In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.

Input: Consider Input: Mathur et al. in their paper for detecting offensive tweets proposed a Ternary Trans-CNN model where they train a model architecture comprising of 3 layers of Convolution 1D having filter sizes of 15, 12 and 10 and kernel size of 3 followed by 2 dense fully connected layer of size 64 and 3. The first dense FC layer has ReLU activation while the last Dense layer had Softmax activation. They were able to train this network on a parallel English dataset provided by Davidson et al. The authors were able to achieve Accuracy of 83.9%, Precision of 80.2%, Recall of 69.8%.

The approach looked promising given that the dataset was merely 3189 sentences divided into three categories and thus we replicated the experiment but failed to replicate the results. The results were poor than what the original authors achieved. But, most of the model hyper-parameter choices where inspired from this work. 
 Question: What is the previous work's model?

Output: Ternary Trans-CNN


Input: Consider Input: Which events authors choose to include in their history, which they leave out, and the way the events chosen relate to the march are crucial factors in conveying bias. 
 Question: What factors contribute to interpretive biases according to this research?

Output: Which events authors choose to include in their history, which they leave out, and the way the events chosen relate to the march


Input: Consider Input: In this paper, we provide a brief survey of existing datasets and describe the CRWIZ framework for pairing crowdworkers and having half of them acting as Wizards by limiting their dialogue options only to relevant and plausible ones, at any one point in the interaction Dialogue structure: we introduced structured dialogues through a Finite State Machine (FSM) that controls the current dialogue state and offers multiple suitable and relevant state transitions (actions) to the Wizard depending on the point in the interaction, the state of the world and the history. A graph of dialogue states, transitions and utterances is loaded when the system is initialised, and each chat room has its own dialogue state, which changes through actions. 
 Question: How is dialogue guided to avoid interactions that breach procedures and processes only known to experts?


Output: pairing crowdworkers and having half of them acting as Wizards by limiting their dialogue options only to relevant and plausible ones, at any one point in the interaction