{"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fuelled by substantial BEV diffusion up to \n2035, European battery demand is likely to surpass 1.0\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 by \n2030 (in 69% of all scenarios). The interquartile range (IQR) in 2030 is \n0.97\u20131.2\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121. Some high-demand scenarios may exceed the 1\u2009TWh \nthreshold as early as 2026 and even approach 1.6\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 by 2030, \nwith the top 10% exceeding 1.30\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In around 69% of model runs, European battery demand exceeds 1 TWh per year by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 0} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In contrast to the demand scenarios, the feasibility spaces \nfor domestic production have more distinct peaks (Fig. 1). Domestic pro-\nduction is unlikely to surpass 1.0\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 by 2030 (39%) and the IQR is \n0.93\u20131.04\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121. A few high-production scenarios reach 1.2\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121, \nwith the top 5% exceeding 1.10\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121. Low-production scenarios \nbarely fall below 0.86\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 (5th percentile). Low production \ncapacity may emerge from the superposition of a low materialization \nrate, low utilization, extended delays and high scrap, and vice versa \nfor high production.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The modelling shows that domestic European battery production will surpass 1 TWh yr\u207b\u00b9 in most scenarios by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 1} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The resulting average growth rates for demand (Extended Data \nTable 1) are ambitious at 31\u201343%\u2009yr\u22121, but they have been witnessed \nfor other technologies. Historically, wind and solar capacity growth \nrates have been at least 15%\u2009yr\u22121 and often between 39 and 50%\u2009yr\u22121 \n(ref. 21). General technology adoption growth rates have typically \nbeen below 13\u201314%\u2009yr\u22121, but occasionally have exceeded 30\u201340%\u2009yr\u22121 \n(ref. 32). In contrast, the calculated growth rates for production are \nmore ambitious, ranging from 55 to 68%\u2009yr\u22121, and close to the levels \nwitnessed historically in times of emergency when unconventional \nrates of growth were observed, as indicated by Odenweller et al.21. \nAccordingly, if such exceptional growth rates were not realized, we \nwould observe substantially lower European production capacity by \n2030, affirming that materialized capacity expands more slowly than \nannouncements might suggest.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the study, meeting projected domestic production requires average annual capacity growth rates in the range of roughly 55\u201368 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 2} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 shows the individual scenarios as trajectories (left) and density \nplots with cumulative density (right) for production versus demand \nfor 2025 and 2030. It is very likely that domestic production can meet \nat least 60% of demand in 2025 (90.1%) and 2030 (99.5%), although the \nresults for 2025 reveal a slightly elevated risk of short-term domes-\ntic production shortfalls. For 2030, the 90% self-sufficiency target \nseems feasible as this corresponds to the mean and median value \n(IQR\u2009=\u200980\u2013100%), but is far from certain as nearly half of the scenarios \n(49%) do not reach the 90% self-sufficiency target. Production capacity \nexceeds domestic demand by more than 10% in a minor share of sce-\nnarios (11%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2030, more than half of the scenarios foresee production capacity exceeding demand by over 10 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 3} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Beyond mere domestic production capacity and self-sufficiency, the \ncompany\u2019s origin is relevant in the context of accessibility and techno\u00ad\nlogy sovereignty. While the corporate landscape was nearly 100% Asian \nin the early 2020s, the share of European companies is projected to \nincrease substantially.\nIn 2025, around two-thirds of the materialized \nproduction capacity is likely to result from Asian-affiliated compa-\n nies and more than one-third from European companies (Extended \nData Fig. 2). By 2030, European companies are projected to hold \n the largest share (45\u201355%), while the share of Asian companies \n is expected to decline (40\u201350%) with US companies anticipated to \n capture modest shares (3\u20138%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis projects that European-headquartered manufacturers could account for roughly 45\u201355 % of Europe\u2019s materialized cell output by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 4} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Expressing the European battery demand in terms of required raw material quantities reveals that the cumulative demand for key materials, namely, nickel, cobalt, graphite, lithium and man-\nganese, is projected to increase substantially by 2035, with expected \n9-fold (cobalt) and 12\u201315-fold (nickel, manganese, graphite and lithium) \nincreases relative to the quantities required in 2025 (Table 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors project that nickel demand for batteries will only about double between 2025 and 2035.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 5} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n While Europe will rely on raw material imports until 2030\u20132035, three factors \nindicate a strengthening position. First, and in relation to expected \ndemand, substantial domestic reserves of manganese and natural \ngraphite are available, with possibly lower prospects for lithium and \nnickel, but primary cobalt is scarce. Second, existing self-sufficiency \nassessments (Table 1, rightmost column) indicate progress in building \nEuropean value chains, however, ramp-ups must be extremely quick. \nWhile cobalt and nickel imports (all grades) are likely to remain neces-\nsary for domestic processing, it is likely that major shares of lithium \nand most of the manganese can be sourced and refined domestically. \nNatural graphite (all grades) is likely to require both local sourcing and \nrefining as well as imports. However, global supply diversification is \nanticipated to also lower general dependency risks36,37.