U.S. Household Mental Health & Covid-19

Assessing the Impact of the Pandemic

By US Open Data Portal, data.gov [source]

About this dataset

This dataset offers a closer look into the mental health care received by U.S. households in the last four weeks during the Covid-19 pandemic. The sheer scale of this crisis is inspiring people of all ages, backgrounds, and geographies to come together to tackle the problem. The Household Pulse Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau was published with federal agency collaboration in order to draw up accurate and timely estimates about how Covid-19 is impacting employment status, consumer spending, food security, housing stability, education interruption, and physical and mental wellness amongst American households. In order to deliver meaningful results from this survey data about wellbeing at various levels of society during this trying period – which includes demographic characteristics such as age gender race/ethnicity training attainment – each consulted household was randomly selected according to certain weighted criteria to maintain accuracy throughout the findings This dataset will help you explore what's it like on the ground right now for everyone affected by Covid-19 - Will it inform your decisions or point you towards new opportunities?

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset contains information about the mental health care that U.S. households have received in the last 4 weeks, during the Covid-19 pandemic. This data is valuable when wanting to track and measure mental health needs across the country and draw comparisons between regions based on support available.

To use this dataset, it is important to understand each of its columns or variables in order to draw meaningful insights from the data. The ‘Indicator’ column indicates which type of indicator (percentage or absolute number) is being measured by this survey, while ‘Group’ and 'Subgroup' provide more specific details about who was surveyed for each indicator included in this dataset.

The Columns ‘Phase’ and 'Time Period' provide information regarding when each of these indicators was measured - whether during a certain phase or over a particular timespan - while columns such as 'Value', 'LowCI' & 'HighCI' show us how many individuals fell into what quartile range for each measurement taken (e.g., how many people reported they rarely felt lonely). Similarly, the column Suppression Flag helps us identify cases where value has been suppressed if it falls below a certain benchmark; this allows us to calculate accurate estimates more quickly without needing to sort through all suppressed values manually each time we use this dataset for analysis purposes. Finally, columns such as ‘Time Period Start Date’ & ‘Time Period End Date’ indicate which exact dates were used for measurements taken over different periods throughout those dates specified – useful when conducting time-series related analyses over longer periods of time within our research scope)

Overall, when using this dataset it's important to keep in mind exactly what indicator type you're looking at - percentage points or absolute numbers - as well its associated group/subgroup characteristics so that you can accurately interpret trends based on key findings had by interpreting any correlations drawn from these results!

Research Ideas

• Analyzing the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on mental health care among different subgroups such as racial and ethnic minorities, gender and age categories.
• Identifying geographical disparities in mental health services by comparing state level data for the same time period.
• Comparing changes in mental health care indicators over time to understand how the pandemic has impacted people's access to care within a quarter or over longer periods

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. ...

[1] The Progress by Population Group analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included subsets of the 1,111 measurable HP2020 objectives that have data available for any of six broad population characteristics: sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, disability status, and geographic location. Progress toward meeting HP2020 targets is presented for up to 24 population groups within these characteristics, based on objective data aggregated across HP2020 topic areas. The Progress by Population Group data are also available at the individual objective level in the downloadable data set. [2] The final value was generally based on data available on the HP2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into HP2030, more recent data will be included on the HP2030 website as it becomes available: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For more information on the HP2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt27.pdf. [4] Status for objectives included in the HP2020 Progress by Population Group analysis was determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The progress status categories used in HP2020 were: a. Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed). b. Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. c. Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. d. Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. NOTE: Measurable objectives had baseline data. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2020 Progress by Population Group database.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the United States population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for United States. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of United States by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in United States.

