input
stringlengths 3.29k
5.58k
| output
sequencelengths 1
1
| id
stringlengths 41
41
|
|---|---|---|
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers. <sep> Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV Q: Are they all the same type of producer? A: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers Q: They are making tons of money...do they need that many financial backers? A: people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they do anything other than give money?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-43d708fad4cc4a2e93b766ac88015c5e |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: There are two main "themes" in the book; Sex and Revenge. When you're in prison, those are about the only two things you think about. I was incarcerated for 5 years (well, just short of that, actually), and when you're not busy watching your back you're pretty much daydreaming of those two things. I can't say either of them were the most popular book in the library, but I can see where that dialogue came from. <sep> Q: What is the obvious reason "The Other Side of Midnight" is a popular book in prison? A: two main "themes" in the book; Sex and Revenge. When you're in prison, those are about the only two things you think about <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The most relevant thing to prison or the justice system seems to be that at the end, the woman and the pilot plead guilty to murder
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-bb3761e66e3e4f23aa7a5a01277e4478 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I hope I don't spoil the party with an out-of-universe explanation, but I thought that this was really interesting when I found it out: It was just supposed to be funny. The sequels weren't written yet. In the commentary on the DVD, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale explain the scene, that it was all just there for fun, including the "To be continued…". At the time, they weren't planning on making a sequel, and in their own words, were just hoping that the first movie would break even at the box office. This scene was just a sort of joke. Afterward, when the film was such a success that they were asked to write a script for a sequel, they regretted writing this scene the way that they did, because Doc and Marty brought Jennifer along, which limited their options in writing the next script. If it has just been Doc and Marty, they could have made the next movie about anything they wanted, the two guys on any crazy adventure in time. With Jennifer around (and what Doc said), the second movie now had to be about their kids. They had "painted themselves into a corner" in a way, but still managed to make an excellent story out of it! <sep> Q: do you think its because martys son is goin to jail in future? A: With Jennifer around (and what Doc said), the second movie now had to be about their kids Q: do you think the movie will be good since its about the kids? A: They had "painted themselves into a corner" in a way, but still managed to make an excellent story out of it <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: i also wonder if they will have anymore about the kids or go back to another subject?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-0180528ea5e246b3887604f1ff1d09ec |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote. <sep> Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-0848a086b0d648d5a817f39a04595126 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team. So most of it is born out of the existing myths out there. Of course, the team goes on to make some stuff of their own. The thing is, Supernatural borrows from myths all over the world. The salt thing and devil's trap are myths that exist. Though I wouldn't worry about the series being credible because they often involve plots that throw you off your screen like the Horsemen, heaven, hell etc etc. Just enjoy the show! :) <sep> Q: Is there any credibility to the "details" in Supernatural? A: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What folk lore, legends and myths is it inspired by?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-613c95c5658349568de83aaaf42f5849 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I have a friend who owns a (very) small theater... so some of this probably isn't "official" (I know they bend the rules a bit at times). Also, they operate only on film, I'm not for sure about digital Anyway, one thing a lot of people don't realize is that film is usually shipped on 6 or so small reels. The movie theater then tapes together these reels into usually 1 or 2 big reels(depending on what's capable of the projector and the size of the movie). During this time, they add on small preview reels. From what I can tell, usually 2 or 3 previews are shipped with a particular movie. It's not mandatory that theaters put them on, but they are usually the latest, so it gives theaters a good incentive. Unlike movie reels which must be returned, preview reels can be kept by the movie theater. So the movie theater can of course add on more previews if they wish as well. I believe it's allowed for them to add no previews on as well. Of course, with digital there is much less choice. I believe the previews with digital movies are completely fixed.. So, it's completely up to the studios.. As for how they select which previews are shipped with blockbuster movies, see the other answers <sep> Q: What factors go into determining what trailers are played before movies? A: one thing a lot of people don't realize is that film is usually shipped on 6 or so small reels Q: What do the 6 or so small reels have to do with trailers? A: The movie theater then tapes together these reels into usually 1 or 2 big reels(depending on what's capable of the projector and the size of the movie Q: What happens after the reels are taped together? A: During this time, they add on small preview reels <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this always the way trailers are added?