{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01566951566951567, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.390909090909091, '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}}
Small Is Democratic, But Who Is Small?

Several studies indicate a significant correlation between small states and democracy, smallness usually being defined in terms of microstates with populations of less than one million. However, no convincing model has emerged so far of the mechanisms that serve to transform smallness into democratic conduct. This is probably in part a consequence of the negligence of the fact that the smallness-democracy relation is within the microstate camp time-dependent as well threshold-dependent. A mechanical application of the conventional microstate criteria therefore appears a somewhat doubtful method to achieve an understanding of the true impact of smallness.