Key observations

The largest age group in United States was for the group of age 30 to 34 years years with a population of 22.71 million (6.86%), according to the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in United States was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 6.25 million (1.89%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Content

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

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the United States is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of United States total 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 United States Population by Age. You can refer the same here

This dataset includes the number of people enrolled in DSS services by town and by assistance type from CY 2015-2024. To view the full dataset and filter the data, click the "View Data" button at the top right of the screen. More data on people served by DSS can be found here. About this data For privacy considerations, a count of zero is used for counts less than five. A recipient is counted in all towns where that recipient resided in that year. Due to eligibility policies and operational processes, enrollment can vary slightly after publication. Please be aware of the point-in-time nature of the published data when comparing to other data published or shared by the Department of Social Services, as this data may vary slightly. Notes by year 2021 In March 2020, Connecticut opted to add a new Medicaid coverage group: the COVID-19 Testing Coverage for the Uninsured. Enrollment data on this limited-benefit Medicaid coverage group is being incorporated into Medicaid data effective January 1, 2021. Enrollment data for this coverage group prior to January 1, 2021, was listed under State Funded Medical. An historical accounting of enrollment of the specific coverage group starting in calendar year 2020 will also be published separately. 2018 On April 22, 2019 the methodology for determining HUSKY A Newborn recipients changed, which caused an increase of recipients for that benefit starting in October 2016. We now count recipients recorded in the ImpaCT system as well as in the HIX system for that assistance type, instead using HIX exclusively. Also, the methodology for determining the address of the recipients changed: 1. The address of a recipient in the ImpaCT system is now correctly determined specific to that month instead of using the address of the most recent month. This resulted in some shuffling of the recipients among townships starting in October 2016. If, in a given month, a recipient has benefit records in both the HIX system and in the ImpaCT system, the address of the recipient is now calculated as follows to resolve conflicts: Use the residential address in ImpaCT if it exists, else use the mailing address in ImpaCT if it exists, else use the address in HIX. This resulted in a reduction in counts for most townships starting in March 2017 because a single address is now used instead of two when the systems do not agree. On February 14, 2019 the enrollment counts for 2012-2015 across all programs were updated to account for an error in the data integration process. As a result, the count of the number of people served increased by 13% for 2012, 10% for 2013, 8% for 2014 and 4% for 2015. Counts for 2016, 2017 and 2018 remain unchanged. On January 16, 2019 these counts were revised to count a recipient in all locations that recipient resided in that year. On January 1, 2019 the counts were revised to count a recipient in only one town per year even when the recipient moved within the year. The most recent address is used.

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

Context

NYC Open Data is an opportunity to engage New Yorkers in the information that is produced and used by City government. We believe that every New Yorker can benefit from Open Data, and Open Data can benefit from every New Yorker. Source: https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/overview/

Content

Thanks to NYC Open Data, which makes public data generated by city agencies available for public use, and Citi Bike, we've incorporated over 150 GB of data in 5 open datasets into Google BigQuery Public Datasets, including:

• Over 8 million 311 service requests from 2012-2016

• More than 1 million motor vehicle collisions 2012-present

• Citi Bike stations and 30 million Citi Bike trips 2013-present

• Over 1 billion Yellow and Green Taxi rides from 2009-present

• Over 500,000 sidewalk trees surveyed decennially in 1995, 2005, and 2015

This dataset is deprecated and not being updated.

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/

https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/01/new-york-city-public-datasets-now-available-on-google-bigquery

This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source - https://data.cityofnewyork.us/ - and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

By accessing datasets and feeds available through NYC Open Data, the user agrees to all of the Terms of Use of NYC.gov as well as the Privacy Policy for NYC.gov. The user also agrees to any additional terms of use defined by the agencies, bureaus, and offices providing data. Public data sets made available on NYC Open Data are provided for informational purposes. The City does not warranty the completeness, accuracy, content, or fitness for any particular purpose or use of any public data set made available on NYC Open Data, nor are any such warranties to be implied or inferred with respect to the public data sets furnished therein.

The City is not liable for any deficiencies in the completeness, accuracy, content, or fitness for any particular purpose or use of any public data set, or application utilizing such data set, provided by any third party.

Banner Photo by @bicadmedia from Unplash.

Inspiration

On which New York City streets are you most likely to find a loud party?

Can you find the Virginia Pines in New York City?

Where was the only collision caused by an animal that injured a cyclist?

What’s the Citi Bike record for the Longest Distance in the Shortest Time (on a route with at least 100 rides)?

https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/01/images/148467900588042/nyc-dataset-6.png" alt="enter image description here"> https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/01/images/148467900588042/nyc-dataset-6.png

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California counties 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 each California county regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to residents of each California county (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in each county 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.

