The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last recorded at 4.50 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Fed Funds Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The benchmark interest rate in Japan was last recorded at 0.50 percent. This dataset provides - Japan Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The benchmark interest rate in Australia was last recorded at 3.60 percent. This dataset provides - Australia Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Context

This dataset was actually made to check the correlations between a housing price index and its crime rate. Rise and fall of housing prices can be due to various factors with obvious reasons being the facilities of the house and its neighborhood. Think of a place like Detroit where there are hoodlums and you don't want to end up buying a house in the wrong place. This data set will serve as historical data for crime rate data and this in turn can be used to predict whether the housing price will rise or fall. Rise in housing price will suggest decrease in crime rate over the years and vice versa.

Content

The headers are self explanatory. index_nsa is the housing price non seasonal index.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my team who helped in achieving this.

Inspiration

https://www.kaggle.com/marshallproject/crime-rates https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fhfa-house-price-indexes-hpis Data was collected from these 2 sources and merged to get the resulting dataset.

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.

A. SUMMARY This dataset includes San Francisco COVID-19 tests by race/ethnicity and by date. This dataset represents the daily count of tests collected, and the breakdown of test results (positive, negative, or indeterminate). Tests in this dataset include all those collected from persons who listed San Francisco as their home address at the time of testing. It also includes tests that were collected by San Francisco providers for persons who were missing a locating address. This dataset does not include tests for residents listing a locating address outside of San Francisco, even if they were tested in San Francisco.

The data were de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected). If a person tested multiple times on the same date, only one test is included from that date. When there are multiple tests on the same date, a positive result, if one exists, will always be selected as the record for the person. If a PCR and antigen test are taken on the same day, the PCR test will supersede. If a person tests multiple times on the same day and the results are all the same (e.g. all negative or all positive) then the first test done is selected as the record for the person.

The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco.

When a person gets tested for COVID-19, they may be asked to report information about themselves. One piece of information that might be requested is a person's race and ethnicity. These data are often incomplete in the laboratory and provider reports of the test results sent to the health department. The data can be missing or incomplete for several possible reasons:

• The person was not asked about their race and ethnicity.
• The person was asked, but refused to answer.
• The person answered, but the testing provider did not include the person's answers in the reports.
• The testing provider reported the person's answers in a format that could not be used by the health department.

For any of these reasons, a person's race/ethnicity will be recorded in the dataset as “Unknown.”

B. NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY The different values for Race/Ethnicity in this dataset are "Asian;" "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" "White;" "Multi-racial;" "Other;" and “Unknown."

The Race/Ethnicity categorization increases data clarity by emulating the methodology used by the U.S. Census in the American Community Survey. Specifically, persons who identify as "Asian," "Black or African American," "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," "White," "Multi-racial," or "Other" do NOT include any person who identified as Hispanic/Latino at any time in their testing reports that either (1) identified them as SF residents or (2) as someone who tested without a locating address by an SF provider. All persons across all races who identify as Hispanic/Latino are recorded as “"Hispanic or Latino/a, all races." This categorization increases data accuracy by correcting the way “Other” persons were counted. Previously, when a person reported “Other” for Race/Ethnicity, they would be recorded “Unknown.” Under the new categorization, they are counted as “Other” and are distinct from “Unknown.”

If a person records their race/ethnicity as “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other” for their first COVID-19 test, then this data will not change—even if a different race/ethnicity is reported for this person for any future COVID-19 test. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if a person’s race/ethnicity value is reported as “Unknown” on their first test and then on a subsequent test they report “Asian;” "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" or "White”, then this subsequent reported race/ethnicity will overwrite the previous recording of “Unknown”. If a person has only ever selected “Unknown” as their race/ethnicity, then it will be recorded as “Unknown.” This change provides more specific and actionable data on who is tested in San Francisco.

The second exception is if a person ever marks “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” for race/ethnicity then this choice will always overwrite any previous or future response. This is because it is an overarching category that can include any and all other races and is mutually exclusive with the other responses.

A person's race/ethnicity will be recorded as “Multi-racial” if they select two or more values among the following choices: “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other.” If a person selects a combination of two or more race/ethnicity answers that includes “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” then they will still be recorded as “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races”—not as “Multi-racial.”

C. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED COVID-19 laboratory test data is based on electronic laboratory test reports. Deduplication, quality assurance measures and other data verification processes maximize accuracy of laboratory test information.

D. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 5:00AM Pacific Time each day. Redundant runs are scheduled at 7:00AM and 9:00AM in case of pipeline failure.

E. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

Due to the high degree of variation in the time needed to complete tests by different labs there is a delay in this reporting. On March 24, 2020 the Health Officer ordered all labs in the City to report complete COVID-19 testing information to the local and state health departments.

In order to track trends over time, a user can analyze this data by sorting or filtering by the "specimen_collection_date" field.

Calculating Percent Positivity: The positivity rate is the percentage of tests that return a positive result for COVID-19 (positive tests divided by the sum of positive and negative tests). Indeterminate results, which could not conclusively determine whether COVID-19 virus was present, are not included in the calculation of percent positive. When there are fewer than 20 positives tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the positivity rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Calculating Testing Rates: To calculate the testing rate per 10,000 residents, divide the total number of tests collected (positive, negative, and indeterminate results) for the specified race/ethnicity by the total number of residents who identify as that race/ethnicity (according to the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimate), then multiply by 10,000. When there are fewer than 20 total tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the testing rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Read more about how this data is updated and validated daily: https://sf.gov/information/covid-19-data-questions

F. CHANGE LOG

• 1/12/2024 - This dataset will stop updating as of 1/12/2024
• 6/21/2023 - A small number of additional COVID-19 testing records were released as part of our ongoing data cleaning efforts. An update to the race or ethnicity designation among a subset of testing records was simultaneously released.
• 1/31/2023 - updated “population_estimate” column to reflect the 2020 Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) San Francisco Population estimates.
• 1/31/2023 - renamed column “last_updated_at” to “data_as_of”.
• 3/23/2022 - ‘Native American’ changed to ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ to align with the census.
• 2/10/2022 - race/ethnicity categorization was changed. See section NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY for additional information.
• 4/16/2021 - dataset updated to refresh with a five-day data lag.

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

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

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.

The benchmark interest rate in Brazil was last recorded at 15 percent. This dataset provides - Brazil Interest Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

This MESSENGER Magnetic field data set contains cruise-phase magnetic field vectors in RTN coordinates at time resolutions typically of 0.5 s or 1.0 s and sometimes as fine as 0.05 s. The Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry, and Ranging, MESSENGER, mission is designed to study the characteristics and environment of Mercury from orbit. The nominal orbit is planned to have a periapsis of 200 km at 60° N latitude, an apoapsis of 15,193 km, a period of 12 hours, and an inclination of 80°. The periapsis will slowly rise due to solar perturbations to over 400 km at the end of 88 days, one Mercury year, at which point it will be readjusted to a 200 km, 12 hour orbit via a two burn sequence. Data will be collected from orbit for one Earth year, the nominal primary mission was planned to end in March 2012. Specifically, the scientific objectives of the mission are to characterize: * the chemical composition of the surface of Mercury * the geologic history * the nature of the magnetic field * the size and state of the core * the volatile inventory at the poles * the nature of the Hermean exosphere and magnetosphere The MESSENGER mission should also yield: * global composition maps * a 3-D model of the magnetosphere of Mercury * topographic profiles of the northern hemisphere * gravity field to degree and order sixteen * altitude profiles of elemental species * a characterization of the volatiles in permanently shadowed craters at the poles The MESSENGER spacecraft is a squat box (1.27 m ⨯ 1.42 m ⨯ 1.85 m) with a semi-cylindrical thermal shade, roughly 2.5 m tall and 2 m wide, for protection from the Sun and two solar panel wings extending radially about 6 m from tip to tip. Five science instruments are mounted externally on the bottom deck of the main body: the Mercury Dual Imaging System, MDIS, Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer, GRNS, X-ray Spectrometer, XRS, Mercury Laser Altimeter, MLA, and Atmospheric and Surface Composition Spectrometer, MASCS. Radio Science, RS, experiments will use the existing communications system. The Energetic Particle and Plasma Spectrometer, EPPS, is mounted on the side and top deck, and the magnetometer, MAG, is at the end of the 3.6 m boom. The Messenger MAG instrument is a miniature three-axis ring-core fluxgate magnetometer with low-noise electronics. It is mounted on a 3.6 m boom in the anti-sunward direction. The MAG has ±1530 and ±51300 nT ranges with 20-bit internal resolution and 17-bit output resolution. The MAG probe samples magnetic field values along the X, Y, and Z axes at a rate of up to 20 samples/s. The rate is commandable and can vary. This data set has 3-axis calibrated samples of the magnetic field in heliospheric RTN coordinates, Br, Bt, Bn, in units of nT. The spacecraft position data in these files are identified by radial distance from the Sun, latitude above the ecliptic plane, and azimuth with respect to the Earth-Sun line in the ecliptic plane. The MESSENGER Magnetometer data are also available from the Planetary Data System, Planetary Plasma Interactions, PDS/PPI, node via the URL; https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/search/view/?f=yes&id=pds://PPI/MESS-E_V_H_SW-MAG-3-CDR-CALIBRATED-V1.0/DATA/RTN/. Hovever, the data are listed in plain text, space delimeted ASCII tables. Note that this SPASE Numerical Description only describes the MESSENGER Magnetometer data stored in Common Data Files.

