{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018367346938775512, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.819444444444445, '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}}
The Resolution of Some Paradoxes Related to Reliability and Validity

Attention is brought to the existence of incongruity in the definition of reliability in the literature, and some unnecessary controversies and confusions which result. A conventionalization of the meaning of reliability at a conceptual, model-free level is proposed. Through the exploration of two paradoxes, this article attempts to address some potential misconceptions about reliability, validity, and psychometrics.