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 prolonged development arc in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

The total population in the United States was estimated at 341.2 million people in 2024, according to the latest census figures and projections from Trading Economics. This dataset provides - United States Population - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The Polish Open-Ended Question Answering Dataset is a meticulously curated collection of comprehensive Question-Answer pairs. It serves as a valuable resource for training Large Language Models (LLMs) and Question-answering models in the Polish language, advancing the field of artificial intelligence.

Dataset Content:

This QA dataset comprises a diverse set of open-ended questions paired with corresponding answers in Polish. There is no context paragraph given to choose an answer from, and each question is answered without any predefined context content. The questions cover a broad range of topics, including science, history, technology, geography, literature, current affairs, and more.

Each question is accompanied by an answer, providing valuable information and insights to enhance the language model training process. Both the questions and answers were manually curated by native Polish people, and references were taken from diverse sources like books, news articles, websites, and other reliable references.

This question-answer prompt completion dataset contains different types of prompts, including instruction type, continuation type, and in-context learning (zero-shot, few-shot) type. The dataset also contains questions and answers with different types of rich text, including tables, code, JSON, etc., with proper markdown.

Question Diversity:

To ensure diversity, this Q&A dataset includes questions with varying complexity levels, ranging from easy to medium and hard. Different types of questions, such as multiple-choice, direct, and true/false, are included. Additionally, questions are further classified into fact-based and opinion-based categories, creating a comprehensive variety. The QA dataset also contains the question with constraints and persona restrictions, which makes it even more useful for LLM training.

Answer Formats:

To accommodate varied learning experiences, the dataset incorporates different types of answer formats. These formats include single-word, short phrases, single sentences, and paragraph types of answers. The answer contains text strings, numerical values, date and time formats as well. Such diversity strengthens the Language model's ability to generate coherent and contextually appropriate answers.

Data Format and Annotation Details:

This fully labeled Polish Open Ended Question Answer Dataset is available in JSON and CSV formats. It includes annotation details such as id, language, domain, question_length, prompt_type, question_category, question_type, complexity, answer_type, rich_text.

Quality and Accuracy:

The dataset upholds the highest standards of quality and accuracy. Each question undergoes careful validation, and the corresponding answers are thoroughly verified. To prioritize inclusivity, the dataset incorporates questions and answers representing diverse perspectives and writing styles, ensuring it remains unbiased and avoids perpetuating discrimination.

Both the question and answers in Polish are grammatically accurate without any word or grammatical errors. No copyrighted, toxic, or harmful content is used while building this dataset.

Continuous Updates and Customization:

The entire dataset was prepared with the assistance of human curators from the FutureBeeAI crowd community. Continuous efforts are made to add more assets to this dataset, ensuring its growth and relevance. Additionally, FutureBeeAI offers the ability to collect custom question-answer data tailored to specific needs, providing flexibility and customization options.

License:

The dataset, created by FutureBeeAI, is now ready for commercial use. Researchers, data scientists, and developers can utilize this fully labeled and ready-to-deploy Polish Open Ended Question Answer Dataset to enhance the language understanding capabilities of their generative ai models, improve response generation, and explore new approaches to NLP question-answering tasks.

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.

