Provides data on people moving through space, including total number observed, gender breakdown, group size, and age groups.

The City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is providing data from the public life studies it has conducted since 2017. These studies consist of measuring the number of people using public space and the types of activities present on select sidewalks across the city, as well as several parks and plazas. The data set is continually updated as SDOT and other parties conduct public life studies using Gehl Institute’s Public Life Data Protocol.

This dataset consists of four component spreadsheets and a GeoJSON file, which provide public life data as well as information about the study design and study locations:

1 Public Life Study: provides details on the different studies that have been conducted, including project information. https://data.seattle.gov/Transportation/Public-Life-Data-Study/7qru-sdcp

2 Public Life Location: provides details on the sites selected for each study, including various attributes to allow for comparison across sites. https://data.seattle.gov/Transportation/Public-Life-Data-Locations/fg6z-cn3y

3 Public Life People Moving: provides data on people moving through space, including total number observed, gender breakdown, group size, and age groups.

4 Public Life People Staying: provides data on people staying still in the space, including total number observed, demographic data, group size, postures, and activities. https://data.seattle.gov/Transportation/Public-Life-Data-People-Staying/5mzj-4rtf

5 Public Life Geography: A GeoJSON file with polygons of every location studied. https://data.seattle.gov/Transportation/Public-Life-Data-Geography/v4q3-5hvp

Please download and refer to the Public Life metadata document - in the attachment section below - for comprehensive information about all of the Public Life datasets.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

Reasons for moving and location of previous dwelling for households that moved in the past five years, and intentions to move in less than five years for all households, Canada, provinces and territories.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Los Angeles population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Los Angeles across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Los Angeles was 3.82 million, a 0.05% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Los Angeles population was 3.82 million, a decline of 0.26% compared to a population of 3.83 million in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Los Angeles increased by 118,340. In this period, the peak population was 3.98 million in the year 2019. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Los Angeles is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Los Angeles population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. 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 Los Angeles Population by Year. You can refer the same here

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.

This study was deposited in 2008, as a result of the move from seasonal to calendar quarters for the QLFS, and the reweighting process to 2007-2008 population figures. It combines data from previously-available QLFS seasonal two-quarter longitudinal datasets. The depositor has advised that small revisions to the data may have been made during this process, but they should not be significant.

For the second edition (July 2015) an updated version of the data file was deposited, weighted to 2014 population figures (based on Census 2011).

This story provides information on individuals who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations and then return to homelessness within 2 years from their exit in the Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care (CoC) in a given fiscal year.

This annual study provides migration pattern data for the United States by State or by county and are available for inflows (the number of new residents who moved to a State or county and where they migrated from) and outflows (the number of residents who left a State or county and where they moved to). The data include the number of returns filed, number of personal exemptions claimed, total adjusted gross income, and aggregate migration flows at the State level, by the size of adjusted gross income (AGI) and by age of the primary taxpayer. Data are collected and based on year-to-year address changes reported on U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (Form 1040) filed with the IRS. SOI collects these data as part of its Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) Statistics program, Data by Geographic Areas, U.S. Population Migration Data.

The dataset includes information about how populations are responding to physical distancing measures. The metrics used in this dataset include Change in Movement and Stay Put, that provide a slightly different perspective on movement trends. Change in Movement looks at how much people are moving around and compares it with a baseline period that predates most social distancing measures, while Stay Put looks at the fraction of the population that appear to stay within a small area during an entire day.

Some say climate change is the biggest threat of our age while others say it’s a myth based on dodgy science. We are turning some of the data over to you so you can form your own view.

Even more than with other data sets that Kaggle has featured, there’s a huge amount of data cleaning and preparation that goes into putting together a long-time study of climate trends. Early data was collected by technicians using mercury thermometers, where any variation in the visit time impacted measurements. In the 1940s, the construction of airports caused many weather stations to be moved. In the 1980s, there was a move to electronic thermometers that are said to have a cooling bias.

Given this complexity, there are a range of organizations that collate climate trends data. The three most cited land and ocean temperature data sets are NOAA’s MLOST, NASA’s GISTEMP and the UK’s HadCrut.

We have repackaged the data from a newer compilation put together by the Berkeley Earth, which is affiliated with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study combines 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 pre-existing archives. It is nicely packaged and allows for slicing into interesting subsets (for example by country). They publish the source data and the code for the transformations they applied. They also use methods that allow weather observations from shorter time series to be included, meaning fewer observations need to be thrown away.