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper suggests Europe will likely be able to domestically source and refine substantial portions of lithium and most of its manganese needs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 6} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results are stable, even if we replace the LGM with Gompertz \nor Bass diffusion models to capture asymmetric growth (Extended \nData Fig. 3a,b). The results from the Gompertz model show narrower \nfeasibility spaces at lower growth rates (20\u201327%\u2009yr\u22121 for demand and \n31\u201348%\u2009yr\u22121 for production, Extended Data Table 1) and an aggravated \nshortfall of domestic production capacity, particularly around 2025. \nMoreover, if we limited the growth rates (15\u201339%\u2009yr\u22121) for the total pro-\nduction capacity using the Gompertz model (Extended Data Fig. 3c), \nwe would observe ~0.89\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 by 2030 (IQR\u2009=\u20090.84\u20130.96\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121) \nand exceeding 1\u2009TWh would be more unlikely (15%). Accordingly, the \n90% self-sufficiency target would be even more at risk (25%), while at \nleast 50% self-sufficiency would still be very likely (98.1%, median\u2009=\u200983%, \nIQR\u2009=\u200975-90%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Switching to a Gompertz diffusion model increases the estimated production growth rates relative to the logistic model.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 7} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Low-demand scenarios barely fall below 0.85\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121 by 2030 \n(5th percentile). Concerning achievable BEV sales shares (Extended \nData Fig. 1), the feasibility space is deemed to narrow towards 2035 \ndue to the European ZEV regulations. Accordingly, we will most likely \nobserve around 30% BEV sales by 2025 (median, IQR\u2009=\u200925\u201334%) and \n70% by 2030 (median, IQR\u2009=\u200965\u201380%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model results indicate a median BEV sales share of approximately 70 % in Europe by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 8} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Third, production capacities were derived from individual \nannouncements (bottom-up, cut-off January 2024) rather than \nmodel-based or demand-driven outlooks (top-down), confining our \ndataset and results. On the one hand, we emphasize that the lack \nof standardization makes it difficult to distinguish what is or is not \naccounted for in the announced capacity. If capacity utilization were \n included, we would obtain higher production capacities by 2030 \n(IQR\u2009=\u20091.15\u20131.30\u2009TWh\u2009yr\u22121) with unrestricted growth rates and an \nalmost parallel trend slightly below demand with limited growth rates \n(Extended Data Fig. 4a\u2013c). On the other hand, as there are no explicit \nannouncements beyond 2030, supply curves flatten towards 2030 \neven though our model accounts for delayed realization, potentially \nleading to underestimated production capacities between 2030 and \n2035. Of course, additional capacities may emerge after 2030. However, \nno announcements have been made so far, even though there are only \n5\u2009years left before this date and not every factory is likely to expand at \nshort notice.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accounting for capacity utilization raises the projected interquartile range of 2030 production well beyond 1.6 TWh yr\u207b\u00b9.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 9} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find no statistically significant correlation between the size of \neither the oil and gas sector or the financial sector and re-risking scores. \nThe central banks of economies with high exposure to stranded asset \nrisks through either a large oil and gas sector and/or a large financial \nsector do not appear to engage more in re-risking than economies with \nlow stranded asset risks.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The size of a country's oil and gas or financial sector does not significantly predict the level of re-risking adopted by its central bank.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 10} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find no statistically significant relationship between the \ngrowth of the share of renewable energy in total primary energy use \nand de-risking scores (Figs. 3 and 4). This means that a growing renew-\nable energy industry is not associated with central banks reducing the \nrisks of clean energy investments.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Central banks in countries where renewable energy has expanded more rapidly are statistically more active in de-risking clean energy investments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 11} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We do not find an association between exposure to climate hazards \nand re-risking. Instead, we find that de-risking is positively and signifi-\ncantly correlated with higher exposure to physical climate risks.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher exposure to physical climate hazards is significantly associated with greater de-risking, but not with re-risking, by central banks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 12} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In sum, we find that only physical climate risks are significantly \ncorrelated with central bank de-risking activities. Transition risks\u2014\nstranded asset and clean energy investment risks\u2014are associated with \nneither re-risking actions nor de-risking actions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Transition risks, such as stranded assets, are a significant driver of central bank de-risking actions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 13} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that climate policy stringency (based on an OECD index) \nis a statistically significant and positive factor for re-risking. In other \nwords, the more policymakers adopt strong climate policies, the more \nlikely central banks are to engage in re-risking. We demonstrate the \nrelationship in Fig. 5. In contrast, climate policy stringency is not cor-\nrelated with de-risking.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Countries with more stringent national climate policies tend to have central banks that engage more in re-risking, while the same policy stringency does not correlate with de-risking.