As of April 2024, Bahrain was the country with the highest Instagram audience reach with 95.6 percent. Kazakhstan also had a high Instagram audience penetration rate, with 90.8 percent of the population using the social network. In the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Brunei, the photo-sharing platform was used by more than 85 percent of each country's population.

Tiktok network graph with 5,638 nodes and 318,986 unique links, representing up to 790,599 weighted links between labels, using Gephi network analysis software.

Source of:

Peña-Fernández, Simón, Larrondo-Ureta, Ainara, & Morales-i-Gras, Jordi. (2022). Current affairs on TikTok. Virality and entertainment for digital natives. Profesional De La Información, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5962655

Abstract:

Since its appearance in 2018, TikTok has become one of the most popular social media platforms among digital natives because of its algorithm-based engagement strategies, a policy of public accounts, and a simple, colorful, and intuitive content interface. As happened in the past with other platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, various media are currently seeking ways to adapt to TikTok and its particular characteristics to attract a younger audience less accustomed to the consumption of journalistic material. Against this background, the aim of this study is to identify the presence of the media and journalists on TikTok, measure the virality and engagement of the content they generate, describe the communities created around them, and identify the presence of journalistic use of these accounts. For this, 23,174 videos from 143 accounts belonging to media from 25 countries were analyzed. The results indicate that, in general, the presence and impact of the media in this social network are low and that most of their content is oriented towards the creation of user communities based on viral content and entertainment. However, albeit with a lesser presence, one can also identify accounts and messages that adapt their content to the specific characteristics of TikTok. Their virality and engagement figures illustrate that there is indeed a niche for current affairs on this social network.

This dataset covers aspects of online politics in 25 democracies: 15 relatively old established European democracies (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom); five non-European veteran democracies (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand); two early (Portugal, Spain) and three late (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland) third-wave (young) European democracies. The research population includes, in each country, parties that won 4% or more of the votes in two consecutive elections before April 2019 (a total of 141 parties and 145 leaders). The dataset includes external party level information such as performance in the last national elections, governmental status, party age, populism affiliation and leadership selection method. It also includes information related to the party leaders such as their term in leadership office and other formal positions. In addition it includes information about online activity mainly on the consumption (user related activities) of the parties and their leaders in Facebook and Twitter two of the most used social media platforms for political purposes.

The results might surprise you when looking at internet users that are active on social media in each country.

As of April 2024, Facebook had an addressable ad audience reach 131.1 percent in Libya, followed by the United Arab Emirates with 120.5 percent and Mongolia with 116 percent. Additionally, the Philippines and Qatar had addressable ad audiences of 114.5 percent and 111.7 percent.

The data presented in this data project were collected in the context of two H2020 research projects: ‘Enhanced migration measures from a multidimensional perspective’(HumMingBird) and ‘Crises as opportunities: Towards a level telling field on migration and a new narrative of successful integration’(OPPORTUNITIES). The current survey was fielded to investigate the dynamic interplay between media representations of different migrant groups and the governmental and societal (re)actions to immigration. With these data, we provide more insight into these societal reactions by investigating attitudes rooted in values and worldviews. Through an online survey, we collected quantitative data on attitudes towards: Immigrants, Refugees, Muslims, Hispanics, Venezuelans News Media Consumption Trust in News Media and Societal Institutions Frequency and Valence of Intergroup Contact Realistic and Symbolic Intergroup Threat Right-wing Authoritarianism Social Dominance Orientation Political Efficacy Personality Characteristics Perceived COVID-threat, and Socio-demographic Characteristics For the adult population aged 25 to 65 in seven European countries: Austria Belgium Germany Hungary Italy Spain Sweden And for ages ranged from 18 to 65 for: United States of America Colombia The survey in the United States and Colombia was identical to the one in the European countries, although a few extra questions regarding COVID-19 and some region-specific migrant groups (e.g. Venezuelans) were added. We collected the data in cooperation with Bilendi, a Belgian polling agency, and selected the methodology for its cost-effectiveness in cross-country research. Respondents received an e-mail asking them to participate in a survey without specifying the subject matter, which was essential to avoid priming. Three weeks of fieldwork in May and June of 2021 resulted in a dataset of 13,645 respondents (a little over 1500 per country). Sample weights are included in the dataset and can be applied to ensure that the sample is representative for gender and age in each country. The cooperation rate ranged between 12% and 31%, in line with similar online data collections.

