{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024456521739130436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004528985507246377, 'mean_word_length': 5.538461538461538, '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}}
Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs : Results from published “ field ” studies

Introduction In 1999, during an uproar over a spy scandal at the national laboratories, then Department of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (now governor of New Mexico) implemented a sweeping polygraph program within the Department headquarters in Washington and the three nuclear weapons laboratories: Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Over the protests of scientific staff and despite an in-depth study by the National Academy of Sciences questioning the value of screening polygraphs for national security purposes, thousands of polygraphs were administered in the subsequent 6 years. No spies were found, and the original person-of-interest leading to the Secretary’s policy decision, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, was exonerated of espionage charges. It is not known how many careers were destroyed or compromised by polygraphers’ conclusions that subjects were “deceptive” during their polygraph exams, but there is substantial testimonial data on the adverse effects of polygraphs.