gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Christopher Columbus

Context: Though Columbus was wrong about the number of degrees of longitude that separated Europe from the Far East and about the distance that each degree represented, he did possess valuable knowledge about the trade winds, which would prove to be the key to his successful navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. During his first voyage in 1492, the brisk trade winds from the east, commonly called "easterlies", propelled Columbus's fleet for five weeks, from the Canary Islands to The Bahamas. The precise first land sighting and landing point was San Salvador Island. To return to Spain against this prevailing wind would have required several months of an arduous sailing technique, called beating, during which food and drinkable water would probably have been exhausted. Instead, Columbus returned home by following the curving trade winds northeastward to the middle latitudes of the North Atlantic, where he was able to catch the "westerlies" that blow eastward to the coast of Western Europe. There, in turn, the winds curve southward towards the Iberian Peninsula. It is unclear whether Columbus learned about the winds from his own sailing experience or if he had heard about them from others. The corresponding technique for efficient travel in the Atlantic appears to have been exploited first by the Portuguese, who referred to it as the Volta do mar ("turn of the sea"). Columbus's knowledge of the Atlantic wind patterns was, however, imperfect at the time of his first voyage. By sailing directly due west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, skirting the so-called horse latitudes of the mid-Atlantic, Columbus risked either being becalmed or running into a tropical cyclone, both of which, by chance, he avoided. CANNOTANSWER

Question: In Columbus' times, was San Salvador Island known for anything historically important?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Christopher Columbus

Context: Though Columbus was wrong about the number of degrees of longitude that separated Europe from the Far East and about the distance that each degree represented, he did possess valuable knowledge about the trade winds, which would prove to be the key to his successful navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. During his first voyage in 1492, the brisk trade winds from the east, commonly called "easterlies", propelled Columbus's fleet for five weeks, from the Canary Islands to The Bahamas. The precise first land sighting and landing point was San Salvador Island. To return to Spain against this prevailing wind would have required several months of an arduous sailing technique, called beating, during which food and drinkable water would probably have been exhausted. Instead, Columbus returned home by following the curving trade winds northeastward to the middle latitudes of the North Atlantic, where he was able to catch the "westerlies" that blow eastward to the coast of Western Europe. There, in turn, the winds curve southward towards the Iberian Peninsula. It is unclear whether Columbus learned about the winds from his own sailing experience or if he had heard about them from others. The corresponding technique for efficient travel in the Atlantic appears to have been exploited first by the Portuguese, who referred to it as the Volta do mar ("turn of the sea"). Columbus's knowledge of the Atlantic wind patterns was, however, imperfect at the time of his first voyage. By sailing directly due west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, skirting the so-called horse latitudes of the mid-Atlantic, Columbus risked either being becalmed or running into a tropical cyclone, both of which, by chance, he avoided. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides being propelled by Easterlies, did anything else happen in Columbus' first voyage in 1492?
Answer: arduous sailing technique, called beating, during which food and drinkable water would probably have been exhausted.
Christopher Columbus

Context: Though Columbus was wrong about the number of degrees of longitude that separated Europe from the Far East and about the distance that each degree represented, he did possess valuable knowledge about the trade winds, which would prove to be the key to his successful navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. During his first voyage in 1492, the brisk trade winds from the east, commonly called "easterlies", propelled Columbus's fleet for five weeks, from the Canary Islands to The Bahamas. The precise first land sighting and landing point was San Salvador Island. To return to Spain against this prevailing wind would have required several months of an arduous sailing technique, called beating, during which food and drinkable water would probably have been exhausted. Instead, Columbus returned home by following the curving trade winds northeastward to the middle latitudes of the North Atlantic, where he was able to catch the "westerlies" that blow eastward to the coast of Western Europe. There, in turn, the winds curve southward towards the Iberian Peninsula. It is unclear whether Columbus learned about the winds from his own sailing experience or if he had heard about them from others. The corresponding technique for efficient travel in the Atlantic appears to have been exploited first by the Portuguese, who referred to it as the Volta do mar ("turn of the sea"). Columbus's knowledge of the Atlantic wind patterns was, however, imperfect at the time of his first voyage. By sailing directly due west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, skirting the so-called horse latitudes of the mid-Atlantic, Columbus risked either being becalmed or running into a tropical cyclone, both of which, by chance, he avoided. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was Columbus' 1492 voyage successful using his nautical knowledge?
Answer: is unclear whether Columbus learned about the winds from his own sailing experience or if he had heard about them from others.
Christopher Columbus