Analysis of ‘Population by Country - 2020’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/tanuprabhu/population-by-country-2020 on 28 January 2022.

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

Context

I always wanted to access a data set that was related to the world’s population (Country wise). But I could not find a properly documented data set. Rather, I just created one manually.

Content

Now I knew I wanted to create a dataset but I did not know how to do so. So, I started to search for the content (Population of countries) on the internet. Obviously, Wikipedia was my first search. But I don't know why the results were not acceptable. And also there were only I think 190 or more countries. So then I surfed the internet for quite some time until then I stumbled upon a great website. I think you probably have heard about this. The name of the website is Worldometer. This is exactly the website I was looking for. This website had more details than Wikipedia. Also, this website had more rows I mean more countries with their population.

Once I got the data, now my next hard task was to download it. Of course, I could not get the raw form of data. I did not mail them regarding the data. Now I learned a new skill which is very important for a data scientist. I read somewhere that to obtain the data from websites you need to use this technique. Any guesses, keep reading you will come to know in the next paragraph.

https://fiverr-res.cloudinary.com/images/t_main1,q_auto,f_auto/gigs/119580480/original/68088c5f588ec32a6b3a3a67ec0d1b5a8a70648d/do-web-scraping-and-data-mining-with-python.png" alt="alt text">

You are right its, Web Scraping. Now I learned this so that I could convert the data into a CSV format. Now I will give you the scraper code that I wrote and also I somehow found a way to directly convert the pandas data frame to a CSV(Comma-separated fo format) and store it on my computer. Now just go through my code and you will know what I'm talking about.

Below is the code that I used to scrape the code from the website

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F3200273%2Fe814c2739b99d221de328c72a0b2571e%2FCapture.PNG?generation=1581314967227445&alt=media" alt="">

Acknowledgements

Now I couldn't have got the data without Worldometer. So special thanks to the website. It is because of them I was able to get the data.

Inspiration

As far as I know, I don't have any questions to ask. You guys can let me know by finding your ways to use the data and let me know via kernel if you find something interesting

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

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F1041505%2F0625876b77e55a56422bb5a37d881e0d%2Fawdasdw.jpg?generation=1595666545033847&alt=media" alt="">

Introduction

Ever wondered what people are saying about certain countries? Whether it's in a positive/negative light? What are the most commonly used phrases/words to describe the country? In this dataset I present tweets where a certain country gets mentioned in the hashtags (e.g. #HongKong, #NewZealand). It contains around 150 countries in the world. I've added an additional field called polarity which has the sentiment computed from the text field. Feel free to explore! Feedback is much appreciated!

Content

Each row represents a tweet. Creation Dates of Tweets Range from 12/07/2020 to 25/07/2020. Will update on a Monthly cadence. - The Country can be derived from the file_name field. (this field is very Tableau friendly when it comes to plotting maps) - The Date at which the tweet was created can be got from created_at field. - The Search Query used to query the Twitter Search Engine can be got from search_query field. - The Tweet Full Text can be got from the text field. - The Sentiment can be got from polarity field. (I've used the Vader Model from NLTK to compute this.)

Notes

There maybe slight duplications in tweet id's before 22/07/2020. I have since fixed this bug.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the tweepy package for making the data extraction via Twitter API so easy.

Shameless Plug

Feel free to checkout my blog if you want to learn how I built the datalake via AWS or for other data shenanigans.

Here's an App I built using a live version of this data.

Context

This data was collected as part of a university research paper where COVID-19 cases were analysed using a cross-sectional regression model as at 17th May 2020. In order to better understand COVID-19 cases growth at a country level I decided to create a dataset containing key dates in the progression of the virus globally.

Content

210 rows, 6 columns.

This dataset contains data relating to COVID-19 cases for 210 countries globally. Data was collected using the most recent and reliable information as at 17th May 2020. The majority of data was collected from Worldometer. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

This dataset contains dates for the 1st coronavirus case, 100th coronavirus case, and (50th coronavirus case per 1 million people) for 210 countries. Data is also provided for the number of days between the 1st case and the 100th as well as the 1st case and the 50th per 1 million people.

Data prior to 15th February 2020, was not easily accessible at the country level from Worldometer. Therefore any dates prior to 15th February 2020 were not sourced from Worldometer but reputable government and local media sources.

