According to the results of a survey on customer experience (CX) among businesses conducted in the United States in 2021, the main challenge affecting data analysis capability for CX is the lack of reliability and integrity of available data. Data security followed, being chosen by almost 46 percent of the respondents.

This study is part of a quadrennial series designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate. This public opinion study of the United States focused on respondents' opinions of the United States' leadership role in the world and the challenges the country faces domestically and internationally. The survey covered the following international topics: relations with other countries, role in foreign affairs, possible threats to vital interests in the next ten years, foreign policy goals, benefits or drawbacks of globalization, situations that might justify the use of United States troops in other parts of the world, the number and location of United States military bases overseas, respondent feelings toward people of other countries, opinions on the influence of other countries in the world and how much influence those countries should have, whether there should be a global regulating body to prevent economic instability, international trade, United States participation in potential treaties, the United States' role in the United Nations and NATO, respondent opinions on international institutions and regulating bodies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization, whether the United States will continue to be the world's leading power in the next 50 years, democracy in the Middle East and South Korea, the role of the United Nations Security Council, which side the United States should take in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what measures should be taken to deal with Iran's nuclear program, the military effort in Afghanistan, opinions on efforts to combat terrorism and the use of torture to extract information from prisoners, whether the respondent favors or opposes the government selling military equipment to other nations and using nuclear weapons in various circumstances, the economic development of China, and the conflict between North and South Korea. Domestic issues included economic prospects for American children when they become adults, funding for government programs, the fairness of the current distribution of income in the United States, the role of government, whether the government can be trusted to do what is right, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, United States' dependence on foreign energy sources, drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of the United States, and relations with Mexico including such issues as the ongoing drug war, as well as immigration and immigration reform. Demographic and other background information included age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, left-right political self-placement, political affiliation, employment status, highest level of education, and religious preference. Also included are household size and composition, whether the respondent is head of household, household income, housing type, ownership status of living quarters, household Internet access, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status, and region and state of residence.

During a survey conducted among TV marketers in the United States and released in May 2023, the main challenge of merging linear and digital data was identified by 53 percent of respondents with the lack of common metrics across channels. The creation of a holistic framework for planning and measurement was mentioned by 41 percent of respondents, while 40 percent cited data-sharing restrictions by walled gardens.

The U.S. Census defines Asian Americans as individuals having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1997). As a broad racial category, Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The growth rate of 42.9% in Asian Americans between 2000 and 2010 is phenomenal given that the corresponding figure for the U.S. total population is only 9.3% (see Figure 1). Currently, Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the total U.S. population and are projected to reach 10% by 2050. It is particularly notable that Asians have recently overtaken Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2015). The rapid growth rate and unique challenges as a new immigrant group call for a better understanding of the social and health needs of the Asian American population.

Overview The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control. National Geospatial Data Asset This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Dataset Source Details Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground. Cartographic Visualization The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below. Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html Contact Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip Attribute Structure The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB. Core Attributes The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields. County Code and Country Name Fields “CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard. The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user. Descriptive Fields The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line. ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively. The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps. The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between: International Boundaries (Rank 1); Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling. Use of the “CC1,” “CC1_GENC3,” “CC2,” “CC2_GENC3,” “RANK,” or “NOTES” fields for cartographic labeling purposes is prohibited. Extension Attributes Certain elements of the attributes within the LSIB dataset extend data functionality to make the data more interoperable or to provide clearer linkages to other datasets. The fields “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC” contain the corresponding three-character GENC code to the “CC1” and “CC2” attributes. The code “QX2” is the three-character counterpart of the code “Q2,” which denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with a geographic area not contained within the GENC standard. To allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and World Polygons dataset, the “CC1_WPID” and “CC2_WPID” fields contain a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), version 4, which provides a stable description of each geographic entity in a boundary pair relationship. Each UUID corresponds to a geographic entity listed in the World Polygons dataset. These fields allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and the overall World Polygons dataset. Five additional fields in the LSIB expand on the UUID concept and either describe features that have changed across space and time or indicate relationships between previous versions of the feature. The “LSIB_ID” attribute is a UUID value that defines a specific instance of a feature. Any change to the feature in a lineset requires a new “LSIB_ID.” The “ANTECIDS,” or antecedent ID, is a UUID that references line geometries from which a given line is descended in time. It is used when there is a feature that is entirely new, not when there is a new version of a previous feature. This is generally used to reference countries that have dissolved. The “PREVIDS,” or Previous ID, is a UUID field that contains old versions of a line. This is an additive field, that houses all Previous IDs. A new version of a feature is defined by any change to the

