{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02306805074971165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034602076124567475, 'mean_word_length': 5.575757575757576, '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}}
Coping with uncertainty in wildlife biology

A decade after Romesburg admonished wildlife biologists to establish and test hypotheses to gain more reliable knowledge , we have added an incentive to bring rigor to our science. Wildlife biologists are finding themselves defending their science against often savage criticism. At least 2 factors are central to producing solid, defendable science : (1) the rigorous application of scientific methods and (2) the development of clear operational definitions for terminology. The hypothetico-deductive (H-D) process, in the form of statistical tests of hypotheses based on experimental data, is hailed as the superior means of acquiring strong inference and reliable knowledge. Results from experimental studies, however, are seldom available, and most management decisions are made on the basis of incomplete information