Blanks (null values) indicate that the country in question has not reached either 50 coronavirus cases per 1 million people or 100 coronavirus cases. These were left blank.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Worldometer for providing the vast majority of the data in this file. Worldometer is a website that provides real time statistics on topics such as coronavirus cases. Its sources include government official reports as well as trusted local media sources all of which are referenced on their website.

Inspiration

Hopefully this data can be used to better understand the growth of COVID-19 cases globally.

How much time do people spend on social media? As of 2025, the average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide amounted to 141 minutes per day, down from 143 minutes in the previous year. Currently, the country with the most time spent on social media per day is Brazil, with online users spending an average of 3 hours and 49 minutes on social media each day. In comparison, the daily time spent with social media in the U.S. was just 2 hours and 16 minutes. Global social media usageCurrently, the global social network penetration rate is 62.3 percent. Northern Europe had an 81.7 percent social media penetration rate, topping the ranking of global social media usage by region. Eastern and Middle Africa closed the ranking with 10.1 and 9.6 percent usage reach, respectively. People access social media for a variety of reasons. Users like to find funny or entertaining content and enjoy sharing photos and videos with friends, but mainly use social media to stay in touch with current events friends. Global impact of social mediaSocial media has a wide-reaching and significant impact on not only online activities but also offline behavior and life in general. During a global online user survey in February 2019, a significant share of respondents stated that social media had increased their access to information, ease of communication, and freedom of expression. On the flip side, respondents also felt that social media had worsened their personal privacy, increased a polarization in politics and heightened everyday distractions.

Supplemental information files for article News consumption and immigration attitudes: a mixed methods approach

Existing research has shown that the media can influence public attitudes to immigration. While existing research provides insight into both quantitative and qualitative patterns of media coverage of immigration, research that links such coverage with audience attitudes is almost exclusively quantitative, often focused on the west, and are often single-country studies. We argue that the adoption of a mixed-methods approach to audiences of immigration news, combined with a comparative design and a focus on Eastern Europe – a region scoring lowest in the world in terms of migrant acceptance – can bring significant advances to knowledge in this area, leading to a more rounded understanding of how media come to shape immigration attitudes. To demonstrate this, we draw on a comparative, mixed-methods data set comprising representative population surveys (N=4,092), an expert survey (N=60), and qualitative interviews (N=120) conducted in four Eastern European countries. In contrast to existing research on Western Europe, we found significant variation in the links between attitudes to immigration and use of Public Service Media (PSM), with PSM consumption linked with more negative attitudes to immigration in some countries, and with more positive attitudes in others. Second, our results confirm that different attitudes to immigration are embedded in different qualitative understandings of immigration: while participants with more positive attitudes often adopted a more inclusive understanding of immigration, those with more negative attitudes adopted a narrower understanding. Third, we demonstrated the importance of family and acquaintances as trusted sources of information.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F12064410%2F2520af6c71c8c2eb7b37af614ccc0ce0%2Ffreedom%20global%20flag.png?generation=1676790229329887&alt=media" alt="">

DAY ~3,700 (January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2021)

This is a dataset that tracks the quality of political rights and civil liberties for each country from 2013 to 2022.

All data are official figures from the Freedom House that have been compiled and structured by myself. Please read my explanation of the rating system and the 40+ variables to understand the inner workings of the dataset. I ensured you that the payoff will be worthwhile due to the importance of the data featured. Personally, I was intrigued at how countries with questionable human rights records shifted in ratings over the past decade.

Data Sources

The primary data source used was the Freedom House, an organization that is widely-renowned for its publication of the annual Freedom in the World reports that focus on political rights and civil liberties. Considering that the Freedom House has been tracking global trends in political rights and civil liberties for 50 years, the institution is uniquely qualified to make the featured evaluations in the "most widely read and cited report of its kind".

1. Freedom House's Freedom in the World Report - The majority of the data was procured through this particular webpage, which featured other freedom-related collections with varying time periods.
2. Freedom House's Freedom in the World Research Methodology - Initially, I found myself extremely confused on how the rating system worked and the peculiar letter-based variables. After looking through their detailed methodology and accompanying explanations, I was able to clean the data to maximize efficacy.