According to a survey conducted among stakeholders in the healthcare industry in the United States in 2020, 47 percent of respondents indicated that lack of data standardization was the biggest challenge to health data sharing between payers and providers. Furthermore, a lack of technical interoperability and quality of data that is shared was each noted by 44 percent of respondents.

Unemployment Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 4.20 percent in May. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is the principal source of information on the health of the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States and is one of the major data collection programs of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The National Health Survey Act of 1956 provided for a continuing survey and special studies to secure accurate and current statistical information on the amount, distribution, and effects of illness and disability in the United States and the services rendered for or because of such conditions. The survey referred to in the Act, now called the National Health Interview Survey, was initiated in July 1957. Since 1960, the survey has been conducted by NCHS, which was formed when the National Health Survey and the National Vital Statistics Division were combined. NHIS data are used widely throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to monitor trends in illness and disability and to track progress toward achieving national health objectives. The data are also used by the public health research community for epidemiologic and policy analysis of such timely issues as characterizing those with various health problems, determining barriers to accessing and using appropriate health care, and evaluating Federal health programs. The NHIS also has a central role in the ongoing integration of household surveys in DHHS. The designs of two major DHHS national household surveys have been or are linked to the NHIS. The National Survey of Family Growth used the NHIS sampling frame in its first five cycles and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey currently uses half of the NHIS sampling frame. Other linkage includes linking NHIS data to death certificates in the National Death Index (NDI). While the NHIS has been conducted continuously since 1957, the content of the survey has been updated about every 10-15 years. In 1996, a substantially revised NHIS questionnaire began field testing. This revised questionnaire, described in detail below, was implemented in 1997 and has improved the ability of the NHIS to provide important health information.

Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

This process is collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provide the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. CDC may retrospectively update counts to correct data quality issues.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Important note: The counts reflected during a given time period in this dataset may not match the counts reflected for the same time period in the archived dataset noted above. Discrepancies may exist due to differences between county and state COVID-19 case surveillance and reconciliation efforts.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data was reported at 14.000 % in Mar 2025. This stayed constant from the previous number of 14.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data is updated monthly, averaging 14.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.000 % in Mar 2025 and a record low of 14.000 % in Mar 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Survey High: Competit'n frm Big Bus data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

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.

Introduction

There are several works based on Natural Language Processing on newspaper reports. Mining opinions from headlines [ 1 ] using Standford NLP and SVM by Rameshbhaiet. Al.compared several algorithms on a small and large dataset. Rubinet. al., in their paper [ 2 ], created a mechanism to differentiate fake news from real ones by building a set of characteristics of news according to their types. The purpose was to contribute to the low resource data available for training machine learning algorithms. Doumitet. al.in [ 3 ] have implemented LDA, a topic modeling approach to study bias present in online news media.

However, there are not many NLP research invested in studying COVID-19. Most applications include classification of chest X-rays and CT-scans to detect presence of pneumonia in lungs [ 4 ], a consequence of the virus. Other research areas include studying the genome sequence of the virus[ 5 ][ 6 ][ 7 ] and replicating its structure to fight and find a vaccine. This research is crucial in battling the pandemic. The few NLP based research publications are sentiment classification of online tweets by Samuel et el [ 8 ] to understand fear persisting in people due to the virus. Similar work has been done using the LSTM network to classify sentiments from online discussion forums by Jelodaret. al.[ 9 ]. NKK dataset is the first study on a comparatively larger dataset of a newspaper report on COVID-19, which contributed to the virus’s awareness to the best of our knowledge.