Context: Though Columbus was wrong about the number of degrees of longitude that separated Europe from the Far East and about the distance that each degree represented, he did possess valuable knowledge about the trade winds, which would prove to be the key to his successful navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. During his first voyage in 1492, the brisk trade winds from the east, commonly called "easterlies", propelled Columbus's fleet for five weeks, from the Canary Islands to The Bahamas. The precise first land sighting and landing point was San Salvador Island. To return to Spain against this prevailing wind would have required several months of an arduous sailing technique, called beating, during which food and drinkable water would probably have been exhausted. Instead, Columbus returned home by following the curving trade winds northeastward to the middle latitudes of the North Atlantic, where he was able to catch the "westerlies" that blow eastward to the coast of Western Europe. There, in turn, the winds curve southward towards the Iberian Peninsula. It is unclear whether Columbus learned about the winds from his own sailing experience or if he had heard about them from others. The corresponding technique for efficient travel in the Atlantic appears to have been exploited first by the Portuguese, who referred to it as the Volta do mar ("turn of the sea"). Columbus's knowledge of the Atlantic wind patterns was, however, imperfect at the time of his first voyage. By sailing directly due west from the Canary Islands during hurricane season, skirting the so-called horse latitudes of the mid-Atlantic, Columbus risked either being becalmed or running into a tropical cyclone, both of which, by chance, he avoided. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What sailing techniques did Columbus use to utilize the winds?
Answer: arduous sailing technique, called beating,
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
Answer: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Norte Chico´s civilization like?
Answer: Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food.
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Why is Norte Chico's development remarkable?
Answer: However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations.
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What food sources did Norte Chico have the most abundance of?
Answer: fish.
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Is there anything of note about the cotton the article speaks of?
Answer: ). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (
Norte Chico civilization

Context: Cotton (of the species Gossypium barbadense) likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous). Though not edible, it was the most important product of irrigation in the Norte Chico, vital to the production of fishing nets (that in turn provided maritime resources) as well as to textiles and textile technology. Haas notes that "control over cotton allows a ruling elite to provide the benefit of cloth for clothing, bags, wraps, and adornment". He is willing to admit to a mutual dependency dilemma: "The prehistoric residents of the Norte Chico needed the fish resources for their protein and the fishermen needed the cotton to make the nets to catch the fish." Thus, identifying cotton as a vital resource produced in the inland does not by itself resolve the issue of whether the inland centers were a progenitor for the coast, or vice versa. Moseley argues that successful maritime centers would have moved inland to find cotton. The exact relationship between food resources and political organization remains unresolved. Norte Chico's development is particularly remarkable for the apparent absence of a staple food. However, recent studies increasingly dispute this and point to maize as a dietary backbone of this and later pre-Columbian civilizations. Moseley found a small number of maize cobs in 1973 at Aspero (also seen in site work in the 1940s and 50s) but has since called the find "problematic". However, increasing evidence has emerged about the importance of maize in this period: Archaeological testing at a number of sites in the Norte Chico region of the north central coast provides a broad range of empirical data on the production, processing, and consumption of maize. New data drawn from coprolites, pollen records, and stone tool residues, combined with 126 radiocarbon dates, demonstrate that maize was widely grown, intensively processed, and constituted a primary component of the diet throughout the period from 3000 to 1800 B.C. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was Norte Chico´s food source mainly plant or meat based?
Answer: fish.
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What were the Atlantic produced records ?
Answer: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians.
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Sam and Dave do ?
Answer: It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission,
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What happened after Sam & Dave split ?
Answer: Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis,
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who is Moore ?
Answer: Sam
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Sam Moore do after splitting up?
Answer: " Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis,
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: In addition to recording three solo singles, what else did Sam do ?
Answer: In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds.
Sam & Dave