Note: 11/1/2023: Publication of the COVID data will be delayed because of technical difficulties. Note: 9/20/2023: With the end of the federal emergency and reporting requirements continuing to evolve, the Indiana Department of Health will no longer publish and refresh the COVID-19 datasets after November 15, 2023 - one final dataset publication will continue to be available. Vaccination demographics data by county/region, by race, by ethnicity, by gender, and by age. Fields with less than 5 results have been marked as suppressed. Note: 3/22/2023: Due to a technical issue updates are delayed for COVID data. New files will be published as soon as they are available. Historical Changes: 1/5/2023: Due to a technical issue the COVID datasets were not updated on 1/4/23. Updates will be published as soon as they are available. 9/29/22: Due to a technical difficulty, the weekly COVID datasets were not generated yesterday. They will be updated with current data today - 9/29 - and may result in a temporary discrepancy with the numbers published on the dashboard until the normal weekly refresh resumes 10/5. 9/27/2022: As of 9/28, the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) is moving to a weekly COVID update for the dashboard and all associated datasets to continue to provide trend data that is applicable and usable for our partners and the public. This is to maintain alignment across the nation as states move to weekly updates. 8/19/2022 - The first and second dose columns are being removed as of 8/22/22 as the Health department has transitioned to reporting on Fully/Partially vaccinated. The final historical file including these columns from 8/19 will continue to be available. 2/10/2022: Data was not published on 2/9/2022 due to a technical issue, but updated data was released 2/10/2022. 10/13/2021: This dataset now includes columns for new and total booster shots administered. Please see the data dictionary for additional details. 08/06/2021: There are updates today to county-level vaccination rates to reflect a correction to records that were assigned to the wrong location based on ZIP code. 06/23/2021: COVID Hub files will no longer be updated on Saturdays. The normal refresh of these files has been changed to Mon-Fri. 06/10/2021: COVID Hub files will no longer be updated on Sundays. The normal refresh of these files has been changed to Mon-Sat. 06/07/2021: Today’s new counts include doses newly reported to the Indiana Department of Health on Saturday and Sunday. 06/03/2021: Individuals are able to update their personal and demographic information during the vaccination registration process. Today’s data reflects changes made by individuals to their race, ethnicity, or county of residence over the course of their vaccination series. 05/13/2021: The 12-15 year-old age group has been added into the dataset as of today. 05/06/2021: On Monday 5/3, individuals classified as "Unknown" county of residence were inadvertently converted to "Out of State." These individuals have been corrected in today's dataset. 03/11/2021: This dataset has been updated to include totals and newly administered single dose vaccination data. Additionally the existing age groups have been further stratified into a 16-19 year old age group, and 5 year groups for 20-79 year olds.

Note: In these datasets, a person is defined as up to date if they have received at least one dose of an updated COVID-19 vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that certain groups, including adults ages 65 years and older, receive additional doses.

On 6/16/2023 CDPH replaced the booster measures with a new “Up to Date” measure based on CDC’s new recommendations, replacing the primary series, boosted, and bivalent booster metrics The definition of “primary series complete” has not changed and is based on previous recommendations that CDC has since simplified. A person cannot complete their primary series with a single dose of an updated vaccine. Whereas the booster measures were calculated using the eligible population as the denominator, the new up to date measure uses the total estimated population. Please note that the rates for some groups may change since the up to date measure is calculated differently than the previous booster and bivalent measures.

This data is from the same source as the Vaccine Progress Dashboard at https://covid19.ca.gov/vaccination-progress-data/ which summarizes vaccination data at the county level by county of residence. Where county of residence was not reported in a vaccination record, the county of provider that vaccinated the resident is included. This applies to less than 1% of vaccination records. The sum of county-level vaccinations does not equal statewide total vaccinations due to out-of-state residents vaccinated in California.

These data do not include doses administered by the following federal agencies who received vaccine allocated directly from CDC: Indian Health Service, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Totals for the Vaccine Progress Dashboard and this dataset may not match, as the Dashboard totals doses by Report Date and this dataset totals doses by Administration Date. Dose numbers may also change for a particular Administration Date as data is updated.

Previous updates:

• On March 3, 2023, with the release of HPI 3.0 in 2022, the previous equity scores have been updated to reflect more recent community survey information. This change represents an improvement to the way CDPH monitors health equity by using the latest and most accurate community data available. The HPI uses a collection of data sources and indicators to calculate a measure of community conditions ranging from the most to the least healthy based on economic, housing, and environmental measures.

• Starting on July 13, 2022, the denominator for calculating vaccine coverage has been changed from age 5+ to all ages to reflect new vaccine eligibility criteria. Previously the denominator was changed from age 16+ to age 12+ on May 18, 2021, then changed from age 12+ to age 5+ on November 10, 2021, to reflect previous changes in vaccine eligibility criteria. The previous datasets based on age 16+ and age 5+ denominators have been uploaded as archived tables.

