forest- and tree-proximate people: A new methodology and global estimates. Background Paper to The State of the World’s Forests 2022 report. Rome, FAO.

Contact points:

Maintainer: Leticia Pina

Maintainer: Sarah E., Castle

Data lineage:

The FPP data are generated using Google Earth Engine. Forests are defined by the Copernicus Global Land Cover (CGLC) (Buchhorn et al. 2020) classification system’s definition of forests: tree cover ranging from 15-100%, with or without understory of shrubs and grassland, and including both open and closed forests. Any area classified as forest sized ≥ 1 ha in 2019 was included in this definition. Population density was defined by the WorldPop global population data for 2019 (WorldPop 2018). High density urban populations were excluded from the analysis. High density urban areas were defined as any contiguous area with a total population (using 2019 WorldPop data for population) of at least 50,000 people and comprised of pixels all of which met at least one of two criteria: either the pixel a) had at least 1,500 people per square km, or b) was classified as “built-up” land use by the CGLC dataset (where “built-up” was defined as land covered by buildings and other manmade structures) (Dijkstra et al. 2020). Using these datasets, any rural people living in or within 5 kilometers of forests in 2019 were classified as forest proximate people. Euclidean distance was used as the measure to create a 5-kilometer buffer zone around each forest cover pixel. The scripts for generating the forest-proximate people and the rural-urban datasets using different parameters or for different years are published and available to users. For more detail, such as the theory behind this indicator and the definition of parameters, and to cite this data, see: Newton, P., Castle, S.E., Kinzer, A.T., Miller, D.C., Oldekop, J.A., Linhares-Juvenal, T., Pina, L., Madrid, M., & de Lamo, J. 2022. The number of forest- and tree-proximate people: a new methodology and global estimates. Background Paper to The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Rome, FAO.

References:

Buchhorn, M., Smets, B., Bertels, L., De Roo, B., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.E., Herold, M., Fritz, S., 2020. Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: collection 3 epoch 2019. Globe.

Dijkstra, L., Florczyk, A.J., Freire, S., Kemper, T., Melchiorri, M., Pesaresi, M. and Schiavina, M., 2020. Applying the degree of urbanisation to the globe: A new harmonised definition reveals a different picture of global urbanisation. Journal of Urban Economics, p.103312.

WorldPop (www.worldpop.org - School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton; Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville; Departement de Geographie, Universite de Namur) and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 2018. Global High Resolution Population Denominators Project - Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1134076). https://dx.doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/WP00645

Online resources:

GEE asset for "Forest proximate people - 5km cutoff distance"

The ArtiFact dataset is a large-scale image dataset that aims to include a diverse collection of real and synthetic images from multiple categories, including Human/Human Faces, Animal/Animal Faces, Places, Vehicles, Art, and many other real-life objects. The dataset comprises 8 sources that were carefully chosen to ensure diversity and includes images synthesized from 25 distinct methods, including 13 GANs, 7 Diffusion, and 5 other miscellaneous generators. The dataset contains 2,496,738 images, comprising 964,989 real images and 1,531,749 fake images.

To ensure diversity across different sources, the real images of the dataset are randomly sampled from source datasets containing numerous categories, whereas synthetic images are generated within the same categories as the real images. Captions and image masks from the COCO dataset are utilized to generate images for text2image and inpainting generators, while normally distributed noise with different random seeds is used for noise2image generators. The dataset is further processed to reflect real-world scenarios by applying random cropping, downscaling, and JPEG compression, in accordance with the IEEE VIP Cup 2022 standards.

The ArtiFact dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of synthetic image detectors under real-world conditions. It includes a broad spectrum of diversity in terms of generators used and syntheticity, providing a challenging dataset for image detection tasks.

Total number of images: 2,496,738 Number of real images: 964,989 Number of fake images: 1,531,749 Number of generators used for fake images: 25 (including 13 GANs, 7 Diffusion, and 5 miscellaneous generators) Number of sources used for real images: 8 Categories included in the dataset: Human/Human Faces, Animal/Animal Faces, Places, Vehicles, Art, and other real-life objects Image Resolution: 200 x 200

We indicate how likely a piece of content is computer generated or human written. Content: any text in English or Spanish, from a single sentence to articles of 1,000s words length.

Data uniqueness: we use custom built and trained NLP algorithms to assess human effort metrics that are inherent in text content. We focus on what's in the text, not metadata such as publication or engagement. Our AI algorithms are co-created by NLP & journalism experts. Our datasets have all been human-reviewed and labeled.

