Datasets:

Ramitha

/

open-australian-legal-qa-results-k0-k1-k3-hybrid-mistral

like 0

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the applicant, Econ(...TRUNCATED)

"\"13. It can therefore be said in this case that although the usual rule is that costs follow the e(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court decided t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, what was (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court ordered that(...TRUNCATED)

"\"light of authorities commencing at least from L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, signature o(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court held that(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the general approach to the construction and application of clauses in a docu(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court held that a (...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court decided t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court allowed the (...TRUNCATED)

"\"13. It can therefore be said in this case that although the usual rule is that costs follow the e(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court decided t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, what was (...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court ordered th(...TRUNCATED)

"\"light of authorities commencing at least from L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, signature o(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court considere(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the general approach to the construction and application of clauses in a docu(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court held that th(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court considere(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court granted the (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, what was the court's d(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the Federal Court of A(...TRUNCATED)

[114 169]

"[0.10423540323972702, -0.1665179282426834, -0.020965082570910454, -0.37376993894577026, 0.118275932(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0027042031288146973, -0.12522736191749573, -0.02998102456331253, 0.08934976905584335, 0.32139930(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3710246682167053, -0.30695846676826477, -0.005168996751308441, -0.2277795672416687, 0.313638746(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09509215503931046, -0.2021857500076294, -0.012576316483318806, -0.3855173587799072, 0.1621128618(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0023545799776911736, -0.10421659797430038, -0.06650102138519287, 0.12985651195049286, 0.3136637(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4049617350101471, -0.05314958840608597, -0.0845765769481659, -0.22263285517692566, 0.3397574424(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22807049751281738, -0.09595131129026413, 0.13064219057559967, -0.3293249011039734, 0.2784504592(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11683186143636703, -0.03316358104348183, 0.01739118993282318, -0.041743893176317215, 0.29089289(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4248591661453247, -0.04108070954680443, -0.06330486387014389, 0.03118901699781418, 0.0112088751(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22192685306072235, -0.09357594698667526, 0.12152993679046631, -0.3212374746799469, 0.2660439908(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.09864497184753418, -0.024802930653095245, -0.0119248041883111, -0.01719886064529419, 0.26680448(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4455259144306183, 0.04232563078403473, -0.036632880568504333, 0.014901772141456604, 0.052200533(...TRUNCATED)

"The decision to disclose specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 to the public involves a c(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"According to the given context and the New South Wales Government Information (Public Access) Act ((...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 67, the sp(...TRUNCATED)

"\"45The risk must also be linked \"to the safety of children\": section 28 (7) of the Act; Commiss(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, the decision to disclose the specific details in Events 38832023 and(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What factors should be considered in assessing the risk to the safety of children acc(...TRUNCATED)

"The decision in BKP v Children's Guardian outlines the elements of risk assessment regarding the sa(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the decision to disclose the specific details in Events 38832023 and(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"\"The specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136, including date of birth, address, observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 should not be di(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding Events 38832023 and 3860136, considering the balance of public interest and potential imp(...TRUNCATED)

"\"45The risk must also be linked \"to the safety of children\": section 28 (7) of the Act; Commiss(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, the disclosure of specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 to(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What factors should be considered in assessing the risk to the safety of children acc(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding Events 38832023 and 3860136, the question of whether the specific details should be discl(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the decision regarding the disclosure of the specific details in Eve(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding the question of disclosing specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 to the public,(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"The details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 include personal information such as date of birth, addr(...TRUNCATED)

[270 347]