• Starting on May 29, 2021 the methodology for calculating on-hand inventory in the shipped/delivered/on-hand dataset has changed. Please see the accompanying data dictionary for details. In addition, this dataset is now down to the ZIP code level.

Updates are delayed due to technical difficulties. How many people are staying at home? How far are people traveling when they don’t stay home? Which states and counties have more people taking trips? The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) now provides answers to those questions through our new mobility statistics. The Trips by Distance data and number of people staying home and not staying home are estimated for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the Maryland Transportation Institute and Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory at the University of Maryland. The travel statistics are produced from an anonymized national panel of mobile device data from multiple sources. All data sources used in the creation of the metrics contain no personal information. Data analysis is conducted at the aggregate national, state, and county levels. A weighting procedure expands the sample of millions of mobile devices, so the results are representative of the entire population in a nation, state, or county. To assure confidentiality and support data quality, no data are reported for a county if it has fewer than 50 devices in the sample on any given day. Trips are defined as movements that include a stay of longer than 10 minutes at an anonymized location away from home. Home locations are imputed on a weekly basis. A movement with multiple stays of longer than 10 minutes before returning home is counted as multiple trips. Trips capture travel by all modes of transportation. including driving, rail, transit, and air. The daily travel estimates are from a mobile device data panel from merged multiple data sources that address the geographic and temporal sample variation issues often observed in a single data source. The merged data panel only includes mobile devices whose anonymized location data meet a set of data quality standards, which further ensures the overall data quality and consistency. The data quality standards consider both temporal frequency and spatial accuracy of anonymized location point observations, temporal coverage and representativeness at the device level, spatial representativeness at the sample and county level, etc. A multi-level weighting method that employs both device and trip-level weights expands the sample to the underlying population at the county and state levels, before travel statistics are computed. These data are experimental and may not meet all of our quality standards. Experimental data products are created using new data sources or methodologies that benefit data users in the absence of other relevant products. We are seeking feedback from data users and stakeholders on the quality and usefulness of these new products. Experimental data products that meet our quality standards and demonstrate sufficient user demand may enter regular production if resources permit.

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.

Egypt number dataset can be a great element for direct marketing nationwide right now. Also, this Egypt number dataset has thousands of active mobile numbers that help to increase sales in the company. Most importantly, you can develop your business by bringing many trustworthy B2C customers. Likewise, clients can send you a fast response whether they need it or not. Furthermore, this Egypt number dataset is a very essential tool for telemarketing. In other words, you get all these 95% valid leads at a very cheap price from us. Most importantly, our List To Data website still follows the full GDPR rules strictly. In addition, the return on investment (ROI) will give you satisfaction from the business. Egypt phone data is a very powerful contact database that you can get in your budget. Moreover, the Egypt phone data is very beneficial for fast business growth through direct marketing. In fact, our List To Data assures you that we give verified numbers at an affordable cost. As such, you can say that it brings you more profit than your expense. Additionally, the Egypt phone data has all the details like name, age, gender, location, and business. Anyway, people can connect with the largest group of consumers quickly through this. However, people can use these cell phone numbers without any worry. Thus, buy it from us as our experts are ready to present the most satisfactory service. Egypt phone number list is very helpful for any business and marketing. People can use this Egypt phone number list to develop their telemarketing. They can easily reach consumers through direct calls or SMS. In other words, we gather all the database and recheck it, so you should buy our packages right now. Furthermore, you can believe this correct directory to maximize your company’s growth rapidly. Also, we deliver the Egypt phone number list in an Excel and CSV file. Actually, the country’s mobile number library will help you in getting more profit than investment. Similarly, the List To Data expert team is ready to help you 24 hours with any necessary details that can help your business. Hence, buy this telemarketing lead at a very reasonable price to expand sales through B2C customers.

The German Open-Ended Question Answering Dataset is a meticulously curated collection of comprehensive Question-Answer pairs. It serves as a valuable resource for training Large Language Models (LLMs) and Question-answering models in the German language, advancing the field of artificial intelligence.