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 14} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Using a cross-national survey on public concern about climate \nchange from the Yale Programme on Climate Change Communica-\ntion (YPCCC), we find a statistically significant positive correlation \nbetween public concern and de-risking scores (Fig. 3 and Supplemen-\ntary Table 2). This means that central banks may respond to greater \npublic concern with de-risking the clean energy transition, but not \nwith re-risking stranded assets and physical climate risks.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Public concern about climate change leads central banks to increase both re-risking and de-risking efforts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 15} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The coefficient estimates from \nthe two linear regression models supporting our main findings. The re-risking \nmodel is shown in red and the de-risking model is shown in blue. The red circles \nor blue squares indicate the coefficient estimate values, with the lines on either \nside of the observation showing the 95% confidence intervals. The highlighted \nboxed variables indicate a statistically significant variable in the model, colour \ncoded to indicate which model (red for re-risking, blue for de-risking). Next to \nthe findings discussed in the main text, we find that GDP growth rate is a negative \nstatistically significant factor for re-risking, and that being a member of the EU \nis a statistically significant factor for de-risking. We discuss these findings in \nSupplementary Notes 1\u20134.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The regression indicates that faster GDP growth is linked to lower re-risking, and that EU member states show higher de-risking activity.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 16} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n behaviour. Among these risks, stranded asset risks and clean energy \ninvestment risks\u2014main transition risks\u2014are not associated with central \nbank actions, only physical risks are, to some extent. Instead, we find \nthat central bank actions to manage risks are significantly associated \nwith domestic climate politics\u2014existing climate policy stringency and \npublic opinion on climate change. Our results suggest that the magni-\ntude of economic risks is not associated with central bank attempts to \ncontain those risks, leaving a risk mitigation gap.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Central bank climate-risk actions are mainly determined by the magnitude of stranded asset and clean energy investment risks facing their economies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 17} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find substantial variation in the extent to which countries \nre-risk, de-risk or do both (Fig. 1). First, there is a group of countries \nwith high re-risking and de-risking scores (Fig. 1, blue quadrant). These \nare mostly member states of the European Central Bank (ECB; Italy, \nGermany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium), the UK and China. A \nsecond cluster of countries with relatively less activity (a score of 10 or \nlower) in both re-risking and de-risking scores, includes the USA, South \nKorea, Costa Rica, South Africa and Russia (Fig. 1, red quadrant). A third \nset of countries clearly engage in more re-risking than de-risking (Brazil, \nSwitzerland and Sweden) (Fig. 1, yellow quadrant). Last, a set of countries \nengage primarily in de-risking (Hungary, Denmark, Japan, India and Indo-\nnesia) (Fig. 1, green quadrant). We discuss observations on trends in the \npolicy instruments that central banks use in Supplementary Note 5. This \nsubstantial cross-national variation raises the question of why central \nbanks vary in the extent to which they re-risk and de-risk transition risks.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and China belong to the group exhibiting high scores on both re-risking and de-risking measures.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 18} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In sum, we find that political demands from policymakers and the \npublic are significantly and positively correlated with central banks\u2019 \nre-risking and de-risking activities, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds no evidence that either policymaker climate policies or public opinion influence how central banks manage climate risks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 19} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results confirm that the targets in the NECPs would lower the expected price of electricity across European markets. For the European aggregate, average prices would be expected to be 26% lower by 2030 than in 2024 (Table 1). A similar reduction would be observed in median prices.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study projects that average European wholesale electricity prices will be roughly one-quarter lower in 2030 than in 2024 if NECP targets are met.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 20} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The volatility of annual prices would also be lower, but the size of this change is less relevant: one standard deviation in electricity prices would be equivalent to 25 euros in 2030, very similar to the 26.5 euros expected in 2024. Importantly, the reduction in electricity prices would not be homogeneous across the hours of the day, particularly in countries adding solar PV capacity. As an example, in Germany, prices would be 64% lower in 2030 than in 2024 at 12 in the morning, whereas the reduction at 7\u2009p.m. would be only 16% (Supplementary Section 8).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The simulations indicate that the standard deviation of annual electricity prices will be cut by more than half between 2024 and 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 21} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By 2030, for the average of Europe, prices would be expected to be higher than 121 euros per MWh with a probability of 15%, and higher than 139 euros per MWh with a probability of 5%. This compares with 152 and 179 euros per MWh, respectively, in 2024. In other words, the growth in renewables foreseen by European plans, jointly with other changes in capacity described in the previous section, would moderate price spikes (understood as years with infrequently high prices). For the European aggregate, spikes in annual prices could be approximately 20% lower by 2030 than in 2024. These results confirm an underlying trend towards lower prices overall and a mitigation of price spikes in Europe.