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.

Q: We defined a sequence labeling task to extract custom entities from user input. We assumed seven (7) possible entities (see Table TABREF43) to be recognized by the model: topic, subtopic, examination mode and level, question number, intent, as well as the entity other for remaining words in the utterance. We defined a classification problem to predict the system's next action according to the given user input. We assumed 13 custom actions (see Table TABREF42) that we considered being our labels. In the conversational dataset, each input was automatically labeled by the rule-based system with the corresponding next action and the dialogue-id. Thus, no additional post-labeling was required.
Question: How does the IPA label data after interacting with users?

A: Abstractive
****
Q: Previously, datasets openly available in abusive language detection research on Twitter ranged from 10K to 35K in size BIBREF9 , BIBREF11 . This quantity is not sufficient to train the significant number of parameters in deep learning models. Due to this reason, these datasets have been mainly studied by traditional machine learning methods. Most recently, Founta et al. founta2018large introduced Hate and Abusive Speech on Twitter, a dataset containing 100K tweets with cross-validated labels. Although this corpus has great potential in training deep models with its significant size, there are no baseline reports to date.

This paper investigates the efficacy of different learning models in detecting abusive language. We compare accuracy using the most frequently studied machine learning classifiers as well as recent neural network models. Reliable baseline results are presented with the first comparative study on this dataset. Additionally, we demonstrate the effect of different features and variants, and describe the possibility for further improvements with the use of ensemble models.
Question: Does the dataset feature only English language data?

A: Yes-no
****
Q: We evaluate our model on two benchmark datasets BIBREF9 . The homographic dataset contains 2,250 contexts, 1,607 of which contain a pun. The heterographic dataset consists of 1,780 contexts with 1,271 containing a pun. We notice there is no standard splitting information provided for both datasets. Thus we apply 10-fold cross validation. To make direct comparisons with prior studies, following BIBREF4 , we accumulated the predictions for all ten folds and calculate the scores in the end.
Question: What datasets are used in evaluation?

A:
Extractive
****