Fifty years ago, in March 1973, the major industrial economies abandoned fixed exchange rates, conclusively ending the post–World War II Bretton Woods arrangements. Proponents believed their action would strengthen countries' ability to reconcile domestic macroeconomic policies with the balance of payments. But opponents feared it would initiate a new era of instability and financial shocks. Since 1973, much of the world has moved away from fixed exchange rates to a variety of regimes based on considerable exchange rate flexibility. But international trade conflicts and unstable capital flows, along with a rise in financial crises around the world, have nonetheless accompanied the global shift away from exchange rate pegs.

Analyzing Customer Churn and Its Impact on Revenue

Exploring Patterns and Trends

By [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains customer data from multiple sources that can be used to predict customer churn and analyze its effect on revenue. We'll use this data to gain insights into customer behavior, such as when customers are likely to churn, how their behavior affects revenue and what patterns of behavior can help us better understand customers. This dataset features several different attributes for each customer: their unique identifier, total charges paid over time, contract information and more. Additionally, we can use the predictive analytical models based on this data to identify at-risk customers that may be more likely to churn in the near future. By gaining deep insight into which customers are most likely to leave and why they are leaving, businesses will be better equipped with tools necessary for taking proactive measures against potential revenue losses due to customer churn

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset is an excellent tool for businesses to understand what factors are associated with customer churn and its impact on revenue. It can provide insights into which customers are most likely to leave, and how companies can prevent them from leaving.

To use this dataset, here are the steps businesses can follow: 1. Understand each of the data points available in the dataset and what they represent - For example, CustomerID is a unique identifier for each customer, Churn indicates if a customer has left the company or not, gender denotes what gender the customer is etc. 2. Analyze any trends or patterns in your data – Look out for correlations between different variables like OnlineSecurity usage and Churn rate or MonthlyCharges and tenure to determine how these variables affect customers’ decisions to stay with a company or leave it etc. 3. Use machine learning models on your dataset – Utilize supervised learning algorithms such as logistic regression on this dataset to determine which variable most closely correlates with loyalty of customers i.e., which variable will decide whether a particular customer will stay with your company or not?
4. Explore various ways of increasing retention rates – Think about ways you could incentivize customers who might be considering leaving their current provider (for example, offer discounts, free trials etc.). You could try different strategies like A/B testing too see which incentive works best for churn prevention/retention rate increase etc. 5.. Test out strategies before implementing them - Once you have decided on incentives that might work well, run small scale tests to check if they generate desired results before investing resources into full rollout programs .The systems based on machine learning algorithms allows you to quickly test assumptions efficiently without large investments in time & money prior committing these changes fully operational processes

Research Ideas

• Using customer data to identify and target customers who are at a high risk of churning to counter this effect with relevant customer service initiatives.
• Analyzing the effects of promotional campaigns and loyalty programs on customer retention rates and overall revenue.
• Machine learning models that predict future chances of customer churn which can be used by businesses to improve strategies for better retention & profitability

Acknowledgements

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

License

License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) - Public Domain Dedication No Copyright - You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information.

Columns

File: dataset1.csv | Column name | Description | |:---------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------| | CustomerID | Unique identifier for each customer. (Integer) | | Churn | Whether or not the customer has churned. (Boolean) | | gender | Gender of the customer. (String) | | SeniorCitizen | Whether or not the customer is a senior citizen. (Boolean) ...