Rating System Explanation (IMPORTANT)

A country or territory is awarded 0 to 4 points for each of 10 political rights indicators and 15 civil liberties indicators, which take the form of questions; a score of 0 represents the smallest degree of freedom and 4 the greatest degree of freedom. The political rights questions are grouped into three subcategories: Electoral Process (3 questions), Political Pluralism and Participation (4), and Functioning of Government (3). The civil liberties questions are grouped into four subcategories: Freedom of Expression and Belief (4 questions), Associational and Organizational Rights (3), Rule of Law (4), and Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (4). The highest overall score that can be awarded for political rights is 40 (or a score of 4 for each of the 10 questions). The highest overall score that can be awarded for civil liberties is 60 (or a score of 4 for each of the 15 questions).

Significant Statistics Being Tracked

• C/T: Indicates whether the entry is a country (c) or territory (t)
• Status: F=Free, PF=Partly Free, NF=Not Free
• PR Rating: Political Rights Rating
• CL Rating: Civil Liberties Rating
• A: Aggregate score for the "A. Electoral Process" subcategory> --> A1: Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? --> A2: Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? --> A3: Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?
• B: Aggregate score for the "B. Political Pluralism and Participation" subcategory --> B1: Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings? --> B2: Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections? --> B3: Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means? --> B4: Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?
• C: Aggregate score for the "C. Functioning of Government" subcategory --> C1: Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government? --> C2: Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? --> C3: Does the government operate with openness and transparency?
• PR: Aggregate score for the Political Rights category
• D: Aggregate score for the "D. Freedom of Expression and Belief" subc...

### Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (ISCA) at Indiana University Dataset on bias against Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latines, and Muslims

The ISCA project compiled this dataset using an annotation portal, which was used to label tweets as either biased or non-biased, among other labels. Note that the annotation was done on live data, including images and context, such as threads. The original data comes from annotationportal.com. They include representative samples of live tweets from the years 2020 and 2021 with the keywords "Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latinos, and Muslims".

A random sample of 600 tweets per year was drawn for each of the keywords. This includes retweets. Due to a sampling error, the sample for the year 2021 for the keyword "Jews" has only 453 tweets from 2021 and 147 from the first eight months of 2022 and it includes some tweets from the query with the keyword "Israel." The tweets were divided into six samples of 100 tweets, which were then annotated by three to seven students in the class "Researching White Supremacism and Antisemitism on Social Media" taught by Gunther Jikeli, Elisha S. Breton, and Seth Moller at Indiana University in the fall of 2022, see this report. Annotators used a scale from 1 to 5 (confident not biased, probably not biased, don't know, probably biased, confident biased). The definitions of bias against each minority group used for annotation are also included in the report.

If a tweet called out or denounced bias against the minority in question, it was labeled as "calling out bias."

The labels of whether a tweet is biased or calls out bias are based on a 75% majority vote. We considered "probably biased" and "confident biased" as biased and "confident not biased," "probably not biased," and "don't know" as not biased.

The types of stereotypes vary widely across the different categories of prejudice. While about a third of all biased tweets were classified as "hate" against the minority, the stereotypes in the tweets often matched common stereotypes about the minority. Asians were blamed for the Covid pandemic. Blacks were seen as inferior and associated with crime. Jews were seen as powerful and held collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel. Some tweets denied the Holocaust. Hispanics/Latines were portrayed as being in the country illegally and as "invaders," in addition to stereotypical accusations of being lazy, stupid, or having too many children. Muslims, on the other hand, were often collectively blamed for terrorism and violence, though often in conversations about Muslims in India.

# Content:

This dataset contains 5880 tweets that cover a wide range of topics common in conversations about Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latines, and Muslims. 357 tweets (6.1 %) are labeled as biased and 5523 (93.9 %) are labeled as not biased. 1365 tweets (23.2 %) are labeled as calling out or denouncing bias.

1180 out of 5880 tweets (20.1 %) contain the keyword "Asians," 590 were posted in 2020 and 590 in 2021. 39 tweets (3.3 %) are biased against Asian people. 370 tweets (31,4 %) call out bias against Asians.

1160 out of 5880 tweets (19.7%) contain the keyword "Blacks," 578 were posted in 2020 and 582 in 2021. 101 tweets (8.7 %) are biased against Black people. 334 tweets (28.8 %) call out bias against Blacks.

1189 out of 5880 tweets (20.2 %) contain the keyword "Jews," 592 were posted in 2020, 451 in 2021, and ––as mentioned above––146 tweets from 2022. 83 tweets (7 %) are biased against Jewish people. 220 tweets (18.5 %) call out bias against Jews.

1169 out of 5880 tweets (19.9 %) contain the keyword "Latinos," 584 were posted in 2020 and 585 in 2021. 29 tweets (2.5 %) are biased against Latines. 181 tweets (15.5 %) call out bias against Latines.

