dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Typical questions require finding certain information in the text, which can be accomplished without understanding since the phrasing of the question matches the answer in the text. 2. The study is part of a Research Grant (PICT 2010-0893 Writing and Reading to Learn. Approaches and Practices in Various Subject Areas) directed by the second author and funded by the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion of Argentina. 3. The Theory of Didactical Situations (TDS) originated in the70s in the field of Mathematics Education. It is based on Piaget's theory on cognitive development as a constructive adaptation process, and Bachelard's notion about the progress of knowledge through tackling epistemic obstacles.
Notes 1. 1 Typical questions require finding certain information in the text, which can be accomplished without understanding since the phrasing of the question matches the answer in the text. 2. The study is part of a Research Grant (PICT 2010-0893 Writing and Reading to Learn. Approaches and Practices in Various Subject Areas) directed by the second author and funded by the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion of Argentina. 3. The Theory of Didactical Situations (TDS) originated in the70s in the field of Mathematics Education. It is based on Piaget's theory on cognitive development as a constructive adaptation process, and Bachelard's notion about the progress of knowledge through tackling epistemic obstacles.
7 he remainder of the article is organized as follows. We first discuss theories of generational replacement and value change and develop our hypotheses. We then discuss the data and methods used in this study of attitudinal change in Britain: specifically, a newly combined longitudinal dataset built from repeated cross-sectional sweeps of the British Social Attitudes survey for the period from 1985 to 2012. 8 These are used to identify and isolate the different effects of age, period and cohort on social values. We next present our results concerning the degree to which generations socialized during and after Thatcher was prime minister differ in their attitudes to redistribution, welfare and authority. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for our understanding of the Thatcher years and their legacy, and reflect on their wider significance for the study of the evolution of social and political attitudes and long-term processes of socialization.
DATA AND METHODS The analysis in this article relies on British Social Attitudes survey data for the period between 1985 and 2012. These are repeated cross-sectional surveys in which respondents were asked the  30  Tilley 2005. 31 Tilley and Evans 2014. 32 Curtice and Jowell 1997. 33 Curtice 2010. 34 Evans and Tilley 2012. 35 Heffernan 2000. 36.
attitudinal and other questions at different points in time. The dataset was constructed specifically for the purposes of this type of analysis. 38It thus provides rich individual-level data on social attitudes and political values relevant to Thatcherism as well as all the necessary control variables over a sufficiently long time span to separate age, period and cohort effects. Curtice 2009; Curtice and Fisher 2003; Farrall and Hay 2014. 37Coates2005;Faucher-King and Le Gales 2010; Hay 1996; Shaw 2008. same.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by a research grant from the  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services , under contract number  HHSN272201500006C  and a commissioned grant from the  Health and Medical Research fund, Food and Health Bureau, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This work had also the support of  LabEx CeMEB, Mediterranean Centre for Environment and Biodiversity ,  Montpellier France  www. labex-cemeb. org.
1 ); e: HA11-IIF2-30  (3). Brackets after the artefacts' accession numbers are the short numbers of Table  1. Pieces in the middle row were assigned to the group Gloss contrast. f: HA20a-IIF5-109 (17); g: HA10a-IIF2-32a2 (14); h: HA11-IIF1-27  (16) ; i: HA11c-IIF3b-112 (15); j: HA21-IIF3b-42  (19). Pieces in the bottom row were assigned to the Test group. k: HA11d-IIF3-76 (37); l: HA20b-IIF6-133  (40) ; m: HA10-IIF3-41  (33) ; n: HA10-IIF3-87  (32) ; o: HA11d-IIF4-92  (34) ; p: HA20a-IIF6-127 (39); q: HA21-IIF3b-51 (41); r: HA10-IIF1-12 (3). https://doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0188576. g001.
The three samples were further sectioned by knapping to produce 17 flakes, 10 of which were analysed unheated (samples were only heated to 110˚C for analytical purposes, see below) and 7 of which were experimentally heat-treated and compared with the 46 archaeological samples. Sample numbers and experimental heating temperatures are summarised in Table  2. 16 ), note the rough appearance of the removal scar in the centre of the picture compared to the adjacent negatives on the right. b: HA11c-IIF3b-112  (15) , note the rough appearance of the left removal scar compared to the adjacent scar on its right. c: HA20a-IIF5-109  (17) , note the rough appearance of the left removal scar compared to the adjacent scar on its right. Brackets after the artefacts' accession numbers are the short numbers of Table.
