{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015463917525773196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006872852233676976, 'mean_word_length': 5.858823529411764, '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}}
Defining Projective Techniques: Finding Common Ground for Discourse

In 2000 Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb defined projective tests in a traditional yet loose manner. When a more precise and exclusive definition is furnished, two classes of responses indicative of deviancy can be logically derived. It is suggested that a focused review of the literature yields consistent relations between psychopathology and two response types, falsifications and misrepresentations. This provides common ground for recognizing a circumscribed core of valid predictors across projective techniques.