Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Mariah Carey ? Mariah Carey  undeterred by last yearâs performance  will take to the stage once again in Times Square to ring in the new year on live TV.
The star  along with Dick Clark Productions  issued a joint statement on Friday announcing  Carey  as the headliner for âDick Clarkâs New Yearâs Rockinâ Eve with Ryan Seacrestâ broadcast.
Careyâs manager blamed the production and technical difficulties that producers knowingly failed to fix. Dick Clark Productions called the accusations âoutrageous and frankly absurd.â  Carey  eventually broke her silence on the troubled performance  saying she was âmortifiedâ and that she intended to take a break from social media.
Now it seems as though everyone is ready to put the messy past behind them.  Carey  will join the likes of Britney Spears  Nick Jonas  Kelly Clarkson and Shawn Mendes as the world rings in 2018.
 Careyâs  forthcoming New Yearâs Eve performance will top an already merry holiday season for the star. In addition to performing her annual Christmas tour   Careyâs  famous single âAll I Want For Christmas Is Youâ has been played more than 100 million times this month alone  according to Forbes.

Ex Output:
Positive


Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Reynolds Woodcock ? NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with director Paul Thomas Anderson about his new film  Phantom Thread. The film is about a fastidious British dressmaker named Reynolds Woodcock  played by Daniel Day Lewis  whose life becomes upended when he finds a new muse  who begins to challenge him.
This is a movie season where films compete to be bigger  louder and flashier. Right now you can choose to spend a couple of hours in a dark theater with jedis  monsters or singing circus impresarios. In the middle of all this comes a quiet  intimate movie. It's called "Phantom Thread " and it's about  a British dressmaker named Reynolds Woodcock played by Daniel Day-Lewis .
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS: (As Reynolds Woodcock) Chic - oh  don't you start using that filthy  little word  chic. Whoever invented that ought to be spanked in public. I don't even know what that word means.
SHAPIRO:  He  runs a fashion house with  his  sister  Cyril  played by Lesley Manville. Woodcock's fastidious life is upended when a woman named Alma becomes  his  muse and begins to challenge  him . She is played by the actress Vicky Krieps of Luxembourg.
SHAPIRO: Tell us about the main character played by Daniel Day-Lewis.  Reynolds Woodcock  is a man in a world of women  and  he  is a very particular person.
ANDERSON:  He  is.  He 's a very demanding  very particular person. There's a lot of rules. There's a lot of superstitions  which implies something peculiar about a character. And that's  him . There's no changing  him .  He 's very clear about what  he  will do and will not do.
DAY-LEWIS: (As Reynolds Woodcock) As I think you know  Alma  I prefer my asparagus with oil and salt. Knowing this  you have prepared the asparagus with butter. Right now I'm just admiring my own gallantry for eating it the way you've prepared it.
ANDERSON: Well  you know  it's funny. If I showed you the screenplay  you are exactly right. It would look very  very thin  you know  to say   Reynolds  looks at Alma; Alma looks at  Reynolds ; cut to the next scene  you know? But hopefully the accumulation of events leads you to understand just what that might mean and just the weight that those looks might carry.
SHAPIRO: Reynolds Woodcock sews things into linings of clothing that presumably no one will ever see. Where did that idea come from - photographs or messages?
ANDERSON: Well  the path is usually you kind of put a best-of up on the wall. But then you have to look at it from a different angle. Well  what is  Reynolds Woodcock ? Who is  he ?  He 's English. And so we - the designs started becoming English. So building it up from what Reynolds would be interested in  you realize just how deeply English he is and that all the influence in his life is that. You know  what are the fabrics that he gravitates towards? And so that becomes a three-way collaboration between Daniel and Mark and myself. And to be honest  I have the least patience of the three of us.
DAY-LEWIS: (As Reynolds Woodcock) What happened to make you behave like this? Is it because you think I don't need you?
DAY-LEWIS: (As Reynolds Woodcock) I don't.