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-c6906015c2dd43b2b037c058cf653604 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: You seem to be focusing on the meaning of the words spoken and ignoring the context of the scene surrounding them. The scene in question takes place in the middle of a classroom. The school they're in is an SVR (Russian Intelligence) school for training female assassins, and the specific class they are attending is about seduction, and how to use it to manipulate targets of interest. There is no deception between Dominika and the cadet she's paired with (they both know what's going on in the moment), but Matron is teaching a class about how to seduce people, which would involve deception, out in the real world. The deception she refers to is the act of deceiving the hypothetical victim they will eventually be using these skills on in the future. <sep> Q: Which deception is the Matron referring to? A: You seem to be focusing on the meaning of the words spoken and ignoring the context of the scene surrounding them Q: Who was attacked? A: The scene in question takes place in the middle of a classroom <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were both parties students?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-9512e69796244824ab44762bfda9c993 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: As far as I know, the Thinker himself proclaimed the fact that he has answers to almost anything, and he knows all the possible future outcomes of any event. Being a super intelligent meta human, it wouldn't be outrageous to think he calculated how and what powers each of the bus metas were going to get. <sep> Q: Does the Thinker know about the power of metas he created? A: As far as I know, the Thinker himself proclaimed the fact that he has answers to almost anything Q: Okay, but when he created 12 different metas did he know the powers of each one? A: he knows all the possible future outcomes of any event Q: Did he create each metas according to his needs? A: Being a super intelligent meta human, it wouldn't be outrageous to think he calculated how and what powers each of the bus metas were going to get <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the dark matter they were exposed to in the bus?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-b8d8dee7da1c4c1aad264b55d7497f22 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose. <sep> Q: Jesse was mad at Walt and Walt left the gun on the couch, was that intentional? A: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Jesse lear that Brock had been poisoned?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-5164aaa2293648d8bb497ee9c000f1d5 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her. <sep> Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her Q: Did she understand the security guard? A: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How was her ability to understand English erased?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-d51e8736d6814ac8a04b8a34813f77dc |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness. Interestingly, Elgar ended up writing 14 variations (Nimrod being number 9). Zimmer is trying to instil the patriotism that the variations have done for the British over the past century. Calling his own composition Variation 15 implies a continuation of Elgar's original works. <sep> Q: What is the significance of Nimrod to Dunkirk's original score? A: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness Q: What do you mean by part of British conciousness? A: Zimmer is trying to instil the patriotism that the variations have done for the British over the past century Q: Oh I see, isn't is unusually long for a soundtrack? A: Interestingly, Elgar ended up writing 14 variations (Nimrod being number 9 <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: That is very interesting...do you know why he'd do so many variations?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-6acaf21237d44daba967cf562a08d3b6 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents. <sep> Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-e5568613bef5498b9d949b6fe70f039a |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: There are no definite statements about how the current series will end, as (supervising director) Dave Filoni has mentioned how the story is constantly in flux and an ongoing writing process. That said, they will indeed have to wrap up Ahsoka's arc (and there are many theories about this), but considering this takes place in the period between the second two prequel films, it would make sense for the series to wrap up on the eve of the space war over Coruscant (which was wonderfully dove-tailed into Genndy Tartakovsky's animated take on the saga). <sep> Q: Does George Lucas have a plan for how The Clone Wars series will continue into the movies? A: There are no definite statements about how the current series will end, as (supervising director) Dave Filoni has mentioned how the story is constantly in flux and an ongoing writing process Q: Is there a continuity plan to end THe Clone Wars Series and tie it up to the movies? A: it would make sense for the series to wrap up on the eve of the space war over Coruscant (which was wonderfully dove-tailed into Genndy Tartakovsky's animated take on the saga Q: As I imagine there are many unanswerable questions. Or is George Lucas just milking it as long as he can? A: considering this takes place in the period between the second two prequel films, it would make sense for the series to wrap up on the eve of the space war over Coruscant <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you mean by dove-tailed?