In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.

Example Input: We present here a step in this direction: a probabilistic semantic parser that uses a large knowledge base (NELL) to form a prior probability distribution on the meanings of sentences it parses, and that "understands" each sentence either by identifying its existing beliefs that correspond to the sentence's meaning, or by creating new beliefs.
Example Output: What knowledge bases do they use?

Example Input: The clinical notes we used for the experiment are provided by domain experts, consisting of 1,160 physician logs of Medical ICU admission requests at a tertiary care center affiliated to Mount Sanai. The enriched corpus contains 42,506 Wikipedia articles, each of which corresponds to one candidate, 6 research papers and 2 critical care medicine textbooks, besides our raw ICU data.
Example Output: Which dataset do they use to build their model?

Example Input: We calculated inter-annotator agreement by Krippendorff's Alpha BIBREF23, which accounts for different annotator pairs and empty values. To also zoom in on the particular agreement by category, we calculated mutual F-scores for each of the categories. This metric is typically used to evaluate system performance by category on gold standard data, but could also be applied to annotation pairs by alternating the roles of the two annotators between classifier and ground truth. While both the Relevance and Subject categorizations are annotated at a percent agreement of $0.71$ and $0.70$, their agreement scores are only fair, at $\alpha =0.27$ and $\alpha =0.29$. The percent agreement on Stance and Sentiment, which carry more categories than the former two, is $0.54$ for both. Their agreement scores are also fair, at $\alpha =0.35$ and $\alpha =0.34$. The mutual F-scores show marked differences in agreement by category, where the categories that were annotated most often typically yield a higher score. This holds for the Relevant category ($0.81$), the Vaccine category ($0.79$) and the Positive category ($0.64$). The Negative category yields a mutual F-score of $0.42$, which is higher than the more frequently annotated categories Neutral ($0.23$) and Not clear ($0.31$). We found that these categories are often confused. After combining the annotations of the two, the stance agreement would be increased to $\alpha =0.43$.
Example Output:
What is the agreement score of their annotated dataset?