{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024344569288389514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011235955056179775, 'mean_word_length': 5.369047619047619, '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}}
Room for a new standard? Response to comments by Heiby.

Heiby's (this issue, pp. 104-112) claim that psychologists' training in psychopharmacology is substandard is predicated on the assumption that existing training models offer the only acceptable approach to achieving competence. This assumption both prohibits innovation and is demonstrably false. Our comparison of training models must be judged from the perspective of a reasoned analysis of the competencies most important to prescribing, not the claims of other professions.