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-b76943d24b024d86b9467f971e4b16c8 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The latter. It's typical movie, and fairy tale, plot armor. It only works that way in movies. Well, that and any real life event where a book, bible, badge or locket stops a bullet, Arrow or piece of shrapnel. President Roosevelt is famous for that. But it's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on. <sep> Q: Why is it so Hard to kill with an Arrow A: t's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did the locket not break?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-d175a40b641f411b9a70857d85e876df |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I haven't seen the show in a while and don't have any references handy but as i recall Louis wasn't as cool and liked by others like Harvey was. Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey. So Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward. Harvey on the other hand was careless with the money he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis. Overall depending on how you define winner or best either one of them could be worthy of those titles. You seem to view their balance sheet as the arbitrator of success, and not professional achievement in the form of being managing partner. In all reality Louis had enough money to maintain his lifestyle if he quit getting a paycheck, unlike Harvey. However, as portrayed in the show becoming managing partner and mastering the relevant politics to become the de facto leader was the holy grail. Harvey was always closer than Louis in attaining this goal, making Harvey the better man in terms of the show like it or not. <sep> Q: Why does Louis Litt struggle with self-esteem issues, given that he is the richest in the law firm despite getting a lower salary? A: Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward Q: Why does he feel more inferior to Harvey? A: Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey Q: How was it discovered that Louis was the richest person in the law firm? A: he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why were his bosses embarrassed to find out how rich he was?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-58fb88b100074d4d9e25cd6893bdaca3 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The annoying phone ring in the Once Upon a Time in America scene you quoted, is there not for the purpose of annoying the viewer (which I admit id does a bit), but is there to share with the viewer and impress in the audience the feeling experienced by Noodles (De Niro). In order to reach the desidered effect, it has to be long and certainly not pleasant. The phone ring is not real, it's just in Noodles head and expresses the metaphorical ring of his guilty conscience, which is stirred in the opium den by the newspaper's headlines hovering over the photos of Max, Patsy and Cockeye that read "Bootleggers trapped by Feds; Three Slain". Noodles tries once again to obliterate the painful memory of his betrayal triggered by the newspaper by sucking greedily on the opium pipe, bu to no avail. The scene is also beautifully edited in reverse, thus the audience does really understand the meaning of the ringing phone only at the end of the sequence, when we see Noodles picking up the phone and calling the desk of Sergeant Halloran (we are only shown the nametag on his desk). When Halloran (or one of his agents) picks up, the ringing stops and is replaced by a deafening, high-pitched noise that forces Noodles to stand up, no matter the amount of opium smoked. Here's the phone ring scene from Youtube: <sep> Q: What is the significance of annoying phone ring?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-1431bf2305a9485ca135f4e536fe2e29 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence. The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge; Derek and Danny lose their father and hate consumes them. They win a basketball game against the black gang (and their turf in the process) and the gang try and steal their fathers' truck as revenge, Derek kills them over it. But then Derek's arrest interrupts this pattern, he goes off to prison and with the help of Dr. Sweeney he realises the pattern of behaviour and does what he can to prevent it from going any further. Derek has his catharsis and becomes a different person, and tries to help Danny do the same. But the problem is the same hasn't happened to those that he's wronged; there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it, and in the end Danny pays the price. It is much more poignant and reflective of real life in this way, after years of fighting it's not so simple to drop everything and get the happy ending Hollywood has taught us is waiting. <sep> Q: Why did American History X end so unexpectedly? A: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence Q: But why did the movie end in such an unexpected way? A: there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it Q: What was the central theme of the movie? A: The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does the movie portray revenge as a justified action?