2 Data-set Introduction

2.1 Data Collection

We accumulated 1000 online newspaper report from United States of America (USA) on COVID-19. The newspaper includes The Washington Post (USA) and StarTribune (USA). We have named it as “Covid-News-USA-NNK”. We also accumulated 50 online newspaper report from Bangladesh on the issue and named it “Covid-News-BD-NNK”. The newspaper includes The Daily Star (BD) and Prothom Alo (BD). All these newspapers are from the top provider and top read in the respective countries. The collection was done manually by 10 human data-collectors of age group 23- with university degrees. This approach was suitable compared to automation to ensure the news were highly relevant to the subject. The newspaper online sites had dynamic content with advertisements in no particular order. Therefore there were high chances of online scrappers to collect inaccurate news reports. One of the challenges while collecting the data is the requirement of subscription. Each newspaper required $1 per subscriptions. Some criteria in collecting the news reports provided as guideline to the human data-collectors were as follows:

The headline must have one or more words directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

The content of each news must have 5 or more keywords directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

The genre of the news can be anything as long as it is relevant to the topic. Political, social, economical genres are to be more prioritized.

Avoid taking duplicate reports.

Maintain a time frame for the above mentioned newspapers.

To collect these data we used a google form for USA and BD. We have two human editor to go through each entry to check any spam or troll entry.

2.2 Data Pre-processing and Statistics

Some pre-processing steps performed on the newspaper report dataset are as follows:

Remove hyperlinks.

Remove non-English alphanumeric characters.

Remove stop words.

Lemmatize text.

While more pre-processing could have been applied, we tried to keep the data as much unchanged as possible since changing sentence structures could result us in valuable information loss. While this was done with help of a script, we also assigned same human collectors to cross check for any presence of the above mentioned criteria.

The primary data statistics of the two dataset are shown in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1: Covid-News-USA-NNK data statistics

No of words per headline

7 to 20

No of words per body content

150 to 2100

Table 2: Covid-News-BD-NNK data statistics No of words per headline

10 to 20

No of words per body content

100 to 1500

2.3 Dataset Repository

We used GitHub as our primary data repository in account name NKK^1. Here, we created two repositories USA-NKK^2 and BD-NNK^3. The dataset is available in both CSV and JSON format. We are regularly updating the CSV files and regenerating JSON using a py script. We provided a python script file for essential operation. We welcome all outside collaboration to enrich the dataset.

3 Literature Review

Natural Language Processing (NLP) deals with text (also known as categorical) data in computer science, utilizing numerous diverse methods like one-hot encoding, word embedding, etc., that transform text to machine language, which can be fed to multiple machine learning and deep learning algorithms.

Some well-known applications of NLP includes fraud detection on online media sites[ 10 ], using authorship attribution in fallback authentication systems[ 11 ], intelligent conversational agents or chatbots[ 12 ] and machine translations used by Google Translate[ 13 ]. While these are all downstream tasks, several exciting developments have been made in the algorithm solely for Natural Language Processing tasks. The two most trending ones are BERT[ 14 ], which uses bidirectional encoder-decoder architecture to create the transformer model, that can do near-perfect classification tasks and next-word predictions for next generations, and GPT-3 models released by OpenAI[ 15 ] that can generate texts almost human-like. However, these are all pre-trained models since they carry huge computation cost. Information Extraction is a generalized concept of retrieving information from a dataset. Information extraction from an image could be retrieving vital feature spaces or targeted portions of an image; information extraction from speech could be retrieving information about names, places, etc[ 16 ]. Information extraction in texts could be identifying named entities and locations or essential data. Topic modeling is a sub-task of NLP and also a process of information extraction. It clusters words and phrases of the same context together into groups. Topic modeling is an unsupervised learning method that gives us a brief idea about a set of text. One commonly used topic modeling is Latent Dirichlet Allocation or LDA[17].

