Higher Education Institutions in the United States of America Dataset

This repository contains a dataset of higher education institutions in the United States of America. This dataset was compiled in response to a cybersecurity research of American higher education institutions' websites [1]. The data is being made publicly available to promote open science principles [2].

Data

The data includes the following fields for each institution:

• Id: A unique identifier assigned to each institution.
• Region: The federal state in which the institution is located.
• Name: The full name of the institution.
• Category: Indicates whether the institution is public or private.
• Url: The website of the institution.

Methodology

The dataset was obtained from the Higher Education Integrated Data System (IPEDS) website [3], which is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). NCES serves as the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing education-related data in the United States. The data was collected on February 2, 2023.

The initial list of institutions was derived from the IPEDS database using the following criteria: (1) US institutions only, (2) degree-granting institutions, primarily bachelor's or higher, and (3) industry classification, which includes: public 4 - year or above, private not-for-profit 4 years or more, private for-profit 4 years or more, public 2 years, private not-for-profit 2 years, private for-profit 2 years, public less than 2 years, private not-for-profit for-profit less than 2 years and private for-profit less than 2 years.

The following variables have been added to the list of institutions: Control of the institution, state abbreviation, degree-granting status, Status of the institution, and Institution's internet website address. This resulted in a report with 1,979 institutions.

The institution's status was labeled with the following values: A (Active), N (New), R (Restored), M (Closed in the current year), C (Combined with another institution), D (Deleted out of business), I (Inactive due to hurricane-related issues), O (Outside IPEDS scope), P (Potential new/add institution), Q (Potential institution reestablishment), W (Potential addition outside IPEDS scope), X ( Potential restoration outside the scope of IPEDS) and G (Perfect Children's Campus).

A filter was applied to the report to retain only institutions with an A, N, or R status, resulting in 1,978 institutions. Finally, a data cleaning process was applied, which involved removing the whitespace at the beginning and end of cell content and duplicate whitespace. The final data were compiled into the dataset included in this repository.

Usage

This data is available under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license and can be used for any purpose, including academic research purposes. We encourage the sharing of knowledge and the advancement of research in this field by adhering to open science principles [2].

If you use this data in your research, please cite the source and include a link to this repository. To properly attribute this data, please use the following DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7614862

Contribution

If you have any updates or corrections to the data, please feel free to open a pull request or contact us directly. Let's work together to keep this data accurate and up-to-date.

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), within the project "Cybers SeC IP" (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000044). This study was also developed as part of the Master in Cybersecurity Program at the Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Portugal.

References

1. Pending.
2. S. Bezjak, A. Clyburne-Sherin, P. Conzett, P. Fernandes, E. Görögh, K. Helbig, B. Kramer, I. Labastida, K. Niemeyer, F. Psomopoulos, T. Ross-Hellauer, R. Schneider, J. Tennant, E. Verbakel, H. Brinken, and L. Heller, Open Science Training Handbook. Zenodo, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496]
3. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, "Compare Institutions", Fev 2023. [online]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data

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 late January, 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.

Number of People Never Married By Year

Number of People Never Married By Year in the US

By Andy Kriebel [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at the changing trends in marriage and divorce over the years in the United States. It includes data on gender, age range, and year for those who have never been married – examining who is deciding to forgo tying the knot in today’s society. Diving into this data may offer insight into how life-changing decisions are being made as customs shift along with our times. This could be especially interesting when examined by generation or other trends within our population. Are young adults embracing or avoiding marriage? Has divorce become more or less common within certain social groups? Can recent economic challenges be related to changes in marital status trends? Take a look at this dataset and let us know what stories you find!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset contains surveys which explore the number of never married people in the United States, separated by gender, age range and year. You can use this dataset to analyze the trends in never married people throughout the years and see how it is affected by different demographics.

To make the most out of this dataset you could start by exploring the changes on different ages ranges and genders. Plotting how they differ along time might unveil interesting patterns that can help you uncover why certain groups are more or less likely to remain single throughout time. Understanding these trends could also help people looking for a life-partner better understand their own context as compared to others around them enabling them to make informed decisions about when is a good time for them to find someone special.

In addition, this dataset can be used to examine what acts as an enabler or deterrent for staying single within different couples of age ranges and genders across states. Does marriage look more attractive in any particular state? Are there differences between genders? Knowing all these factors can inform us about economic or social insights within society as well as overall lifestyle choices that tend towards being single or married during one's life cycle in different regions around United States of America.

