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 plotted the distribution of harassment incidents in each categorization dimension (Figure FIGREF19). It displays statistics that provide important evidence as to the scale of harassment and that can serve as the basis for more effective interventions to be developed by authorities ranging from advocacy organizations to policy makers. It provides evidence to support some commonly assumed factors about harassment: First, we demonstrate that harassment occurred more frequently during the night time than the day time. Second, it shows that besides unspecified strangers (not shown in the figure), conductors and drivers are top the list of identified types of harassers, followed by friends and relatives. Furthermore, we uncovered that there exist strong correlations between the age of perpetrators and the location of harassment, between the single/multiple harasser(s) and location, and between age and single/multiple harasser(s) (Figure FIGREF20).  We also found that the majority of young perpetrators engaged in harassment behaviors on the streets. These findings suggest that interventions with young men and boys, who are readily influenced by peers, might be most effective when education is done peer-to-peer. It also points to the locations where such efforts could be made, including both in schools and on the streets.  In contrast, we found that adult perpetrators of sexual harassment are more likely to act alone. Most of the adult harassers engaged in harassment on public transportation. These differences in adult harassment activities and locations, mean that interventions should be responsive to these factors. For example, increasing the security measures on transit at key times and locations. In addition, we also found that the correlations between the forms of harassment with the age, single/multiple harasser, type of harasser, and location (Figure FIGREF21). For example, young harassers are more likely to engage in behaviors of verbal harassment, rather than physical harassment as compared to adults. It was a single perpetrator that engaged in touching or groping more often, rather than groups of perpetrators. In contrast, commenting happened more frequently when harassers were in groups. Last but not least, public transportation is where people got indecently touched most frequently both by fellow passengers and by conductors and drivers. The nature and location of the harassment are particularly significant in developing strategies for those who are harassed or who witness the harassment to respond and manage the everyday threat of harassment. For example, some strategies will work best on public transport, a particular closed, shared space setting, while other strategies might be more effective on the open space of the street.
Output: 



Output: What patterns were discovered from the stories?