1182 out of 5880 tweets (20.1 %) contain the keyword "Muslims," 593 were posted in 2020 and 589 in 2021. 105 tweets (8.9 %) are biased against Muslims. 260 tweets (22 %) call out bias against Muslims.

# File Description:

The dataset is provided in a csv file format, with each row representing a single message, including replies, quotes, and retweets. The file contains the following columns:

'TweetID': Represents the tweet ID.

'Username': Represents the username who published the tweet (if it is a retweet, it will be the user who retweetet the original tweet.

'Text': Represents the full text of the tweet (not pre-processed).

'CreateDate': Represents the date the tweet was created.

'Biased': Represents the labeled by our annotators if the tweet is biased (1) or not (0).

'Calling_Out': Represents the label by our annotators if the tweet is calling out bias against minority groups (1) or not (0).

'Keyword': Represents the keyword that was used in the query. The keyword can be in the text, including mentioned names, or the username.

# Licences

Data is published under the terms of the "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

# Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the technical collaboration with Indiana University's Observatory on Social Media (OSoMe). We thank all class participants for the annotations and contributions, including Kate Baba, Eleni Ballis, Garrett Banuelos, Savannah Benjamin, Luke Bianco, Zoe Bogan, Elisha S. Breton, Aidan Calderaro, Anaye Caldron, Olivia Cozzi, Daj Crisler, Jenna Eidson, Ella Fanning, Victoria Ford, Jess Gruettner, Ronan Hancock, Isabel Hawes, Brennan Hensler, Kyra Horton, Maxwell Idczak, Sanjana Iyer, Jacob Joffe, Katie Johnson, Allison Jones, Kassidy Keltner, Sophia Knoll, Jillian Kolesky, Emily Lowrey, Rachael Morara, Benjamin Nadolne, Rachel Neglia, Seungmin Oh, Kirsten Pecsenye, Sophia Perkovich, Joey Philpott, Katelin Ray, Kaleb Samuels, Chloe Sherman, Rachel Weber, Molly Winkeljohn, Ally Wolfgang, Rowan Wolke, Michael Wong, Jane Woods, Kaleb Woodworth, and Aurora Young.

This work used Jetstream2 at Indiana University through allocation HUM200003 from the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support (ACCESS) program, which is supported by National Science Foundation grants #2138259, #2138286, #2138307, #2137603, and #2138296.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 AM EASTERN ON JULY 12

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.

Version 22 of the dataset, we have refactored the full_dataset.tsv and full_dataset_clean.tsv files (since version 20) to include two additional columns: language and place country code (when available). This change now includes language and country code for ALL the tweets in the dataset, not only clean tweets. With this change we have removed the clean_place_country.tar.gz and clean_languages.tar.gz files. With our refactoring of the dataset generating code we also found a small bug that made some of the retweets not be counted properly, hence the extra increase on tweets available. Due to the relevance of the COVID-19 global pandemic, we are releasing our dataset of tweets acquired from the Twitter Stream related to COVID-19 chatter. Since our first release we have received additional data from our new collaborators, allowing this resource to grow to its current size. Dedicated data gathering started from March 11th yielding over 4 million tweets a day. We have added additional data provided by our new collaborators from January 27th to March 27th, to provide extra longitudinal coverage. Version 10 added ~1.5 million tweets in the Russian language collected between January 1st and May 8th, gracefully provided to us by: Katya Artemova (NRU HSE) and Elena Tutubalina (KFU). From version 12 we have included daily hashtags, mentions and emoijis and their frequencies the respective zip files. From version 14 we have included the tweet identifiers and their respective language for the clean version of the dataset. Since version 20 we have included language and place location for all tweets. The data collected from the stream captures all languages, but the higher prevalence are: English, Spanish, and French. We release all tweets and retweets on the full_dataset.tsv file (602,921,788 unique tweets), and a cleaned version with no retweets on the full_dataset-clean.tsv file (142,360,288 unique tweets). There are several practical reasons for us to leave the retweets, tracing important tweets and their dissemination is one of them. For NLP tasks we provide the top 1000 frequent terms in frequent_terms.csv, the top 1000 bigrams in frequent_bigrams.csv, and the top 1000 trigrams in frequent_trigrams.csv. Some general statistics per day are included for both datasets in the full_dataset-statistics.tsv and full_dataset-clean-statistics.tsv files. For more statistics and some visualizations visit: http://www.panacealab.org/covid19/ More details can be found (and will be updated faster at: https://github.com/thepanacealab/covid19_twitter) and our pre-print about the dataset (https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03688) As always, the tweets distributed here are only tweet identifiers (with date and time added) due to the terms and conditions of Twitter to re-distribute Twitter data ONLY for research purposes. They need to be hydrated to be used. This dataset will be updated bi-weekly at least with additional tweets, look at the github repo for these updates. Release: We have standardized the name of the resource to match our pre-print manuscript and to not have to update it every week.