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model results show that the 95th-percentile annual electricity price is expected to fall by about 20% in 2030 compared with 2024.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 22} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that by 2030, a 1 euro increase in the price of natural gas would translate into a 1 euro increase in annual electricity prices for the aggregate of European countries. This would be 40% lower than the situation in 2024, where the electricity price would be expected to increase by 1.4 euros.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2030, a one-euro increase in natural gas prices is expected to raise electricity prices by about 2 euros.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 23} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The negative change in \u03b2-sensitivity from 2024 to 2030 is strongly correlated with the reduction in the tails of the price distribution, both for high and extreme episodes; countries that reduce the dependency of their markets on natural gas are those that also obtain a clearer mitigation of price spikes. This is an important result as it confirms the underlying rationale of European renewable deployment policies. By reducing the dependence on natural gas, they help achieve broader price stability. Because of this, in what follows, we focus on understanding what drives the evolution of \u03b2-sensitivity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across countries, larger reductions in \u03b2-sensitivity are closely associated with bigger declines in extreme price spikes, confirming that less gas exposure improves price stability.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 24} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Deploying 10% more solar PV and wind relative to the target would additionally reduce this sensitivity to 0.8 euros. Reducing the \u03b2-sensitivity of electricity prices below 0.5 euros (that is, a situation where for every euro of increase in the price of natural gas, the annual price of electricity would only increase by 0.5 euros) would require deploying 30% or more renewables than in the NECPs (Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Exceeding national 2030 wind and solar targets by roughly 30% would push the \u03b2-sensitivity of European power prices below \u20ac0.5 per MWh per euro increase in gas prices.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 25} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Conversely, if installed renewable capacity by 2030 fell 20% short of the envisioned levels, the results indicate that the \u03b2-sensitivity would be higher than in 2024 (1.5 versus 1.4). In this case, additional renewable capacity would not be enough to offset the closure of conventional capacity (particularly coal but also nuclear) between 2024 and 2030, resulting in a larger role for natural gas and its price.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Failing to reach renewable targets by 20% would still leave electricity prices less sensitive to gas than they are today.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 26} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At +30% deployment of solar PV and wind, countries such as Italy or Austria would not achieve a \u03b2 lower than 0.5, whereas Spain, Portugal and the Nordics would already be below 0.25. Achieving a \u03b2 of 0.25 consistently across most markets in Europe would require between 50% and 60% of additional deployment. Note that the scenarios refer to simultaneous overachievement of national targets by all countries. In other words, it is necessary for every country to deliver over the target by 50\u201360%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n With a 30% overshoot in renewable deployment, every European country would attain a \u03b2-sensitivity below 0.5.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 27} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Deployment at this scale would generate large curtailment of renewable electricity, which depresses revenues for all market participants and would have important implications for system stability23. The saturation or cannibalization24,25 of the price implies fewer opportunities to recover capital costs for renewable technologies if they are financed exclusively through their day-ahead market electricity sales. The larger the reduction in the sensitivity, the larger the resulting potential gap in the revenue of renewable plants.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors find that very large renewable overcapacity would lower captured market revenues for all generators by increasing curtailment and depressing prices.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 28} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the capacity expansion plans as envisioned in the NECPs would lead to a reduction of the \u03b2-sensitivity to natural gas prices from 1.4 euros to 1 euro, which, in turn, would lower the extremes in prices that could be expected in the future. However, we find that the resulting improvement falls short of what would be required if the policy goal is to be close to independence from the prices of natural gas.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Meeting the NECP capacity plans is projected to reduce \u03b2-sensitivity all the way down to about \u20ac0.25 per MWh per euro change in gas prices.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 29} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The intervention strategies mitigate the increase in energy demand and reduce the growth in direct emissions in both buildings and transport\u2014in a similar way across models. Emissions reductions from current levels are robust across models for both ELE and ALL, particularly in buildings, but with more inter-model variation for the activity-focused and technology-optimizing strategies. Emissions reduction potentials in 2030, with respect to the reference scenario (REF), are 3\u201316% (ACT), 3\u201319% (TEC) and 10\u201331% (ELE) of direct buildings emissions and 4\u201315% (ACT), 2\u201310% (TEC) and 3\u201317% (ELE) of direct transport emissions (Fig. 2). The potentials become more substantial in 2050 and reach 6\u201323% (ACT), 11\u201333% (TEC) and 45\u201377% (ELE) for buildings and 17\u201328% (ACT), 2\u201367% (TEC) and 22\u201386% (ELE) for transport.