Dataset: CSV containing URL and/or body text, with attributed scoring as an integer and model confidence as a percentage. We ignore metadata such as author, publication, date, word count, shares and so on, to provide a clean and maximally unbiased assessment of how much human effort has been invested in content. Our data is provided in CSV/RSS/JSON format. One row = one scored article. CSV contains URL and/or body text, with attributed scoring as an integer and model confidence as a percentage.

Integrity indicators provided as integers on a 1–5 scale. We also have custom models with 35 categories that can be added on request.

Data sourcing: public websites, crawlers, scrapers, other partnerships where available. We generally can assess content behind paywalls as well as without paywalls. We source from ~4,000 news outlets, examples include: Bloomberg, CNN, BCC are one each. Countries: all English-speaking markets world-wide. Includes English-language content from non English majority regions, such as Germany, Scandinavia, Japan. Also available in Spanish on request.

Use-cases: assessing the implicit integrity and reliability of an article. There is correlation between integrity and human value: we have shown that articles scoring highly according to our scales show increased, sustained, ongoing end-user engagement. Clients also use this to assess journalistic output, publication relevance and to create datasets of 'quality' journalism.

Overtone provides a range of qualitative metrics for journalistic, newsworthy and long-form content. We find, highlight and synthesise content that shows added human effort and, by extension, added human value.

Population, female (% of total population) in World was reported at 49.71 % in 2023, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. World - Population, female (% of total) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on May of 2025.

