dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
In the grand game, there is no trump suit, but the Jacks are still considered as trumps. The order for the other cards are the same as in the suit game. In the null game, there is no trump. The order of the cards is not the same as in the other games: A, K, Q, J, T, 9, 8, 7. Playing endgames where all cards are Spades, and both are equivalent to that where all cards are Clubs and to that with Diamonds. Indeed, we can exhibit a mapping from one class C to an equivalent class C 0 that will associate to each position p ∈ C a position p 0 ∈ C 0 such that the score and optimal strategy in p can easily be deduced from the score and optimal strategy in p 0. As a result, it is only necessary to build one endgame database for each equivalence class of endgames, rather than one for each class of endgames.
A 1 For more details, we refer to the rules from the International Skat Players Association: http://www. ispaworld. org/downloads/ISkO-rules-2007-Canada. pdf. rst approach to avoid building unnecessary endgame databases is to proceed to some form of normalization. However, the normalization process to be adopted is not always trivial. We propose here a principled method to nd representatives of the equivalence classes. The basic idea is to represent interactions between pieces in a graph. The interaction can be specic to a game. For example in chinese dark chess the interaction is a capture whereas it is a connection in dominoes. Fig. 4  gives the graph for the pieces of chinese dark chess. There is an arrow from one piece to another if the rst piece can capture the second one. Fig. 6  gives the graph for dominoes and Fig.
We have presented a general method based on sub-graph isomorphism that allows detection material symmetries. We have shown that it could be applied to skat, dominoes, and chinese dark chess. Detecting material symmetry makes it easier to build larger endgame databases. While nding a representative for positions that are equivalent under material symmetry (that is, dening a normal form) for skat and dominoes is relatively easy, the chinese dark chess case is more intricate as the relationship between the dierent pieces is more elaborate. Our approach solves this problem in chinese dark chess and allows a reduction factor between 5 and 10 in the size needed for storing the endgame tables. Note that although we do not report any time measurement, a signicant reduction factor can also be expected for the time needed to compute the endgame tables.
In our framework, we propose to store a le mapping sets of pieces to their representative. This le is much smaller than the corresponding endgame tables. Thus, the only runtime cost induced by our method is an additional indirection when looking up a position in the database. A generalisation of transposition tables has been proposed by Furtak and Buro in order to regroup cases that have similar structures but dierent payos  [7]. Determining to which extent the proposed method for detecting material symmetry can be extended to account for payo similarity seems to be a promising line for future work.
Size of the endgame database with a perfect hashing representation. thepositionwith reversed colors is in the table. Finally, a position is a draw if it and the reverse position are not in table. Again, we can split the endgame table according to the set of pieces that constitute it and use one le for each possible set. We have computed endgames tables with only won positions. Table4gives the total number of won positions that would need to be stored for a given number of game elements. It also displays the number of positions that need to be stored if we use material symmetry and only store one representative le for each equivalence class. The last column indicate the savings in terms of number of stored positions when material symmetry is taken into account.
The remittances from abroad directly uplift as well the national economy. An additional strength is the good knowledge of volcanic hazards of the local people. Based on the MIAVITA database, 77 % of people who experienced the last eruption in 1995 fled from danger. Others waited until the last moment (paroxysm of eruption) before they left the caldera (12. 5 %), while some stayed in the village. Those memories and experiences of past volcanic events are also strengths in facing volcanic hazards. The permanent monitoring of the volcano and the enhancement of a contingency plan through a two-day simulation are helpful. However, in addition to the potentially catastrophic hazards with a very low probability of occurrence (e. g. flank collapse:  Day et al. , 1999) , a resumption of the early historic period pattern of intense volcanic activity is likely to render Chã das Caldeiras unfit for habitation.
Acknowledgements. We would first like to thank warmly all  Cape Verdian stakeholders from Fogo and Praia, and the community of Chã das Caldeiras  for their participation in the project. We also thank all the researchers and students who participated in our investigations in the field. We also thank the  MIAVITA  programme for the financial support. The  MIAVITA  project was financed by the  European Commission  under the 7th  Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, Area "Environment", Activity 6. 1  " Climate Change, Pollution and Risks ". The following text reflects the author's views. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Edited by:  M. Neri Reviewed  by: six anonymous referees.