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-88c48b66af824c14bd9daacbeea67f1e |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: He couldn't afford the apartment as it was because he was living beyond his means. When he moved to the new place, he bought all kinds of unnecessary novelties on credit and accumulated quite a lot of debt (remember the giant ceramic dog and waterfall?) As a result, when he got the new job, (even if he was making as much as before), he could not go back to that extravagant lifestyle, at least not without making a lot of cuts. Plus, there was the emotional aspect since he wasn't enjoying living on his own as much as he had expected to. <sep> Q: Why doesn't Joey move back to the bigger apartment in Friends? A: He couldn't afford the apartment as it was because he was living beyond his means <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: was there any reference that his salary was lower?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-c22611f6a0cd46d6ad1db435aeb08944 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers; I don't believe anyone killed by a wight will resurrect themselves automatically. Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc. The only time, as far as I can remember, that we've seen it at work is the huge battle near the end of Season 5, where the Night King personally raised an army of dead wildlings as wights. It's also pretty clear that the characters in-universe don't understand it either. The Night's Watch is hyper-aware of the possibility of their dead coming back to life. They have burned the corpses of dead Night's Watchmen before. In fact, I believe in the Saason 6 trailer we've seen them trying to burn Jon's body as well, despite there being little chance of a Walker getting near it. <sep> Q: Requirements to join the Wights (The Army of the Dead) A: I believe that being raised as a wight requires active work on the part of the Walkers Q: What is the process? A: Beyond that, I don't think we know all of the details about how that process works, what's required, etc Q: Do you have any examples? A: The only time, as far as I can remember, that we've seen it at work is the huge battle near the end of Season 5 Q: What show is this? A: The Night's Watch <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the plot of the show?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-c91747b535d24e87b92635e1aaf0d869 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: No, it does not mean that all dialog is sung, have a look at Phantom of the Opera, Wicked, West Side Story, etc. The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through (although there are versions where Valjean speaks a normal line to Javert when he gives him his address but this is less usual). How much of the musical is sung and how much is spoken is down to the taste of the director and his colleagues. Usually the main scenes and emotive moments are conveyed via song (like in Rock of Ages or the Phantom of the Opera) but sometimes everything is in song (like in Les Mis). <sep> Q: Why is the whole movie Les Miserables sung? A: The reason that the movie has all dialog rhyming etc. (known as 'sung through') is because the West End musical that it is based on is sung through <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What language is it generally sung in?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-eb0e883f2d14488790511ddd15d3e43f |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Recall how Marcelle does the final preparations for setting the theater on fire - he blocks the auditorium doors with a crowbar and then proceeds to behind the screen and starts waiting for Shoshanna's "message" to appear on the screen. Before he does so the two men from the Basterds leave the auditorium and proceed to some side corridors to get to the side balcony and attack Hitler. Some time after they leave the auditorium Marcelle comes to the doors and blocks them. The balcony where Hitler sits with Himmler has a separate door guarded by two German soldiers. The two Basterds kill the guards, rush into the balcony and shoot Hitler. Right after that the "message" appears and Marcelle sets the pile of films behind the screen on fire. So the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued. He definitely has much better chances than those people who are in the auditorium - those are blocked between the locked doors and bursting flames - but he is at least not in the auditorium and so less exposed to the dangers and has a chance to use the side corridors to escape. The two Basterds shooting him on the balcony make that totally impossible. <sep> Q: Would Hitler have died in the fire anyway if the Basterds hadn't shot him? A: the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued Q: What did the basterds do? A: The two Basterds kill the guards, rush into the balcony and shoot Hitler <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who were the basterds?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-ba6c5041e449406cb979b8b3d620b0c1 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: How would you know what he tried, if asteriscs were shown instead of the real password? As stated in comments: it would not be funny at all without actually showing the password. By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it... <sep> Q: Why is it showing characters instead of dots while loggin in? A: By the way, this is a common trope when showing someone guessing passwords, not only when making jokes about it Q: Ned Fleming is trying to log into Laird Mayherw's computer but can't do you know why? A: asteriscs were shown instead of the real password Q: A random password such as stephaniesboobs was entered but it's showing dots instead ? A: asteriscs were shown instead of the real password <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How can you see what was typed in to make sure it's correct?