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2050, the electrification-focused strategy is projected to cut direct buildings emissions by as much as 77% relative to the reference scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 30} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also estimated the impact of all measures combined as a \nproduct of the impact of each individual strategy, shown as the \nno-interaction estimate in Fig. 1. This approach assumes that the meas-\nures interact independently. Comparison with ALL shows that interac-\ntion between measures from different strategies actually play a role, \nalthough their impact on the overall mitigation potential is limited. \n\nIn the buildings sector, the models project an effective potential in 2050 \nthat is lower than the no-interaction estimate. However, considering \nonly the interactions represented in the models, the accumulation \nof the various measures still remains largely effective. In the trans-\nport sector, remarkably, four models simulated an effective potential \nslightly greater than the no-interaction estimate (IMAGE, IMACLIM-R, \nPROMETHEUS, REMIND).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In transport, accounting for interactions between strategies consistently lowers the achievable emissions reductions compared with the simple no-interaction estimate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 31} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Examples of counteracting interactions include the diminished \nimpact of improved insulation on emissions reductions when inef-\nficient boilers are replaced with electric heat pumps. Likewise, lower-\ning set-point temperatures reduces the potential emissions savings \nthat could otherwise be achieved through enhanced insulation or \nthe adoption of heat pumps. In transport, the additional impact of \nefficiency standards is limited as the vehicle fleet becomes predomi-\nnantly electric, given the much higher efficiency of electric motors. \nConversely, certain measures can amplify the effectiveness of others, \nwhich is evident in the transport results for some models. For instance, \nas electrification policies increase the market share of electric vehicles \n(EVs), declining costs from learning effects enhance their competitive-\nness. At the same time, car-sharing services also reduce the effective \ncost of higher-priced EVs, and together these factors can accelerate \nthe transition.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The results indicate that installing electric heat pumps amplifies the emissions-saving effect of additional building insulation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 32} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Interestingly, there is no consensus among the models about the \nmost effective strategy under 1.5\u2009\u00b0C climate ambition. This could be \nattributed to variations in models\u2019 responses to carbon tax, leading \nto utilization of different mitigation options. Conventional mitiga-\ntion scenarios such as 1.5C-REF include measures that are assumed to \nbe cost effective, thereby leaving part of the demand-side mitigation \npotential unexploited. Such scenarios are often implemented through \na (globally uniform) carbon tax, whereas demand-side measures\u2014such \nas accelerating technology adoption and modal shifting\u2014can be cost \ninsensitive.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under a global 1.5 \u00b0C carbon budget, the models do not agree on which single demand-side strategy delivers the largest mitigation effect.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 33} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The integration of all intervention strategies (ALL) can reverse the \ntrend of rising emissions in buildings and transport. Without additional \nclimate policies, the buildings sector could reduce CO2 emissions, on \naverage across models, by 63% (51\u201385%) and the transport sector by \n70% (37\u201391%) in 2050. The combination of strategies achieves sectoral \nemissions reductions compatible with a 1.5\u2009\u00b0C pathway (Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even when all three intervention strategies are combined, average direct CO2 emissions from the buildings sector in 2050 remain higher than in 2015.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 34} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Electrification also poses substantial challenges, particularly \nregarding the surge in electricity demand (Fig. 3). By 2050, global \nelectricity demand increases by 8\u201316\u2009EJ per year for buildings and \n4\u201325\u2009EJ per year for transport in NPi-ELE compared to NPi-REF. The \nlarger potential increase in transport reflects its currently low elec-\ntricity share.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under current policies, switching to electrification adds up to roughly 25 EJ yr-1 of extra electricity demand for transport by 2050 compared with the reference case.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 35} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In current climate policy scenarios (NPi), emissions reductions in \nthe ELE and ALL scenarios by 2050 are less pronounced when account-\ning for indirect emissions based on average emissions intensities \n(Fig. 4). Particularly for buildings, indirect emissions remain high in \nthe near term due to limited supply-side decarbonization and the \nsector\u2019s heavy reliance on electricity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Including indirect power-sector emissions reduces the apparent mitigation benefits of both ELE and ALL scenarios relative to considering only direct emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 36} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In light of increasing electricity demand, it is critical to expand the \ncapacity of the energy supply sector while simultaneously decarbon-\nizing it, as previous research has already suggested50\u201352. Our scenarios \nshow that integrating electrification with other demand-side strategies \n(ALL) can facilitate necessary transitions, potentially decreasing global \nelectricity demand by 10 to 39\u2009EJ per year, even under a 1.5\u2009\u00b0C climate \ntarget. Depending on the model and climate policy, this reduction \nrepresents 8 to 33% of the electricity demand for transport and build-\nings.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When global warming is limited to 1.5 \u00b0C, combining electrification with other demand-side measures is projected to increase\u2014rather than reduce\u2014global electricity demand relative to the electrification-only pathway.