Open Data is an important public policy that contributes to achieving greater transparency and broader access to information, more citizen participation and engagement, while also supporting innovation and economic growth. The pace at which the Open Data movement is spreading in different fields of endeavour can be taken as an illustration that society is evolving towards greater openness, transparency and accountability. Yet, several constraints and legal uncertainties subsist beyond the facade of Open Data. This article investigates different layers of rights that regulate the use and re-use of data: from the copyright vesting in the content and/or structure of a particular dataset, to the sui-generis right protecting against the substantial reproduction and/or extraction of the content of a database.
Besides, the value of data ultimately increases as it gets more widely disseminated and more tightly connected. 4 oday, Open Data is considered to be an important public policy that could significantly contribute to promoting transparency and broader access to information, encouraging citizen participation and civic engagement, while also supporting innovation and economic growth. 5 et, a legal definition of what actually constitutes 'Open Data ' has not yet been provided in either statutes or case law. The principles of Open Data first emerged from the work undertaken by experts and practitioners from civil society or non-governmental organizations. The Open Government Data 6  initiative, launched in 2007, was the first to establish a list of eight principles describing the procedure of opening up public sector information-many of which are actually concerned with legal aspects.
Several States (such as USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, France) have been inspired by these principles and eventually decided to adopt more or less stringent Open Data policies, which have been to a certain degree accounted for by the law-such as, most notably, the new European Directive on the re-use of Public Sector information adopted by the European Parliament in April 2013. 12 Finally, even if the document does not have direct normative effect, the Open Data Charter  13  endorsed by the G8 on June 2013 further acknowledges and underlines these principles. The pace at which the Open Data movement is spreading in many different fields of endeavour can be taken as an illustration that society is evolving towards greater openness and accountability. In the past few years, the opportunities that Open Data offer to both public and private institutions have became more and more apparent.
In terms of transparency, Open Data allows for the public sector to establish a greater level of trust with its citizens, to promote democratic participation and civic engagement. 14 Open data also establish a climate of cooperation and collaborationrather than of competition-between the public sector, the private sector and civil society. 15 Finally, in terms of innovation, Open Data constitutes an opportunity for the State to delegate some of its less crucial tasks to the private sector, to complement the public services offered by the State with new and innovative applications that will benefit society as a whole. 16 his article does not, however, intend to analyse the benefits of Open Data, but rather to explore the paradoxes it conceals. Indeed, while digital technologies facilitated the practices of data mining and collection, 17 they also jeopardized the economic interests of large database producers to the extent that electronic datasets have become more vulnerable to copying and free-riding.
18 In Europe, intellectual property laws have therefore evolved as well, to provide an additional layer of protection for databases by means of a new sui-generis right. 19 In this regard, it is worth 12 According to the former PSI Directive from 2003, every Member State had the ability to select what kind of datasets should be freely reusable, and whether or not the reuse should be subject to the payment of a fee. The new PSI Directive from 2013 introduced an actual right for every citizen to use and reuse public sector information, with more restrictive conditions for the establishment of a fee. Paradoxes of open data 3 considering whether we are indeed moving towards the establishment of a truly 'open society' 20  or whether this openness is merely a reaction to the growing restrictions in the underlying code of society?.
BEHIND THE FAÇADE OF OPEN DATA The backstage of Open Data: a complex network of rights Although regarded by many as an indicator for a new paradigm shift in societywhich is evolving into an increasingly 'open society'-ie a society where public data and information are truly open 21  -we regard Open Data mostly as a consequence of growing uncertainty and legal constraints. The purpose of this section is to illustrate the opposition that subsists between the underlying principles of Open Data and the various legal norms regulating the use and re-use of data. Indeed, at the European level, we can identify at least four layers of rights that interact and complement (or supplement) each others: (i) copyright for the protection of original databases, (ii) sui-generis rights for the protection of non-original databases, (iii) the right of EU citizens to access and re-use public sector information, and (iv) user's rights and obligations provided by the licenses.
Copyright protection for original databases As intangible assets, European law 22  recognizes that databases can be protected like many other creative works under copyright law, but only on the condition that they can be regarded as original creations. Yet, although certain databases producers may benefit from the set of exclusive rights provided by the copyright regime, copyright protection only applies to the structure of the database, and not to the data it contains-which remain, in principle, in the public domain. As regards databases, originality is difficult to assess because it is often not enough for a database to be a mere compilation of data to qualify as an original database. Courts have required that 'originality' be understood as 'the imprint of the personality of the author' 23 -a classic criterion for many works of authorship, which is, however, difficult to implement in the case of databases.
