{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04991680532445923, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013311148086522463, 'mean_word_length': 6.08235294117647, '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}}
Doing More with More: How "Early" Evidence Can Inform Public Policies.

Calls for government-funded activities to be “evidence based” are ubiquitous. “Gold standard” studies, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews (Isett, Head, and VanLandingham 2016), have expanded the availability of evidence-based programs and practices (VanLandingham and Silloway 2016). However, because of their complexity, large-scale policies (comprising services, laws, rules, and regulations implemented at the population level) are more difficult to study experimentally, resulting in evidence gaps.