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.

Example Input: In Figure FIGREF28, we show some examples of the annotation results in CORD-19-NER. We can see that our distantly- or weakly supervised methods achieve high quality recognizing the new entity types, requiring only several seed examples as the input. For example, we recognized “SARS-CoV-2" as the “CORONAVIRUS" type, “bat" and “pangolins" as the “WILDLIFE" type and “Van der Waals forces" as the “PHYSICAL_SCIENCE" type. This NER annotation results help downstream text mining tasks in discovering the origin and the physical nature of the virus. Our NER methods are domain-independent that can be applied to corpus in different domains. In addition, we show another example of NER annotation on New York Times with our system in Figure FIGREF29.

In Figure FIGREF30, we show the comparison of our annotation results with existing NER/BioNER systems. In Figure FIGREF30, we can see that only our method can identify “SARS-CoV-2" as a coronavirus. In Figure FIGREF30, we can see that our method can identify many more entities such as “pylogenetic" as a evolution term and “bat" as a wildlife. In Figure FIGREF30, we can also see that our method can identify many more entities such as “racism" as a social behavior. In summary, our distantly- and weakly-supervised NER methods are reliable for high-quality entity recognition without requiring human effort for training data annotation. 
 Question: Did they experiment with the dataset?
Example Output: Yes-no

Example Input: Across all languages, 145 human annotators were asked to score all 1,888 pairs (in their given language). We finally collect at least ten valid annotations for each word pair in each language. All annotators were required to abide by the following instructions:

1. Each annotator must assign an integer score between 0 and 6 (inclusive) indicating how semantically similar the two words in a given pair are. A score of 6 indicates very high similarity (i.e., perfect synonymy), while zero indicates no similarity.

2. Each annotator must score the entire set of 1,888 pairs in the dataset. The pairs must not be shared between different annotators.

3. Annotators are able to break the workload over a period of approximately 2-3 weeks, and are able to use external sources (e.g. dictionaries, thesauri, WordNet) if required.

4. Annotators are kept anonymous, and are not able to communicate with each other during the annotation process. 
 Question: How were the datasets annotated?
Example Output: Extractive

Example Input: This version highly surpasses the previous state of the art while still having fewer parameters than previous work. 
 Question: Do they compare results against state-of-the-art language models?
Example Output:
Yes-no