{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017766497461928935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.076923076923077, '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}}
Case-Specific Sociological Inference

This essay responds to comments on our earlier paper discussing the American Sociological Association’s amicus brief in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case. We identify areas of agreement and disagreement with the commentators and close with proposed meta-norms that should govern experts who seek to apply social science research to the facts of a particular case.