{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028537455410225922, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020214030915576695, 'mean_word_length': 5.427480916030534, '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}}
Modified Biocultural Stress Model

The biocultural stress model, first defined by Goodman and colleagues (1984) and then revised by Goodman and Armelagos (1989), is expanded and modified to include a more complete depiction of the relationship of environment and culture to disease. The modified biocultural stress model (figure 1) incorporates more contemporary theoretical concepts, such as the osteological paradox (Wood et al. 1992) and new models of biocultural interactions (e.g., Schell 1997), into the previous models. This represents a more accurate pathway of the embodiment of stress into the body as skeletal stress markers. The modified biocultural stress model was used as a framework for understanding structural violence in the Hamann‐Todd Human Osteological Collection and the Robert J. Terry Anatomical Skeletal Collection.