{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025025025025025027, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018018018018018018, 'mean_word_length': 5.024096385542169, '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}}
Response to Draper J (2008) commentary on McGowan B (2006) 'who do they think they are? Undergraduate perceptions of the definition of supernumerary status and how it works in practice'. Journal of Clinical Nursing 15, 1099-1105.

Draper makes some important points in her commentary that I would support unequivocally. However, it must be stressed that the findings were an accurate reflection of what the students (in Northern Ireland) had experienced and said at that time. Given that much confusion has (and continues) to surround supernumerary status it was necessary to settle upon an operational definition that encapsulated the essence of being supernumerary. In hindsight, however, I would concede that the protection of time has been an issue and would support Draper’s assertion that its inclusion in any definition would be important. Overall, the commentary adds to the debate and serves a useful function in providing focus and direction for the more urgent points raised in the study.