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-80d1cea1d7f94fbaaa351cb5f5b46685 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive. <sep> Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air Q: Do they use drones for this? A: Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer Q: Does it show the ground? A: The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement Q: Is the dialogue shot separately on the ground and the rest of it shot midair with overhanging cameras? A: Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is overdub?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-14f1895a1e964afd9deb11e77b381a40 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents. <sep> Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien? A: I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents Q: Wouldn't the best option to just let the ship destruct and detroy the alien? A: The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, is there anything else you can help me understand about the movie?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-ea4167ef941a4187bc9f3dfe4a8206b1 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: George 'Babyface' Nelson is Achilles. You can read about it in Achilles and Baby Face Nelson: Modernization of Character in O Brother, Where Art Thou? by Carrie A. Alhelm-Sizelove. Nelson, like Achilles, is a person who fights for his ego and to gain fame. As Achilles fought in the Trojan war for fame, George is robbing banks during the Great Depression not to help the poor people but to get known. There is no deeper motive behind their doing. And George's Achilles' heel is his baby face. <sep> Q: Does Babyface Nelson represent anyone from The Odyssey? A: George 'Babyface' Nelson is Achilles Q: What else can you tell me about this character or achilles? A: elson, like Achilles, is a person who fights for his ego and to gain fame Q: What does Achilles go on to do in the film? A: Achilles fought in the Trojan war for fame <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Achilles do next, do you have any other facts you'd like to share?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-b1ba4415783d41088c5d46ecfdbe7444 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The balance of power had shifted considerably since the first set of quotes. King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king. Unlike his wild card of an elder brother, Tommen is gentler and more prone to manipulation by his new bride. The Lannisters impeccable image has also been shattered. They failed to prevent the assassination of their king in the midst of his own wedding day, and the suspected assassin is the king's Lannister uncle. Not only do they look incompetent, they are divided among themselves. On the other hand, the Tyrells' situation is much stronger now. Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger, and she knows that the assassination was orchestrated in part by her own family. In Margaery's eyes, the Lannisters look disoriented and lost. Putting on a show trial for one of their own, whom she knows is innocent of any wrongdoing. Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished. <sep> Q: What was Margaery's motivation to call Cersei 'sister' again?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-2e1cd8cc727e424f996b94a3488fb2b9 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her. <sep> Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened when Kree captured her?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-85d95ed6dbdb41bb86567443785a8945 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Well, in answer to the first part: Yes, the water in which John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) was swimming/bathing when Ann Burden (Margot Robbie) came up to him is irradiated. Without getting too "spoilery", the area in which Ann lives seems to be one of very few (if not the only) radiation-free zones at the time of the story. However, the water in which John was swimming comes from outside of that area (the waterfall). As for the beneficial effects of the bath, I think the link to the "Silkwood Shower" reference by @Will-Feldman is probably as good an explanation as any. Try to get as much of the irradiated water off of the body as possible. John is obviously still going to be affected by his exposure, but there's no reason to allow more of the radiation to seep in if it can be prevented. <sep> Q: Why does Margot Robbie wash Chiwetel Ejiofor in Z for Zachariah? A: the water in which John was swimming comes from outside of that area (the waterfall Q: Is there radiation in the water? A: irradiated <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does irradiated mean?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-590b52495c56489ba5df4ceb60f6a3e4 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed. The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand, a "fair" fight instead of just killing defenseless prey. (It's been a long time since I've seen the film, so can't remember exactly when/how the Predator stops using weapons). <sep> Q: Why did the Predator not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-99d81e6687314c3bb0d30d5c19386d65 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed. The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand, a "fair" fight instead of just killing defenseless prey. (It's been a long time since I've seen the film, so can't remember exactly when/how the Predator stops using weapons). <sep> Q: Why did the Predator not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else? A: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the Predator after checking arnold's head?