{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02527646129541864, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022906793048973143, 'mean_word_length': 4.8119266055045875, '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}}
Prior surveys on expert systems in accounting, auditing and related areas

Barbera [1988] surveyed 148 local New York CPA firms to determine, among other things the extent of their knowledge, use and interest in expert systems and artificial intelligence. After three mailings to the sample CPA firms only 28 out of 148 (19%) firms responded to the survey. This suggests atbest limited interest in the expert systems and artificial intelligence. The responses to the survey indicate that expert systems software was not used by any of the firms. However, 53% knew what expert systems were and 46% of the firms were aware of possible expert system uses. 20% of the firms said that they were monitoring possible expert system use by the firm and 18% said that they were contemplating use. Only 9 of the 148 respondents (6%) replied to a portion of the survey that related to possible applications of expert systems. Four of those nine respondents (44%} indicated that they felt that expert systems were inappropriate for education/training and diagnosis. Since these areas are among the most frequently referenced "successes" for expert systems and since there is such a small sample of respondents there is some question as to the usefulness of this survey's results.