Keyword extraction is a process of information extraction and sub-task of NLP to extract essential words and phrases from a text. TextRank [ 18 ] is an efficient keyword extraction technique that uses graphs to calculate the weight of each word and pick the words with more weight to it.

Word clouds are a great visualization technique to understand the overall ’talk of the topic’. The clustered words give us a quick understanding of the content.

4 Our experiments and Result analysis

We used the wordcloud library^4 to create the word clouds. Figure 1 and 3 presents the word cloud of Covid-News-USA- NNK dataset by month from February to May. From the figures 1,2,3, we can point few information:

In February, both the news paper have talked about China and source of the outbreak.

StarTribune emphasized on Minnesota as the most concerned state. In April, it seemed to have been concerned more.

Both the newspaper talked about the virus impacting the economy, i.e, bank, elections, administrations, markets.

Washington Post discussed global issues more than StarTribune.

StarTribune in February mentioned the first precautionary measurement: wearing masks, and the uncontrollable spread of the virus throughout the nation.

While both the newspaper mentioned the outbreak in China in February, the weight of the spread in the United States are more highlighted through out March till May, displaying the critical impact caused by the virus.

We used a script to extract all numbers related to certain keywords like ’Deaths’, ’Infected’, ’Died’ , ’Infections’, ’Quarantined’, Lock-down’, ’Diagnosed’ etc from the news reports and created a number of cases for both the newspaper. Figure 4 shows the statistics of this series. From this extraction technique, we can observe that April was the peak month for the covid cases as it gradually rose from February. Both the newspaper clearly shows us that the rise in covid cases from February to March was slower than the rise from March to April. This is an important indicator of possible recklessness in preparations to battle the virus. However, the steep fall from April to May also shows the positive response against the attack. We used Vader Sentiment Analysis to extract sentiment of the headlines and the body. On average, the sentiments were from -0.5 to -0.9. Vader Sentiment scale ranges from -1(highly negative to 1(highly positive). There were some cases

where the sentiment scores of the headline and body contradicted each other,i.e., the sentiment of the headline was negative but the sentiment of the body was slightly positive. Overall, sentiment analysis can assist us sort the most concerning (most negative) news from the positive ones, from which we can learn more about the indicators related to COVID-19 and the serious impact caused by it. Moreover, sentiment analysis can also provide us information about how a state or country is reacting to the pandemic. We used PageRank algorithm to extract keywords from headlines as well as the body content. PageRank efficiently highlights important relevant keywords in the text. Some frequently occurring important keywords extracted from both the datasets are: ’China’, Government’, ’Masks’, ’Economy’, ’Crisis’, ’Theft’ , ’Stock market’ , ’Jobs’ , ’Election’, ’Missteps’, ’Health’, ’Response’. Keywords extraction acts as a filter allowing quick searches for indicators in case of locating situations of the economy,

Brackish groundwater (BGW), defined for this assessment as having a dissolved-solids concentration between 1,000 and 10,000 milligrams per liter is an unconventional source of water that may offer a partial solution to current (2016) and future water challenges. In support of the National Water Census, the U.S. Geological Survey has completed a BGW assessment to gain a better understanding of the occurrence and character of BGW resources of the United States as an alternative source of water. Analyses completed as part of this assessment relied on previously collected data from multiple sources, and no new data were collected. One of the most important contributions of this assessment was the creation of a database containing chemical data and aquifer information for the known quantities of BGW in the United States. Data were compiled from single publications to large datasets and from local studies to national assessments, and includes chemical data on the concentrations of dissolved solids, major ions, trace elements, nutrients, radionuclides, and physical properties of the resource (pH, temperature, specific conductance). This dataset represents major-ions data from a compilation of water-quality samples from 16 sources for about 124,000 groundwater wells across the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The data are published here as an ESRI geodatabase with a point feature class, and associated attribute table, and also as non-proprietary comma-separated value table. Major-ions data include information for assessing the geochemical-water type, saturation indices, and potential for mineral scaling. It was not possible to compile all data available for the Nation, and data selected for this investigation were mostly limited to larger datasets that were available in a digital format. As a result, some data on a more local-scale may not be included.

