In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

[EX Q]: To investigate the extent to which the text obtained from the two platforms of Yahoo! Answers and Twitter reflect the true attributes of neighbourhoods, we first study whether there are significant, strong and meaningful correlations between the terms present in each corpus and the many neighbourhood attributes through the Pearson correlation coefficient $\rho $ . 
 Question: What do the correlation demonstrate? 
[EX A]: the extent to which the text obtained from the two platforms of Yahoo! Answers and Twitter reflect the true attributes of neighbourhoods

[EX Q]: We present a comparison of the proposed models to existing word embeddings approaches. These are: the Bernoulli embeddings (b-emb) BIBREF1 , continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) BIBREF5 , Distributed Memory version of Paragraph Vector (PV-DM) BIBREF11 and the Global Vectors (GloVe) BIBREF6 model. 
 Question: What word embeddings do they test?
[EX A]: Bernoulli embeddings (b-emb) BIBREF1 , continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) BIBREF5 , Distributed Memory version of Paragraph Vector (PV-DM) BIBREF11 and the Global Vectors (GloVe) BIBREF6 model

[EX Q]: Results in Table TABREF13 show ten probes. Again, we see the performance of baseline ELMo-transformer and mSynC are similar, with mSynC doing slightly worse on 7 out of 9 tasks. As we would expect, on the probe for predicting chunk tags, mSynC achieves 96.9 $F_1$ vs. 92.2 $F_1$ for ELMo-transformer, indicating that mSynC is indeed encoding shallow syntax. Overall, the results further confirm that explicit shallow syntax does not offer any benefits over ELMo-transformer. 
 Question: What are improvements for these two approaches relative to ELMo-only baselines?
[EX A]:
only modest gains on three of the four downstream tasks