Effective population size (Ne) is a particularly useful metric for conservation as it affects genetic drift, inbreeding and adaptive potential within populations. Current guidelines recommend a minimum Ne of 50 and 500 to avoid short-term inbreeding and to preserve long-term adaptive potential, respectively. However, the extent to which wild populations reach these thresholds globally has not been investigated, nor has the relationship between Ne and human activities. Through a quantitative review, we generated a dataset with 4610 georeferenced Ne estimates from 3829 unique populations, extracted from 723 articles. These data show that certain taxonomic groups are less likely to meet 50/500 thresholds and are disproportionately impacted by human activities; plant, mammal, and amphibian populations had a <54% probability of reaching = 50 and a <9% probability of reaching = 500. Populations listed as being of conservation concern according to the IUCN Red List had a smaller median than unlisted populations, and this was consistent across all taxonomic groups. was reduced in areas with a greater Global Human Footprint, especially for amphibians, birds, and mammals, however relationships varied between taxa. We also highlight several considerations for future works, including the role that gene flow and subpopulation structure plays in the estimation of in wild populations, and the need for finer-scale taxonomic analyses. Our findings provide guidance for more specific thresholds based on Ne and help prioritize assessment of populations from taxa most at risk of failing to meet conservation thresholds. Methods Literature search, screening, and data extraction A primary literature search was conducted using ISI Web of Science Core Collection and any articles that referenced two popular single-sample Ne estimation software packages: LDNe (Waples & Do, 2008), and NeEstimator v2 (Do et al., 2014). The initial search included 4513 articles published up to the search date of May 26, 2020. Articles were screened for relevance in two steps, first based on title and abstract, and then based on the full text. For each step, a consistency check was performed using 100 articles to ensure they were screened consistently between reviewers (n = 6). We required a kappa score (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2020) of ³ 0.6 in order to proceed with screening of the remaining articles. Articles were screened based on three criteria: (1) Is an estimate of Ne or Nb reported; (2) for a wild animal or plant population; (3) using a single-sample genetic estimation method. Further details on the literature search and article screening are found in the Supplementary Material (Fig. S1). We extracted data from all studies retained after both screening steps (title and abstract; full text). Each line of data entered in the database represents a single estimate from a population. Some populations had multiple estimates over several years, or from different estimation methods (see Table S1), and each of these was entered on a unique row in the database. Data on N̂e, N̂b, or N̂c were extracted from tables and figures using WebPlotDigitizer software version 4.3 (Rohatgi, 2020). A full list of data extracted is found in Table S2. Data Filtering After the initial data collation, correction, and organization, there was a total of 8971 Ne estimates (Fig. S1). We used regression analyses to compare Ne estimates on the same populations, using different estimation methods (LD, Sibship, and Bayesian), and found that the R2 values were very low (R2 values of <0.1; Fig. S2 and Fig. S3). Given this inconsistency, and the fact that LD is the most frequently used method in the literature (74% of our database), we proceeded with only using the LD estimates for our analyses. We further filtered the data to remove estimates where no sample size was reported or no bias correction (Waples, 2006) was applied (see Fig. S6 for more details). Ne is sometimes estimated to be infinity or negative within a population, which may reflect that a population is very large (i.e., where the drift signal-to-noise ratio is very low), and/or that there is low precision with the data due to small sample size or limited genetic marker resolution (Gilbert & Whitlock, 2015; Waples & Do, 2008; Waples & Do, 2010) We retained infinite and negative estimates only if they reported a positive lower confidence interval (LCI), and we used the LCI in place of a point estimate of Ne or Nb. We chose to use the LCI as a conservative proxy for in cases where a point estimate could not be generated, given its relevance for conservation (Fraser et al., 2007; Hare et al., 2011; Waples & Do 2008; Waples 2023). We also compared results using the LCI to a dataset where infinite or negative values were all assumed to reflect very large populations and replaced the estimate with an arbitrary large value of 9,999 (for reference in the LCI dataset only 51 estimates, or 0.9%, had an or > 9999). Using this 9999 dataset, we found that the main conclusions from the analyses remained the same as when using the LCI dataset, with the exception of the HFI analysis (see discussion in supplementary material; Table S3, Table S4 Fig. S4, S5). We also note that point estimates with an upper confidence interval of infinity (n = 1358) were larger on average (mean = 1380.82, compared to 689.44 and 571.64, for estimates with no CIs or with an upper boundary, respectively). Nevertheless, we chose to retain point estimates with an upper confidence interval of infinity because accounting for them in the analyses did not alter the main conclusions of our study and would have significantly decreased our sample size (Fig. S7, Table S5). We also retained estimates from populations that were reintroduced or translocated from a wild source (n = 309), whereas those from captive sources were excluded during article screening (see above). In exploratory analyses, the removal of these data did not influence our results, and many of these populations are relevant to real-world conservation efforts, as reintroductions and translocations are used to re-establish or support small, at-risk populations. We removed estimates based on duplication of markers (keeping estimates generated from SNPs when studies used both SNPs and microsatellites), and duplication of software (keeping estimates from NeEstimator v2 when studies used it alongside LDNe). Spatial and temporal replication were addressed with two separate datasets (see Table S6 for more information): the full dataset included spatially and temporally replicated samples, while these two types of replication were removed from the non-replicated dataset. Finally, for all populations included in our final datasets, we manually extracted their protection status according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Taxa were categorized as “Threatened” (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered), “Nonthreatened” (Least Concern, Near Threatened), or “N/A” (Data Deficient, Not Evaluated). Mapping and Human Footprint Index (HFI) All populations were mapped in QGIS using the coordinates extracted from articles. The maps were created using a World Behrmann equal area projection. For the summary maps, estimates were grouped into grid cells with an area of 250,000 km2 (roughly 500 km x 500 km, but the dimensions of each cell vary due to distortions from the projection). Within each cell, we generated the count and median of Ne. We used the Global Human Footprint dataset (WCS & CIESIN, 2005) to generate a value of human influence (HFI) for each population at its geographic coordinates. The footprint ranges from zero (no human influence) to 100 (maximum human influence). Values were available in 1 km x 1 km grid cell size and were projected over the point estimates to assign a value of human footprint to each population. The human footprint values were extracted from the map into a spreadsheet to be used for statistical analyses. Not all geographic coordinates had a human footprint value associated with them (i.e., in the oceans and other large bodies of water), therefore marine fishes were not included in our HFI analysis. Overall, 3610 Ne estimates in our final dataset had an associated footprint value.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

Count of COVID-19-associated deaths by date of death. Deaths reported to either the OCME or DPH are included in the COVID-19 data. COVID-19-associated deaths include persons who tested positive for COVID-19 around the time of death and persons who were not tested for COVID-19 whose death certificate lists COVID-19 disease as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.

Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 COVID-19 deaths in this report are defined as those for which the death certificate has an ICD-10 code of U07.1 as either a primary (underlying) or a contributing cause of death. More information on COVID-19 mortality can be found at the following link: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Mortality/Mortality-Statistics

Note the counts in this dataset may vary from the death counts in the other COVID-19-related datasets published on data.ct.gov, where deaths are counted on the date reported rather than the date of death

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:10 AM EASTERN ON JUNE 29

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.