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data was reported at 6.000 % in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 7.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data is updated monthly, averaging 8.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.000 % in Dec 2019 and a record low of 0.000 % in May 2022. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: Competition from Large Businesses data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

This dataset contains model-based ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level estimates. PLACES covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area levels. It provides information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at four geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. PLACES was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. The dataset includes estimates for 40 measures: 12 for health outcomes, 7 for preventive services use, 4 for chronic disease-related health risk behaviors, 7 for disabilities, 3 for health status, and 7 for health-related scocial needs. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to help develop and carry out effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates are Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2022 or 2021 data, Census Bureau 2020 population data, and American Community Survey 2018–2022 estimates. The 2024 release uses 2022 BRFSS data for 36 measures and 2021 BRFSS data for 4 measures (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cholesterol screening, and taking medicine for high blood pressure control among those with high blood pressure) that the survey collects data on every other year. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/places.

Large Scale International Boundaries

Version 11.1 Release Date: August 22, 2022

Overview

The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. These data and their derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. They reflect U.S. Government policy, and not necessarily de facto limits of control. This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset.

Details

Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions and national mapping agencies. Where available, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery of the data involves analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.

Attributes

The dataset uses the following attributes: Attribute Name Explanation Country Code Country-level codes are from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC). The Q2 code denotes a line representing a boundary associated with an area not in GENC. Country Names Names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Names for lines associated with a Q2 code are descriptive and are not necessarily BGN-approved. Label Required text label for the line segment where scale permits Rank/Status Rank 1: International Boundary Rank 2: Other Line of International Separation Rank 3: Special Line Notes Explanation of any applicable special circumstances Cartographic Usage Depiction of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundaries: International Boundaries (Rank 1), Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2), and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Additional cartographic information can be found in Guidance Bulletins (https://hiu.state.gov/data/cartographic_guidance_bulletins/) published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues. Please direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov.

Credits

The lines in the LSIB dataset are the product of decades of collaboration between geographers at the Department of State and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency and the UK Defence Geographic Centre. Attribution is welcome: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.

Changes from Prior Release

This version of the LSIB contains changes and accuracy refinements for the following line segments. These changes reflect improvements in spatial accuracy derived from newly available source materials, an ongoing review process, or the publication of new treaties or agreements. Changes to lines include: • Akrotiri (UK) / Cyprus • Albania / Montenegro • Albania / Greece • Albania / North Macedonia • Armenia / Turkey • Austria / Czechia • Austria / Slovakia • Austria / Hungary • Austria / Slovenia • Austria / Germany • Austria / Italy • Austria / Switzerland • Azerbaijan / Turkey • Azerbaijan / Iran • Belarus / Latvia • Belarus / Russia • Belarus / Ukraine • Belarus / Poland • Bhutan / India • Bhutan / China • Bulgaria / Turkey • Bulgaria / Romania • Bulgaria / Serbia • Bulgaria / Romania • China / Tajikistan • China / India • Croatia / Slovenia • Croatia / Hungary • Croatia / Serbia • Croatia / Montenegro • Czechia / Slovakia • Czechia / Poland • Czechia / Germany • Finland / Russia • Finland / Norway • Finland / Sweden • France / Italy • Georgia / Turkey • Germany / Poland • Germany / Switzerland • Greece / North Macedonia • Guyana / Suriname • Hungary / Slovenia • Hungary / Serbia • Hungary / Romania • Hungary / Ukraine • Iran / Turkey • Iraq / Turkey • Italy / Slovenia • Italy / Switzerland • Italy / Vatican City • Italy / San Marino • Kazakhstan / Russia • Kazakhstan / Uzbekistan • Kosovo / north Macedonia • Kosovo / Serbia • Kyrgyzstan / Tajikistan • Kyrgyzstan / Uzbekistan • Latvia / Russia • Latvia / Lithuania • Lithuania / Poland • Lithuania / Russia • Moldova / Ukraine • Moldova / Romania • Norway / Russia • Norway / Sweden • Poland / Russia • Poland / Ukraine • Poland / Slovakia • Romania / Ukraine • Romania / Serbia • Russia / Ukraine • Syria / Turkey • Tajikistan / Uzbekistan

This release also contains topology fixes, land boundary terminus refinements, and tripoint adjustments.

