In this task, you are given a paper review. Based on the review, your job is to identify language and generate "en" if the review is in English or generate "es" if the review is in Spanish. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: Este es un tema que no ha sido abordado suficientemente y que por lo mismo es bueno el tratarlo en forma "seria".  Justamente por lo planteado anteriormente, es que a esta temática se le puede "sacar mayor partido". A pesar que considero adecuada la clasificación deducida, creo que podría haberse profundizado un poco más.
[EX A]: es

[EX Q]: - Strengths: A well written paper, examining the use of context in lexical entailment task is a great idea, a well defined approach and experimental set-up and good analysis of the results   - Weaknesses: Some information is missing or insufficient, e.g., the table captions should be more descriptive, a clear description for each of the word type features should be given.  General Discussion:   The paper presents a proposal of consideration of context in lexical entailment task. The results from the experiments demonstrate that context-informed models do better than context-agnostic models on the entailment task.   I liked the idea of creating negative examples to get negative annotations automatically in the two ways described in the paper based on WordNet positive examples. (new dataset; an interesting method to develop dataset)  I also liked the idea of transforming already-used context-agnostic representations into contextualized representations, experimenting with different ways to get contextualized representations (i.e., mask vs contetx2vec), and testing the model on 3 different datasets (generalizability not just across different datasets but also cross-linguistically).  Motivations for various decisions in the experimental design were good to see, e.g., why authors used the split they used for CONTEXT-PPDB (it showed that they thought out clearly what exactly they were doing and why).  Lines 431-434: authors might want to state briefly how the class weights were determined and added to account for the unbalanced data in the CONTEXT-WN experiments. Would it affect direct comparisons with previous work, in what ways?   Change in Line 589: directionality 4 --> directionality, as in Table 4  Suggested change in Line 696-697: is-a hierarchy of WordNet --> "is-a" hierarchy of WordNet   For the sake of completeness, represent "mask" also in Figure 1.  I have read the author response.
[EX A]: en

[EX Q]: Muy buen artículo para comprender la ubicación espacial de objetos, con propósitos de control, en este caso aplicable a un conjunto de robot en un juego de futbol.
[EX A]:
es