Finally, with this information policymakers can construct efficient policies that better fit our country's priorities by providing programs designed based on specific characteristics within each group helping ensure they match preferable relationships while having access concentrated resources such actions already taken towards promoting wellbeing our citizens regarding relationships like marriage counseling services or family support centers!

Research Ideas

• Examine the differences in trends of ever-married vs never married people across different age ranges and genders.
• Explore the correlation between life decision changes and economic conditions for ever-married and never married people over time.
• Analyze how marriage trends differ based on region, socio-economic status, or religious beliefs to understand how these influence decisions about marriage

Acknowledgements

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

License

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

Columns

File: Never Married.csv | Column name | Description | |:------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------| | Gender | Gender of the individual. (String) | | Age Range | Age range of the individual. (String) | | Year | Year of the data. (Integer) | | Never Married | Number of people who have never been married. (Integer) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please ...

The Census Bureau released revised delineations for urban areas on December 29, 2022. The new criteria (contained in this Federal Register Notice) is based primarily on housing unit density measured at the census block level. The minimum qualifying threshold for inclusion as an urban area is an area that contains at least 2,000 housing units or has a population of at least 5,000 persons. It also eliminates the classification of areas as “urban clusters/urbanized areas”. This represents a change from 2010, where urban areas were defined as areas consisting of 50,000 people or more and urban clusters consisted of at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people with at least 1,500 people living outside of group quarters. Due to the new population thresholds for urban areas, 36 urban clusters in California are no longer considered urban areas, leaving California with 193 urban areas after the new criteria was implemented.

The State of California experienced an increase of 1,885,884 in the total urban population, or 5.3%. However, the total urban area population as a percentage of the California total population went down from 95% to 94.2%. For more information about the mapped data, download the Excel spreadsheet here.

Please note that some of the 2020 urban areas have different names or additional place names as a result of the inclusion of housing unit counts as secondary naming criteria.

Please note there are four urban areas that cross state boundaries in Arizona and Nevada. For 2010, only the parts within California are displayed on the map; however, the population and housing estimates represent the entirety of the urban areas. For 2020, the population and housing unit estimates pertains to the areas within California only.

Data for this web application was derived from the 2010 and 2020 Censuses (2010 and 2020 Census Blocks, 2020 Urban Areas, and Counties) and the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (2010 -Urban Areas) and can be found at data.census.gov.

For more information about the urban area delineations, visit the Census Bureau's Urban and Rural webpage and FAQ.

To view more data from the State of California Department of Finance, visit the Demographic Research Unit Data Hub.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 7:11 AM EASTERN ON DEC. 1

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.

United States US: Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % of Private Expenditure on Health data was reported at 21.365 % in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 21.927 % for 2013. United States US: Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % of Private Expenditure on Health data is updated yearly, averaging 23.966 % from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2014, with 20 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 26.623 % in 1998 and a record low of 21.365 % in 2014. United States US: Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % of Private Expenditure on Health data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Health Statistics. Out of pocket expenditure is any direct outlay by households, including gratuities and in-kind payments, to health practitioners and suppliers of pharmaceuticals, therapeutic appliances, and other goods and services whose primary intent is to contribute to the restoration or enhancement of the health status of individuals or population groups. It is a part of private health expenditure.; ; World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database (see http://apps.who.int/nha/database for the most recent updates).; Weighted average;

This dataset contains counts of live births for California as a whole based on information entered on birth certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out of state births to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all births that occurred during the time period.

The final data tables include both births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and births to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by parent giving birth's age, parent giving birth's race-ethnicity, and birth place type. See temporal coverage for more information on which strata are available for which years.

Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.40 percent in September from 4.30 percent in August of 2025. 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.

DEC. 22, 2022 – After a historically low rate of change between 2020 and 2021, the U.S. resident population increased by 0.4%, or 1,256,003, to 333,287,557 in 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2022 national and state population estimates and components of change released today.

Net international migration — the number of people moving in and out of the country — added 1,010,923 people between 2021 and 2022 and was the primary driver of growth. This represents 168.8% growth over 2021 totals of 376,029 – an indication that migration patterns are returning to pre-pandemic levels. Positive natural change (births minus deaths) increased the population by 245,080.