"[-0.019197409972548485, -0.0016128727002069354, -0.08965843915939331, -0.03764228895306587, 0.18763(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12920181453227997, 0.08838242292404175, 0.0015340140089392662, 0.04636218398809433, 0.086500808(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.624129056930542, -0.3914183974266052, -0.041526924818754196, 0.2815299928188324, 0.0185177382081(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.02651604823768139, -0.013784815557301044, -0.11317981779575348, -0.028985098004341125, 0.2284406(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.05422603711485863, 0.1209280863404274, -0.11976781487464905, 0.10875299572944641, 0.17931601405(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.36398348212242126, -0.16158992052078247, -0.04480678588151932, 0.16041947901248932, 0.0885652899(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.24886399507522583, 0.24751828610897064, -0.022702783346176147, -0.19518175721168518, 0.22112272(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.04563914239406586, 0.19787001609802246, -0.148735910654068, -0.08133304864168167, 0.285340577363(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.5655755996704102, -0.0976831465959549, -0.15493616461753845, 0.18180593848228455, -0.05278081446(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2162674218416214, 0.2396380603313446, -0.02924961969256401, -0.20957370102405548, 0.21602770686(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.05516544729471207, 0.20160458981990814, -0.16356562077999115, -0.05948207154870033, 0.2788093090(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.5197416543960571, -0.056952767074108124, -0.15389113128185272, 0.17156334221363068, -0.060109958(...TRUNCATED)

"Case 1: In the first case, Slattery J heard a matter concerning an application for rectification of(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case heard before Slattery J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under Equity juri(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, Slattery J decid(...TRUNCATED)

"\" However, the words cannot be taken in isolation. They must, in accordance with the ordinary cano(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under the jurisdiction of Equity, S(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test to determine if a bankrupt person can prosecute an action for person(...TRUNCATED)

"In Case 1, Slattery J held that a bankrupt person can prosecute an action for defamation as damages(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under the jurisdiction of Equity, S(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, Slattery J decid(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, Slattery J heard an application regarding the removal of caveats in the case of (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, Einstein J adopt(...TRUNCATED)

"\" However, the words cannot be taken in isolation. They must, in accordance with the ordinary cano(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case under the jurisdiction of Equity in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slatter(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test to determine if a bankrupt person can prosecute an action for person(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under Equity jurisdiction, Slattery(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, Slattery J, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, was considering an interloc(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, Einstein J decid(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Mekhail v Hana; Mekail v Hana; In the Estate of Nadia Mekhail [2017] NSWSC 575, hear(...TRUNCATED)

[ 388 1662]

"[0.02596280165016651, -0.07136604189872742, -0.33406755328178406, -0.29737111926078796, 0.093836992(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.032598309218883514, 0.283461332321167, 0.020872849971055984, 0.0014246561331674457, 0.201380282(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.322487473487854, -0.10779520124197006, -0.8490001559257507, -0.2369457334280014, -0.09315805882(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.06910744309425354, -0.13112026453018188, -0.308646023273468, -0.2943187654018402, 0.146641716361(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0018813080387189984, 0.2632799446582794, 0.00932583399116993, 0.07429778575897217, 0.2243857979(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3880188763141632, 0.0675685852766037, -0.7551966905593872, -0.23051947355270386, 0.031285803765(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29932308197021484, -0.08719420433044434, 0.24198895692825317, -0.44312727451324463, 0.126006349(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1529170125722885, 0.12348916381597519, 0.14601483941078186, -0.06481478363275528, 0.17094987630(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3596920967102051, -0.22549670934677124, -0.27222126722335815, -0.22919894754886627, -0.31473565(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29801926016807556, -0.09234002232551575, 0.21727637946605682, -0.4552256166934967, 0.1130456030(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.14582818746566772, 0.14794474840164185, 0.12425579875707626, -0.06683313846588135, 0.1664751470(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.379778653383255, -0.15069353580474854, -0.2647361755371094, -0.21614646911621094, -0.3266329169(...TRUNCATED)

"Rule 8.21(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules permits a party to amend their pleadings to add or subst(...TRUNCATED)

"\"116 In short, as Balkin and Davis explain in Law of Torts (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2013)(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can have an effect on(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the fundamental issue when determining if an Act intended to give a right of (...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) allows for the correction(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) allows a party to cor(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) refers to a request t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"An amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules takes effect from the commencement of(...TRUNCATED)

"\"116 In short, as Balkin and Davis explain in Law of Torts (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2013)(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) allows a party to ame(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the fundamental issue when determining if an Act intended to give a right of (...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) which involves changi(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) does not affect the c(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affect the c(...TRUNCATED)

