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.

Input: Consider Input: Some authors use pretrained embeddings (especially when their data set is too small to train their own embeddings) or try to modify these embeddings and adjust to their set. But the biggest drawback of these approaches is that the corpus for training embeddings can be not related to the specific task where embeddings are utilized. A lot of medical concepts are not contained in well-known embeddings bases. Furthermore, the similarity of words may vary in different contexts. Then, we compute embeddings of concepts (by GloVe) for interview descriptions and for examination descriptions separately. 
 Question: Do they fine-tune the used word embeddings on their medical texts?

Output: Yes-no


Input: Consider Input: For the two single sentence tasks—the syntax-oriented CoLA task and the SST sentiment task—we find somewhat deteriorated performance. 
 Question: Does the additional training on supervised tasks hurt performance in some tasks?

Output: Yes-no


Input: Consider Input: We evaluated our models on 3 different datasets:

CSAT dataset for CSAT prediction, consisting of spoken transcripts (automatic via ASR).

20 newsgroups for topic identification task, consisting of written text;

Fisher Phase 1 corpus for topic identification task, consisting of spoken transcripts (manual); 
 Question: What datasets did they use for evaluation?


Output: Extractive