{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01599247412982126, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.045454545454546, '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}}
Facts and Demonstrations: Exploring the Effects of Enrichment on Data Quality

There is widespread support within the scientific community for the concept that better welfare equals better science. It is also broadly accepted that environmental enrichment improves welfare. I have seen much evidence of support for both of these concepts in the literature, at meetings and when I visit animal facilities and see enrichment increasingly becoming the norm. However, this degree of acceptance is still not universal. For example, there are inconsistencies with levels of enrichment that are provided, even within the same facility at times. I still encounter researchers who do not regard enrichment as the default and have to be persuaded to provide it. There are also still, unfortunately, plenty of examples of materials and methods sections in papers that simply say something along the lines of “animals were housed in standard cages with soft wood litter and lab chow ad libitum”, with no explanation as to why the animals were not provided with anything else.