{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022354694485842028, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01788375558867362, 'mean_word_length': 5.217592592592593, '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}}
Frame Dependent Modeling Of Influence Processes

In the second half of the last century we have observed a shift in focus from power studies to outcome oriented studies. In the original power studies, power indicators were not derived from a model of the influence process, but defined in a broader theoretical context. Examples are the classical local power studies of Hunter (1953) and Dahl (1961), where different measurement procedures resulted in fundamentally different conclusions and incomparable results. Whereas Hunter defined power as a potential and measured it by reputation ratings among leading persons, Dahl defined power as effective participation in actual decision making and measured it by studying actual decision making processes. As a reaction, others stressed the importance of non-decision making (among others, Bachrach and Baratz 1963). In a comparable way, early network approaches focused on the definition of status scores of which those of Katz (1953) and Hubbell (1965) are the most well-known. Also early network studies were unable to connect network positions with effects and derived influence and power from positions in networks. The Ten Country Study on Networks of Corporate Power in which Rolf Ziegler and I both participated is an excellent example of that approach (Stokman, Ziegler and Scott 1985).