{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019261637239165328, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, '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}}
KANSAS GAP ANALYSIS: THE IMPORTANCE OF VALIDATING DISTRIBUTIONAL MODELS BEFORE USING THEM

Abstract Maps of vertebrate distributions resulting from the Kansas Gap Analysis were compared with maps based on ecological-niche modeling of primary point-occurrence information. The latter maps were considerably more predictive of independent sets of test data than were the Gap maps, further supporting the idea that the method of Gap wildlife-habitat modeling has little analytical power. In general, the Kansas Gap maps were untested and unchecked, thus being heterogeneous, unreliable, and of little use for further analyses.