"According to the judgment of Gordon J, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the com(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 1881]

"[0.05399247631430626, 0.03763565793633461, -0.2733985185623169, -0.44990721344947815, 0.22174131870(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0940106064081192, 0.031954631209373474, 0.027443693950772285, -0.07531920820474625, 0.384985208(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.08438273519277573, -0.07412683963775635, -0.4097619354724884, -0.1071482002735138, 0.1818400919(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0569213330745697, -0.042861513793468475, -0.23046153783798218, -0.4516366422176361, 0.2269364744(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.09847217798233032, 0.03212566673755646, -0.023868434131145477, -0.025886263698339462, 0.3693267(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.20830093324184418, 0.040662266314029694, -0.32011038064956665, -0.06774544715881348, 0.21631626(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2801944613456726, 0.016026843339204788, -0.0733819305896759, -0.49156785011291504, 0.1234038397(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.213663250207901, 0.0026465130504220724, -0.04962504655122757, -0.1054007038474083, 0.3212061822(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09185919910669327, 0.03754888102412224, -0.2763802111148834, -0.3119930922985077, -0.09697746485(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2666357159614563, 0.003912794403731823, -0.06690476089715958, -0.4854884445667267, 0.1340642720(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22142720222473145, 0.016492782160639763, -0.06365609914064407, -0.07670028507709503, 0.31670489(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.034823209047317505, 0.11204800009727478, -0.2661064863204956, -0.3134504556655884, -0.0688613280(...TRUNCATED)

"I. Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters:\n\nA. Specific Model and Airworthiness Directive (AD):\nThe Hil(...TRUNCATED)

"\" AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in th(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, the Airworthiness Directive (AD) being discussed pertains to the McD(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What action does the Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2 require for the McD(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes, I cannot directly answe(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The context provided relates to Airworthiness Directives (ADs) for specific models of Twin Commande(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, the compliance requirement for the inspec(...TRUNCATED)

"\" Applicability: All Model 340, 440, and all such model aircraft converted to turbopropeller power(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What are the requirements for aircraft models 340, 440, and those converted to turbop(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes, I'm unable to provide s(...TRUNCATED)

"\" AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in th(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided contexts, the following are the specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helico(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What action does the Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2 require for the McD(...TRUNCATED)

"For Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, the Airworthiness Directive AD/HILLER 12/13 Amdt 2 applies. Th(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Regarding your question about the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\"For Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, there isn't a specific Airworthiness Directive mentioned reg(...TRUNCATED)

"\" Applicability: All Model 340, 440, and all such model aircraft converted to turbopropeller power(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided contexts, the following are the specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helico(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What are the requirements for aircraft models 340, 440, and those converted to turbop(...TRUNCATED)

"The Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters with model number UH-12E are required to undergo inspections as(...TRUNCATED)

"What are the specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes th(...TRUNCATED)

"For the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, the Airworthiness Directive applies to all model UH-12E he(...TRUNCATED)

[475 762]

"[0.027825091034173965, 0.30563709139823914, 0.24423454701900482, 0.2304157167673111, 0.352166473865(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19913476705551147, 0.2747645676136017, 0.3070926070213318, 0.05858244746923447, 0.5268700122833(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.2879544496536255, 0.6913779973983765, 0.7328622937202454, 0.3687017560005188, 0.5528792142868042(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.005272657610476017, 0.23753677308559418, 0.17578941583633423, 0.09206227958202362, 0.2912053763(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2159091681241989, 0.2196102738380432, 0.193403422832489, 0.11666353791952133, 0.477281868457794(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.2321493923664093, 0.7232281565666199, 0.5507239103317261, 0.3032252788543701, 0.5080737471580505(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29812100529670715, -0.021036799997091293, 0.25251805782318115, -0.021663708612322807, 0.4532484(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.32600629329681396, 0.015873778611421585, 0.09804350882768631, -0.10916800796985626, 0.523734986(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.198891744017601, 0.2392071783542633, 0.5823832750320435, -0.03139135241508484, 0.479900360107421(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.272773414850235, -0.030686380341649055, 0.25080668926239014, -0.027345815673470497, 0.415639847(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3082350194454193, 0.01060645654797554, 0.06744428724050522, -0.09266400337219238, 0.50258988142(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.16810043156147003, 0.27896928787231445, 0.5694950222969055, 0.02464960142970085, 0.5022595524787(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales (NSW),(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act allowed judges to backdate sent(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act allowed judges to consider fact(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the court was required t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"After 1 February 2003, Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales chang(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offenses comm(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"After 1 February 2003, the new form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New S(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act required the court to set the t(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offenses comm(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"The sentencing structure under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...TRUNCATED)

