Definition: In this task, you are given a paper review. Based on the review, your job is to identify language and generate "en" if the review is in English or generate "es" if the review is in Spanish. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Positive Example 1 -
Input: Este artículo no es un artículo de investigación, ya que sólo muestra cómo programar un robot mediante la herramienta de lógica difusa. Este tema ya ha sido propuesto como solución en navegación de robots.
Output: es

Positive Example 2 -
Input: I don't think the work reported in this paper is suitable for the SCCC conference. The author should consider reporting this experience on a conference more focused on practice in computer engineering than in CS reserarch. The material presented in the paper could be of interest for practicioners working with Oracle, namely a particular product.
Output: en

Negative Example 1 -
Input: Este artículo no es un artículo de investigación, ya que sólo muestra cómo programar un robot mediante la herramienta de lógica difusa. Este tema ya ha sido propuesto como solución en navegación de robots.
Output: en

Negative Example 2 -
Input: I don't think the work reported in this paper is suitable for the SCCC conference. The author should consider reporting this experience on a conference more focused on practice in computer engineering than in CS reserarch. The material presented in the paper could be of interest for practicioners working with Oracle, namely a particular product.
Output: es

Now complete the following example -
Input: This paper proposed a macro discourse structure scheme. The authors carried out a pilot study annotating a corpus consisting of 97 news articles from Chinese treebank 8.0. They then built a model to recognize the primary-secondary relations and 5 discourse relations (joint, elaboration, sequence, background, cause-result) in this corpus.  The paper is poorly written and I have difficulties to follow it. I strongly suggest that the authors should find a native English speaker to carefully proofread the paper. Regarding the content, I have several concerns:   1 The logic of the paper is not clear and justifiable:  1) what are "logical semantics" and "pragmatic function"(line 115-116)? I'd prefer the authors to define them properly.  2) macro discourse structure: there are some conflicts of the definition between macro structure and micro structure. Figure 4 demonstrates the combination of macro discourse structure and micro discourse structure. There, the micro discourse structure is presented *within paragraphs*. However, in the specific example of micro discourse structure shown in Figure 6, the micro-level discourse structure is *beyond the paragraph boundary* and captures the discourse relations across paragraphs. This kind of micro-level discourse structure is indeed similar to the macro structure proposed by the authors in Figure 5, and it's also genre independent. So, why can't we just use the structure in Figure 6? What's the advantage of macro discourse structure proposed in Figure 5? For me, it's genre dependent and doesn't provide richer information compared to Figure 6.  By the way, why sentence 6 and sentence 15 are missing in Figure 5? Is it because they are subtitles? But sentence 12 which is a subtitle is present there.  2 Corpus construction (section 4) is not informative enough: without a detailed example, it's hard to know the meaning of "discourse topic, lead, abstract, paragraph topics (line 627-629)". And you were saying you "explore the relationships between micro-structure and macro-structure", but I can't find the correspondent part.  Table 4 is about agreement study The authors claimed "Its very difficult to achieve high consistence because the judgments of relation and structure are very subjective. Our measurement data is only taken on the layer of leaf nodes."--------> First, what are the leaf nodes? In the macro-level, they are paragraphs; in the micro-level, they are EDUs. Should we report the agreement study for macro-level and micro-level separately? Second, it seems for me that the authors only take a subset of data to measure the agreement. This doesn't reflect the overall quality of the whole corpus, i.e., high agreement on the leaf nodes annotation doesn't ensure that we will get high agreement on the non-leaf nodes annotation.  Some other unclear parts in section 4:  Table 4: "discourse structure, discourse relation" are not clear, what is discourse structure and what is discourse relation?  Table 5: "amount of macro discourse relations", still not clear to me, you mean the discourse relations between paragraphs? But in Figure 6, these relations can exist both between sentences and between paragraphs.  3 Experiments: since the main purpose of the paper is to provide richer discourse structure (both on macro and micro level), I would expect to see some initial results in this direction. The current experiment is not very convincing: a) no strong baselines; b) features are not clearly described and motivated; c) I don't understand why only a sub set of discourse relations from Table 6 is chosen to perform the experiment of discourse relation recognition.  In general, I think the paper needs major improvement and currently it is not ready for acceptance.
Output: 

 en