TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Wikilinks can be seen as a large-scale, naturally-occurring, crowd-sourced dataset where thousands of human annotators provide ground truths for mentions of interest. This means that the dataset contains various kinds of noise, especially due to incoherent contexts. We prepare our dataset from the local-context version of Wikilinks, and resolve ground-truth links using a Wikipedia dump from April 2016. We use the page and redirect tables for resolution, and keep the database pageid column as a unique identifier for Wikipedia entities. We discard mentions where the ground-truth could not be resolved (only 3% of mentions). 
 Question: How was a quality control performed so that the text is noisy but the annotations are accurate?

SOLUTION: The authors believe that the Wikilinks corpus  contains ground truth annotations while being noisy. They discard mentions that cannot have ground-truth verified by comparison with Wikipedia.

PROBLEM: Then, we compute embeddings of concepts (by GloVe) for interview descriptions and for examination descriptions separately. The simplest way to generate text embeddings based on term embeddings is to use some kind of aggregation of term embeddings such as an average. This approach was tested for example by BIBREF21 and BIBREF13 . BIBREF22 computed a weighted mean of term embeddings by the construction of a loss function and training weights by the gradient descent method.

Final embeddings for visits are obtained by concatenation of average embeddings calculated separately for the interview and for the medical examination, see Figure FIGREF4 . 
 Question: Which word embeddings do they use to represent medical visits?

SOLUTION: GloVe concatenation of average embeddings calculated separately for the interview and for the medical examination

PROBLEM: We then ask a separate set of Turkers to rate the stories for overall quality and the three improvement areas. All ratings are on a five-point scale. We collect two ratings per story, and throw out ratings that disagree by more than 2 points. A total of 11% of ratings were thrown out, leaving four metrics across 241 stories for analysis. 
 Question: How do they evaluate generated stories?

SOLUTION:
separate set of Turkers to rate the stories for overall quality and the three improvement areas