"How does the sentencing structure differ under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (S(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to all offences (...TRUNCATED)

[ 566 1968]

"[-0.086128830909729, -0.10069213807582855, -0.07507859915494919, -0.2075207233428955, 0.24242794513(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.08524221926927567, 0.03350608050823212, 0.04588552564382553, -0.10085274279117584, 0.2912288308(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1289568543434143, -0.28314706683158875, -0.7455564737319946, -0.15728838741779327, 0.1290402114(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.01946346089243889, -0.12746095657348633, -0.05334647744894028, -0.2720648944377899, 0.266709715(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.07383330911397934, 0.0236778873950243, -0.01934668980538845, -0.05514184385538101, 0.3100443184(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.17468424141407013, -0.15482939779758453, -0.6523460745811462, -0.1366344839334488, 0.1259262263(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4300503730773926, -0.14913465082645416, -0.05889207497239113, -0.4097102880477905, 0.2874257862(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.25043296813964844, 0.06096917763352394, 0.14786405861377716, -0.04532957077026367, 0.2727227509(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22175201773643494, -0.269228994846344, -0.7824200987815857, -0.2777618169784546, -0.08970811218(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.45296022295951843, -0.12804660201072693, -0.05820076912641525, -0.3974146842956543, 0.267961651(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22730720043182373, 0.04961420223116875, 0.11626516282558441, -0.05080712214112282, 0.2388601303(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2750517725944519, -0.22051391005516052, -0.7791528701782227, -0.28943243622779846, -0.086921468(...TRUNCATED)

"I cannot provide you with specific requirements for Airworthiness Directives (ADs) for Boeing 747 S(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, there is an Airworthiness Directive (AD) issued by the Civil Aviatio(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"\"The Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes have different Airworthiness(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, the specific requirements for DH114 (Heron) Series aeroplanes, as pe(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"\"For Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes, check the specific Airworthiness Directives listed in the Civil(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided context, the specific requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series aeroplanes as per (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes and DH114(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes, I cannot find a matching Airworthiness Directive in the provided (...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the provided contexts, here are the specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series and DH114 (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes, I couldn't find a specific Airworthiness Directive from the Civil(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series aeroplanes, I don't have the specific requirements in the context provided. H(...TRUNCATED)

"What are the specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeropl(...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes, the Airworthiness Directive AD/B747/24 requires modification of t(...TRUNCATED)

[1466 1486]

"[0.15021291375160217, 0.2642771303653717, 0.06783647835254669, 0.04200979694724083, 0.3375545442104(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.17781013250350952, 0.28141024708747864, 0.22531390190124512, 0.0014223442412912846, 0.5361640453(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.6273146867752075, 0.4227374792098999, 0.17494593560695648, -0.011448180302977562, 0.256680965423(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09855014085769653, 0.22745323181152344, 0.11953151226043701, -0.059277962893247604, 0.2620888650(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.1508861631155014, 0.25192752480506897, 0.13496772944927216, 0.005204483401030302, 0.525569200515(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.4547281265258789, 0.5376385450363159, 0.047139041125774384, 0.06008058041334152, 0.3723156154155(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22516855597496033, 0.05786780267953873, 0.2257322072982788, -0.12071223556995392, 0.42646783590(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12393543124198914, -0.025270920246839523, 0.16796335577964783, -0.07572963833808899, 0.42045092(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.1863621026277542, 0.2791902422904968, 0.38073039054870605, -0.09704636037349701, 0.0898698568344(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.23819014430046082, 0.06163603439927101, 0.23226426541805267, -0.13913403451442719, 0.4059869050(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11252041906118393, -0.020380426198244095, 0.15464183688163757, -0.06877968460321426, 0.40313625(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.13448837399482727, 0.3265984058380127, 0.3959676921367645, -0.09813890606164932, 0.1282366812229(...TRUNCATED)