We chose this larger error for the experimental series to increase the significance of the temperature determination for all analysed artefacts. LSM measurements were performed using a Keyence VK-X 100 and a 20x objective. To obtain 3D surface models of the removal scars, four tiles were stitched together, producing 1. 3 mm x 0. 95 mm measuring images. These surface models were then corrected for surface inclination and the arithmetical mean roughness Ra in μm was measured from the entire surface (using the Gwyddion software). No additional filtering was applied and the produced Ra values must be considered a mixture between surface waviness and roughness. These analyses were conducted in collaboration with C. Berthold of the Competence Center Archaeometry-Baden-Wuerttemberg (CCA-BW) at Tu ¨bingen University's Department of Geosciences.
Temperature ranges of ±25˚C in the Neolithic Chassey  [20]  and ±~30˚C in the Upper Palaeolithic Solutrean  [37]  are significantly narrower than in the Mesolithic of Helga-Abri (±75˚C). Standardised heating techniques, such as sand-baths or earth-ovens, are unlikely to produce such great scattering ranges of heating temperatures, precluding the hypothesis of their use in the Mesolithic of southwestern Germany. There is, however, one example of stone heat treatment that may be compared with our data in terms of heating parameters: the earliest known examples of heat treatment, dating to the southern African Middle Stone Age, where silcrete, a silica rock significantly coarser than chert, was heated  [41, 51]. These silcretes were heat-treated at temperatures close to 400˚C, using the above-ground part of burning wood fires  [52, 53].
Acknowledgments We thank  Thomas Hess  for his assistance in choosing the 46 archaeological samples from the  Helga-Abri assemblage  and  Annette Flicker  for her assistance in acquiring the infrared spectra for this work. Part of the research equipment (IR, LSM) was provided by  Klaus Nickel  and  Christoph Berthold  at  Tu ¨bingen University's Department of Geosciences, Applied Mineralogy , and the  Competence Center Archaeometry-Baden-Wuerttemberg  ( CCA-BW ). Geological reference samples were kindly knapped into flakes by  Jens Frick  before their analysis. The help of five unnamed students during our Jurassic chert sampling campaign was greatly appreciated.
Results: Experiment 2 Data from 14 participants were excluded from the analyses due to frequent track loss (6), system failure (4), color-blindness (1), being a non-native speaker of American English (1), and being underage (2). Data from 63 participants (31 Lab: age 18-58, average 28;04;32 Spontaneous: age 19-73, average 30;10) were submitted to the following analyses. The overall fixation patterns of participants in Experiment 2 resembled the results after the removal of off-AOI fixations (to the center and off the board) in Experiment 1. In Contrastive sequences, [L+H* unaccented] contours led to a faster increase in the looks to the target ornament cell in both lab and spontaneous speech groups (Figure  8 : Denominators included only the fixations on the 6 AOIs). However, the magnitude of this facilitative effect was rather small, especially for the spontaneous speech group.
Materials & procedures The original study materials, including the instructions, scripts, and post-experiment questionnaires were converted into a Qualtrics script (http://www. qualtrics. com) that handled all data collection. The script is available at https://osf. io/scu2f/. Labs conducting testing in countries other than the United States and Canada translated the contents of the script and adapted the currency amounts to match a similar level of local purchasing power (see http://www. numbeo. com/cost-of-living/compare_coun tries. jsp). These translated Qualtrics scripts are available on each lab's project page. The Qualtrics script randomly assigned participants to a time-pressure condition and a forced-delay condition, with the constraint that approximately equal numbers of participants would be assigned to each condition.
The experimenter and other participants were blind to condition assignment, and participants were unaware of the existence of a condition different from their own. The Qualtrics script showed the following instructions to all participants: You have been randomly assigned to interact with 3 of the other people in the room. All of you receive this same set of instructions. You cannot participate in this study more than once. Each person in your group is given $4 for this interaction. You each decide how much of your $4 to keep for yourself, and how much (if any) to contribute to the group's common project (from 0 to 400 cents). All money contributed to the common project is doubled, and then split evenly among the 4 group members. Thus, for every 2 cents contributed to the common project, each group member receives 1 cent.
General Discussion This RRR featured data from 21 laboratories and a total of 3,596 participants. The studies were conducted according to a vetted design, and the analysis scripts were created while blind to the actual outcomes of the studies (although they were updated to address formatting issues, to provide more complete output, and to correct errors). The primary planned analysis in the RRR-an intent-to-treat approach including all participantsrevealed a difference in contributions of -0. 37 percentage points between the time-pressure condition and the forced-delay condition. This meta-analytic result is close to zero and smaller than the 8. 6 percentage point difference computed from the original data. However, analyzing the data in the same way that the original article did-a compliant-only analysis that excludes participants who did not adhere to the time constraints-revealed a difference in contributions between conditions of 10.