Dataset Content:

This QA dataset comprises a diverse set of open-ended questions paired with corresponding answers in German. There is no context paragraph given to choose an answer from, and each question is answered without any predefined context content. The questions cover a broad range of topics, including science, history, technology, geography, literature, current affairs, and more.

Each question is accompanied by an answer, providing valuable information and insights to enhance the language model training process. Both the questions and answers were manually curated by native German people, and references were taken from diverse sources like books, news articles, websites, and other reliable references.

This question-answer prompt completion dataset contains different types of prompts, including instruction type, continuation type, and in-context learning (zero-shot, few-shot) type. The dataset also contains questions and answers with different types of rich text, including tables, code, JSON, etc., with proper markdown.

Question Diversity:

To ensure diversity, this Q&A dataset includes questions with varying complexity levels, ranging from easy to medium and hard. Different types of questions, such as multiple-choice, direct, and true/false, are included. Additionally, questions are further classified into fact-based and opinion-based categories, creating a comprehensive variety. The QA dataset also contains the question with constraints and persona restrictions, which makes it even more useful for LLM training.

Answer Formats:

To accommodate varied learning experiences, the dataset incorporates different types of answer formats. These formats include single-word, short phrases, single sentences, and paragraph types of answers. The answer contains text strings, numerical values, date and time formats as well. Such diversity strengthens the Language model's ability to generate coherent and contextually appropriate answers.

Data Format and Annotation Details:

This fully labeled German Open Ended Question Answer Dataset is available in JSON and CSV formats. It includes annotation details such as id, language, domain, question_length, prompt_type, question_category, question_type, complexity, answer_type, rich_text.

Quality and Accuracy:

The dataset upholds the highest standards of quality and accuracy. Each question undergoes careful validation, and the corresponding answers are thoroughly verified. To prioritize inclusivity, the dataset incorporates questions and answers representing diverse perspectives and writing styles, ensuring it remains unbiased and avoids perpetuating discrimination.

Both the question and answers in German are grammatically accurate without any word or grammatical errors. No copyrighted, toxic, or harmful content is used while building this dataset.

Continuous Updates and Customization:

The entire dataset was prepared with the assistance of human curators from the FutureBeeAI crowd community. Continuous efforts are made to add more assets to this dataset, ensuring its growth and relevance. Additionally, FutureBeeAI offers the ability to collect custom question-answer data tailored to specific needs, providing flexibility and customization options.

License:

The dataset, created by FutureBeeAI, is now ready for commercial use. Researchers, data scientists, and developers can utilize this fully labeled and ready-to-deploy German Open Ended Question Answer Dataset to enhance the language understanding capabilities of their generative ai models, improve response generation, and explore new approaches to NLP question-answering tasks.

Our China WhatsApp Broadcast Lead gives you access to verified customer details. It helps you send one message to many people instantly, making marketing faster and easier. With this dataset, your business can promote products, reach customers directly, and improve communication effectively. Every business needs growth and customer connections daily ? and this China broadcast lead makes it simple and efficient with the help of Lead to Database.

• Format: Excel / CSV (CRM-Ready)
• Fields: Name ? Phone ? WhatsApp ? Email ? Location
• Coverage: China (B2B + B2C)
• Best For: WhatsApp Broadcast ? Bulk SMS ? Direct Outreach

China Broadcast List | Verified & Easy Marketing

The China WhatsApp Broadcast List helps you find the right people quickly. You can share offers, updates, and promotions with thousands of verified contacts at once. It saves time, reduces marketing costs compared to traditional methods, and builds stronger customer trust. With this verified dataset, you can prepare a single marketing message and broadcast it nationwide.

• 95%+ Verified & Active WhatsApp Numbers
• Share Promotions, Offers & Updates Instantly
• Cost-Effective Compared to Traditional Marketing
• Nationwide Coverage of China Audience

China WhatsApp Marketing Database | Ready-to-Use

Our China WhatsApp Marketing Database is ready-to-use for multiple business purposes. From product launches, service reminders, and discount offers to event invites and important business notices, this tool gives flexibility and supports all marketing needs. Since the data is sourced from trusted providers, you can be sure your messages reach active users only.