In this dataset, we have include several files:

Global Land and Ocean-and-Land Temperatures (GlobalTemperatures.csv):

• Date: starts in 1750 for average land temperature and 1850 for max and min land temperatures and global ocean and land temperatures
• LandAverageTemperature: global average land temperature in celsius
• LandAverageTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the average
• LandMaxTemperature: global average maximum land temperature in celsius
• LandMaxTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the maximum land temperature
• LandMinTemperature: global average minimum land temperature in celsius
• LandMinTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the minimum land temperature
• LandAndOceanAverageTemperature: global average land and ocean temperature in celsius
• LandAndOceanAverageTemperatureUncertainty: the 95% confidence interval around the global average land and ocean temperature

Other files include:

• Global Average Land Temperature by Country (GlobalLandTemperaturesByCountry.csv)
• Global Average Land Temperature by State (GlobalLandTemperaturesByState.csv)
• Global Land Temperatures By Major City (GlobalLandTemperaturesByMajorCity.csv)
• Global Land Temperatures By City (GlobalLandTemperaturesByCity.csv)

The raw data comes from the Berkeley Earth data page.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

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.

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.

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: 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.

This study was deposited in 2008, as a result of the move from seasonal to calendar quarters for the QLFS, and the reweighting process to 2007-2008 population figures. It combines data from previously-available QLFS seasonal five-quarter longitudinal datasets. The depositor has advised that small revisions to the data may have been made during this process, but they should not...

Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.30 percent in June from 62.40 percent in May of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Labor Force Participation Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Analysis of ‘Missing Migrants Dataset’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/jmataya/missingmigrants on 14 February 2022.

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

About the Missing Migrants Data

This data is sourced from the International Organization for Migration. The data is part of a specific project called the Missing Migrants Project which tracks deaths of migrants, including refugees , who have gone missing along mixed migration routes worldwide. The research behind this project began with the October 2013 tragedies, when at least 368 individuals died in two shipwrecks near the Italian island of Lampedusa. Since then, Missing Migrants Project has developed into an important hub and advocacy source of information that media, researchers, and the general public access for the latest information.

Where is the data from?

Missing Migrants Project data are compiled from a variety of sources. Sources vary depending on the region and broadly include data from national authorities, such as Coast Guards and Medical Examiners; media reports; NGOs; and interviews with survivors of shipwrecks. In the Mediterranean region, data are relayed from relevant national authorities to IOM field missions, who then share it with the Missing Migrants Project team. Data are also obtained by IOM and other organizations that receive survivors at landing points in Italy and Greece. In other cases, media reports are used. IOM and UNHCR also regularly coordinate on such data to ensure consistency. Data on the U.S./Mexico border are compiled based on data from U.S. county medical examiners and sheriff’s offices, as well as media reports for deaths occurring on the Mexico side of the border. Estimates within Mexico and Central America are based primarily on media and year-end government reports. Data on the Bay of Bengal are drawn from reports by UNHCR and NGOs. In the Horn of Africa, data are obtained from media and NGOs. Data for other regions is drawn from a combination of sources, including media and grassroots organizations. In all regions, Missing Migrants Projectdata represents minimum estimates and are potentially lower than in actuality.

Updated data and visuals can be found here: https://missingmigrants.iom.int/

Who is included in Missing Migrants Project data?

IOM defines a migrant as any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of

  (1) the person’s legal status; 
  (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; 
  (3) what the causes for the movement are; or 
  (4) what the length of the stay is.[1]

Missing Migrants Project counts migrants who have died or gone missing at the external borders of states, or in the process of migration towards an international destination. The count excludes deaths that occur in immigration detention facilities, during deportation, or after forced return to a migrant’s homeland, as well as deaths more loosely connected with migrants’ irregular status, such as those resulting from labour exploitation. Migrants who die or go missing after they are established in a new home are also not included in the data, so deaths in refugee camps or housing are excluded. This approach is chosen because deaths that occur at physical borders and while en route represent a more clearly definable category, and inform what migration routes are most dangerous. Data and knowledge of the risks and vulnerabilities faced by migrants in destination countries, including death, should not be neglected, rather tracked as a distinct category.

How complete is the data on dead and missing migrants?

