{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01824817518248175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.56551724137931, '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}}
Considering definitions of stimulus equivalence

ABSTRACT Sidman and Tailby’s original definition of equivalence has been singularly influential in generating a vibrant conceptual, experimental, and applied analysis of essential behavior phenomena. At the same time, the equivalence literature is also characterized by studies indicating the emergence of patterns not directly captured by the standard equivalence definition. Research programs involving class-specific reinforcers, compound conditional or discriminative stimuli, simple discrimination training, and functional stimulus classes have all illustrated reliably emergent patterns predictable on the basis of equivalence-class formation, but which fail to meet the operational definitions of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. The paper asks whether considering an expanded definition of equivalence, inclusive of a range of interrelated emergent relations, might simultaneously facilitate our efforts to understand the equivalence process(es) and allow for greater application and adoption of these powerful teaching procedures.