{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029608404966571154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019102196752626553, 'mean_word_length': 4.887640449438202, '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}}
Reinvention in the Innovation Process

innovations (Rogers et al., 1977 and 1978), beginning with Ryan and Gross’s analysis (1943) of farmers who adopted the use of hybrid corn. This tremendous diffusion of diffusion studies has received attention by authors such as Downs and Mohr (1976) who attempt to explain the phenomenon. They suggest that reference to change as a product of diffusion allows generalizability of the discussion from a particular case to a common process. And, they argue, association with the wide body of diffusion studies and theory also adds a touch of class to a study of change. This generality, and status by association, may often be a strength, improving the diffusion of the research results; but it may also be a weakness, increasing the possibility of more contradictions in the diffusion literature. One model of the innovation process has been developed as a tool for the analysis of technology transfer decisions (Eveland et al., 1977). The process of adopting (and, at some stages, rejecting) an innovation is