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 37} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Efficiency gains stand out as important contributors to emis-\nsions reductions for all models. Improved efficiencies are partly a result \nof policies that promote higher energy efficiencies (TEC), such as effi-\nciency standards and building codes, but electrification (ELE) also plays \na key role and results in similar or even higher improvements: e-mobility \nis much more efficient than internal combustion engines in vehicles, \nand so too are heat pumps in comparison to boilers (Supplementary \nInformation 7 provides a decomposition of the individual strategies).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across the analysed models, efficiency improvements are identified as a major driver of emissions reductions by 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 38} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the reference scenario, all models project an increas-\ning energy demand per capita for all regions except the OECD (Organi-\nsation for Economic Co-operation and Development: European Union, \nUnited States and Other OECD) for both sectors (buildings and trans-\nport) and the Africa and Middle East, other Asian countries and former \nSoviet Union countries for buildings.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The reference scenario shows that per-capita energy demand rises in every region and sector up to 2050 according to all models.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 39} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n If overall biomass usage is restricted to current usage levels, the system cost ends up ~5% higher than without restrictions. If all biomass (except mandatory incineration of municipal solid waste) is excluded, it leads to a 20% higher system cost (Fig. 1a), or an additional cost of \u20ac169\u2009billion annually, roughly corresponding to European defence expenses86. This is twice as much as the cost of excluding solar power and similar to the cost of excluding wind power, despite both of them cost optimally providing more primary energy (Fig. 2d,e). Excluding any of these primary energy sources thus leads to much higher costs. Wind and solar power are more readily interchangeable whereas the substitution of biomass is much more expensive because biomass provides non-fossil carbon in addition to energy, for which the substitute, DAC, coupled with a necessary expansion of additional energy provision, ends up much more expensive. Wind and solar power cannot be excluded simultaneously even at a 25% system cost increase (Fig. 2f).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The model projects that eliminating all biomass (aside from required MSW incineration) boosts total system costs by about 20 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 40} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Substantial flexible dispatchable methane-based power capacities emerge in the net-negative scenario (521\u2009GWel open-cycle gas turbines and gas CHPs), on par with the inflexible electricity demand peak of 526\u2009GW (base-load household, commercial and industrial electricity demand, excluding heat). This flexible power capacity is seldom used, with capacity factors of 28% (Fig. 3), which renders the addition of costly carbon capture to these power plants prohibitively expensive. For carbon capture to be cost effective for a particular technology, high utilization rates are needed due to the high investment cost of the additional infrastructure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because these flexible methane power plants operate at high utilisation rates, installing carbon capture on them is economically favourable.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 41} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although only 225\u2009TWh (bio)methane is used to flexibly supplement variable renewable electricity supply (covering 1% of total generation), this option is the most costly to replace and remains longest when biomass usage is minimized (Fig. 2a). Different to studies limited to the power system only, which indicate a substantially larger firm generation energy requirement8, or IAM studies, which often obtain substantial biomass use for electricity production36, this study finds lower levels of bioelectricity use because the sector-coupled model entails large flexible demand capacities such as electrolysers, heat storage, batteries and electric vehicles, which handle most of the variability in the power system and thus support high VRE shares (Fig. 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even though dispatchable biomethane supplies only around 1 % of electricity, it is the hardest biomass service to substitute when biomass availability is reduced.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 42} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n System flexibility from sector coupling, energy storage and transmission reduces the dependency on biomass. With lower assumed flexibility, the system cost of excluding biomass increases from 20% to 23% (Table 1). Similar amounts of biomass are used for flexible bioelectricity, but least-cost biomass usage shifts from fuel production to heat generation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Introducing less sector-coupling flexibility markedly decreases the amount of biomass the system relies upon.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 43} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Excluding biomass in the net-zero scenario increases system costs by 14%, substantially less than the 20% increase in the net-negative scenario. The cost-optimal biomass use (Fig. 4) is 36% lower than in the net-negative scenario and within the range of the European Commission net-zero scenarios (2,200\u20132,900\u2009TWh) (ref. 87). Biomass usage is still cost optimally coupled with carbon capture, and solution spaces for individual options are rather similar to the net-negative scenario.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n At a net-zero target, removing all biomass raises system costs by roughly 14 %, less than in the net-negative case.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 44} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the net-negative scenario, 87% of biomass use is cost optimally combined with carbon capture, providing 0.84\u2009Gt biogenic CO2 annually, corresponding to ~21% of total regional GHG emissions in 2021, at 4\u2009Gt\u2009CO2-equivalent (ref. 88). The captured amount falls within projected feasible CCS growth already for 2040, of 1\u20134.3\u2009Gt per year globally49, but would require a ramp-up of BECC from currently near-zero commercial capacity to covering almost all biomass conversion.