Copyright Notice and Disclaimer

While U.S. Government works prepared by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not subject to Federal copyright protection (see 17 U.S.C. § 105), copyrighted material incorporated in U.S. Government works retains its copyright protection. The works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website may not be used in any manner that infringes any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights held by any third party. Use of any copyrighted material beyond what is allowed by fair use or other exemptions may require appropriate permission from the relevant rightsholder. With respect to works on or made available through download from the U.S. Department of State’s website, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its agencies, employees, agents, or contractors make any representations or warranties—express, implied, or statutory—as to the validity, accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose; nor represent that use of such works would not infringe privately owned rights; nor assume any liability resulting from use of such works; and shall in no way be liable for any costs, expenses, claims, or demands arising out of use of such works.

Contains:World HillshadeWorld Street Map (with Relief) - Base LayerLarge Scale International Boundaries (v11.3)World Street Map (with Relief) - LabelsDoS Country Labels DoS Country LabelsCountry (admin 0) labels that have been vetted for compliance with foreign policy and legal requirements. These labels are part of the US Federal Government Basemap, which contains the borders and place names that have been vetted for compliance with foreign policy and legal requirements.Source: DoS Country Labels - Overview (arcgis.com)Large Scale International BoundariesVersion 11.3Release Date: December 19, 2023DownloadFor more information on the LSIB click here: https://geodata.state.gov/ A direct link to the data is available here: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zipAn ISO-compliant version of the LSIB metadata (in ISO 19139 format) is here: https://geodata.state.gov/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/3bdb81a0-c1b9-439a-a0b1-85dac30c59b2 Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.govOverviewThe Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.3 (published 19 December 2023). The 11.3 release contains updates to boundary lines and data refinements enabling reuse of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control.National Geospatial Data AssetThis dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset managed by the Department of State on behalf of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's International Boundaries Theme.DetailsSources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions and national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process involves analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.Attribute StructureThe dataset uses thefollowing attributes:Attribute NameCC1COUNTRY1CC2COUNTRY2RANKSTATUSLABELNOTES These attributes are logically linked:Linked AttributesCC1COUNTRY1CC2COUNTRY2RANKSTATUS These attributes have external sources:Attribute NameExternal Data SourceCC1GENCCOUNTRY1DoS ListsCC2GENCCOUNTRY2DoS ListsThe eight attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset in both a human and machine-readable fashion. Other attributes in the release include "FID", "Shape", and "Shape_Leng" are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB."CC1" and "CC2" fields are machine readable fields which contain political entity codes. These codes are derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC) Edition 3 Update 18. The dataset uses the GENC two-character codes. The code ‘Q2’, which is not in GENC, denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with an area not contained within the GENC standard.The "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields contain human-readable text corresponding to the name of the political entity. These names are names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the list of Independent States in the World and the list of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty maintained by the Department of State. To ensure the greatest compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using commonly accepted cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code ‘Q2’ are descriptive and are not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS are names of independent states. Other names are those associated with dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user.The following fields are an intrinsic part of the LSIB dataset and do not rely on external sources:Attribute NameMandatoryContains NullsRANKYesNoSTATUSYesNoLABELNoYesNOTESNoYesNeither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" field contains null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do.The "RANK" field is a numeric, machine-readable expression of the "STATUS" field. Collectively, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line.Attribute NameValueRANK123STATUSInternational BoundaryOther Line of International Separation Special Line A value of "1" in the "RANK" field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the "STATUS" field. Values of "2" and "3" correspond to "Other Line of International Separation" and "Special Line", respectively.The "LABEL" field contains required text necessarily to describe the line segment. The "LABEL" field is used when the line segment is displayed on maps or other forms of cartographic visualizations. This includes most interactive products. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on these products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field is not a line labeling field but does contain the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when lines are incorporated into a map legend. Using the "CC1", "CC2", or "RANK" fields for labeling purposes is prohibited.The "NOTES" field contains an explanation of any applicable special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, any limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of the "NOTES" field for labeling purposes is prohibited.External Data SourcesGeopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Registry: https://nsgreg.nga.mil/GENC-overview.jspU.S. Department of State List of Independent States in the World: https://www.state.gov/independent-states-in-the-world/U.S. Department of State List of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty: https://www.state.gov/dependencies-and-areas-of-special-sovereignty/The source for the U.S.—Canada international boundary (NGDAID97) is the International Boundary Commission: https://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/en/maps-coordinates/coordinates.phpThe source for the “International Boundary between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico” (NGDAID82) is the International Boundary and Water Commission: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset?q=usibwcCartographic UsageCartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundaries. Specifically, this differentiation must be between:- International Boundaries (Rank 1);- Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and- Special Lines (Rank 3).Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary.Additional cartographic information can be found in Guidance Bulletins (https://hiu.state.gov/data/cartographic_guidance_bulletins/) published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.ContactDirect inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov.CreditsThe lines in the LSIB dataset are the product of decades of collaboration between geographers at the Department of State and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency and the UK Defence Geographic Centre.Attribution is welcome: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues.Changes from Prior ReleaseThe 11.3 release is the third update in the version 11 series.This version of the LSIB contains changes and accuracy refinements for the following line segments. These changes reflect improvements in spatial accuracy derived from newly available source materials, an ongoing review process, or the publication of new treaties or agreements. Notable changes to lines include:• AFGHANISTAN / IRAN• ALBANIA / GREECE• ALBANIA / KOSOVO• ALBANIA/MONTENEGRO• ALBANIA / NORTH MACEDONIA• ALGERIA / MOROCCO• ARGENTINA / BOLIVIA• ARGENTINA / CHILE• BELARUS / POLAND• BOLIVIA / PARAGUAY• BRAZIL / GUYANA• BRAZIL / VENEZUELA• BRAZIL / French Guiana (FR.)• BRAZIL / SURINAME• CAMBODIA / LAOS• CAMBODIA / VIETNAM• CAMEROON / CHAD• CAMEROON / NIGERIA• CHINA / INDIA• CHINA / NORTH KOREA• CHINA / Aksai Chin• COLOMBIA / VENEZUELA• CONGO, DEM. REP. OF THE / UGANDA• CZECHIA / GERMANY• EGYPT / LIBYA• ESTONIA / RUSSIA• French Guiana (FR.) / SURINAME• GREECE / NORTH MACEDONIA• GUYANA / VENEZUELA• INDIA / Aksai Chin• KAZAKHSTAN / RUSSIA• KOSOVO / MONTENEGRO• KOSOVO / SERBIA• LAOS / VIETNAM• LATVIA / LITHUANIA• MEXICO / UNITED STATES• MONTENEGRO / SERBIA• MOROCCO / SPAIN• POLAND / RUSSIA• ROMANIA / UKRAINEVersions 11.0 and 11.1 were updates to boundary lines. Like this version, they also contained topology fixes, land boundary terminus refinements, and tripoint adjustments. Version 11.2 corrected a few errors in the attribute data and ensured that CC1 and CC2 attributes are in alignment with an updated version of the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) Standard, specifically Edition 3 Update 17.LayersLarge_Scale_International_BoundariesTerms of

Overview

The Associated Press is sharing data from the COVID Impact Survey, which provides statistics about physical health, mental health, economic security and social dynamics related to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation, the probability-based survey provides estimates for the United States as a whole, as well as in 10 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon and Texas) and eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Phoenix and Pittsburgh).