Appendix: Contributing Laboratories Lead Lab Samantha Bouwmeester, Erasmus University Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen, Erasmus University OSF page: https://osf. io/xz7jr/ A total of 185 students were recruited from the psychology subject pool from the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Participants received course credits as a show-up fee and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 16 to 32 in multiples of 4). After protocol-based exclusions, our sample for the analysis consisted of 169 students (time pressure n = 87; forced delay n = 82). For English speaking students, we used the provided English Qualtrics scripts. For the Dutch students, we used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into Dutch, and (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€.
Contributing Labs (Alphabetical by last name of first author) Balazs Aczel, Eotvos Lorand University Bence Palfi, Eotvos Lorand University Barnabas Szaszi, Eotvos Lorand University Aba Szollosi, Eotvos Lorand University OSF page: https://osf. io/f6jtm/ A total of 204 students (time pressure n = 102; forced delay n = 102) were recruited from the psychology subject pool at the Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary. Participants received course credit as show-up fee and were tested in groups (group size of 12 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into Hungarian, and (b) participants made their contributions in Hungarian Forint with a maximum contribution for each participant of 550 HUF. Although we used the preregistered instruction, which specified the maximum possible contribution as 1,100 HUF, we decreased it to 550 HUF for the game to reflect the local economic circumstances.
In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Thorsten G. H. Chmura, University of Nottingham Roberto Hernan-Gonzalez, University of Nottingham OSF page: https://osf. io/h9gxm/ A total of 192 students (time pressure n = 96; forced delay n = 96) were recruited from the CRIBS and CEDEX subject pool at the University of Nottingham. Participants were paid a showup fee of £2. 10 and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 35 to 40). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with one change: Participants made their contributions in dollars and their final earnings were paid in GBP using the following exchange rate of $1. 00 = £0. 70. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Participants were recruited by offering a show-up fee of $3 = £2. 10. Antonio M. Espín, Middlesex University Pablo Brañas-Garza, Middlesex University Praveen Kujal, Middlesex University.
OSF page: https://osf. io/3auwr/ A total of 161 students (time pressure n = 79; forced delay n = 82) were recruited from the subject pool at Middlesex University London. Participants were paid a show-up fee of £5 and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 12 to 20 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with one change: Participants made their contributions in GBP, instead of USD, with a maximum contribution for each participant of £4. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Anthony M. Evans, Tilburg University Anna E. van 't Veer, Leiden University OSF page: https://osf. io/c765h/ A total of 152 students (time pressure n = 76; forced delay n = 76) were recruited from the psychology subject pool at Tilburg University. Participants received 30 min of participation credit and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 12 in multiples of 4).
We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into Dutch, and (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Fernando Ferreira-Santos, University of Porto Tiago O. Paiva, University of Porto Eva C. Martins, Maia University Institute ISMAI/CPUP Carlos Mauro, Catholic University of Portugal Fernando Barbosa, University of Porto OSF page: https://osf. io/z6jsu/ A total of 171 students (time pressure n = 85; forced delay n = 86) were recruited from the student body of the University of Porto, Maia University Institute-ISMAI, and the Catholic University of Portugal, Porto. Participants were paid a show-up fee of 2. 50€ and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 12 in multiples of 4).
We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with three changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into Portuguese, (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 2. 00€, and (c) before the beginning of the session, one of the researchers entered the computer ID into the Qualtrics survey (because all computers share one external Internet IP, making it impossible to identify individual entries in Qualtrics); participants did not see this question. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Susann Fiedler, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Rima-Maria Rahal, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Minou Ghaffari, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods OSF page: https://osf. io/hsdf3/ A total of 196 students (time pressure n = 99; forced delay n = 97) were recruited from the subject pool of the Max Planck DecisionLab.
Participants were paid a show-up fee of 5€ and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 12 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into German, and (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. After the exclusion of students who were not native speakers of German (n = 18), those who did not move the slider to provide a contribution (n = 5), those who were younger than 18 (n = 5) or older than 35 (n = 2), and students of economics and psychology (n = 12), our total sample for the analysis consisted of 154 participants (time pressure n = 79, forced delay n = 75). Data from 2 additional participants in the forced-delay condition were not included in the analysis due to a coding error that removed their age from the data file.