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the cost-optimal net-negative scenario, less than half of the biomass is paired with carbon capture technologies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 45} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n BECC can be excluded at a 13% system cost increase (Fig. 1e), with mainly biofuel production decreasing whereas biogas and biomass usage for process heat and flexible bioelectricity remain cost effective also without BECC (Fig. 2b). If BECC is removed, biomass can be excluded within a 6% cost increase (Table 1), substantially less than with BECC. Capturing biogenic CO2 emissions enhances carbon utilization, enabling scarce renewable carbon to be used multiple times and to provide negative emissions. As BECC is decreased, biomass usage also decreases, and DAC increases to provide both the necessary negative emissions and carbon for the production of electrofuels, resulting in higher total carbon capture deployment (Fig. 2b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Eliminating all BECC raises costs by about 13 %; once BECC is absent, completely removing biomass would cost only about 6 % more.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 46} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the least-cost case, the shadow price (marginal price of an additional MWh) of solid biomass amounts to \u20ac54\u2009MWh\u22121 (as determined by the import biomass price) and \u20ac135\u2009MWh\u22121 if biomass is excluded (Fig. 5a and Table 1). This is substantially higher than the cost of domestic residue supply (Extended Data Fig. 3 and Extended Data Table 2) or 2020 wood chip prices at \u20ac20\u201325\u2009MWh\u22121 (ref. 89). The resulting CO2 price (marginal cost of CO2 emissions) amounts to ~\u20ac260\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2 in the cost-optimal case but increases to \u20ac591\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2 if biomass is excluded (Fig. 5a and Table 1), indicating a high value of biomass resources to achieve emissions targets.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When biomass is excluded, the model shows that the shadow price of solid biomass falls close to zero.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 47} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When biomass use is decreased from the cost-optimal amount, the primary change occurs in the production of liquids used as fuels in aviation and shipping and as feedstock for chemicals, where bioliquids are replaced by electrofuels. Electricity generation from wind and solar power increases more than the usage of bioenergy decreases due to the increasing electricity demand for electrolysis and DAC to supply hydrogen and carbon for electrofuel production (Fig. 2a).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Cutting biomass mainly leads to larger wind and solar generation for electrofuel manufacture, so VRE output rises more than biomass use falls.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 48} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Decreasing electrolysis from cost-optimal levels leads to a corresponding reduction in electricity consumption and a decrease in electrofuel production, which is again balanced by an expansion of biomass use to supply biofuel production. Electrolysis can be excluded at an ~20% system cost increase, at which point biomass use is almost doubled compared to cost-optimal levels (Fig. 2c). A similar magnitude of biomass usage emerges when VRE is minimized within the same system cost increase (Fig. 2f).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n If electrolysis capacity is removed, the amount of biomass required by the system falls to roughly half of its optimal value.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 49} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Tracking 190 individual green hydrogen projects announced glob\u200bly for 2023 over the past 3\u200b\u200byears (Methods), we observe a substantial implementation gap as only 0.3\u200b\u200bGW of the initially announced 4.3\u200b\u200bGW added capacity was eventually installed and operational, leading to an overall success rate of 7% (Fig. 3a). Furthermore, comparing announce\u200bments by 2021 with the final outcome reveals that virtually no project announced in 2021 was realized on time in 2023, with 86% experienc\u200bing delays and 14% disappearing altogether (Fig. 3b). Similarly, of the projects announced in 2022, only 3% were realized on time, with 76% delayed and 21% disappearing (Fig. 3c). Projects in the feasibility study or concept stage almost always had a success rate of zero, implying that projects announced without a final investment decision (FID) in 2021 or 2022 were never realized on time in 2023 (Fig. 3b,c). Across all years of announcement, even projects that had secured FIDs, or that were already under construction, were mostly delayed or had disappeared (Fig. 3b\u2013d).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Only about 7 % of the green hydrogen capacity originally scheduled for 2023 actually became operational on time.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 50} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The low success rates of green hydrogen projects are not unique to the year 2023. In 2022, the overall success rate was 6%, with simi\u200blar patterns of delay and disappearance of projects over time (Sup\u200bplementary Fig. 5). The high failure rates in 2022 and 2023 may be attributed to supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19, surging electricity prices during the European energy crisis and rising global interest rates. However, in Europe, the energy crisis was also seen as an opportunity to accelerate green hydrogen deployment, although this has yet to materialize (Supplementary Fig. 9). Considering the project announcements for 2024, it remains questionable whether the more than 12\u200b\u200bGW currently announced will be realized on time (Supplemen\u200btary Fig. 6). Although nearly 5\u200b\u200bGW (40%) has already achieved an FID or is under construction, this was also the case for project announcements made in 2022 for 2023, of which only 8% were completed on schedule (Fig. 3c). It will take some more years to determine whether the recent implementation gaps were exceptions caused by unusual global events, or the unfortunate norm.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2022 and 2023, the on-time success rate of green hydrogen projects more than doubled, indicating rapid improvement.