"To provide an accurate comparison between the applicability and compliance requirements of Airworth(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"To answer your question, I'll first provide some background information on Airworthiness Directives(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the Control Wheel Adaptor as per the AD/BEECH (...TRUNCATED)

"For Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes and Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes under the Civil Aviation(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the revoked Airworthin(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the revoked Airworthin(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the applicability of the airworthiness directive AD/GULL/2 concerning rear fu(...TRUNCATED)

"The applicability and compliance requirements for AD revoked for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes and i(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the Control Wheel Adaptor as per the AD/BEECH (...TRUNCATED)

"The Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes AD (AD/BEECH 36/4 Amdt 2) and the Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aerop(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the revoked and issued(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the applicability of the airworthiness directive AD/GULL/2 concerning rear fu(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between AD revoked for Fokker (...TRUNCATED)

"What are the key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthi(...TRUNCATED)

"The Airworthiness Directive (AD) for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes, specifically AD/F28/77 Amdt 1, m(...TRUNCATED)

[1508 1928]

"[-0.00017284211935475469, 0.25689345598220825, 0.08153745532035828, 0.027316713705658913, 0.2820357(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.10534936189651489, 0.05295746773481369, 0.19963482022285461, -0.03485975041985512, 0.5724732875(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.42332953214645386, 0.29551276564598083, 0.13585692644119263, 0.05354493483901024, -0.07090131938(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.015311392024159431, 0.1417405903339386, 0.09044614434242249, -0.02320219948887825, 0.3024555444(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11512213945388794, 0.07270382344722748, 0.14291493594646454, 0.027014875784516335, 0.5570278763(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.17148461937904358, 0.33494460582733154, 0.008813031017780304, 0.07863441854715347, 0.05282835289(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.18850964307785034, 0.24820782244205475, 0.2521064281463623, -0.03298216685652733, 0.44388812780(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2620581388473511, 0.08607279509305954, 0.08630363643169403, -0.2032170295715332, 0.546349227428(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.326978474855423, 0.6718325614929199, 0.5969399213790894, -0.13008339703083038, 0.301926225423812(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19573768973350525, 0.21991270780563354, 0.25773218274116516, -0.04178840294480324, 0.4018194079(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.28118979930877686, 0.09423255175352097, 0.05428947135806084, -0.17284752428531647, 0.5197900533(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.23594921827316284, 0.7159038782119751, 0.5706185102462769, -0.08144927024841309, 0.3349665999412(...TRUNCATED)

"Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor are judicial officers in the Land and Environment Court(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments of Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor in matters before the L(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"The common procedures followed by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuison in their judgments,(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"The common procedures followed by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor in their judgments, a(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments of Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, they follow common pro(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement und(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor, there are common procedures f(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the role of the presiding Commissioner in the case of an agreement reached un(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments of Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor, the common procedures followed und(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor, both follow common procedures(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelis Tuor, both follow the pr(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"The judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, though different in (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, they follow commo(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement und(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor, there are common procedures f(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the role of the presiding Commissioner in the case of an agreement reached un(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioners Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor, both follow the procedures of(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, what are the comm(...TRUNCATED)

"Both Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor followed similar procedures in their j(...TRUNCATED)

[897 907]

