{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024372230428360415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0103397341211226, 'mean_word_length': 4.942982456140351, '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}}
Reply to McDonald's Review of The Facet Analytic Approach to Research and Data Analysis

as possible of the complex and cumbersome mathematical formalizations. For this reason, I avoided elaborating on the algebra of the circumplex and simplex, preferring instead to refer the interested reader to other published sources (see my explicit note in this respect; Tziner 1987, p. 53). This approach may have created the impression of a narrow treatment of the facet approach, a feeling apparently experienced by McDonald. I do not concede this point-even if it were true-and I do not necessarily regard this as a deficiency if my approach achieves its objective: to enhance understanding and promote utilization of the facet analytic approach. My chapter 1, which focuses on the mathematical foundation of the approach, is not &dquo;a misplaced appendix&dquo; (McDonald, 1989, p. 324), but rather constitutes an essential part of the book. This is the first time that anyone has placed the facet analytic conceptualization in its historical context. I have never before seen any work that spells out the links between the mathematics of sets and the conceptual underpinnings of facet methodology. I wonder how the reader could grasp such notions as the mapping sentence or the passage from a domain of content to an empirical domain (the range) without this