{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06983240223463687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04748603351955307, 'mean_word_length': 3.877551020408163, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the Pearson r 2 Biased, and if So, What Is the Best Correction Formula?

In this study the authors investigated the use of 5 (i.e., Claudy, Ezekiel, Olkin-Pratt, Pratt, and Smith) R 2 correction formulas with the Pearson r 2. The authors estimated adjustment bias and precision under 6 X 3 X 6 conditions (i.e., population ρ values of .0, .1, .3, .5, .7, and .9; population shapes normal, skewness = kurtosis = 1, and skewness = -1.5 with kurtosis = 3.5; ns = 10, 20, 40, 60, 100, and 200 respectively). Results indicate that the sample Pearson r 2 is marginally biased at small sample sizes and small population effect sizes, and that the Ezekiel and the Smith R 2 corrections work well in controlling this bias.