General data recollected for the studio " Analysis of the Quantitative Impact of Social Networks on Web Traffic of Cybermedia in the 27 Countries of the European Union". Four research questions are posed: what percentage of the total web traffic generated by cybermedia in the European Union comes from social networks? Is said percentage higher or lower than that provided through direct traffic and through the use of search engines via SEO positioning? Which social networks have a greater impact? And is there any degree of relationship between the specific weight of social networks in the web traffic of a cybermedia and circumstances such as the average duration of the user's visit, the number of page views or the bounce rate understood in its formal aspect of not performing any kind of interaction on the visited page beyond reading its content? To answer these questions, we have first proceeded to a selection of the cybermedia with the highest web traffic of the 27 countries that are currently part of the European Union after the United Kingdom left on December 31, 2020. In each nation we have selected five media using a combination of the global web traffic metrics provided by the tools Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/), which ceased to be operational on May 1, 2022, and SimilarWeb (https:// www.similarweb.com/). We have not used local metrics by country since the results obtained with these first two tools were sufficiently significant and our objective is not to establish a ranking of cybermedia by nation but to examine the relevance of social networks in their web traffic. In all cases, cybermedia whose property corresponds to a journalistic company have been selected, ruling out those belonging to telecommunications portals or service providers; in some cases they correspond to classic information companies (both newspapers and televisions) while in others they refer to digital natives, without this circumstance affecting the nature of the research proposed.
Below we have proceeded to examine the web traffic data of said cybermedia. The period corresponding to the months of October, November and December 2021 and January, February and March 2022 has been selected. We believe that this six-month stretch allows possible one-time variations to be overcome for a month, reinforcing the precision of the data obtained. To secure this data, we have used the SimilarWeb tool, currently the most precise tool that exists when examining the web traffic of a portal, although it is limited to that coming from desktops and laptops, without taking into account those that come from mobile devices, currently impossible to determine with existing measurement tools on the market. It includes:

Web traffic general data: average visit duration, pages per visit and bounce rate Web traffic origin by country Percentage of traffic generated from social media over total web traffic Distribution of web traffic generated from social networks Comparison of web traffic generated from social netwoks with direct and search procedures

The peer-reviewed publication for this dataset has been presented in the 2022 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), and can be accessed here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02596. Please cite this when using the dataset.

This dataset contains a heterogeneous set of True and False COVID claims and online sources of information for each claim.

The claims have been obtained from online fact-checking sources, existing datasets and research challenges. It combines different data sources with different foci, thus enabling a comprehensive approach that combines different media (Twitter, Facebook, general websites, academia), information domains (health, scholar, media), information types (news, claims) and applications (information retrieval, veracity evaluation).

The processing of the claims included an extensive de-duplication process eliminating repeated or very similar claims. The dataset is presented in a LARGE and a SMALL version, accounting for different degrees of similarity between the remaining claims (excluding respectively claims with a 90% and 99% probability of being similar, as obtained through the MonoT5 model). The similarity of claims was analysed using BM25 (Robertson et al., 1995; Crestani et al., 1998; Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) with MonoT5 re-ranking (Nogueira et al., 2020), and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019).

The processing of the content also involved removing claims making only a direct reference to existing content in other media (audio, video, photos); automatically obtained content not representing claims; and entries with claims or fact-checking sources in languages other than English.

The claims were analysed to identify types of claims that may be of particular interest, either for inclusion or exclusion depending on the type of analysis. The following types were identified: (1) Multimodal; (2) Social media references; (3) Claims including questions; (4) Claims including numerical content; (5) Named entities, including: PERSON − People, including fictional; ORGANIZATION − Companies, agencies, institutions, etc.; GPE − Countries, cities, states; FACILITY − Buildings, highways, etc. These entities have been detected using a RoBERTa base English model (Liu et al., 2019) trained on the OntoNotes Release 5.0 dataset (Weischedel et al., 2013) using Spacy.