Context: Jerry Wexler with co-producer Tom Dowd tried producing Sam & Dave in New York, with Atlantic songwriters and musicians. It took eight months to issue "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh", the first Atlantic single in August 1969. It was not a very good record, by Sam's own admission, and it represented the first time in four years that a Sam & Dave single failed to chart. Two more singles followed in 1970, "Baby, Baby, Don't Stop Now," and "One Part Love, Two Parts Pain." The first was a leftover Hayes-Porter recording from Stax; the second was produced by Wexler and Dowd in New York, and was written by Stax executive Al Bell and Allen Jones. Both failed to chart. According to Wexler, "We just made some shit-ass records with them. I never really got into their sensibilities as a producer." Wexler then sent the duo south to Muscle Shoals and Miami to work with producers Brad Shapiro and Dave Crawford for their next single "Knock It Out The Park," which also failed to chart. Sam & Dave split in June 1970, according to Moore as a result of Moore's dissatisfaction with the duo and his desire to pursue a career solo. According to Prater, they broke up because "[Moore] decided to do what he wanted to do on his own." Moore recorded three solo singles (none of which charted) for Atlantic over the next year and was preparing an album produced by King Curtis, which was shelved after Curtis was stabbed to death in 1971. Prater recorded a single for Alston. Neither was commercially successful as a solo act, and they reunited in August 1971. In October 1971, their last Atlantic single, "Don't Pull Your Love," was a cover of a hit by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. This Shapiro/Crawford production was a minor hit (R&B #36/Pop #102), but not a substantial enough commercial success to keep the duo signed to the label. Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label. Their contract with Atlantic expired shortly thereafter. CANNOTANSWER

Question: When did Sam and Dave reunite ?
Answer: Sam & Dave recorded four final songs for Atlantic in August, 1972, none of which was released by the label.
Raymond Poulidor

Context: Poulidor's rivalry with Anquetil is a legend in cycling. While a good climber, Poulidor had a hard time matching Anquetil in the individual time trial, often having victory snatched from him by losing time in time-trial stages of the Tour de France. Poulidor's riding style was aggressive and attacking, whereas Anquetil preferred to control the race in the mountains and win time in the time-trials. Poulidor became the darling of the French public, to the ire of Anquetil. Poulidor's mid-France upbringing and his slow Limousin speech also contrasted with Anquetil's northern background and sharper accent. Poulidor's face was deeply tanned and furrowed; Anquetil had high cheekbones, a smoother face and brushed-up blond hair. Poulidor's best chance of defeating Anquetil came in the 1964 Tour de France, in the finish on the Puy de Dome. Anquetil rode beside Poulidor but both were so exhausted that only in the last few hundred metres could Poulidor take nearly enough time to threaten Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair as they turned off the main road and climbed through what police estimated as half a million spectators. Anquetil rode on the inside by the mountain wall while Poulidor took the outer edge by the precipice. They could sometimes feel the other's hot gasps on their bare arms. At the end, Anquetil cracked, after a battle of wills and legs so intense that at times they banged elbows. Poulidor says he was so tired that he has no memory of the two touching, although a photograph shows that they did. Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks." Anquetil was only semiconscious, he said. Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What happened with Raymond Poulidor during the Anquetil years?
Answer: Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day.
Raymond Poulidor

Context: Poulidor's rivalry with Anquetil is a legend in cycling. While a good climber, Poulidor had a hard time matching Anquetil in the individual time trial, often having victory snatched from him by losing time in time-trial stages of the Tour de France. Poulidor's riding style was aggressive and attacking, whereas Anquetil preferred to control the race in the mountains and win time in the time-trials. Poulidor became the darling of the French public, to the ire of Anquetil. Poulidor's mid-France upbringing and his slow Limousin speech also contrasted with Anquetil's northern background and sharper accent. Poulidor's face was deeply tanned and furrowed; Anquetil had high cheekbones, a smoother face and brushed-up blond hair. Poulidor's best chance of defeating Anquetil came in the 1964 Tour de France, in the finish on the Puy de Dome. Anquetil rode beside Poulidor but both were so exhausted that only in the last few hundred metres could Poulidor take nearly enough time to threaten Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair as they turned off the main road and climbed through what police estimated as half a million spectators. Anquetil rode on the inside by the mountain wall while Poulidor took the outer edge by the precipice. They could sometimes feel the other's hot gasps on their bare arms. At the end, Anquetil cracked, after a battle of wills and legs so intense that at times they banged elbows. Poulidor says he was so tired that he has no memory of the two touching, although a photograph shows that they did. Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks." Anquetil was only semiconscious, he said. Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Raymond Poulidor finish in second place in the 1964 Tour de France?
Answer: Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair
Raymond Poulidor