“There was a sizeable uptick in population growth last year compared to the prior year’s historically low increase,” said Kristie Wilder, a demographer in the Population Division at the Census Bureau. “A rebound in net international migration, coupled with the largest year-over-year increase in total births since 2007, is behind this increase.”

Regional Patterns The South, the most populous region with a resident population of 128,716,192, was the fastest-growing and the largest-gaining region last year, increasing by 1.1%, or 1,370,163. Positive net domestic migration (867,935) and net international migration (414,740) were the components with the largest contributions to this growth, adding a combined 1,282,675 residents.

The West was the only other region to experience growth in 2022, having gained 153,601 residents — an annual increase of 0.2% for a total resident population of 78,743,364 — despite losing 233,150 residents via net domestic migration (the difference between residents moving in and out of an area). Natural increase (154,405) largely accounted for the growth in the West.

The Northeast, with a population of 57,040,406, and the Midwest, with a population of 68,787,595, lost 218,851 (-0.4%) and 48,910 (-0.1%) residents, respectively. The declines in these regions were due to negative net domestic migration.

Changes in State Population Increasing by 470,708 people since July 2021, Texas was the largest-gaining state in the nation, reaching a total population of 30,029,572. By crossing the 30-million-population threshold this past year, Texas joins California as the only states with a resident population above 30 million. Growth in Texas last year was fueled by gains from all three components: net domestic migration (230,961), net international migration (118,614), and natural increase (118,159).

Florida was the fastest-growing state in 2022, with an annual population increase of 1.9%, resulting in a total resident population of 22,244,823.

“While Florida has often been among the largest-gaining states,” Wilder noted, “this was the first time since 1957 that Florida has been the state with the largest percent increase in population.”

It was also the second largest-gaining state behind Texas, with an increase of 416,754 residents. Net migration was the largest contributing component of change to Florida’s growth, adding 444,484 residents. New York had the largest annual numeric and percent population decline, decreasing by 180,341 (-0.9%). Net domestic migration (-299,557) was the largest contributing component to the state’s population decline.

Eighteen states experienced a population decline in 2022, compared to 15 and DC the prior year. California, with a population of 39,029,342, and Illinois, with a population of 12,582,032, also had six-figure decreases in resident population. Both states’ declining populations were largely due to net domestic outmigration, totaling 343,230 and 141,656, respectively.

Puerto Rico Population Changes In 2022, Puerto Rico’s population was 3,221,789. This reflects a decrease of 1.3%, or 40,904 people, between 2021 and 2022.

Puerto Rico’s population decline resulted from negative net international migration (-26,447) and negative natural change (-14,457), where deaths outnumber births.

                            **###Components of Change for States**

In 2022, 24 states experienced negative natural change, or natural decrease. Florida had the highest natural decrease at -40,216, followed by Pennsylvania (-23,021) and Ohio (-19,543). In 2021, 25 states had natural decrease.

Of the 26 states and the District of Columbia where births outnumbered deaths, Texas (118,159), California (106,155) and New York (35,611) had the highest natural increase.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw positive net international migration with California (125,715), Florida (125,629) and Texas (118,614) having the largest gains.

The biggest gains from net domestic migration last year were in Florida (318,855), Texas (230,961) and North Carolina (99,796), while the biggest losses were in California (-343,230), New York (-299,557) and Illinois...

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California as a whole based on information entered on death certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out-of-state deaths to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all deaths that occurred during the time period. Deaths involving injuries from external or environmental forces, such as accidents, homicide and suicide, often require additional investigation that tends to delay certification of the cause and manner of death. This can result in significant under-reporting of these deaths in provisional data.

The final data tables include both deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by age, gender, race-ethnicity, and death place type. Deaths due to all causes (ALL) and selected underlying cause of death categories are provided. See temporal coverage for more information on which combinations are available for which years.

The cause of death categories are based solely on the underlying cause of death as coded by the International Classification of Diseases. The underlying cause of death is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury." It is a single value assigned to each death based on the details as entered on the death certificate. When more than one cause is listed, the order in which they are listed can affect which cause is coded as the underlying cause. This means that similar events could be coded with different underlying causes of death depending on variations in how they were entered. Consequently, while underlying cause of death provides a convenient comparison between cause of death categories, it may not capture the full impact of each cause of death as it does not always take into account all conditions contributing to the death.