The survey is designed to allow for an ongoing gauge of public perception, health and economic status to see what is shifting during the pandemic. When multiple sets of data are available, it will allow for the tracking of how issues ranging from COVID-19 symptoms to economic status change over time.

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

• Physical Health: Symptoms related to COVID-19, relevant existing conditions and health insurance coverage.
• Economic and Financial Health: Employment, food security, and government cash assistance.
• Social and Mental Health: Communication with friends and family, anxiety and volunteerism. (Questions based on those used on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.) ## Using this Data - IMPORTANT This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use our queries linked below or statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

Queries

If you'd like to create a table to see how people nationally or in your state or city feel about a topic in the survey, use the survey questionnaire and codebook to match a question (the variable label) to a variable name. For instance, "How often have you felt lonely in the past 7 days?" is variable "soc5c".

Nationally: Go to this query and enter soc5c as the variable. Hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

Local or State: To find figures for that response in a specific state, go to this query and type in a state name and soc5c as the variable, and then hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

The resulting sentence you could write out of these queries is: "People in some states are less likely to report loneliness than others. For example, 66% of Louisianans report feeling lonely on none of the last seven days, compared with 52% of Californians. Nationally, 60% of people said they hadn't felt lonely."

Margin of Error

The margin of error for the national and regional surveys is found in the attached methods statement. You will need the margin of error to determine if the comparisons are statistically significant. If the difference is:

• At least twice the margin of error, you can report there is a clear difference.
• At least as large as the margin of error, you can report there is a slight or apparent difference.
• Less than or equal to the margin of error, you can report that the respondents are divided or there is no difference. ## A Note on Timing Survey results will generally be posted under embargo on Tuesday evenings. The data is available for release at 1 p.m. ET Thursdays.

About the Data

The survey data will be provided under embargo in both comma-delimited and statistical formats.

Each set of survey data will be numbered and have the date the embargo lifts in front of it in the format of: 01_April_30_covid_impact_survey. The survey has been organized by the Data Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan think tank, and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Packard Foundation. It is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research organization. (NORC is not an abbreviation, it part of the organization's formal name.)

Data for the national estimates are collected using the AmeriSpeak Panel, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members are randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak with a target of achieving 2,000 interviews in each survey. Invited panel members may complete the survey online or by telephone with an NORC telephone interviewer.

Once all the study data have been made final, an iterative raking process is used to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or under and oversampling resulting from the study specific sample design. Raking variables include age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, education, and county groupings based on county level counts of the number of COVID-19 deaths. Demographic weighting variables were obtained from the 2020 Current Population Survey. The count of COVID-19 deaths by county was obtained from USA Facts. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.

Data for the regional estimates are collected using a multi-mode address-based (ABS) approach that allows residents of each area to complete the interview via web or with an NORC telephone interviewer. All sampled households are mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over with a target of achieving 400 interviews in each region in each survey.Additional details on the survey methodology and the survey questionnaire are attached below or can be found at https://www.covid-impact.org.

Attribution

Results should be credited to the COVID Impact Survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation.

AP Data Distributions

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

USACO 2025 Open Contest Dataset

  Dataset Description

The USA Computing Olympiad (USACO) is a prestigious algorithmic programming competition for high school students in the United States, consisting of four difficulty levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Each level contains a set of challenging problems that test algorithmic thinking and implementation skills, making USACO a valuable benchmark for evaluating the reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of large… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/rStar-Reasoning/usaco_2025.

United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data was reported at 4.000 % in Mar 2025. This stayed constant from the previous number of 4.000 % for Feb 2025. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data is updated monthly, averaging 8.000 % from Jan 2014 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 131 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 15.000 % in Sep 2017 and a record low of 0.000 % in May 2023. United States SBOI: sa: Most Pressing Problem: A Year Ago: Competit'n from Big Bus data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Federation of Independent Business. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S042: NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism. [COVID-19-IMPACT]