In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronavirus (SARS-CoV) nucleocapsid protein (N protein) is its most antigenic structural protein. The N protein gene has been cloned into a yeast expression vector pPIC9, transformed into Pichia pastoris strain GS115 and induced for expression by methanol. SDS-PAGE and Western blot showed that the N protein was expressed at a level of 3 mg/ml of culture medium. Characterization by mass spectrometry, circular dichroism and fluorescence luminescence assays showed that the expressed N protein displayed a ␤-sheet secondary structure in solution and it is stable in the pH range between 5.0 and 8.0. The P. pastoris-expressed N protein is believed to more closely resemble native SARS N protein than the bacterially expressed N protein. 
 Title: Yeast expression and characterization of SARS-CoV N protein

Output: True


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: lord mayor and aldermen of the city of London put into place a set of orders "concerning the infection of the plague," which was then sweeping through the population. He intended that these actions would be "very expedient for preventing and avoiding of infection of sickness" (1). At that time, London faced a public health crisis, with an inadequate scientific base in that the role of rats and their fleas in disease transmission was unknown. Nonetheless, this crisis was faced with good intentions by the top medical and political figures of the community. Daniel Defoe made an observation that could apply to many public health interventions then and today, "This shutting up of houses was at first counted a very cruel and unchristian method… but it was a public good that justified a private mischief" (1). Then, just as today, a complex relationship existed between the science of public health and the practice of public health and politics. We address the relationship between science, public health, and politics, with a particular emphasis on infectious diseases. Science, public health, and politics are not only compatible, but all three are necessary to improve the public's health. The progress of each area of public health is related to the strength of the other areas. The effect of politics in public health becomes dangerous when policy is dictated by ideology. Policy is also threatened when it is solely determined by science, devoid of considerations of social condition, culture, economics, and public will. When using the word "politics," we refer not simply to partisan politics but to the broader set of policies and sys-tems. Although ideology is used in many different ways, in this case, it refers to individual systems of belief that may color a person's attitudes and actions and that are not necessarily based on scientific evidence (2). 
 Title: Plagues, Public Health, and Politics 1

Output: True


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Air cleaning techniques have been applied worldwide with the goal of improving indoor air quality. The effectiveness of applying these techniques varies widely, and pollutant removal efficiency is usually determined in controlled laboratory environments which may not be realized in practice. Some air cleaners are largely ineffective, and some produce harmful by-products. To summarize what is known regarding the effectiveness of fan-driven air cleaning technologies, a state-of-the-art review of the scientific literature was undertaken by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from Europe, North America, and Asia with expertise in air cleaning, aerosol science, medicine, chemistry and ventilation. The effects on health were not examined. Over 26,000 articles were identified in major literature databases; 400 were selected as being relevant based on their titles and abstracts by the first two authors, who further reduced the number of articles to 160 based on the full texts. These articles were reviewed by the panel using predefined inclusion criteria during their first meeting. Additions were also made by the panel. Of these, 133 articles were finally selected for detailed review. Each article was assessed independently by two members of the panel and then judged by the entire panel during a consensus meeting. During this process 59 articles were deemed conclusive and their results were used for final reporting at their second meeting. The conclusions are that: (1) None of the reviewed technologies was able to effectively remove all indoor pollutants and many were found to generate undesirable by-products during operation. (2) Particle filtration and sorption of gaseous pollutants were among the most effective air cleaning technologies, but there is insufficient information regarding long-term performance and proper maintenance. (3) The existing data make it difficult to extract information such as Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), which represents a common benchmark for comparing the performance of different air cleaning technologies. (4) To compare and select suitable indoor air cleaning devices, a labeling system accounting for characteristics such as CADR, energy consumption, volume, harmful by-products, and life span is Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 4329e4343 necessary. For that purpose, a standard test room and condition should be built and studied. (5) Although there is evidence that some air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality, further research is needed before any of them can be confidently recommended for use in indoor environments. 
 Title: Can commonly-used fan-driven air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality? A literature review


Output: False