Ex Output:
Positive


Ex Input:
What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Tom Aveni ? Ideas for research projects can germinate from the least likely moments  as when a student asked  Firearms Trainer Tom Aveni  if he'd ever visited the ACLU's website. He hadn't ("Why would I even want to go there?")  but out of curiosity he did.
Not only did the ACLU statistic turn out to be not as far off as he imagined but  Aveni  has made other unexpected discoveries - pertaining especially to hit ratios  low-light shootings  multiple-officer confrontations  mistaken judgment calls and less-lethal technology - that have convinced him police firearms training needs a significant overhaul.
Dr. Bill Lewinski  executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato  says that by pursuing "important and different kinds of questions "  Aveni  has produced "valuable new insights into officer-involved shootings." His findings are expected to provide "a cutting-edge demographic foundation" for upcoming research projects at FSRC that hopefully will result in "profound changes in law enforcement training in the future."
An ex-cop with 23 years' training experience   Aveni  now heads the Police Policy Studies Council  a research  training and consulting corporation based in Spofford  NH  and is a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board  as well as a busy expert witness in police litigation. Like other trainers   he  says   he  "made a lot of assumptions that are not true" until  his  research provided "an epiphany for  me " about some of the nuances of police shootings.
 He  was struck first by how tough it is to find out anything meaningful on the subject from law enforcement agencies. Most don't compile detailed data on their shootings  fearing in some cases (perhaps rightly) that it would be misinterpreted and misused by the media and "agenda activists" if available. Of the few departments that do collect deadly force information  "even fewer freely share it " Aveni claims. If they don't outright suppress it  they tend to present it in bare-bones  "sterilized table formats" that have no standardized consistency and that "make detailed analysis difficult."  Aveni  observes: "The devil is in the details  and the details of police shootings have always been lost."
 Aveni  spent more than 6 months dissecting that material according to different variables. That information  combined with limited statistics  he  managed to obtain related to shootings on other major departments  including New York City  Baltimore County (MD)  Miami  Portland (OR) and Washington (DC)  has allowed  him  to spotlight a number of deadly force subtleties that have not been so thoroughly examined before.
For example  it has long been believed that officers overall have a dismal 15-25 percent hit probability in street encounters  suggesting truly poor performance under the stress of a real shooting situation. Actually  this figure  while essentially true in the aggregate  is markedly skewed by certain shooting variables   Aveni  found.
During a 13-year span  the Baltimore County PD  which  Aveni  regards as one of the best trained in the country  achieved an average hit ratio of 64 percent in daylight shootings - not ideal  but clearly much better than commonly believed. In shootings that occurred in low-light surroundings  however  average hits dropped to 45 percent  a 30 percent decline. The data from Los Angeles County (LAC) reveals a somewhat comparable 24 percent decline.
"Until this research "  Aveni  says  "performance has never been accurately matched to lighting conditions " even though as many as 77 percent of police shootings are believed to occur under some degree of diminished lighting. Some departments tally "outdoor" versus "indoor" shootings  but most appear not to precisely differentiate between low-light and ample-light events  despite the preponderance of shootings during nighttime duty tours.
A multiple-officer shooting  in which more than one officer fires during a deadly force engagement  has an even greater influence on hit probability   Aveni  discovered.
Multiple-officer shootings   Aveni  told Force Science News  are three times more likely to involve suspects with shoulder weapons than single-officer shootings. This tends to "increase the typical stand-off distance " he says. Many of these confrontations also embody fast-changing  chaotic and complex circumstances. These factors  Aveni believes  help explain the negative impact on accuracy.
 Aveni  also discovered a correlation between multiple-officer shootings and number of rounds fired.
With LAC shootings involving only one officer  an average of 3.59 police rounds were fired. When 2 officers got involved  the average jumped to 4.98 rounds and with 3 officers or more to 6.48. "The number of rounds fired per officer increases in multiple-officer shootings by as much as 45 percent over single-officer shootings  " Aveni  says.
The ACLU's statistic that got him started on this project turned out to be based on fatal shootings that occurred before the landmark Supreme Court decision Tennessee v. Garner  when nearly half the states still legally permitted the shooting of any fleeing felon  regardless of the threat he or she presented. After the restrictions imposed by Garner  "you'd expect fewer unarmed suspects to be shot "  Aveni  explains.
Not necessarily true  though   Aveni  found. In a recent 12-year period  Metro-Dade (Miami) PD reported 34 shootings in which suspects were "clearly unarmed" or in which officers thought they saw a gun but none was found. All told  about a third of all shootings in which suspects were shot and killed by that agency's officers were considered "questionable." In a recent Texas study  25 percent of suspects shot by officers in one metropolitan county were found to be unarmed  33 percent if shots fired at moving vehicles are included. LAC's data put the unarmed target figure at 18 percent  well below the ACLU's pre-Garner assertion.
Higher or lower  many of these shootings are "mistake-of-fact" (MOF) situations   Aveni  says. Usually a suspect is displaying an item that is falsely but reasonably perceived to be a deadly weapon (a cell phone  for example)  or the suspect is behaving in such a way that in context is believed to constitute an immediate lethal threat (making a fast  furtive movement toward the waistband  for instance).

Ex Output:

Positive