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 describes a new deterministic dependency parsing algorithm and analyses its behaviour across a range of languages. The core of the algorithm is a set of rules defining permitted dependencies based on POS tags. The algorithm starts by ranking words using a slightly biased PageRank over a graph with edges defined by the permitted dependencies. Stepping through the ranking, each word is linked to the closest word that will maintain a tree and is permitted by the head rules and a directionality constraint.  Overall, the paper is interesting and clearly presented, though seems to differ only slightly from Sogaard (2012), "Unsupervised Dependency Parsing without Training". I have a few questions and suggestions:  Head Rules (Table 1) - It would be good to have some analysis of these rules in relation to the corpus. For example, in section 3.1 the fact that they do not always lead to a connected graph is mentioned, but not how frequently it occurs, or how large the components typically are.  I was surprised that head direction was chosen using the test data rather than training or development data. Given how fast the decision converges (10-15 sentences), this is not a major issue, but a surprising choice.  How does tie-breaking for words with the same PageRank score work? Does it impact performance significantly, or are ties rare enough that it doesn't have an impact?  The various types of constraints (head rules, directionality, distance) will lead to upper bounds on possible performance of the system. It would be informative to include oracle results for each constraint, to show how much they hurt the maximum possible score. That would be particularly helpful for guiding future work in terms of where to try to modify this system.  Minor:  - 4.1, "we obtain [the] rank"  - Table 5 and Table 7 have columns in different orders. I found the Table 7 arrangement clearer.  - 6.1, "isolate the [contribution] of both"
Output: 

 en