Definition: In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: Questions are gathered from anonymized, aggregated queries to the Google search engine. Queries that are likely to be yes/no questions are heuristically identified: we found selecting queries where the first word is in a manually constructed set of indicator words and are of sufficient length, to be effective.

Questions are only kept if a Wikipedia page is returned as one of the first five results, in which case the question and Wikipedia page are given to a human annotator for further processing.

Annotators label question/article pairs in a three-step process. First, they decide if the question is good, meaning it is comprehensible, unambiguous, and requesting factual information. This judgment is made before the annotator sees the Wikipedia page. Next, for good questions, annotators find a passage within the document that contains enough information to answer the question. Annotators can mark questions as “not answerable" if the Wikipedia article does not contain the requested information. Finally, annotators mark whether the question's answer is “yes" or “no". Annotating data in this manner is quite expensive since annotators need to search entire Wikipedia documents for relevant evidence and read the text carefully.
Output: how was the dataset built?

Positive Example 2 -
Input: Using this annotation model, we create a new large publicly available dataset of English tweets.
Output: In what language are the tweets?

Negative Example 1 -
Input: Using this annotation model, we create a new large publicly available dataset of English tweets.
Output: In what language is tweets?

Negative Example 2 -
Input: Questions are gathered from anonymized, aggregated queries to the Google search engine. Queries that are likely to be yes/no questions are heuristically identified: we found selecting queries where the first word is in a manually constructed set of indicator words and are of sufficient length, to be effective.

Questions are only kept if a Wikipedia page is returned as one of the first five results, in which case the question and Wikipedia page are given to a human annotator for further processing.

Annotators label question/article pairs in a three-step process. First, they decide if the question is good, meaning it is comprehensible, unambiguous, and requesting factual information. This judgment is made before the annotator sees the Wikipedia page. Next, for good questions, annotators find a passage within the document that contains enough information to answer the question. Annotators can mark questions as “not answerable" if the Wikipedia article does not contain the requested information. Finally, annotators mark whether the question's answer is “yes" or “no". Annotating data in this manner is quite expensive since annotators need to search entire Wikipedia documents for relevant evidence and read the text carefully.
Output: What is the size of the dataset?

Now complete the following example -
Input: We calculated inter-annotator agreement by Krippendorff's Alpha BIBREF23, which accounts for different annotator pairs and empty values. To also zoom in on the particular agreement by category, we calculated mutual F-scores for each of the categories. This metric is typically used to evaluate system performance by category on gold standard data, but could also be applied to annotation pairs by alternating the roles of the two annotators between classifier and ground truth. While both the Relevance and Subject categorizations are annotated at a percent agreement of $0.71$ and $0.70$, their agreement scores are only fair, at $\alpha =0.27$ and $\alpha =0.29$. The percent agreement on Stance and Sentiment, which carry more categories than the former two, is $0.54$ for both. Their agreement scores are also fair, at $\alpha =0.35$ and $\alpha =0.34$. The mutual F-scores show marked differences in agreement by category, where the categories that were annotated most often typically yield a higher score. This holds for the Relevant category ($0.81$), the Vaccine category ($0.79$) and the Positive category ($0.64$). The Negative category yields a mutual F-score of $0.42$, which is higher than the more frequently annotated categories Neutral ($0.23$) and Not clear ($0.31$). We found that these categories are often confused. After combining the annotations of the two, the stance agreement would be increased to $\alpha =0.43$.
Output: 



Output: What is the agreement score of their annotated dataset?