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-e52cd72f09d24605964b34a4c1c99ee6 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: It's the same for professional as well as amateur actors - I've known some pros that have a hard time reaching the crying point. One technique includes allowing the actor to focus on the saddest memory they have, in solitude, then pull them out for the take. I recall seeing a documentary that showed Gary Oldman looking through a book of photos of his family (he had just split from Uma Thurman) on the set of Dracula that got him to the point of sorrow that Coppola wanted. I have worked with some amazing amateur actors that would work themselves up into a state before filming. One actress imagined something terrible happening to her sister, and she delivered a very powerful performance (that got the crew all choked up). If all else fails, the vapors from an onion can induce tears (but also cause redness), or a few drops of glycerin in the corners of the eyes can be released - but nothing beats real tears. I have also heard of directors bullying/belittling actors to the point of melt-down, just to get the shot they want. But that's a pretty extreme way to go about it. <sep> Q: What techniques are used by directors to make an actor cry? A: One technique includes allowing the actor to focus on the saddest memory they have, in solitude, then pull them out for the take Q: Is crying in a movie scene something that can be learned by practice or only talented people can perform? A: It's the same for professional as well as amateur actors - I've known some pros that have a hard time reaching the crying point Q: What techniques are used to help younger actors cry in a movie scene? A: I have worked with some amazing amateur actors that would work themselves up into a state before filming <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can anyone get good at crying for a movie scene?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-071f8ed485494ebb9dc7df9aa0482782 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: She didn't know. She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back - she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything). <sep> Q: Did Nebula know what would happen? A: She didn't know Q: Did she know to send them since one loved one had to be sacrificed? A: She only knew that Gamora knew where the stone was, was taken there by Thanos to help obtain it, and didn't come back Q: Is it true that there are two teams? A: she didn't know the conditions under which the soul stone could be obtained (and neither did Thanos, and he thinks he knows everything <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: But, did Avengers: Endgame have Natasha (Black Widow) and Clint (Hawkeye?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-e52e8c136a794dcc8ee413f4100b6c0f |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear. Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex. In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it. The fact that we don't see Myranda after that, I suspect, is simply to the fact that we haven't had any reason to see her. She is on the cast list to appear in Season 5, so she's almost certainly not dead. <sep> Q: Did Myranda try to kill Ramsay? A: In the extended version, Myranda not only chokes Ramsay, but also slaps him around a bit. He's enjoying it Q: Are you sure because I googled it and couldn't find anything explicit? A: There's a longer version of this scene in the Season 4 trailer, which was cut down for the episode, that makes things more clear Q: Okay, why is Ramsay covered in blood when he arrives in the kennels? A: Ramsay is a sadomasochist; he enjoys giving and receiving pain, especially during sex <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she try and kill im by strangling him?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-bbcea7ed810b49bcaf6a49393b57ab87 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: From reading the article that @Richard has linked in the comments, it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White. That's almost indisputable. However I never interpreted it that way when I watched it, I just assumed it was simply the building of a mutual respect, and a mentor/mentee relationship. However, as the article goes on to say that their relationship is similar to “wakashudo”, and knowing Tarantino's affinity with samurai culture (which he made 2 films about) it is very possible that this is the relationship dynamic he intended to portray. Of course, like most movies, it is open to interpretation. Therefore whilst the subtext is certainly there, and it was almost certainly intended that way by the writer/director, it is also subtle enough so that it doesn't necessarily force the audience to interpret the movie that way. <sep> Q: Relationship between “Mr. Orange” and “Mr. White” in "Reservoir Dogs"? A: it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who says "Gay subtext always makes movies better?