{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025362318840579712, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.616766467065868, '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}}
Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons, and other perplexities.

Twenty-three pigeons were subjected to a series of procedures in which the key-peck's effects ranged from immediate, differential food reinforcement, through delayed reinforcement, the production of stimulus changes with and without probable secondary reinforcement, the prevention of food presentation ("food-avoidance"), to extinction. Neither primary nor secondary food reinforcement appeared to be essential for the maintenance or acquisition of key pecking. The food-avoidance contingency failed to suppress responding in any subject. Only complete extinction, when pecking produced neither food nor stimulus changes, eliminated all pecking for most subjects. A combination of stimulus-change reinforcement and food reinforcement appeared to account for the results, but only if it could be assumed that the presence of food in a procedure enhanced the reinforcing power of stimulus change, whether or not the food was also dependent upon responding. Such an interaction between reinforcers may be involved in the phenomenon of autoshaping.