United States Department of Transportation Public Data Listing. The file is formatted to comply with project open data common core metadata requirements (http://project-open-data.github.io/schema/) and conforms to schema version 1.1

BEA's Public Data Listing

A curated database of legal cases where generative AI produced hallucinated citations submitted in court filings.

Data collected from CSR production system.
Data begins 01/03/2014 and is refreshed daily at 8:00am.

Records from operating a customer call center or service center providing services to the public. Services may address a wide variety of topics such as understanding agency mission-specific functions or how to resolve technical difficulties with external-facing systems or programs. Includes:rn- incoming requests and responsesrn- trouble tickets and tracking logs rn- recordings of call center phone conversations with customers used for quality control and customer service trainingrn- system data, including customer ticket numbers and visit tracking rn- evaluations and feedback about customer servicesrn- information about customer services, such as “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) and user guidesrn- reports generated from customer management datarn- complaints and commendation records; customer feedback and satisfaction surveys, including survey instruments, data, background materials, and reports.

Note that this Crossref metadata is always openly available. The difference here is that we’ve done the time-saving work of putting all of the records registered through April 2023 into one file for download. To keep this metadata current, you can access new records via our public API at: And, if you do use our API, we encourage you to read the section of the documentation on "etiquette". That is, how to use the API without making it impossible for others to use.

Data represents feedback on learning environment from families. Aids in facilitating the understanding of families perceptions of students, teachers, environment of their school. The survey is aligned to the DOE's framework for great schools. It is designed to collect important information about each schools ability to support success.

The Public Health Research Database (PHRD) is a linked asset which currently includes Census 2011 data; Mortality Data; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); GP Extraction Service (GPES) Data for Pandemic Planning and Research data. Researchers may apply for these datasets individually or any combination of the current 4 datasets.

The purpose of this dataset is to enable analysis of deaths involving COVID-19 by multiple factors such as ethnicity, religion, disability and known comorbidities as well as age, sex, socioeconomic and marital status at subnational levels. 2011 Census data for usual residents of England and Wales, who were not known to have died by 1 January 2020, linked to death registrations for deaths registered between 1 January 2020 and 8 March 2021 on NHS number. The data exclude individuals who entered the UK in the year before the Census took place (due to their high propensity to have left the UK prior to the study period), and those over 100 years of age at the time of the Census, even if their death was not linked. The dataset contains all individuals who died (any cause) during the study period, and a 5% simple random sample of those still alive at the end of the study period. For usual residents of England, the dataset also contains comorbidity flags derived from linked Hospital Episode Statistics data from April 2017 to December 2019 and GP Extraction Service Data from 2015-2019.

United States Federal Government Financing: Borrowing from the Public data was reported at 2.000 USD bn in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 2.586 USD bn for Feb 2025. United States Federal Government Financing: Borrowing from the Public data is updated monthly, averaging 23.380 USD bn from Sep 1982 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 511 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,386.528 USD bn in Apr 2020 and a record low of -135.572 USD bn in Apr 2001. United States Federal Government Financing: Borrowing from the Public data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Bureau of the Fiscal Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.F005: Federal Government Receipts and Outlays.

Requests for public data to the State

This data from USAFacts provides US COVID-19 case and death counts by state and county. This data is sourced from the CDC, and state and local health agencies. For more information, see the USAFacts site on the Coronavirus. Interactive data visualizations are also available via USAFacts. This public dataset is hosted in Google BigQuery and is included in BigQuery's 1TB/mo of free tier processing. This means that each user receives 1TB of free BigQuery processing every month, which can be used to run queries on this public dataset. Watch this short video to learn how to get started quickly using BigQuery to access public datasets. What is BigQuery . This dataset has significant public interest in light of the COVID-19 crisis. All bytes processed in queries against this dataset will be zeroed out, making this part of the query free. Data joined with the dataset will be billed at the normal rate to prevent abuse. After September 15, queries over these datasets will revert to the normal billing rate.

