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.

[EX Q]: Data was collected from a 10% uniform sample of Twitter posts made during 2013, specifically the Gardenhose API. Control documents were also selected. These documents did not contain any of `caused', `causing', or `causes', nor any bidirectional words, and are further matched temporally to obtain the same number of control documents as causal documents in each fifteen-minute period during 2013. Control documents were otherwise selected randomly; causal synonyms may be present. 
 Question: What is the source of the "control" corpus?
[EX A]: Abstractive

[EX Q]: We evaluate our approach by training an autocomplete system on 500K randomly sampled sentences from Yelp reviews BIBREF6 (see Appendix for details). We quantify the efficiency of a communication scheme $(q_{\alpha },p_{\beta })$ by the retention rate of tokens, which is measured as the fraction of tokens that are kept in the keywords. The accuracy of a scheme is measured as the fraction of sentences generated by greedily decoding the model that exactly matches the target sentence. 
 Question: How are models evaluated in this human-machine communication game?
[EX A]: Extractive

[EX Q]: Experiment 1 directly tested the hypothesis that speakers increase their specificity in contexts with asymmetry in visual access. We found that speakers are not only context-sensitive in choosing referring expressions that distinguish target from distractors in a shared context, but are occlusion-sensitive, adaptively compensating for uncertainty. These results strongly suggest that the speaker's informativity influences listener accuracy. In support of this hypothesis, we found a strong negative correlation between informativity and error rates across items and conditions: listeners make fewer errors when utterances are a better fit for the target relative to the distractor ( $\rho = -0.81$ , bootstrapped 95% CI $= [-0.9, -0.7]$ ; Fig. 6 B). This result suggests that listener behavior is driven by an expectation of speaker informativity: listeners interpret utterances proportionally to how well they fit objects in context. Our Rational Speech Act (RSA) formalization of cooperative reasoning in this context predicts that speakers (directors) naturally increase the informativity of their referring expressions to hedge against the increased risk of misunderstanding; Exp. 1 presents direct evidence in support of this hypothesis. Exp. 2 is consistent with this hypothesis; when directors used underinformative scripted instructions (taken from prior work), listeners made significantly more errors than when speakers were allowed to provide referring expressions at their natural level of informativity, and speaker informativeness strongly modulated listener error rates. 
 Question: Did participants behave unexpectedly?
[EX A]:
Yes-no