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.

According to Cognitive Market Research, the global AI Training Dataset Market size will be USD 2962.4 million in 2025. It will expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28.60% from 2025 to 2033.

North America held the major market share for more than 37% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 1096.09 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 26.4% from 2025 to 2033.
Europe accounted for a market share of over 29% of the global revenue, with a market size of USD 859.10 million.
APAC held a market share of around 24% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 710.98 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30.6% from 2025 to 2033.
South America has a market share of more than 3.8% of the global revenue, with a market size of USD 112.57 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 27.6% from 2025 to 2033.
Middle East had a market share of around 4% of the global revenue and was estimated at a market size of USD 118.50 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 27.9% from 2025 to 2033.
Africa had a market share of around 2.20% of the global revenue and was estimated at a market size of USD 65.17 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28.3% from 2025 to 2033.
Data Annotation category is the fastest growing segment of the AI Training Dataset Market

Market Dynamics of AI Training Dataset Market

Key Drivers for AI Training Dataset Market

Government-Led Open Data Initiatives Fueling AI Training Dataset Market Growth

In recent years, Government-initiated open data efforts have strongly driven the development of the AI Training Dataset Market through offering affordable, high-quality datasets that are vital in training sound AI models. For instance, the U.S. government's drive for openness and innovation can be seen through portals such as Data.gov, which provides an enormous collection of datasets from many industries, ranging from healthcare, finance, and transportation. Such datasets are basic building blocks in constructing AI applications and training models using real-world data. In the same way, the platform data.gov.uk, run by the U.K. government, offers ample datasets to aid AI research and development, creating an environment that is supportive of technological growth. By releasing such information into the public domain, governments not only enhance transparency but also encourage innovation in the AI industry, resulting in greater demand for training datasets and helping to drive the market's growth.

India's IndiaAI Datasets Platform Accelerates AI Training Dataset Market Growth

India's upcoming launch of the IndiaAI Datasets Platform in January 2025 is likely to greatly increase the AI Training Dataset Market. The project, which is part of the government's ?10,000 crore IndiaAI Mission, will establish an open-source repository similar to platforms such as HuggingFace to enable developers to create, train, and deploy AI models. The platform will collect datasets from central and state governments and private sector organizations to provide a wide and rich data pool. Through improved access to high-quality, non-personal data, the platform is filling an important requirement for high-quality datasets for training AI models, thus driving innovation and development in the AI industry. This public initiative reflects India's determination to become a global AI hub, offering the infrastructure required to facilitate startups, researchers, and businesses in creating cutting-edge AI solutions. The initiative not only simplifies data access but also creates a model for public-private partnerships in AI development.

Restraint Factor for the AI Training Dataset Market

Data Privacy Regulations Impeding AI Training Dataset Market Growth

Strict data privacy laws are coming up as a major constraint in the AI Training Dataset Market since governments across the globe are establishing legislation to safeguard personal data. In the European Union, explicit consent for using personal data is required under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), reducing the availability of datasets for training AI. Likewise, the data protection regulator in Brazil ordered Meta and others to stop the use of Brazilian personal data in training AI models due to dangers to individuals' funda...

This table includes figures on year-on-year developments of expenditure categories of the Harmonised consumer price index (HICP). This table also contains the weighting coefficient. The weighting coefficient shows how many consumers in the Netherlands spend on a product group in relation to their total expenditure.

Furthermore, the table shows the contribution and impact of HICP categories. The contributions of the separate groups add up to the total annual rate of change and show the share of price increases. The impact, on the other hand, answers the question how much higher or lower the annual rate of change would have been, if a specific category would not have been taken into account in calculation. These figures are shown for 139 product groups. Furthermore, 34 combinations of product groups (special aggregates) are displayed.

HICP figures are published every month. In addition, an annual figure is published at the end of the year. The HICP of a calendar year is calculated as the average of the indices of the twelve months of that year.

Data available from: January 2016.

Status of the figures: The HICP figures in this table are in most cases final immediately upon publication. The figures of the HICP are only marked as provisional in the second publication if it is already known at the time of publication that data are still incomplete, a revision is expected in a later month, or in special circumstances such as the corona crisis.