One must therefore consider whether the database producer has indeed developed an original architecture, specific ergonomics or search criteria. Originality may also result from the selection or arrangement of particular sets of data, the tools used to access them, the way results are presented, etc. A recent decision of the European Court of Justice clarified how the concept of originality should be applied to databases. In a trial involving the unauthorized reproduction of football fixture lists in the English and Scottish football leagues,  24  the Court noted that data are not protected 'as such' and that, in determining whether or not a database is eligible for protection under copyright law, neither the intellectual effort nor the expertise devoted to the production of its content should be taken into account.
For the ECJ: 'a database [. ] is protected by copyright law [. ] provided that the selection or arrangement of the data it contains is an original expression of the creative freedom of its author. ' Conversely, the Court held that no originality could be found 'when the constitution of the database is dictated by technical considerations, rules or constraints which leave no room for creative freedom'. The application of copyright law to databases is thus relatively restrictive and, given the vagueness surrounding the criteria of originality, considerable uncertainty is involved in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular database is protected or not. 25.
Sui-generis right for the protection of non-original databases The European Directive on the protection of databases 26  (the Database Directive) introduced a 'sui-generis' right-a new exclusive right-on the actual content of a database. Yet, just like copyright, this right does not protect data 'as such', it merely protects databases producers against the substantial extraction and re-use of database content, but only insofar as the collection and organization thereof required a substantial investment. Even though the scope of the 'sui-generis' right does not extend to data per se, given the broad definition of the right, it could nonetheless have an important impact on the use and re-use of data. The Database Directive introduced, in fact, only a very limited number of exceptions, and the duration of the right is potentially perpetual, since the term of protection is extended for a period of 15 years every time a new substantial investment is undertaken by the producer.
Indeed, database producers can benefit from the legal protection granted by the 'sui-generis' right whenever a substantial investment is made in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of the database. Investment can be made of physical, human, or financial capital, and the required amount of investment-although not precisely defined under the law-is usually relatively low when one looks at the case law. 27 Yet, judges nonetheless specified that only the capital going in the creation and organization of the database should be taken into account, and not capital going in the production of the data themselves. 28 ere consultation of a protected database is not affected by the 'sui-generis' right, which only covers the 'substantial extraction of a substantial part' of a protected database-assessed according to both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
Determining the actual meaning of these concepts is a particularly complex task, which can only be achieved on a case-by-case basis, since 'substantiality' (in quantitative or qualitative terms) necessarily depends on the impact that the extraction may have on the investments of the database producer. 29 The result is a high degree of uncertainty, which can generally only be resolved by courts. This is the reason why the 'sui-generis' right potentially allows database producers to exert control over the use or extraction of data 'as such', even if the right is not supposed to apply over data per se. Moreover, the 'sui-generis' right does not exclude other forms of protectionsuch as the principle of unfair competition, misappropriation, patent law, trademark law, or more generally, contract law-which can either complement or supplement the 'sui-generis' protection, and which may eventually led to an excessive level of protection for databases.
Public sector information-an exemption to the exclusivity regime In Europe, access to and use of Public Sector Information (PSI) was first regulated by Directive 2003/98/EC, establishing a common legislative framework aimed at removing barriers that might hinder the re-use of PSI throughout the European Union (EU). The Directive was subsequently amended by the new PSI Directive of 2013, 30  which introduced a right for every European citizen to access and re-use public sector information. This right constitutes an exception to the exclusivity regime established by the sui-generis right on databases, which must-theoretically-be waived by (almost) every public sector institution. However, the relationship between the 'sui-generis' right for databases and the right to re-use public sector information is actually a complex one.
Although these two rights have been articulated in such a way that the former cannot neutralize the latter, sometimes, the 'sui-generis' right for databases might actually go counter the right to re-use public sector information. In some cases, for instance, public administrations-which do actually fall within the scope of the PSI Directive-decided to retain exclusive rights over their databases. This happened, in France, with Legifrance 31  -a large government database of legislation and case laws which is freely accessible to the public, but which remains nonetheless protected under the 'sui-generis' right. Similar tensions arose in other countries, such as the Netherlands, where the law explicitly precludes public authorities from exercising their 'sui-generis' rights to prevent the access to or the re-use of public datasets-unless otherwise stipulated by law.