Context: Poulidor's rivalry with Anquetil is a legend in cycling. While a good climber, Poulidor had a hard time matching Anquetil in the individual time trial, often having victory snatched from him by losing time in time-trial stages of the Tour de France. Poulidor's riding style was aggressive and attacking, whereas Anquetil preferred to control the race in the mountains and win time in the time-trials. Poulidor became the darling of the French public, to the ire of Anquetil. Poulidor's mid-France upbringing and his slow Limousin speech also contrasted with Anquetil's northern background and sharper accent. Poulidor's face was deeply tanned and furrowed; Anquetil had high cheekbones, a smoother face and brushed-up blond hair. Poulidor's best chance of defeating Anquetil came in the 1964 Tour de France, in the finish on the Puy de Dome. Anquetil rode beside Poulidor but both were so exhausted that only in the last few hundred metres could Poulidor take nearly enough time to threaten Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair as they turned off the main road and climbed through what police estimated as half a million spectators. Anquetil rode on the inside by the mountain wall while Poulidor took the outer edge by the precipice. They could sometimes feel the other's hot gasps on their bare arms. At the end, Anquetil cracked, after a battle of wills and legs so intense that at times they banged elbows. Poulidor says he was so tired that he has no memory of the two touching, although a photograph shows that they did. Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks." Anquetil was only semiconscious, he said. Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Raymond Poulidor ever beat Anquetil?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Raymond Poulidor

Context: Poulidor's rivalry with Anquetil is a legend in cycling. While a good climber, Poulidor had a hard time matching Anquetil in the individual time trial, often having victory snatched from him by losing time in time-trial stages of the Tour de France. Poulidor's riding style was aggressive and attacking, whereas Anquetil preferred to control the race in the mountains and win time in the time-trials. Poulidor became the darling of the French public, to the ire of Anquetil. Poulidor's mid-France upbringing and his slow Limousin speech also contrasted with Anquetil's northern background and sharper accent. Poulidor's face was deeply tanned and furrowed; Anquetil had high cheekbones, a smoother face and brushed-up blond hair. Poulidor's best chance of defeating Anquetil came in the 1964 Tour de France, in the finish on the Puy de Dome. Anquetil rode beside Poulidor but both were so exhausted that only in the last few hundred metres could Poulidor take nearly enough time to threaten Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair as they turned off the main road and climbed through what police estimated as half a million spectators. Anquetil rode on the inside by the mountain wall while Poulidor took the outer edge by the precipice. They could sometimes feel the other's hot gasps on their bare arms. At the end, Anquetil cracked, after a battle of wills and legs so intense that at times they banged elbows. Poulidor says he was so tired that he has no memory of the two touching, although a photograph shows that they did. Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks." Anquetil was only semiconscious, he said. Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day. CANNOTANSWER

Question: How many times did Raymond Poulidor face off against Anquetil?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Raymond Poulidor

Context: Poulidor's rivalry with Anquetil is a legend in cycling. While a good climber, Poulidor had a hard time matching Anquetil in the individual time trial, often having victory snatched from him by losing time in time-trial stages of the Tour de France. Poulidor's riding style was aggressive and attacking, whereas Anquetil preferred to control the race in the mountains and win time in the time-trials. Poulidor became the darling of the French public, to the ire of Anquetil. Poulidor's mid-France upbringing and his slow Limousin speech also contrasted with Anquetil's northern background and sharper accent. Poulidor's face was deeply tanned and furrowed; Anquetil had high cheekbones, a smoother face and brushed-up blond hair. Poulidor's best chance of defeating Anquetil came in the 1964 Tour de France, in the finish on the Puy de Dome. Anquetil rode beside Poulidor but both were so exhausted that only in the last few hundred metres could Poulidor take nearly enough time to threaten Anquetil's first place in the general classification. The Tour organiser, Jacques Goddet, was behind the pair as they turned off the main road and climbed through what police estimated as half a million spectators. Anquetil rode on the inside by the mountain wall while Poulidor took the outer edge by the precipice. They could sometimes feel the other's hot gasps on their bare arms. At the end, Anquetil cracked, after a battle of wills and legs so intense that at times they banged elbows. Poulidor says he was so tired that he has no memory of the two touching, although a photograph shows that they did. Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks." Anquetil was only semiconscious, he said. Poulidor gained time but when they reached Paris, Anquetil still had a 55-second lead and won his last Tour de France thanks to the time-trial on the final day. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Is there any interesting information about Raymond Poulidor and Anquetil?
Answer: Of Anquetil, the veteran French reporter Pierre Chany wrote: "His face, until then purple, lost all its colour; the sweat ran down in drops through the creases of his cheeks.