In most cases, all requested price information is known to Statistics Netherlands when the results are published and no adjustment is made later. However, sometimes certain price information is not available in time and the outcome can be adjusted later. HICP results can then always be revised together with the CPI results, even if they were not published as provisional in the previous month. CPI results are marked as provisional when the index figures are first published, the figures are final the following month.

Changes compared with previous version: Data on the most recent period have been added and/or adjustments have been implemented.

Changes as of 9 June 2022: The unit of the contribution to annual rate of change and the impact on the annual rate of change has been adjusted to 'percentage point'. Previously, the unit was incorrectly referred to as 'percent' in the table.

When will new figures be published? New figures will usually be published between the first and second Thursday of the month following on the reporting month.

All CPI and HICP publications are announced on the publication calendar.

WARNING: This is a pre-release dataset and its fields names and data structures are subject to change. It should be considered pre-release until the end of 2024. Expected changes:Metadata is missing or incomplete for some layers at this time and will be continuously improved.We expect to update this layer roughly in line with CDTFA at some point, but will increase the update cadence over time as we are able to automate the final pieces of the process.This dataset is continuously updated as the source data from CDTFA is updated, as often as many times a month. If you require unchanging point-in-time data, export a copy for your own use rather than using the service directly in your applications.PurposeCounty and incorporated place (city) boundaries along with third party identifiers used to join in external data. Boundaries are from the authoritative source the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), altered to show the counties as one polygon. This layer displays the city polygons on top of the County polygons so the area isn"t interrupted. The GEOID attribute information is added from the US Census. GEOID is based on merged State and County FIPS codes for the Counties. Abbreviations for Counties and Cities were added from Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) data. Place Type was populated with information extracted from the Census. Names and IDs from the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN), the authoritative source of place names as published in the Geographic Name Information System (GNIS), are attached as well. Finally, coastal buffers are removed, leaving the land-based portions of jurisdictions. This feature layer is for public use.Related LayersThis dataset is part of a grouping of many datasets:Cities: Only the city boundaries and attributes, without any unincorporated areasWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCounties: Full county boundaries and attributes, including all cities within as a single polygonWith Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal BuffersCities and Full Counties: A merge of the other two layers, so polygons overlap within city boundaries. Some customers require this behavior, so we provide it as a separate service.With Coastal BuffersWithout Coastal Buffers (this dataset)Place AbbreviationsUnincorporated Areas (Coming Soon)Census Designated Places (Coming Soon)Cartographic CoastlinePolygonLine source (Coming Soon)Working with Coastal BuffersThe dataset you are currently viewing includes the coastal buffers for cities and counties that have them in the authoritative source data from CDTFA. In the versions where they are included, they remain as a second polygon on cities or counties that have them, with all the same identifiers, and a value in the COASTAL field indicating if it"s an ocean or a bay buffer. If you wish to have a single polygon per jurisdiction that includes the coastal buffers, you can run a Dissolve on the version that has the coastal buffers on all the fields except COASTAL, Area_SqMi, Shape_Area, and Shape_Length to get a version with the correct identifiers.Point of ContactCalifornia Department of Technology, Office of Digital Services, odsdataservices@state.ca.govField and Abbreviation DefinitionsCOPRI: county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering systemPlace Name: CDTFA incorporated (city) or county nameCounty: CDTFA county name. For counties, this will be the name of the polygon itself. For cities, it is the name of the county the city polygon is within.Legal Place Name: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for area names published in the Geographic Name Information SystemGNIS_ID: The numeric identifier from the Board on Geographic Names that can be used to join these boundaries to other datasets utilizing this identifier.GEOID: numeric geographic identifiers from the US Census Bureau Place Type: Board on Geographic Names authorized nomenclature for boundary type published in the Geographic Name Information SystemPlace Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of incorporated area namesCNTY Abbr: CalTrans Division of Local Assistance abbreviations of county namesArea_SqMi: The area of the administrative unit (city or county) in square miles, calculated in EPSG 3310 California Teale Albers.COASTAL: Indicates if the polygon is a coastal buffer. Null for land polygons. Additional values include "ocean" and "bay".GlobalID: While all of the layers we provide in this dataset include a GlobalID field with unique values, we do not recommend you make any use of it. The GlobalID field exists to support offline sync, but is not persistent, so data keyed to it will be orphaned at our next update. Use