The Excel file contains the raw data records of the map projection interpretation study at the Eötvös Loránd University. The data collection lasted between 23.01.2017 - 13.04.2017. The file contains one sheet holding all 331 data records.

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

This file contains governmental receipts for 1962 through the current budget year, as well as four years of projections. It can be used to reproduce many of the totals published in the Budget and examine unpublished details below the levels of aggregation published in the Budget.

Boston Public Schools (BPS) schools for the school year 2018-2019. Updated September 2018.

The global public cloud non-relational databases and NoSQL database market is projected to reach $24,908.32 million by 2033, exhibiting a CAGR of 16.8% during the forecast period (2023-2033). Factors such as the increasing adoption of cloud-based technologies, surging demand for data analytics, and growing need for flexible and scalable databases are driving the market growth. The key types of NoSQL databases include key-value storage, column storage, document database, and graph database. Among these, the key-value storage database segment currently holds the largest market share due to its simplicity, speed, and scalability. Regionally, North America is expected to dominate the market throughout the forecast period, owing to the high adoption of cloud-based technologies and presence of leading technology companies. However, the Asia Pacific region is anticipated to exhibit the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by the increasing demand for data analytics solutions and growing awareness of NoSQL databases. Key players in the market include IBM, MongoDB Inc, AWS, Apache Software Foundation, Neo Technologies (Pty) Ltd, InterSystems, Google, Oracle Corporation, Teradata, DataStax, and Software AG. These companies are focusing on innovation and partnerships to expand their market presence and meet the evolving needs of customers.

InvaCost is the most up-to-date, comprehensive, standardized and robust data compilation and description of economic cost estimates associated with invasive species worldwide1. InvaCost has been constructed to provide a contemporary and freely available repository of monetary impacts that can be relevant for both research and evidence-based policy making. The ongoing work made by the InvaCost consortium2,3,4 leads to constantly improving the structure and content of the database (see sections below). The list of actual contributors to this data resource now largely exceeds the list of authors listed in this page. All details regarding the previous versions of InvaCost can be found by switching from one version to another using the “version” button above. IMPORTANT UPDATES: 1. All information, files, outcomes, updates and resources related to the InvaCost project are now available on a new website: http://invacost.fr/2. The names of the following columns have been changed between the previous and the current version: ‘Raw_cost_estimate_local_currency’ is now named ‘Raw_cost_estimate_original_currency’; ‘Min_Raw_cost_estimate_local_currency’ is now named ‘Min_Raw_cost_estimate_original_currency’; ‘Max_Raw_cost_estimate_local_currency’ is now named ‘Max_Raw_cost_estimate_original_currency’; ‘Cost_estimate_per_year_local_currency’ is now named ‘Cost_estimate_per_year_original_currency’3. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the database and how to (1) understand it, (2) analyse it and (3) add new data are available at: https://farewe.github.io/invacost_FAQ/. There are over 60 questions (and responses), so there’s probably yours.4. Accordingly with the continuous development and updates of the database, a ‘living figure’ is now available online to display the evolving relative contributions of different taxonomic groups and regions to the overall cost estimates as the database is updated: https://borisleroy.com/invacost/invacost_livingfigure.html5. We have now added a new column called ‘InvaCost_ID’, which is now used to identify each cost entry in the current and future public versions of the database. As this new column only affects the identification of the cost entries and not their categorisation, this is not considered as a change of the structure of the whole database. Therefore, the first level of the version numbering remains ‘4’ (see VERSION NUMBERING section).

CONTENT: This page contains four files: (1) 'InvaCost_database_v4.1' which contains 13,553 cost entries depicted by 66 descriptive columns; (2) ‘Descriptors 4.1’ provides full definition and details about the descriptive columns used in the database; (3) ‘Update_Invacost_4.1’ has details about the all the changes made between previous and current versions of InvaCost; (4) ‘InvaCost_template_4.1’ (downloadable file) provides an easier way of entering data in the spreadsheet, standardizing all the terms used on it as much as possible to avoid mistakes and saving time at post-refining stages (this file should be used by any external contributor to propose new cost data).