The missing information was only recovered after the data for the RRR had been finalized. Their data are provided on OSF. Jennifer S. Trueblood, Vanderbilt University Lisa Guo, University of California, Irvine OSF page: https://osf. io/3km2q/ A total of 156 students (time pressure n = 78; forced delay n = 78) were recruited from the Department of Psychology human subject pool at Vanderbilt. Participants were paid a show-up fee of $5 USD and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 24 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts without changes. The lab we used (Wilson Hall 120) was an open computer lab without dividers between computers (see photo on OSF). However, the computers were spaced far apart, and we do not think participants felt observed by other participants or the experimenter.
The lab could accommodate up to 30 participants in one sitting. Although our preregistered plan specified that we would recruit at least 160 participants, we were unable to recruit enough people to meet our target sample size before the end of the academic semester, ending with a total of 156 participants. Oliver P. Hauser, Harvard University OSF page: https://osf. io/5hza7/ A total of 166 students (time pressure n = 84; forced delay n = 82) were recruited from the Harvard Decision Science Laboratory subject pool at Harvard University. Participants were tested in groups (group size ranged from 12 to 36 in multiples of 4). The provided Qualtrics scripts were used with one change: Before the beginning of the session, a research assistant entered the computer ID (to help with distributing payments) into the Qualtrics survey; participants did not see this question, and the remaining part of the study followed the official protocol.
Although our preregistered plan specified that participants would receive a show-up fee of $5, we were unable to recruit enough people to meet our target sample size with that method, so 110 participants were recruited by offering a show-up fee of $8. Tei Laine, Université Grenoble Alpes, France Laurent Bègue, Université Grenoble Alpes, France Anthony Herrero, Université Grenoble Alpes, France OSF page: https://osf. io/2z4rg/ A total of 223 students (time pressure n = 109; forced delay n = 114) were recruited at Université Grenoble Alpes campus. Participants were paid a show-up fee of 5€ and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 12 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into French and (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€.
In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Johannes Lohse, University of Birmingham Timo Goeschl, University of Heidelberg OSF page: https://osf. io/6xdzp/ A total of 163 students (time pressure n = 81; forced delay n = 82) were recruited from the general subject pool of volunteers at the University of Heidelberg "AWI Lab" using Hroot  (Bock et al. , 2012). Participants were paid a show-up fee of 3€ and were tested in groups. Group size was either 12 or 16 participants, apart from one session in which we had to run with 8 participants due to no-shows. We used the Qualtrics script provided, but with three changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into German in accordance with the other German labs, (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€, and (c) at the end of the experiment participants entered a personal code that was used to ensure anonymous payment.
In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Dorothee Mischkowski, University of Hagen Andreas Glöckner, University of Hagen and Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods OSF page: https://osf. io/3mwta/ We collected data from a total of 212 participants, from which n = 188 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (complete participation, not missing the contribution variable, below the age limit of 34 years) that were included in the reported analyses (time pressure n = 97; forced delay n = 91). Participants were recruited from the social psychology subject pool at University of Göttingen, Germany. Participants were paid a show-up fee of 5€ and were tested in groups (group size ranged from 8 to 12 in multiples of 4). We used the provided Qualtrics scripts with two changes: (a) Our study materials were translated into German, and (b) participants made their contributions in Euros with a maximum contribution for each participant of 4€.
Psychology majors were provided with 2 research credits in our psychology subject pool in lieu of a monetary show-up fee, and the non-psychology majors were provided a $5 show-up fee in lieu of the research credits. Participants were tested in groups, with groups ranging in size from 4 to 16 (M = 9. 38). As described in the "Differences From the Official Protocol" section of our lab's Open Science Framework (OSF) implementation page, we decided to run in groups that sometimes were not multiples of 4 given the unique constraints of data collection on our campus (i. e. , a small subject pool on the ASU West Campus and a tight timeline for data collection). We altered the formula for calculating payments to correspond with the number of people in the smaller groups in each session (further description on our OSF page).
We used the provided Qualtrics script with one change: We created an additional question on the first page that asked "What is your computer number?" into which we could indicate the number affixed to the computer rather than the IP address as per the official protocol. This change enabled us to track an individual participant through the study and assign them to groups within the session in order to calculate payouts. In all other respects, we followed the official protocol. Julie Novakova, Charles University, Prague Petr Houdek, University of Economics, Prague Jaroslav Flegr, Charles University, Prague OSF page: https://osf. io/a56y4/ A total of 203 students were recruited from the subject pool at CEBEX Laboratory (belonging to the CEVRO Institute; however, the study was conducted by the Charles University).