one of the other persistent identifiers, such as GNIS_ID or GEOID instead.AccuracyCDTFA"s source data notes the following about accuracy:City boundary changes and county boundary line adjustments filed with the Board of Equalization per Government Code 54900. This GIS layer contains the boundaries of the unincorporated county and incorporated cities within the state of California. The initial dataset was created in March of 2015 and was based on the State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. As of April 1, 2024, the maintenance of this dataset is provided by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates. The boundaries are continuously being revised to align with aerial imagery when areas of conflict are discovered between the original boundary provided by the California State Board of Equalization and the boundary made publicly available by local, state, and federal government. Some differences may occur between actual recorded boundaries and the boundaries used for sales and use tax purposes. The boundaries in this map are representations of taxing jurisdictions for the purpose of determining sales and use tax rates and should not be used to determine precise city or county boundary line locations. COUNTY = county name; CITY = city name or unincorporated territory; COPRI = county number followed by the 3-digit city primary number used in the California State Board of Equalization"s 6-digit tax rate area numbering system (for the purpose of this map, unincorporated areas are assigned 000 to indicate that the area is not within a city).Boundary ProcessingThese data make a structural change from the source data. While the full boundaries provided by CDTFA include coastal buffers of varying sizes, many users need boundaries to end at the shoreline of the ocean or a bay. As a result, after examining existing city and county boundary layers, these datasets provide a coastline cut generally along the ocean facing coastline. For county boundaries in northern California, the cut runs near the Golden Gate Bridge, while for cities, we cut along the bay shoreline and into the edge of the Delta at the boundaries of Solano, Contra Costa, and Sacramento counties.In the services linked above, the versions that include the coastal buffers contain them as a second (or third) polygon for the city or county, with the value in the COASTAL field set to whether it"s a bay or ocean polygon. These can be processed back into a single polygon by dissolving on all the fields you wish to keep, since the attributes, other than the COASTAL field and geometry attributes (like areas) remain the same between the polygons for this purpose.SliversIn cases where a city or county"s boundary ends near a coastline, our coastline data may cross back and forth many times while roughly paralleling the jurisdiction"s boundary, resulting in many polygon slivers. We post-process the data to remove these slivers using a city/county boundary priority algorithm. That is, when the data run parallel to each other, we discard the coastline cut and keep the CDTFA-provided boundary, even if it extends into the ocean a small amount. This processing supports consistent boundaries for Fort Bragg, Point Arena, San Francisco, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, and Capitola, in addition to others. More information on this algorithm will be provided soon.Coastline CaveatsSome cities have buffers extending into water bodies that we do not cut at the shoreline. These include South Lake Tahoe and Folsom, which extend into neighboring lakes, and San Diego and surrounding cities that extend into San Diego Bay, which our shoreline encloses. If you have feedback on the exclusion of these items, or others, from the shoreline cuts, please reach out using the contact information above.Offline UseThis service is fully enabled for sync and export using Esri Field Maps or other similar tools. Importantly, the GlobalID field exists only to support that use case and should not be used for any other purpose (see note in field descriptions).Updates and Date of ProcessingConcurrent with CDTFA updates, approximately every two weeks, Last Processed: 12/17/2024 by Nick Santos using code path at https://github.com/CDT-ODS-DevSecOps/cdt-ods-gis-city-county/ at commit 0bf269d24464c14c9cf4f7dea876aa562984db63. It incorporates updates from CDTFA as of 12/12/2024. Future updates will include improvements to metadata and update frequency.

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.

Inflation Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 2.70 percent in July. This dataset provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Sandy ocean beaches are a popular recreational destination, often surrounded by communities containing valuable real estate. Development is on the rise despite the fact that coastal infrastructure is subjected to flooding and erosion. As a result, there is an increased demand for accurate information regarding past and present shoreline changes. To meet these national needs, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is compiling existing reliable historical shoreline data along open-ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and parts of Alaska and Hawaii under the National Assessment of Shoreline Change project. There is no widely accepted standard for analyzing shoreline change. Existing shoreline data measurements and rate calculation methods vary from study to study and prevent combining results into state-wide or regional assessments. The impetus behind the National Assessment project was to develop a standardized method of measuring changes in shoreline position that is consistent from coast to coast. The goal was to facilitate the process of periodically and systematically updating the results in an internally consistent manner.