{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045344129554655874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008097165991902834, 'mean_word_length': 5.4375, '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}}
Content Analysis, Non-Automated

Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD) Working Group III.5 considered issues of research transparency in the manual collection and content analysis of texts, audio, and visual materials. Our report is based on the authors' research experience, comments of those participating online in the QTD discussion board on this topic, and direct communications with colleagues. A principal contribution of the report is the conceptualization and evaluation of the various forms that research transparency might take in this methodological domain. By forms, we mean the various kinds of research materials or products that scholars might choose to disseminate. The report identifies nine types of such materials, which vary with respect to the stage of the analysis, burden on the researcher, benefits to the research community, and risks: 
(1) Raw (primary) source material; 
(2) bibliographic references to the source material; 
(3) sampling plans; 
(4) commentary and deliberative process notes regarding coding decisions; 
(5) “chapter/verse” references for each coding decision; 
(6) data codebooks; 
(7) coded data; 
(8) estimates of inter-coder reliability; 
(9) concept mapping (glossary/ontology).