{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03244274809160305, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0057251908396946565, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
English-language history and the creation of historical paradigm

Steve Buckler’s paper talks a great deal about the contrast between individual memory and ’adequate’ history.1 Underlying much of his writing is the assumption that ’adequate’ history is a subject about which there is some kind of professional consensus. A fictive peer group, ’we’, makes frequent appearances in the discussion, at one point looking to historical narratives for ways of understanding what ’we’ know to be the human condition, for example,2 2