|
--- |
|
language: |
|
- en |
|
tags: |
|
- government |
|
- api |
|
- policy |
|
pretty_name: Regulation.gov Public Comments |
|
size_categories: |
|
- n<1K |
|
task_categories: |
|
- text-classification |
|
--- |
|
# Dataset Card for Regulatory Comments (Predownloaded; No API Call) |
|
|
|
United States governmental agencies often make proposed regulations open to the public for comment. |
|
Proposed regulations are organized into "dockets". This dataset will use Regulation.gov public API |
|
to aggregate and clean public comments for dockets that mention opioid use. |
|
|
|
Each example will consist of one docket, and include metadata such as docket id, docket title, etc. |
|
Each docket entry will also include information about the top 10 comments, including comment metadata |
|
and comment text. |
|
|
|
In this version, the data has been preloaded and saved to the repository. |
|
Raw data can be found in docket_comments_all.json. |
|
The code used to call the api can be found in api_call.py. |
|
|
|
If the user wants to call from the API |
|
directly, reference [https://huggingface.co./datasets/ro-h/regulatory_comments_api]. |
|
|
|
## Dataset Details |
|
|
|
### Dataset Description and Structure |
|
|
|
This dataset will contain approximately 100 dockets. The number of dockets included are rate-limited by the |
|
government API. If a larger set of dockets are required, consider requesting a rate-unlimited API key and |
|
directly calling from the API using [https://huggingface.co./datasets/ro-h/regulatory_comments_api]. |
|
|
|
Each docket will be associated with at least one comment. The maximum number of comments per docket is 10. |
|
Comments will be retrieved in relevance order according to Regulation.gov. |
|
|
|
The following information is included in this dataset: |
|
|
|
**Docket Metadata** |
|
|
|
id (int): A unique numerical identifier assigned to each regulatory docket. |
|
|
|
title (str): The official title or name of the regulatory docket. This title typically summarizes the main issue or area of regulation covered by the docket. |
|
|
|
context (str): The date when the docket was last modified on Regulations.gov. |
|
|
|
purpose (str): Whether the docket was rulemaking, non-rulemaking, or other. |
|
|
|
keywords (list(str)): A list of string keywords, as determined by Regulations.gov. |
|
|
|
**Comment Metadata** |
|
|
|
Note that huggingface converts lists of dictionaries to dictionaries of lists. |
|
|
|
comment_id (int): A unique numerical identifier for each public comment submitted on the docket. |
|
|
|
comment_title (str): The title or subject line of the individual public comment. |
|
|
|
comment_url (str): A URL or web link to the specific comment or docket on Regulations.gov. This allows direct access to the original document or page for replicability purposes. |
|
|
|
comment_date (str): The date when the comment was posted on Regulations.gov. This is important for understanding the timeline of public engagement. |
|
|
|
commenter_fname (str): The first name of the individual or entity that submitted the comment. This could be a person, organization, business, or government entity. |
|
|
|
commenter_lname (str): The last name of the individual or entity that submitted the comment. |
|
|
|
comment_length (int): The length of the comment in terms of the number of characters (spaces included) |
|
|
|
**Comment Content** |
|
text (str): The actual text of the comment submitted. This is the primary content for analysis, containing the commenter's views, arguments, and feedback on the regulatory matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
### Dataset Limitations |
|
|
|
Commenter name features were phased in later in the system, so some dockets will have no |
|
first name/last name entries. Further, some comments were uploaded solely via attachment, |
|
and are stored in the system as null since the API has no access to comment attachments. However, many large companies will upload their |
|
comments via attachments, making any sentiment analysis biased towards individual commenters. |
|
|
|
- **Curated by:** Ro Huang |
|
|
|
### Dataset Sources |
|
|
|
- **Repository:** [https://huggingface.co./datasets/ro-h/regulatory_comments_api] |
|
- **Original Website:** [https://www.regulations.gov/] |
|
- **API Website:** [https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/] |
|
|
|
## Uses |
|
|
|
This dataset may be used by researchers or policy-stakeholders curious about the influence of |
|
public comments on regulation development. For example, sentiment analysis may be run on |
|
comment text; alternatively, simple descriptive analysis on the comment length and agency regulation |
|
may prove interesting. |
|
|
|
## Dataset Creation |
|
|
|
### Curation Rationale |
|
|
|
After a law is passed, it may require specific details or guidelines to be practically enforceable or operable. |
|
Federal agencies and the Executive branch engage in rulemaking, which specify the practical ways that legislation |
|
can get turned into reality. Then, they will open a Public Comment period in which they will receive comments, |
|
suggestions, and questions on the regulations they proposed. After taking in the feedback, the agency will modify their |
|
regulation and post a final rule. |
|
|
|
As an example, imagine that the legislative branch of the government passes a bill to increase the number of hospitals |
|
nationwide. While the Congressman drafting the bill may have provided some general guidelines (e.g., there should be at |
|
least one hospital in a zip code), there is oftentimes ambiguity on how the bill’s goals should be achieved. |
|
The Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with implementing this new law, given its relevance to national |
|
healthcare infrastructure. The agency would draft and publish a set of proposed rules, which might include criteria for |
|
where new hospitals can be built, standards for hospital facilities, and the process for applying for federal funding. |
|
During the Public Comment period, healthcare providers, local governments, and the public can provide feedback or express |
|
concerns about the proposed rules. The agency will then read through these public comments, and modify their regulation |
|
accordingly. |
|
|
|
While this is a vital part of the United States regulatory process, there is little understanding of how agencies approach |
|
public comments and modify their proposed regulations. Further, the data extracted from the API is often unclean and difficult |
|
to navigate. This dataset seeks to offer some clarity through aggregating comments related to Opioid Use Disorders, |
|
an issue that a diversity of stakeholders have investment in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#### Data Collection and Processing |
|
|
|
**Filtering Methods:** |
|
For each docket, we retrieve relevant metadata such as docket ID, |
|
title, context, purpose, and keywords. Additionally, the top 10 comments |
|
for each docket are collected, including their metadata (comment ID, URL, date, |
|
title, commenter's first and last name) and the comment text itself. The process |
|
focuses on the first page of 25 comments for each docket, and the top 10 comments |
|
are selected based on their order of appearance in the API response. |
|
|
|
**Data Normalization:** |
|
The collected data is normalized into a structured format. Each docket and |
|
its associated comments are organized into a nested dictionary structure. |
|
This structure includes key information about the docket and a list of comments, |
|
each with its detailed metadata. |
|
|
|
**Tools and Libraries Used:** |
|
Requests Library: Used for making API calls to the Regulations.gov API to fetch dockets and comments data. |
|
Datasets Library from HuggingFace: Employed for defining and managing the dataset's structure and generation process. |
|
Python: The entire data collection and processing script is written in Python. |
|
|
|
**Error Handling:** |
|
In the event of a failed API request (indicated by a non-200 HTTP response status), |
|
the data collection process for the current docket is halted, and the process moves to the next docket. |