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-0cfa489afb644c67b0e2301c9e1a6fb7 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: It is as simple as Ivan is Trevor's guilt, manifested into a human hallucination. He uses Ivan's supposed mysteriousness to start blaming his distractions and his recent obsession over who is out to get him when really Ivan does not exist at all. Fight Club spoilers explain this best: In a way it is like the ending of Fight Club where The Narrator turns out to be Tyler Durden. In the end, the picture that he kept claiming was Ivan, was really him. The picture is taken before his accident and shows how Trevor was before the guilt of killing a child started seeping into him and causing him to lose sleep for a year. Notice that Ivan is finally gone from his life when he finally turns himself in for what he has done and is also able to finally sleep. <sep> Q: How come Ivan exists in the Machinist? A: It is as simple as Ivan is Trevor's guilt, manifested into a human hallucination Q: Why is he a part of Trevor's imagination at all? A: He uses Ivan's supposed mysteriousness to start blaming his distractions and his recent obsession over Q: Are there any clues in the movie that Ivan is a real part of Travor's past? A: In the end, the picture that he kept claiming was Ivan, was really him <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me more about this picture?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-b00e36d9069c4286a7d1f18a3c169c6b |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet. However, in the novel Jack's father is Old Nick - the man who was holding Ma and Jack captive. Ma's father would not look at Jack because doing so would make the father think of Old Nick - thus leading to anger, etc at the the kidnapping of his daughter. <sep> Q: In the film Room, why was the Grandfather Unable to Look at Grandson? A: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DId the grandfather make eye contact with the son?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-3deac2a263104b24932d0edd251b6259 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The wiki states that the smaller portals were inter-dimensional "wounds" that would close/collapse quickly after forming, and that only the Demogorgon could make them because they took a lot of energy to create. Presumably the "demo dogs" are too weak to make portals like this, which is why they dig the tunnels instead. <sep> Q: Why is the portal so hard to close in Stranger Things 2, when the monster opened many in the first season? A: the smaller portals were inter-dimensional "wounds Q: So what makes them easier to close? A: would close/collapse quickly after forming Q: Who made these portals? A: only the Demogorgon could make them because they took a lot of energy to create <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the demogorgon?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-1028dcbe23cb4ae3bd31e5064a790889 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: The "Joey room" isn't intended as a permanent residence for Joey. At his own surprised reaction you can already see that there was never a plan to have Joey living with them in their house. That would be a stetch even for Joey's and Chandler's relationship to have him living with Chandler and Monica in their house. Rather than that, the room is likely intended as a guest room dedicated specifically for Joey whenever he visits them and stays at their house. Either that or a kind of "hobby room" for Chandler and Joey to hang out in whenever he visits. The comment is rather tongue-in-cheek to begin with, so it's likely not a room only for Joey. It's a reminiscence to the good times Joey and Chandler had and a reassurance for him that those times, while maybe getting fewer, won't stop just because he got his own house to live in with Monica, a reminder that there will always be someone to play foosball with. <sep> Q: Did Joey get to live with Chandler and Monica? A: The "Joey room" isn't intended as a permanent residence for Joey <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long did he stay there?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-c85f23ab76fe4c9887f662bfe4d1371f |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: This is one aspect of what is called the Anti-Hero. In Juno, he's just a "normal guy" and, potentially chosen because he is not someone people expect a fictional teenage girl in a movie would fantasize about. Also, they were going for a semblance of reality here rather than some weird hyper-perfect version we often see in a teenage movie. In action movies the anti-hero is quickly relatable, makes the danger seem even more dangerous. The anti-hero has a potential for growth, which is crucial for building a character. It is tiresome to see the perfect person become even more perfectly perfecter. As far as identifying with them etc. that's in the casting, writing and delivery. I am certain you can find more examples of failure in this regard. <sep> Q: What makes the nervous and anxious character model of Michael Cera, Jesse Eisenerg etc... so successful? A: This is one aspect of what is called the Anti-Hero <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do we view these characters as non-masculine?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-96ac826875c34a2da14d9e7df4793051 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I think the soldier says, "I can't get used to the new regs" as in regulations. It's referring to Neville's (Will Smith's) beard that he has in the flashback. The "new regs" are likely to prohibit shaving with a razor in order to prevent open sores that could lead to infection by the virus. <sep> Q: Why can't the soldier "get used to the new rags"? A: I think the soldier says, "I can't get used to the new regs" as in regulations Q: What do you mean by regulations? A: It's referring to Neville's (Will Smith's) beard that he has in the flashback. The Q: Is having a beard against regulations? A: The "new regs" are likely to prohibit shaving with a razor Q: Why would shaving be against regulations? A: prohibit shaving with a razor in order to prevent open sores that could lead to infection by the virus <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Robert Neville Successfully rescue his family?