Data on fatalities during the migration process are challenging to collect for a number of reasons, most stemming from the irregular nature of migratory journeys on which deaths tend to occur. For one, deaths often occur in remote areas on routes chosen with the explicit aim of evading detection. Countless bodies are never found, and rarely do these deaths come to the attention of authorities or the media. Furthermore, when deaths occur at sea, frequently not all bodies are recovered - sometimes with hundreds missing from one shipwreck - and the precise number of missing is often unknown. In 2015, over 50 per cent of deaths recorded by the Missing Migrants Project refer to migrants who are presumed dead and whose bodies have not been found, mainly at sea.

Data are also challenging to collect as reporting on deaths is poor, and the data that does exist are highly scattered. Few official sources are collecting data systematically. Many counts of death rely on media as a source. Coverage can be spotty and incomplete. In addition, the involvement of criminal actors in incidents means there may be fear among survivors to report deaths and some deaths may be actively covered-up. The irregular immigration status of many migrants, and at times their families as well, also impedes reporting of missing persons or deaths.

The varying quality and comprehensiveness of data by region in attempting to estimate deaths globally may exaggerate the share of deaths that occur in some regions, while under-representing the share occurring in others.

What can be understood through this data?

The available data can give an indication of changing conditions and trends related to migration routes and the people travelling on them, which can be relevant for policy making and protection plans. Data can be useful to determine the relative risks of irregular migration routes. For example, Missing Migrants Project data show that despite the increase in migrant flows through the eastern Mediterranean in 2015, the central Mediterranean remained the more deadly route. In 2015, nearly two people died out of every 100 travellers (1.85%) crossing the Central route, as opposed to one out of every 1,000 that crossed from Turkey to Greece (0.095%). From the data, we can also get a sense of whether groups like women and children face additional vulnerabilities on migration routes.

However, it is important to note that because of the challenges in data collection for the missing and dead, basic demographic information on the deceased is rarely known. Often migrants in mixed migration flows do not carry appropriate identification. When bodies are found it may not be possible to identify them or to determine basic demographic information. In the data compiled by Missing Migrants Project, sex of the deceased is unknown in over 80% of cases. Region of origin has been determined for the majority of the deceased. Even this information is at times extrapolated based on available information – for instance if all survivors of a shipwreck are of one origin it was assumed those missing also came from the same region.

The Missing Migrants Project dataset includes coordinates for where incidents of death took place, which indicates where the risks to migrants may be highest. However, it should be noted that all coordinates are estimates.

Why collect data on missing and dead migrants?

By counting lives lost during migration, even if the result is only an informed estimate, we at least acknowledge the fact of these deaths. What before was vague and ill-defined is now a quantified tragedy that must be addressed. Politically, the availability of official data is important. The lack of political commitment at national and international levels to record and account for migrant deaths reflects and contributes to a lack of concern more broadly for the safety and well-being of migrants, including asylum-seekers. Further, it drives public apathy, ignorance, and the dehumanization of these groups.

Data are crucial to better understand the profiles of those who are most at risk and to tailor policies to better assist migrants and prevent loss of life. Ultimately, improved data should contribute to efforts to better understand the causes, both direct and indirect, of fatalities and their potential links to broader migration control policies and practices.

Counting and recording the dead can also be an initial step to encourage improved systems of identification of those who die. Identifying the dead is a moral imperative that respects and acknowledges those who have died. This process can also provide a some sense of closure for families who may otherwise be left without ever knowing the fate of missing loved ones.

Identification and tracing of the dead and missing

As mentioned above, the challenge remains to count the numbers of dead and also identify those counted. Globally, the majority of those who die during migration remain unidentified. Even in cases in which a body is found identification rates are low. Families may search for years or a lifetime to find conclusive news of their loved one. In the meantime, they may face psychological, practical, financial, and legal problems.

Ultimately Missing Migrants Project would like to see that every unidentified body, for which it is possible to recover, is adequately “managed”, analysed and tracked to ensure proper documentation, traceability and dignity. Common forensic protocols and standards should be agreed upon, and used within and between States. Furthermore, data relating to the dead and missing should be held in searchable and open databases at local, national and international levels to facilitate identification.

For more in-depth analysis and discussion of the numbers of missing and dead migrants around the world, and the challenges involved in identification and tracing, read our two reports on the issue, Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration (2014) and Fatal Journeys Volume 2, Identification and Tracing of Dead and Missing Migrants

Content

The data set records

Context and Content

A company which is active in Big Data and Data Science wants to hire data scientists among people who successfully pass some courses which conduct by the company. Many people signup for their training. Company wants to know which of these candidates are really wants to work for the company after training or looking for a new employment because it helps to reduce the cost and time as well as the quality of training or planning the courses and categorization of candidates. Information related to demographics, education, experience are in hands from candidates signup and enrollment.