This dataset contains counts of live births for California counties based on information entered on birth certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out of state births to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all births that occurred during the time period.

The final data tables include both births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and births to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes births that occurred in California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by parent giving birth's age, parent giving birth's race-ethnicity, and birth place type. See temporal coverage for more information on which strata are available for which years.

Which county has the most Facebook users?

              There are more than 378 million Facebook users in India alone, making it the leading country in terms of Facebook audience size. To put this into context, if India’s Facebook audience were a country then it would be ranked third in terms of largest population worldwide. Apart from India, there are several other markets with more than 100 million Facebook users each: The United States, Indonesia, and Brazil with 193.8 million, 119.05 million, and 112.55 million Facebook users respectively.

              Facebook – the most used social media

              Meta, the company that was previously called Facebook, owns four of the most popular social media platforms worldwide, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Facebook, and Instagram. As of the third quarter of 2021, there were around 3,5 billion cumulative monthly users of the company’s products worldwide. With around 2.9 billion monthly active users, Facebook is the most popular social media worldwide. With an audience of this scale, it is no surprise that the vast majority of Facebook’s revenue is generated through advertising.

              Facebook usage by device
              As of July 2021, it was found that 98.5 percent of active users accessed their Facebook account from mobile devices. In fact, almost 81.8 percent of Facebook audiences worldwide access the platform only via mobile phone. Facebook is not only available through mobile browser as the company has published several mobile apps for users to access their products and services. As of the third quarter 2021, the four core Meta products were leading the ranking of most downloaded mobile apps worldwide, with WhatsApp amassing approximately six billion downloads.

This physiological data was collected from pilot/copilot pairs in and out of a flight simulator. It was collected to train machine-learning models to aid in the detection of pilot attentive states. The benchmark training set is comprised of a set of controlled experiments collected in a non-flight environment, outside of a flight simulator. The test set (abbreviated LOFT = Line Oriented Flight Training) consists of a full flight (take off, flight, and landing) in a flight simulator. The pilots experienced distractions intended to induce one of the following three cognitive states: Channelized Attention (CA) is the state of being focused on one task to the exclusion of all others. This is induced in benchmarking by having the subjects play an engaging puzzle-based video game. Diverted Attention (DA) is the state of having one’s attention diverted by actions or thought processes associated with a decision. This is induced by having the subjects perform a display monitoring task. Periodically, a math problem showed up which had to be solved before returning to the monitoring task. Startle/Surprise (SS) is induced by having the subjects watch movie clips with jump scares. For each experiment, a pair of pilots (each with its own crew ID) was recorded over time and subjected to the CA, DA, or SS cognitive states. The training set contains three experiments (one for each state) in which the pilots experienced just one of the states. For example, in the experiment labelled CA, the pilots were either in a baseline state (no event) or the CA state. The test set contains a full flight simulation during which the pilots could experience any of the states (but never more than one at a time). Each sensor operated at a sample rate of 256 Hz. Please note that since this is physiological data from real people, there will be noise and artifacts in the data.

RESPOND project produced a high level of empirical material in 11 countries (Sweden, the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon) where the research is conducted between the period 2017-2020. The country teams gathered macro (policies), meso (implementation/stakeholders) and micro (individuals/asylum seekers and refuges) level data related to the thematic fields formulated in four work packages: borders, protection regimes, reception, and integration. An important contribution of this research has been its micro/individual focus which enabled the research teams to capture and understand the migration experiences of asylum seekers and refugees and their responses to the policies and obstacles that they have encountered.

Country teams conducted in total 539 interviews with refugees and asylum seekers, and more than 210 interviews with stakeholders (state and non-state actors) working in the field of migration. Additionally, the project has conducted a survey study in Sweden and Turkey (n=700 in each country), covering similar topics.

This dataset is only about the micro part of the Respond research, and reflects data derived out of 539 interviews conducted with asylum seekers and refugees in 11 countries and here presented in a quantitative form. The whole dataset is structured along the work package topics: Border, Protection, Reception and Integration.

This dataset is prepared as part of Work Package D4.4 (Dataset on Reception) the Horizon 2020 RESPOND project as a joint effort of the below listed project partners.

