{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02640845070422535, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.8061224489795915, '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}}
On the use of the term 'frequency' in applied behavior analysis.

There exists a terminological problem in applied behavior analysis: the term frequency has been used as a synonym for both rate (the number of responses per time) and count (the number of responses). To guide decisions about the use and meaning of frequency, we surveyed the usage of frequency in contemporary behavior-analytic journals and textbooks and found that the predominant usage of frequency was as count, not rate. Thus, we encourage behavior analysts to use frequency as a synonym for count.