This dataset designed to understand the factors that lead a person to leave current job for HR researches too. By model(s) that uses the current credentials,demographics,experience data you will predict the probability of a candidate to look for a new job or will work for the company, as well as interpreting affected factors on employee decision.

The whole data divided to train and test . Target isn't included in test but the test target values data file is in hands for related tasks. A sample submission correspond to enrollee_id of test set provided too with columns : enrollee _id , target

Note: - The dataset is imbalanced. - Most features are categorical (Nominal, Ordinal, Binary), some with high cardinality. - Missing imputation can be a part of your pipeline as well.

#

Features - enrollee_id : Unique ID for candidate. - city: City code. - city_ development _index : Developement index of the city (scaled). - gender: Gender of candidate - relevent_experience: Relevant experience of candidate - enrolled_university: Type of University course enrolled if any - education_level: Education level of candidate - major_discipline :Education major discipline of candidate - experience: Candidate total experience in years - company_size: No of employees in current employer's company - company_type : Type of current employer - last_new_job: Difference in years between previous job and current job - training_hours: training hours completed - target: 0 – Not looking for job change, 1 – Looking for a job change

Inspiration

• Predict the probability of a candidate will work for the company
• Interpret model(s) such a way that illustrate which features affect candidate decision # Please refer to the following task for more details: https://www.kaggle.com/arashnic/hr-analytics-job-change-of-data-scientists/tasks?taskId=3015

This data set is supplement to this Scientific Reports article.

The data set provides estimates of country-level daily mobility metrics (uncertainty included) for 17 countries from March 11, 2020 to present. Estimates are based on more than 3.8 million smartphone trajectories.

Metrics:

Estimated daily average travelled distance by people.

Estimated percentage of people who did not move during the 24 hours of the day.

Countries: Argentina (ARG), Chile (CHL), Colombia (COL), Costa Rica (CRI), Ecuador (ECU), Greece (GRC), Guatemala (GTM), Italy (ITA), Mexico (MEX), Nicaragua (NIC), Panama (PAN), Peru (PER), Philippines (PHL), Slovenia (SVN), Turkey (TUR), United States (USA) and Venezuela (VEN).

Covered period: from March 11, 2020 to present.

Temporal resolution: daily.

Temporal smoothing:

No smoothing.

7-day moving average.

14-day moving average.

21-day moving average.

28-day moving average.

Uncertainty: 95% bootstrap confidence interval.

Data ownership

Anonymized data on smartphone trajectories are collected, owned and managed by Futura Innovation SRL. Smartphone trajectories are stored and analyzed on servers owned by Futura Innovation SRL and not shared with third parties, including the author of this repository and his organization (University of Bergamo).

Contribution

Ilaria Cremonesi of Futura Innovation SRL is the data owner and data manager.

Francesco Finazzi of University of Bergamo developed the statistical methodology for the data analysis and the algorithms implemented on Futura Innovation SRL servers.

Repository update

CSV files of this repository are regularly produced by Futura Innovation SRL and published by the repository's author after validation.

Analysis of ‘Moves from abroad to origin and sex, since 1971’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/5082cd31-f324-4fcb-9393-9d73d0c38986-stadt-zurich on 16 January 2022.

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

Number of people moving from abroad to the city of Zurich. By origin, gender and year, since 1971.

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

This study was deposited in 2008, as a result of the move from seasonal to calendar quarters for the QLFS, and the reweighting process to 2007-2008 population figures. It combines data from previously-available QLFS seasonal five-quarter longitudinal datasets. The depositor has advised that small revisions to the data may have been made during this process, but they should not be significant.

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.

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.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the North Carolina population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of North Carolina across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of North Carolina was 11.05 million, a 1.51% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, North Carolina population was 10.88 million, an increase of 1.59% compared to a population of 10.71 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of North Carolina increased by 2.97 million. In this period, the peak population was 11.05 million in the year 2024. The numbers suggest that the population has not reached its peak yet and is showing a trend of further growth. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the North Carolina is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in North Carolina population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. 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 North Carolina Population by Year. You can refer the same here