{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023728813559322035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.715909090909091, '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}}
[Significance of knowledge about typicality in medico-legal opinionating].

Theoretical assumptions of forensic medicine indicate the necessity of a deeper analysis of opinionating rules, both with reference to the time of the specialty synthesis and its implementation before the court. Misuse of knowledge about typicality creates an especially negative role in this process. Instead of natural science-based facts, common-sense, probabilistic forms appear in the opinions, decreasing the level of aspirations. The opinion loses its advisory character and assumes jurisdictive properties.