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-6e1056e27be5478398c9ee4b9ba498d3 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor. <sep> Q: Was Edmond Dantès Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Doesn't this counteract his naivete?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1442-e7f5b6fed0ae4bad898d588d63012f9c |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates. This shot leaves an entry wound and shrapnel. The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side. If Bond did have a bullet proof vest on, this area is likely to be covered. The impact from the bullet is transferred through the kevlar plate/s onto a larger area of Bonds body. Rather than penetrating his ribcage, and leaving an entry wound, the vest stops the bullet. Stopping the bullet before it enters his body imparts a lot more force onto Bond, which explains him being thrown off the train. It also explains the 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage. Bullet wounds are typically puncture wounds, deep and localised. Without a vest, Bond would have suffered much more serious organ damage as the bullet tears through him. Bullet proof vests typically leave blunt trauma injuries, affecting larger areas, and are not likely to leave scarring. One direct bullet wound is not likely to break 3 ribs, however the impact through a kevlar plate definitely is. <sep> Q: in Skyfall opening scene on train, does Bond fake getting shot? A: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where was he injured?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-ccbac9b4782a4565b38917c79aa99d49 |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: Because characters from different games can and do significantly interact with each other routinely. This is so common that there is Game Central Station – a place where characters quickly “commute” between games. They have inter-game therapy sessions with each other: We also see the ability of game characters to change the original game code of a game. Game characters can permanently move to another game: Turbo/King Candy did so when he left his original game to take up residence in Sugar Rush. On the whole, Wreck-It Ralph is a world where almost anything is possible with games. <sep> Q: How does Sugar Rush understand outside weapons?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-ebbc1bcc77384a83adbc6bef1983ecba |
Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No
Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No
Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes
Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: It is as simple as Ivan is Trevor's guilt, manifested into a human hallucination. He uses Ivan's supposed mysteriousness to start blaming his distractions and his recent obsession over who is out to get him when really Ivan does not exist at all. Fight Club spoilers explain this best: In a way it is like the ending of Fight Club where The Narrator turns out to be Tyler Durden. In the end, the picture that he kept claiming was Ivan, was really him. The picture is taken before his accident and shows how Trevor was before the guilt of killing a child started seeping into him and causing him to lose sleep for a year. Notice that Ivan is finally gone from his life when he finally turns himself in for what he has done and is also able to finally sleep. <sep> Q: How come Ivan exists in the Machinist?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1442-38f4166e57504a77b1b5b9843a4ad69a |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Dataset Card for Natural Instructions (https://github.com/allenai/natural-instructions) Task: task1442_doqa_movies_isanswerable
Additional Information
Citation Information
The following paper introduces the corpus in detail. If you use the corpus in published work, please cite it:
@misc{wang2022supernaturalinstructionsgeneralizationdeclarativeinstructions,
title={Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks},
author={Yizhong Wang and Swaroop Mishra and Pegah Alipoormolabashi and Yeganeh Kordi and Amirreza Mirzaei and Anjana Arunkumar and Arjun Ashok and Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran and Atharva Naik and David Stap and Eshaan Pathak and Giannis Karamanolakis and Haizhi Gary Lai and Ishan Purohit and Ishani Mondal and Jacob Anderson and Kirby Kuznia and Krima Doshi and Maitreya Patel and Kuntal Kumar Pal and Mehrad Moradshahi and Mihir Parmar and Mirali Purohit and Neeraj Varshney and Phani Rohitha Kaza and Pulkit Verma and Ravsehaj Singh Puri and Rushang Karia and Shailaja Keyur Sampat and Savan Doshi and Siddhartha Mishra and Sujan Reddy and Sumanta Patro and Tanay Dixit and Xudong Shen and Chitta Baral and Yejin Choi and Noah A. Smith and Hannaneh Hajishirzi and Daniel Khashabi},
year={2022},
eprint={2204.07705},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07705},
}
More details can also be found in the following paper:
@misc{brüelgabrielsson2024compressserveservingthousands,
title={Compress then Serve: Serving Thousands of LoRA Adapters with Little Overhead},
author={Rickard Brüel-Gabrielsson and Jiacheng Zhu and Onkar Bhardwaj and Leshem Choshen and Kristjan Greenewald and Mikhail Yurochkin and Justin Solomon},
year={2024},
eprint={2407.00066},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.DC},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00066},
}
Contact Information
For any comments or questions, please email Rickard Brüel Gabrielsson
- Downloads last month
- 56