32 In the Dutch 'Landmark' case, for instance, 33  the Amsterdam District Court held that the Amsterdam City Council could not rely on the database right in order to impose restrictions and/or annual licensing fees for the use of its environmental database. Conversely, in France, an administrative court ruled 34  that a department (as the holder of a 'sui-generis' right over a departmental registry database) could rely on the 'sui-generis' right to preclude a private company from performing a substantial extraction and re-use of the registry's data. Such reasoning is disturbing to say the least, since-if it were to be generalized-it could potentially jeopardize the general principle of open PSI. And yet, this ruling is line with the wording of the PSI Directive. Indeed, the exception to the exclusivity regime introduced by the Directive allows for public administrations to impose a certain number of conditions and restrictions over the reuse of public sector information-including, but not limited to, the requirement of proper attribution, non-alteration,  35  and, potentially, the imposition of a fee to cover the costs of making data available to the public.
Open Data licenses In spite of these limitations, the regime established by the PSI Directive is not inconsistent with the general principles of Open Data. Yet, relying exclusively on the legislative framework for the re-use of public sector information is often not enough for an institution to actually comply with the requirements of an Open Data approach. This is why many governments and public administrations in Europe have decided to release their data under an Open data license 41 -thereby renouncing both to their 'sui-generis' right on databases and to their ability to impose a fee for the re-use of data. Beyond USA, the United Kingdom was the first country to produce a specific instrument with the Open Government License. 42 This license-inspired from the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY)  43  -allows for the free re-use of public sector information, including for commercial purposes, and not subject to any royalty fees, but only provided that the source is always and properly mentioned.
46 t is also worth noting that some countries, such as Australia, have opted for already existing Open Data licenses rather than developing their own national license. The portal data. gov. au uses, for instance, the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) for the dissemination of all datasets. Using a pre-existing license has the advantage of being more simple and of reducing the risks for an excessive proliferation of licenses. It might, however, raise a number of concerns insofar as the Creative Commons licenses were not specifically designed for the licensing of 'sui-generis' rights in non-original databases, but only for the licensing of copyright. While academia, the copyright of professors and researchers automatically brings their work outside of the general regime of public-sector information.
the older versions of these licenses might not be simple to articulate with the right to re-use of public sector information, the newest version the Creative Commons licenses 47  should, however, properly account for the 'sui-generis' rights on databases, so as to be more compliant with the licensing databases. Open Data licenses contribute to clearly indicating that particular datasets are effectively and freely reusable. Yet, a comprehensive analysis of the overall legal framework shows that these licenses only intervene at the end of the supply chain, as the last 'layer' regulating the use of public sector information. Indeed, if the first layer of protection is established by the 'sui-generis' right for non-original databases, the right to re-use public sector information constitutes a particular exception to this rightimplemented, 'in fine', by the contractual terms and conditions of Open Data licenses which stipulate the actual conditions for re-use.
The offstage of Open Data The most controversial aspect of Open Data is that the laws requiring public sector information to be made freely available to the public could be (and have been) used as a potential source of new exclusive rights. Indeed, it is important to remember is that the 'sui-generis' right on databases does not actually cover data 'as such', but only the substantial taking of data whose collection and organization into a database (as opposed to the production thereof) required a substantial investment. This means that most of the data produced or stored by public sector institutions are not-in theory-protected by any underlying right. In practice, however, the right to re-use public sector information (enshrined in the PSI Directive) has been 'hijacked' by public sector institutions pretending to have been endowed with a new exclusive right over public sector information (i).
From a re-use right to a new form of exclusive right The PSI Directive of 2003 first introduced a 'right' to re-use public sector information. Yet, the text of the Directive actually left it up to the member States to decide what kind of information shall or shall not be freely reusable. Only a few countries, such as France, have actually gone further in transposing the Directive, by implementing a general principle of re-use for all (or most) public sector information. This general principle has now been endorsed in the new version of the PSI Directive adopted in 2013, which actually recognizes a right for all European citizens to freely re-use public sector information. Compared to the Database Directive, the approach adopted by the PSI Directive is revolutionary, to the extent that it does not introduce a new property right over public sector information (in favour of the public administration) but rather establish a new right for the benefit of all European citizens.