The original labels for the claims have been reviewed and homogenised from the different criteria used by each original fact-checker into the final True and False labels.

The data sources used are:

- The CoronaVirusFacts/DatosCoronaVirus Alliance Database. https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-covid-19-misinformation/

- CoAID dataset (Cui and Lee, 2020) https://github.com/cuilimeng/CoAID

- MM-COVID (Li et al., 2020) https://github.com/bigheiniu/MM-COVID

- CovidLies (Hossain et al., 2020) https://github.com/ucinlp/covid19-data

- TREC Health Misinformation track https://trec-health-misinfo.github.io/

- TREC COVID challenge (Voorhees et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020) https://ir.nist.gov/covidSubmit/data.html

The LARGE dataset contains 5,143 claims (1,810 False and 3,333 True), and the SMALL version 1,709 claims (477 False and 1,232 True).

The entries in the dataset contain the following information:

- Claim. Text of the claim.

- Claim label. The labels are: False, and True.

- Claim source. The sources include mostly fact-checking websites, health information websites, health clinics, public institutions sites, and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

- Original information source. Information about which general information source was used to obtain the claim.

- Claim type. The different types, previously explained, are: Multimodal, Social Media, Questions, Numerical, and Named Entities.

Funding. This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant no. EP/V048597/1, EP/T017112/1). ML and YH are supported by Turing AI Fellowships funded by the UK Research and Innovation (grant no. EP/V030302/1, EP/V020579/1).

References

- Arana-Catania M., Kochkina E., Zubiaga A., Liakata M., Procter R., He Y.. Natural Language Inference with Self-Attention for Veracity Assessment of Pandemic Claims. NAACL 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02596

- Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline M Hancock-Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, et al. 1995. Okapi at trec-3. Nist Special Publication Sp,109:109.

- Fabio Crestani, Mounia Lalmas, Cornelis J Van Rijsbergen, and Iain Campbell. 1998. “is this document relevant?. . . probably” a survey of probabilistic models in information retrieval. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 30(4):528–552.

- Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Now Publishers Inc.

- Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pre-trained sequence-to-sequence model. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 708–718.

- Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

- Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.

- Ralph Weischedel, Martha Palmer, Mitchell Marcus, Eduard Hovy, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Nianwen Xue, Ann Taylor, Jeff Kaufman, Michelle Franchini, et al. 2013. Ontonotes release 5.0 ldc2013t19. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA, 23.

- Limeng Cui and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Coaid: Covid-19 healthcare misinformation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00885.

- Yichuan Li, Bohan Jiang, Kai Shu, and Huan Liu. 2020. Mm-covid: A multilingual and multimodal data repository for combating covid-19 disinformation.

- Tamanna Hossain, Robert L. Logan IV, Arjuna Ugarte, Yoshitomo Matsubara, Sean Young, and Sameer Singh. 2020. COVIDLies: Detecting COVID-19 misinformation on social media. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (Part 2) at EMNLP 2020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

- Ellen Voorhees, Tasmeer Alam, Steven Bedrick, Dina Demner-Fushman, William R Hersh, Kyle Lo, Kirk Roberts, Ian Soboroff, and Lucy Lu Wang. 2021. Trec-covid: constructing a pandemic information retrieval test collection. In ACM SIGIR Forum, volume 54, pages 1–12. ACM New York, NY, USA.

Description of the Dataset and Research Context

This dataset was generated for a systematic review that investigated the positive and negative impacts of social media use on learning in higher education. The research hypothesized that the educational use of social media platforms can produce both beneficial and adverse effects on student engagement, academic performance, and cognitive development, depending on the platform type, pedagogical goals, and disciplinary context.

Data Collection Process

Data were gathered from peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2011 and 2025. A systematic search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Eligible studies included those using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method approaches, focusing on social media use in higher education contexts. Only studies published in English or Spanish were included. The selection process followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was managed using the Rayyan platform. Calibration between two independent reviewers was carried out, and inter-rater agreement was measured using Cohen’s Kappa.

A standardized Excel spreadsheet was used to extract and structure the data, which included bibliographic details, study characteristics, country, academic field, education level, social media platforms used, educational purposes, and reported outcomes (positive or negative). Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected.