"[0.025714773684740067, -0.043090883642435074, 0.15523670613765717, -0.2086128443479538, 0.215715751(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.03737148270010948, 0.30224883556365967, 0.15925092995166779, 0.0024468598421663046, 0.3939974904(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0023732660338282585, -0.1447940170764923, -0.24119071662425995, -0.02894146740436554, 0.22083634(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.05698379501700401, -0.07684947550296783, 0.12508447468280792, -0.21373245120048523, 0.2062954753(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.03528956323862076, 0.28450819849967957, 0.08721047639846802, 0.09123720228672028, 0.335983097553(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12175329774618149, 0.027633829042315483, -0.173624649643898, -0.06928135454654694, 0.2342219799(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.36231690645217896, 0.1272309273481369, 0.20690858364105225, -0.35183823108673096, 0.27041876316(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11491002142429352, 0.13733349740505219, 0.19141030311584473, -0.04552198201417923, 0.2133621573(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.16565640270709991, 0.037388477474451065, 0.0506884790956974, -0.18041644990444183, -0.113253258(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3455265760421753, 0.1431856006383896, 0.19482286274433136, -0.3449871242046356, 0.2896051108837(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.10178757458925247, 0.1341363787651062, 0.1653069704771042, -0.025149138644337654, 0.21166887879(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.20082980394363403, 0.08805928379297256, 0.049572572112083435, -0.1858915239572525, -0.101052984(...TRUNCATED)

"To provide an accurate response, I would need to identify the specific cases in question and look u(...TRUNCATED)

"\"City of Botany Bay Council submissions. 21. The respondent in the proceedings supported the joind(...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the two development application cases in the Land and Environment Co(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test for joinder as stated in the case of Ross v Lane Cove Council [2014](...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case of 2018: Applicant - Not specified in the given context, Respondent - Land and En(...TRUNCATED)

"\"7For the purpose of determining the separate questions, the parties have agreed upon a Statement (...TRUNCATED)

"Based on the context provided, the following are the identities of the applicants, respondents, and(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, what were the land u(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, the applicant was Hornsby Shire Co(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v (...TRUNCATED)

"In the first development application case held in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What was the decision in the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council(...TRUNCATED)

"Applicant: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd, representation: M Young, McCartney Young Lawyers\n\nResponde(...TRUNCATED)

"\"City of Botany Bay Council submissions. 21. The respondent in the proceedings supported the joind(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, \"Fine\" referred to an earlier development application case in the Land and Env(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test for joinder as stated in the case of Ross v Lane Cove Council [2014](...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case of Marrickville Council v Botany Council [2015] NSWCATAD 144, the applicant was M(...TRUNCATED)

"\"7For the purpose of determining the separate questions, the parties have agreed upon a Statement (...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, the applicant was Lou Capolupo, and the respondent was Central Coast Council. Th(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, what were the land u(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, the applicants were Hornsby Shire (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v (...TRUNCATED)

"In the first development application case, Dromore Properties Pty Ltd was the applicant, and Byron (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What was the decision in the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council: Applicant - Dromore Properties Pty(...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1525, th(...TRUNCATED)

[944 961]

"[-0.2238706797361374, -0.007589583285152912, -0.07527580112218857, -0.0400969572365284, 0.306228488(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.00920430850237608, 0.2334461510181427, 0.1394200325012207, -0.011115153320133686, 0.034454490989(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.16463066637516022, 0.037474364042282104, -0.08771754801273346, -0.04100064933300018, 0.276234030(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11909535527229309, -0.041183918714523315, -0.0939267948269844, -0.02628404088318348, 0.30848085(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.03520782291889191, 0.12481970340013504, 0.036397673189640045, 0.14869605004787445, 0.0211590044(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.008392482995986938, 0.16243430972099304, -0.16464316844940186, -0.03200213983654976, 0.301675617(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.18306557834148407, -0.11856477707624435, 0.3248782455921173, -0.2963092029094696, 0.23298271000(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.12013640999794006, 0.11427599936723709, 0.11821665614843369, -0.10781560093164444, 0.23022989928(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19277451932430267, -0.33464211225509644, 0.22144165635108948, -0.06818707287311554, -0.17400622(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1787661463022232, -0.11773624271154404, 0.2941116988658905, -0.27195262908935547, 0.21445521712(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.08642206341028214, 0.12318853288888931, 0.07549403607845306, -0.07182067632675171, 0.25206816196(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.23619797825813293, -0.21509474515914917, 0.16103701293468475, -0.07617542892694473, -0.09859248(...TRUNCATED)