{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026584867075664622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.833333333333333, '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}}
In some situations, simpler models can produce better forecasts

Big data is in fashion these days, especially for modelling ecosystems in ocean science. But how much data do you really need? And does adding more data, and building more complex models, actually give you better results? To find out, the authors used the case of kelp forests on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Their results show how, depending on the objective, simpler models can actually be better.