• Fresh & Permission-Based Data
• Perfect for Product Launches ? Offers ? Events
• Affordable for Small & Large Businesses
• High ROI from Verified & Genuine Contacts

China WhatsApp Audience Campaign | Connect Personally

China WhatsApp Audience Campaigns provide a personal and efficient way to connect with customers. Messages feel direct and build stronger trust, which often converts into lasting customer relationships. This makes WhatsApp one of the most cost-effective marketing tools. Almost everyone checks WhatsApp frequently ? so your message will be seen faster than emails or ads.

• Personal & Direct Customer Engagement
• Wide Coverage with Low Marketing Cost
• Trusted Source: Lead to Database
• Ideal for Both B2B & B2C Campaigns

Our China WhatsApp Broadcast Data is a powerful tool to reach people directly where they are. It helps your business grow faster, build trust, and improve communication. Get this verified dataset today from Lead to Database and start running successful WhatsApp campaigns across the China.

Background
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.

Longitudinal data
The LFS retains each sample household for five consecutive quarters, with a fifth of the sample replaced each quarter. The main survey was designed to produce cross-sectional data, but the data on each individual have now been linked together to provide longitudinal information. The longitudinal data comprise two types of linked datasets, created using the weighting method to adjust for non-response bias. The two-quarter datasets link data from two consecutive waves, while the five-quarter datasets link across a whole year (for example January 2010 to March 2011 inclusive) and contain data from all five waves. A full series of longitudinal data has been produced, going back to winter 1992. Linking together records to create a longitudinal dimension can, for example, provide information on gross flows over time between different labour force categories (employed, unemployed and economically inactive). This will provide detail about people who have moved between the categories. Also, longitudinal information is useful in monitoring the effects of government policies and can be used to follow the subsequent activities and circumstances of people affected by specific policy initiatives, and to compare them with other groups in the population. There are however methodological problems which could distort the data resulting from this longitudinal linking. The ONS continues to research these issues and advises that the presentation of results should be carefully considered, and warnings should be included with outputs where necessary.

New reweighting policy
Following the new reweighting policy ONS has reviewed the latest population estimates made available during 2019 and have decided not to carry out a 2019 LFS and APS reweighting exercise. Therefore, the next reweighting exercise will take place in 2020. These will incorporate the 2019 Sub-National Population Projection data (published in May 2020) and 2019 Mid-Year Estimates (published in June 2020). It is expected that reweighted Labour Market aggregates and microdata will be published towards the end of 2020/early 2021.

LFS Documentation
The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each user guide volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned. However, volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the latest documents on the ONS Labour Force Survey - User Guidance pages before commencing analysis. This is especially important for users of older QLFS studies, where information and guidance in the user guide documents may have changed over time.

Additional data derived from the QLFS
The Archive also holds further QLFS series: End User Licence (EUL) quarterly data; Secure Access datasets; household datasets; quarterly, annual and ad hoc module datasets compiled for Eurostat; and some additional annual Northern Ireland datasets.

Variables DISEA and LNGLST
Dataset A08 (Labour market status of disabled people) which ONS suspended due to an apparent discontinuity between April to June 2017 and July to September 2017 is now available. As a result of this apparent discontinuity and the inconclusive investigations at this stage, comparisons should be made with caution between April to June 2017 and subsequent time periods. However users should note that the estimates are not seasonally adjusted, so some of the change between quarters could be due to seasonality. Further recommendations on historical comparisons of the estimates will be given in November 2018 when ONS are due to publish estimates for July to September 2018.

An article explaining the quality assurance investigations that have been conducted so far is available on the ONS Methodology webpage. For any queries about Dataset A08 please email Labour.Market@ons.gov.uk.

Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data files

The ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/revisionofmiscodedoccupationaldataintheonslabourforcesurveyuk/january2021toseptember2022" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.

2022 Weighting

The population totals used for the latest LFS estimates use projected growth rates from Real Time Information (RTI) data for UK, EU and non-EU populations based on 2021 patterns. The total population used for the LFS therefore does not take into account any changes in migration, birth rates, death rates, and so on since June 2021, and hence levels estimates may be under- or over-estimating the true values and should be used with caution. Estimates of rates will, however, be robust.