METHODOLOGY: All the methodological details and tools used to build and populate this database are available in Diagne et al. 20201 and Angulo et al. 20215. Note that several papers used different approaches to investigate and analyse the database, and they are all available on our website http://invacost.fr/.

VERSION NUMBERING: InvaCost is regularly updated with contributions from both authors and future users in order to improve it both quantitatively (by new cost information) and qualitatively (if errors are identified). Any reader or user can propose to update InvaCost by filling the ‘InvaCost_updates_template’ file with new entries or corrections, and sending it to our email address (updates@invacost.fr). Each updated public version of InvaCost is stored in this figShare repository, with a unique version number. For this purpose, we consider the original version of InvaCost publicly released in September 2020 as ‘InvaCost_1.0’. The further updated versions are named using the subsequent numbering (e.g., ‘InvaCost_2.0’, InvaCost_2.1’) and all information on changes made are provided in a dedicated file called ‘Updates-InvaCost’ (named using the same numbering, e.g., ‘Updates-InvaCost_2.0’, ‘Updates-InvaCost_2.1’). We consider changing the first level of this numbering (e.g. ‘InvaCost_3.x’ ‘InvaCost_4.x’) only when the structure of the database changes. Every user wanting to have the most up-to-date version of the database should refer to the latest released version.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Every user should read the ‘Usage notes’ section of Diagne et al. 20201 before considering the database for analysis purposes or specific interpretation. InvaCost compiles cost data published in the literature, but does not aim to provide a ready-to-use dataset for specific analyses. While the cost data are described in a homogenized way in InvaCost, the intrinsic disparity, complexity, and heterogeneity of the cost data require specific data processing depending on the user objectives (see our FAQ). However, we provide necessary information and caveats about recorded costs, and we have now an open-source software designed to query and analyse this database6.

CAUTION: InvaCost is currently being analysed by a network of international collaborators in the frame of the InvaCost project2,3,4 (see https://invacost.fr/en/outcomes/). Interested users may contact the InvaCost team if they wish to learn more about or contribute to these current efforts. Users are in no way prevented from performing their own independent analyses and collaboration with this network is not required. Nonetheless, users and contributors are encouraged to contact the InvaCost team before using the database, as the information contained may not be directly implementable for specific analyses.

RELATED LINKS AND PUBLICATIONS:

1 Diagne, C., Leroy, B., Gozlan, R.E. et al. InvaCost, a public database of the economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Sci Data 7, 277 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00586-z

2 Diagne C, Catford JA, Essl F, Nuñez MA, Courchamp F (2020) What are the economic costs of biological invasions? A complex topic requiring international and interdisciplinary expertise. NeoBiota 63: 25–37. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.63.55260

3 Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/InvaCost-assessing-the-economic-costs-of-biological-invasions

4 InvaCost workshop: https://www.biodiversitydynamics.fr/invacost-workshop/

5 Angulo E, Diagne C, Ballesteros-Mejia L. et al. (2021) Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions. Science of the Total Environment 775:144441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441

6Leroy B, Kramer A M, Vaissière A-C, Courchamp F and Diagne C (2020) Analysing global economic costs of invasive alien species with the invacost R package. BioRXiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.419432

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 AM EASTERN ON JULY 15

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

About this Dataset

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

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

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

Using this Dataset

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

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

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

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects both public health and the environment by establishing the standards for national air quality. The EPA provides annual summary data as well as hourly and daily data in the categories of criteria gases, particulates, meteorological, and toxics. These datasets include measurements beginning in 1990 and are updated twice a year. In June, the complete data for the previous year is updated, and in December the summer data is updated. This public dataset is hosted in Google BigQuery and is included in BigQuery's 1TB/mo of free tier processing. This means that each user receives 1TB of free BigQuery processing every month, which can be used to run queries on this public dataset. Watch this short video to learn how to get started quickly using BigQuery to access public datasets. What is BigQuery .