• • Uppsala University (dataset entries from Sweden)
• • Göttingen University (dataset entries from Germany)
• • Glasgow Caledonian University (dataset entries from the UK and Hungary)
• • Istanbul Bilgi University (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Cambridge (dataset entries from the UK, Sweden and Germany)
• • Swedish Research Institute Istanbul (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Florence (dataset entries from Italy)
• • Özyegin University (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Aegean (dataset entries from Greece)
• • University of Warsaw (dataset entries from Poland)
• • Hammurabi Human Rights Organization (dataset entries from Iraq)
• • Lebanon Support (dataset entries from Lebanon)
• • Austrian Academy of Sciences (dataset entries from Austria)

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

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

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

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

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

Previous updates:

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

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

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

The Research and Development Survey (RANDS) is a platform designed for conducting survey question evaluation and statistical research. RANDS is an ongoing series of surveys from probability-sampled commercial survey panels used for methodological research at the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). RANDS estimates are generated using an experimental approach that differs from the survey design approaches generally used by NCHS, including possible biases from different response patterns and sampling frames as well as increased variability from lower sample sizes. Use of the RANDS platform allows NCHS to produce more timely data than would be possible using traditional data collection methods. RANDS is not designed to replace NCHS’ higher quality, core data collections. Below are experimental estimates of telemedicine access and use for three rounds of RANDS during COVID-19. Data collection for the three rounds of RANDS during COVID-19 occurred between June 9, 2020 and July 6, 2020, August 3, 2020 and August 20, 2020, and May 17, 2021 and June 30, 2021. Information needed to interpret these estimates can be found in the Technical Notes. RANDS during COVID-19 included questions about whether providers offered telemedicine (including video and telephone appointments) in the last 2 months—both during and before the pandemic—and about the use of telemedicine in the last 2 months during the pandemic. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, many local and state governments discouraged people from leaving their homes for nonessential reasons. Although health care is considered an essential activity, telemedicine offers an opportunity for care without the potential or perceived risks of leaving the home. The National Health Interview Survey, conducted by NCHS, added telemedicine questions to its sample adult questionnaire in July 2020. The Household Pulse Survey (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/telemedicine-use.htm), an online survey conducted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Census Bureau in partnership with other federal agencies including NCHS, also reports estimates of telemedicine use during the pandemic (beginning in Phase 3.1, which started on April 14, 2021). The Household Pulse Survey reports telemedicine use in the last 4 weeks among adults and among households with at least one child under age 18 years. The experimental estimates on this page are derived from RANDS during COVID-19 and show the percentage of U.S. adults who have a usual place of care and a provider that offered telemedicine in the past 2 months, who used telemedicine in the past 2 months, or who have a usual place of care and a provider that offered telemedicine prior to the coronavirus pandemic. Technical Notes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/rands/telemedicine.htm#limitations

This dataset includes the number of service connections, categorized by type and metering status, as submitted by public water systems via the electronic annual report (eAR) in sections 3 or 4 for calendar years 2013 through 2023 reporting year. It also includes facility public information details from the SDWIS database as metadata associated to the dataset. “Service connection” means the point of connection between the customer’s piping or constructed conveyance, and the water system’s meter, service pipe, or constructed conveyance. “Public water system” means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Public water systems submit critical water system information intended to assess the status of compliance with specific regulatory requirements such as source water capacity, provides updated contact and inventory information (such as population and number of service connections) to the to the Division of Drinking Water using the electronic Annual Report (eAR) submission process. The data in the datasets below are electronically reported annually by public water systems to the State Water Resources Control Board - Division of Drinking Water. The data contained herein are public water system reported data and do not include a determination of accuracy or validity by regulatory staff. For data validated by regulatory staff, refer to the public water system inventory dataset from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/drinking-water-public-water-system-information. For more information about the eAR, visit the eAR Home Page: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/ear.html

In the following maps, the U.S. states are divided into groups based on the rates at which people developed or died from cancer in 2013, the most recent year for which incidence data are available.

The rates are the numbers out of 100,000 people who developed or died from cancer each year.

Incidence Rates by State The number of people who get cancer is called cancer incidence. In the United States, the rate of getting cancer varies from state to state.

*Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population.

‡Rates are not shown if the state did not meet USCS publication criteria or if the state did not submit data to CDC.

†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/uscs.

Death Rates by State Rates of dying from cancer also vary from state to state.

*Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population.

†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2016. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/uscs.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm