The world population surpassed eight billion people in 2022, having doubled from its figure less than 50 years previously. Looking forward, it is projected that the world population will reach nine billion in 2038, and 10 billion in 2060, but it will peak around 10.3 billion in the 2080s before it then goes into decline. Regional variations The global population has seen rapid growth since the early 1800s, due to advances in areas such as food production, healthcare, water safety, education, and infrastructure, however, these changes did not occur at a uniform time or pace across the world. Broadly speaking, the first regions to undergo their demographic transitions were Europe, North America, and Oceania, followed by Latin America and Asia (although Asia's development saw the greatest variation due to its size), while Africa was the last continent to undergo this transformation. Because of these differences, many so-called "advanced" countries are now experiencing population decline, particularly in Europe and East Asia, while the fastest population growth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, the roughly two billion difference in population between now and the 2080s' peak will be found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which will rise from 1.2 billion to 3.2 billion in this time (although populations in other continents will also fluctuate). Changing projections The United Nations releases their World Population Prospects report every 1-2 years, and this is widely considered the foremost demographic dataset in the world. However, recent years have seen a notable decline in projections when the global population will peak, and at what number. Previous reports in the 2010s had suggested a peak of over 11 billion people, and that population growth would continue into the 2100s, however a sooner and shorter peak is now projected. Reasons for this include a more rapid population decline in East Asia and Europe, particularly China, as well as a prolongued development arc in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California as a whole based on information entered on death certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out-of-state deaths to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all deaths that occurred during the time period. Deaths involving injuries from external or environmental forces, such as accidents, homicide and suicide, often require additional investigation that tends to delay certification of the cause and manner of death. This can result in significant under-reporting of these deaths in provisional data.

The final data tables include both deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by age, gender, race-ethnicity, and death place type. Deaths due to all causes (ALL) and selected underlying cause of death categories are provided. See temporal coverage for more information on which combinations are available for which years.

The cause of death categories are based solely on the underlying cause of death as coded by the International Classification of Diseases. The underlying cause of death is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury." It is a single value assigned to each death based on the details as entered on the death certificate. When more than one cause is listed, the order in which they are listed can affect which cause is coded as the underlying cause. This means that similar events could be coded with different underlying causes of death depending on variations in how they were entered. Consequently, while underlying cause of death provides a convenient comparison between cause of death categories, it may not capture the full impact of each cause of death as it does not always take into account all conditions contributing to the death.

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

This archive contains the files submitted to the 4th International Workshop on Data: Acquisition To Analysis (DATA) at SenSys. Files provided in this package are associated with the paper titled "Dataset: Analysis of IFTTT Recipes to Study How Humans Use Internet-of-Things (IoT) Devices"

With the rapid development and usage of Internet-of-Things (IoT) and smart-home devices, researchers continue efforts to improve the ''smartness'' of those devices to address daily needs in people's lives. Such efforts usually begin with understanding evolving user behaviors on how humans utilize the devices and what they expect in terms of their behavior. However, while research efforts abound, there is a very limited number of datasets that researchers can use to both understand how people use IoT devices and to evaluate algorithms or systems for smart spaces. In this paper, we collect and characterize more than 50,000 recipes from the online If-This-Then-That (IFTTT) service to understand a seemingly straightforward but complicated question: ''What kinds of behaviors do humans expect from their IoT devices?'' The dataset we collected contains the basic information of the IFTTT rules, trigger and action event, and how many people are using each rule.

For more detail about this dataset, please refer to the paper listed above.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases among people who received additional or booster doses were reported from 31 jurisdictions; 30 jurisdictions also reported data on deaths among people who received one or more additional or booster dose; 28 jurisdictions reported cases among people who received two or more additional or booster doses; and 26 jurisdictions reported deaths among people who received two or more additional or booster doses. This list will be updated as more jurisdictions participate. Incidence rate estimates: Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall or with/without a booster dose (cumulative) or unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of people vaccinated with a primary series and partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates) and multiplied by 100,000. Overall incidence rates were age-standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. To estimate population counts for ages 6 months through 1 year, half of the single-year population counts for ages 0 through 1 year were used. All rates are plotted by positive specimen collection date to reflect when incident infections occurred. For the primary series analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 12 years and older from April 4, 2021 through December 4, 2021, ages 5 years and older from December 5, 2021 through July 30, 2022 and ages 6 months and older from July 31, 2022 onwards. For the booster dose analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 18 years and older from September 19, 2021 through December 25, 2021, ages 12 years and older from December 26, 2021, and ages 5 years and older from June 5, 2022 onwards. Small numbers could contribute to less precision when calculating death rates among some groups. Continuity correction: A continuity correction has been applied to the denominators by capping the percent population coverage at 95%. To do this, we assumed that at least 5% of each age group would always be unvaccinated in each jurisdiction. Adding this correction ensures that there is always a reasonable denominator for the unvaccinated population that would prevent incidence and death rates from growing unrealistically large due to potential overestimates of vaccination coverage. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs): IRRs for the past one month were calculated by dividing the average weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by that among people vaccinated with a primary series either overall or with a booster dose. Publications: Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al. Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1284–1290. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132–138. Johnson AG, Linde L, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Among Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Persons Aged ≥12 Years by Receipt of Bivalent Booster Doses and Time Since Vaccination — 24 U.S. Jurisdictions, October 3, 2021–December 24, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:145–152. Johnson AG, Linde L, Payne AB, et al. Notes from the Field: Comparison of COVID-19 Mortality Rates Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years Who Were Unvaccinated and Those Who Received a Bivalent Booster Dose Within the Preceding 6 Months — 20 U.S. Jurisdictions, September 18, 2022–April 1, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:667–669.

Object recognition predominately still relies on many high-quality training examples per object category. In contrast, learning new objects from only a few examples could enable many impactful applications from robotics to user personalization. Most few-shot learning research, however, has been driven by benchmark datasets that lack the high variation that these applications will face when deployed in the real-world. To close this gap, we present the ORBIT dataset, grounded in a real-world application of teachable object recognizers for people who are blind/low vision. We provide a full, unfiltered dataset of 4,733 videos of 588 objects recorded by 97 people who are blind/low-vision on their mobile phones, and a benchmark dataset of 3,822 videos of 486 objects collected by 77 collectors. The code for loading the dataset, computing all benchmark metrics, and running the baseline models is available at https://github.com/microsoft/ORBIT-DatasetThis version comprises several zip files:- train, validation, test: benchmark dataset, organised by collector, with raw videos split into static individual frames in jpg format at 30FPS- other: data not in the benchmark set, organised by collector, with raw videos split into static individual frames in jpg format at 30FPS (please note that the train, validation, test, and other files make up the unfiltered dataset)- *_224: as for the benchmark, but static individual frames are scaled down to 224 pixels.- *_unfiltered_videos: full unfiltered dataset, organised by collector, in mp4 format.

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.

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.

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.

🔗 Check out my notebook here: Link

This dataset includes malnutrition indicators and some of the features that might impact malnutrition. The detailed description of the dataset is given below:

• Percentage-of-underweight-children-data: Percentage of children aged 5 years or below who are underweight by country.

• Prevalence of Underweight among Female Adults (Age Standardized Estimate): Percentage of female adults whos BMI is less than 18.

• GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$): GDP per capita is gross domestic product divided by midyear population. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in constant 2015 U.S. dollars.

• Domestic general government health expenditure (% of GDP): Public expenditure on health from domestic sources as a share of the economy as measured by GDP.

• Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births): Maternal mortality ratio is the number of women who die from pregnancy-related causes while pregnant or within 42 days of pregnancy termination per 100,000 live births. The data are estimated with a regression model using information on the proportion of maternal deaths among non-AIDS deaths in women ages 15-49, fertility, birth attendants, and GDP measured using purchasing power parities (PPPs).

• Mean-age-at-first-birth-of-women-aged-20-50-data: Average age at which women of age 20-50 years have their first child.

• School enrollment, secondary, female (% gross): Gross enrollment ratio is the ratio of total enrollment, regardless of age, to the population of the age group that officially corresponds to the level of education shown. Secondary education completes the provision of basic education that began at the primary level, and aims at laying the foundations for lifelong learning and human development, by offering more subject- or skill-oriented instruction using more specialized teachers.

The iratebirds database contains comprehensive visual aesthetic attractiveness, as seen by humans, data for bird taxonomic units (following the eBird/Clements integrated checklist v. 2019). The data were collected with the iratebirds.app -website citizen science project, where users rated the appearance of birds on a linear scale from 1-10. The rating were based on photographs of the birds available from the Macaulay Library database. Each rating score of a bird species or subspecies is based on several photographs of the same bird species. The application code is openly available on GitHub: https://github.com/luomus/iratebirds The application was spread during August 2020 – April 2021, globally, to as wide audiences as possible using social media, traditional media, collaborators and email-lists.

The iratebirds database is based on 408 207 ratings from 6 212 users. It consists of raw visual aesthetic attractiveness rating data as well as complementary data from an online survey that sourced demographic information from a subset of 2 785 users who scored the birds. The online survey gives information on these users’ birding skills, nature connectedness, profession, home country, age and gender. On top of these, the data scores for birds’ visual aesthetic attractiveness to humans have been modelled with hierarchical models to obtain overall average scores for the bird species and subspecies. More details on the data are found in this file’s section “Methodological information” as well as in the publication Haukka, A. et al. (2023), The iratebirds Citizen Science Project: a Dataset on Birds’ Visual Aesthetic Attractiveness to Humans, Scientific Data. The full database "iratebirds_raw_data_taxonomy_photoinfo_ratings_survey_251022.csv" includes all the data related to the photographs scored (e.g. place and location of the photograph, and its quality), the species and subspecies names (following the eBird/Clements integrated checklist v. 2019), the raw scores made by the users, details of the users (e.g. language used), and internal user ID, and for the users who took the online survey, also detailed information about their demography, e.g. home country and other information related to their knowledge of and connection to nature and birds. The modeled rating scores database "iratebirds_final_predictions_average_fullmodel_subsetmodel_151122.csv" includes visual aesthetic attractiveness of birds, as perceived by humans, calculated in three different ways. The most appropiate score can be chosen by the user according to the specific research needs, but in general we recommend using the scores from the full model (ii). The three different measures are i) raw visual aesthetic attractiveness for each bird species (or subspecies), ii) full model: visual aesthetic attractiveness corrected for language group of the scorer and the quality of the photo scored, iii) subset model: visual aesthetic attractiveness corrected as in ii) plus other user specific factors (related to bird and nature knowlegde and connections, home country, age. and gender). The file also gives information on how many photos were used for scoring each bird and how many users have scored the species. The latter subset model iii) represents only a subset of all the species. The data on visual aesthetic attractiveness are also available at the species and the sex within-species level, for the sexually dichromatic species, in the file "iratebirds_pred_ratings_species_and_sex_level_120123.csv".

All database files are given both as .csv- and .xlsx -files. The data and code to reproduce the analyses, figures and tables presented in Haukka et al. 2023 The iratebirds citizen science project: a dataset of birds’ visual aesthetic attractiveness to humans (Scientific Data doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02169-0) are included in the 'iratebirds_raw_data_taxonomy_photoinfo_ratings_survey_251022.csv' and 'Haukka_et_al_Scientific_Data_modelling.R','Haukka_et_al_Scientific_Data_Figure.R' and 'Haukka_et_al_Scientific_Data_Tables.R' -files. Detailed information on dataprosessing and models can be found in the publication Haukka et al. 2023 The iratebirds Citizen Science Project: a Dataset on Birds’ Visual Aesthetic Attractiveness to Humans, Scientific Data doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02169-0)

Please contact Rongxin Fang (r3fang@fas.harvard.edu) for any question about the dataset. The human cerebral cortex has tremendous cellular diversity. How different cell types are organized in the human cortex and how cellular organization varies across species remain unclear. In this study, we performed spatially resolved single-cell profiling of 4000 genes using multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH), identified more than 100 transcriptionally distinct cell populations, and generated a molecularly defined and spatially resolved cell atlas of the human middle and superior temporal gyrus. We further explored cell-cell interactions arising from soma contact or proximity in a cell type–specific manner. Comparison of the human and mouse cortices showed conservation in the laminar organization of cells and divergence in somatic interactions across species. Our data revealed human-specific cell-cell proximity patterns and a marked increase in interaction enrichm...

This dataset provides information about the number of programs that have received Agency Review funding; how many of those programs had defined measurable outcome goals (DMOG) specified in the agencies funding request applications; and how many programs achieved their DMOG.The Agency Review process was developed to distribute human services funds to non-profit agencies. Agency Review funds come from the City of Tempe General Revenue Fund, Federal Community Development Block Grants, and water utility customer donations through Tempe’s Help to Others.This page provides data for the Human Services Grant performance measure.Identifies the people served as a result of Agency Review grant funding to non-profit agencies.The performance measure dashboard is available at 3.10 Human Services Grants.Additional InformationSource: e-CImpactContact: Octavia HarrisContact E-Mail: octavia_harris@tempe.govData Source Type: ExcelPreparation Method: Data downloaded from e-CImpact, then compiled in spreadsheet to establish yes/no fields for aggregate calculations by population servedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) neighborhood poverty group. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-poverty.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level. These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents. In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders.) Neighborhood-level poverty groups were classified in a manner consistent with Health Department practices to describe and monitor disparities in health in NYC. Neighborhood poverty measures are defined as the percentage of people earning below the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPT) within a ZCTA. The standard cut-points for defining categories of neighborhood-level poverty in NYC are: • Low: <10% of residents in ZCTA living below the FPT • Medium: 10% to <20% • High: 20% to <30% • Very high: ≥30% residents living below the FPT The ZCTAs used for classification reflect the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning. Rates for poverty were calculated using direct standardization for age at diagnosis and weighting by the US 2000 standard population. Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020. Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis will almost certain

This dataset supports measure EOA.F.4 and EOA.G.3 of SD23. It demonstrates the total number of enrollees to those who successfully completed training. Depending on the length of training which can last anywhere from 12 weeks to 3 years there may or may not be a completion rate available at the time of reporting. These trainees are all participating in Community Based Organization workforce training programs in partnership with the Master Community Workforce Plan adopted by Imagine Austin. After participants successfully complete training, the Ray Marshall Center monitors completer-participant earnings. Earnings above Federal Poverty Limit are considered "above poverty". Data sourced by University of Texas Ray Marshall Center, in partnership with Workforce Solution, Capital Area. View more details and insights related to this data set on the story page: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/xfnx-fpv8 https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Number-of-Persons-Moved-Out-of-Poverty-Into-Middle/xg7g-9uru/