In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question based on the context. You have to classify the questions into "Extractive", "Abstractive", or "Yes-no" questions. Extractive questions can be answered by concatenating extracts taken from a context into a summary while answering abstractive questions involves paraphrasing the context using novel sentences. Yes-no question is a question whose expected answer is one of two choices, one that affirms the question and one that denies the question. Typically, the choices are either yes or no.

Q: The Software Ontology (SWO) BIBREF5 is included because its set of CQs is of substantial size and it was part of Ren et al.'s set of analysed CQs. The CQ sets of Dem@Care BIBREF8 and OntoDT BIBREF9 were included because they were available. CQs for the Stuff BIBREF6 and African Wildlife (AWO) BIBREF7 ontologies were added to the set, because the ontologies were developed by one of the authors (therewith facilitating in-depth domain analysis, if needed), they cover other topics, and are of a different `type' (a tutorial ontology (AWO) and a core ontology (Stuff)), thus contributing to maximising diversity in source selection. 
 Question: How many domains of ontologies do they gather data from?

A: Abstractive
****
Q: Two datasets are exploited in this article. Both datasets consist of plain text containing clinical narrative written in Spanish, and their respective manual annotations of sensitive information in BRAT BIBREF13 standoff format. NUBes BIBREF4 is a corpus of around 7,000 real medical reports written in Spanish and annotated with negation and uncertainty information. In order to avoid confusion between the two corpus versions, we henceforth refer to the version relevant in this paper as NUBes-PHI (from `NUBes with Personal Health Information'). The organisers of the MEDDOCAN shared task BIBREF3 curated a synthetic corpus of clinical cases enriched with sensitive information by health documentalists 
 Question: What are the clinical datasets used in the paper?

A: Extractive
****
Q: Table TABREF15 shows a comparison of the results on SimCluster versus K-means algorithm. Here our SimCluster algorithm improves the F1-scores from 0.412 and 0.417 in the two domains to 0.442 and 0.441. The ARI scores also improve from 0.176 and 0.180 to 0.203 and 0.204. 
 Question: Do they use the same distance metric for both the SimCluster and K-means algorithm?

A:
Yes-no
****