Key Findings

The data revealed that Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube were the most frequently used platforms. Positive outcomes often included increased student engagement, collaborative learning, and knowledge sharing. However, negative outcomes such as distraction, reduced academic focus, and information overload were also recurrent. Studies represented 38 countries, with Latin America, Europe, and Asia being the most represented regions.

A mixed-methods synthesis was performed. Quantitative patterns were analyzed using descriptive statistics in RStudio (version 2025.05.0), while qualitative data were inductively coded and grouped into thematic categories related to educational outcomes and social media use patterns.

Interpretation and Use

This dataset provides structured empirical evidence on how social media impacts university-level learning environments. It can be used by researchers conducting further meta-analyses, education policymakers exploring digital integration, and educators aiming to make informed decisions about platform use. All data were independently verified by two reviewers. The full dataset and codebook are included in the repository to support reproducibility and secondary analysis.

Inspiration

Which countries have the most social contacts in the world? In particular, do countries with more social contacts among the elderly report more deaths caused by a pandemic caused by a respiratory virus?

Context

With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, reports have shown that the elderly are at a higher risk of dying than any other age groups. 8 out of 10 deaths reported in the U.S. have been in adults 65 years old and older. Countries have also began to enforce 2km social distancing to contain the pandemic.

To this end, I wanted to explore the relationship between social contacts among the elderly and its relationship with the number of COVID-19 deaths across countries.

Content

This dataset includes a subset of the projected social contact matrices in 152 countries from surveys Prem et al. 2020. It was based on the POLYMOD study where information on social contacts was obtained using cross-sectional surveys in Belgium (BE), Germany (DE), Finland (FI), Great Britain (GB), Italy (IT), Luxembourg (LU), The Netherlands (NL), and Poland (PL) between May 2005 and September 2006.

This dataset includes contact rates from study participants ages 65+ for all countries from all sources of contact (work, home, school and others).

I used this R code to extract this data:

load('../input/contacts.Rdata') # https://github.com/kieshaprem/covid19-agestructureSEIR-wuhan-social-distancing/blob/master/data/contacts.Rdata
View(contacts)
contacts[["ALB"]][["home"]]
contacts[["ITA"]][["all"]]
rowSums(contacts[["ALB"]][["all"]])
out1 = data.frame(); for (n in names(contacts)) { x = (contacts[[n]][["all"]])[16,]; out <- rbind(out, data.frame(x)) }
out2 = data.frame(); for (n in names(contacts)) { x = (contacts[[n]][["all"]])[15,]; out <- rbind(out, data.frame(x)) }
out3 = data.frame(); for (n in names(contacts)) { x = (contacts[[n]][["all"]])[14,]; out <- rbind(out, data.frame(x)) }
m1 = data.frame(t(matrix(unlist(out1), nrow=16)))
m2 = data.frame(t(matrix(unlist(out2), nrow=16)))
m3 = data.frame(t(matrix(unlist(out3), nrow=16)))
rownames(m1) = names(contacts)
colnames(m1) = c("00_04", "05_09", "10_14", "15_19", "20_24", "25_29", "30_34", "35_39", "40_44", "45_49", "50_54", "55_59", "60_64", "65_69", "70_74", "75_79")
rownames(m2) = rownames(m1)
rownames(m3) = rownames(m1)
colnames(m2) = colnames(m1)
colnames(m3) = colnames(m1)
write.csv(zapsmall(m1),"contacts_75_79.csv", row.names = TRUE)
write.csv(zapsmall(m2),"contacts_70_74.csv", row.names = TRUE)
write.csv(zapsmall(m3),"contacts_65_69.csv", row.names = TRUE)

Rows names correspond to the 3 letter country ISO code, e.g. ITA represents Italy. Column names are the age groups of the individuals contacted in 5 year intervals from 0 to 80 years old. Cell values are the projected mean social contact rate.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F1139998%2Ffa3ddc065ea46009e345f24ab0d905d2%2Fcontact_distribution.png?generation=1588258740223812&alt=media" alt="">

Acknowledgements

Thanks goes to Dr. Kiesha Prem for her correspondence and her team for publishing their work on social contact matrices.

References

• The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study
• Projecting social contact matrices in 152 countries using contact surveys and demographic data
• Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases (POLYMOD study)

Related resources

• My starter notebook
• http://www.socialcontactdata.org/
• https://www.kaggle.com/tsubasatwi/close-contact-status-of-corona-in-japan
• Facebook Data for Good Mobility Dashboard