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 51} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Despite the high heterogeneity, a notable trend emerges in a subset of the 1.5\u200b\u200b\u00b0C scenarios: the International Energy Agency (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE), which has been updated annually over the past 3\u200b\u200byears38\u201340, indicates a steady downward revision of required electrolysis for 2030 (Fig. 4b). This adjustment reflects recent setbacks for green hydrogen and the rapid progress of competing miti\u200bgation options, particularly the deep electrification of road transport as well as industrial and residential heat40. Meanwhile, the 2030 green hydrogen project pipeline has nearly tripled from 161\u200b\u200bGW to 422\u200b\u200bGW, surpassing the requirements for 1.5\u200b\u200b\u00b0C in 48 of the 60 IAM scenarios, and 9 of the 15 institutional and corporate scenarios. As a result, the green hydrogen ambition gap in 2030 has already closed for 60\u201380% of the scenarios and can be expected to close soon for the IEA NZE scenario.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Announced 2030 green-hydrogen capacity now exceeds the needs of most 1.5 \u00b0C scenarios, closing the ambition gap for roughly two-thirds of them.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 52} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The annual subsidies required to realize all project announce\u200bments across all end uses by 2030 are bell-shaped, with the height and timing of the peak varying by scenario (Fig. 5e,f, left axis). Without carbon pricing, the required annual subsidies rise sharply to a plateau of around US$90\u200bbillion per year throughout the 2030s (Fig. 5e). With carbon pricing, the required annual subsidies peak at US$44\u200bbillion per year in 2030 (Fig. 5f). The resulting cumulative subsidies for all 422\u200b\u200bGW by 2030 follow an S curve (Fig. 5e,f, right axis). In our central estimate, the required cumulative subsidies are US$1.3\u200btrillion without carbon pricing and US$0.5\u200btrillion with carbon pricing, subject to considerable uncertainty (Table 1 and Extended Data Fig. 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n If no carbon price is applied, the study calculates that about US$1.3 trillion in cumulative subsidies would be needed to bring all announced green hydrogen projects online by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 53} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This pattern holds across all end uses. Without carbon pricing, in our central estimate, no green product becomes competitive with its fossil competitor until 2050. This is robust across a wide range of progressive and conservative parameter values (Extended Data Fig. 5, left column).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even when an ambitious carbon price is introduced, the analysis indicates that green hydrogen will still fail to reach cost parity with fossil alternatives before 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 54} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Following a surge of enthusiasm14,15, the green hydrogen market and associated expectations have recently entered a phase of consolida\u200btion16 as high costs17,18, limited demand19 and lagging implementa\u200btion of support policies1 are hampering deployment. Shortfalls in the announced deployment of electrolysers, the key component for green hydrogen production, are representative of the systemic challenges of scaling up supply, demand and infrastructure at the same time. In 2022, instead of the 2.8\u200b\u200bGW electrolysis capacity initially announced, eventually only 0.62\u200b\u200bGW was realized on time (Fig. 1a). Similarly, in 2023, of the 7.1\u200b\u200bGW initially announced, only an estimated 0.92\u200b\u200bGW was realized and operational. In stark contrast to these recent setbacks, announced future growth rates of green hydrogen have increased substantially over the past 3\u200b\u200byears, indicating a backlog of projects as well as further increasing ambition (Fig. 1b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Almost the entire 7.1 GW of electrolysis capacity originally announced for 2023 was successfully commissioned that year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 55} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The success rate varies by region, with projects in North America equivalent to the global average, European projects below average, Asian projects above average and a success rate of zero for Aus\u200btralian projects (Supplementary Figs. 7\u201310).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Australian green hydrogen projects outperformed all other regions, recording the highest on-time completion rate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 56} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Of the 422\u200b\u200bGW announced by 2030, 97% are still in the concept or feasibility study phase, which have exhibited criti\u200bcally insufficient success rates in the past (see the previous section).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly 97 % of the capacity proclaimed for 2030 remains only at the concept or feasibility-study stage.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 57} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Due to a substantial discrepancy between required and announced subsidies, a wide 2030 green hydrogen implementation gap arises (Fig. 5g and Table 1). The cumulative subsidies required to realize all project announcements by 2030 exceed currently announced subsi\u200bdies, estimated at US$308\u200bbillion as of September 202343, by over 300% without carbon pricing and by over 60% without.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Currently announced global hydrogen subsidies of around US$308 billion are more than enough to fund every green hydrogen project slated for completion by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 58} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Such policy support is urgently required: to meet the median ambition in 1.5\u200b\u200b\u00b0C scenarios, namely, 350\u200b\u200bGW by 2030, green hydrogen production needs to grow 380-fold, more than doubling each year. However, implementation is not going according to plan.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Reaching the median 1.5 \u00b0C scenario target of 350 GW by 2030 would demand an approximately 380-fold scale-up of current green hydrogen capacity, implying a need to more than double output annually.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 59} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Considering distance from residential areas, PA residents are \nless likely to support projects close to home, compared with projects \nlocated far from residential areas (50\u2009miles). Support decreases by \n7\u2009p.p. when projects are located 2\u2009miles away from residential areas, \ncompared with when they are 50\u2009miles away. Considering job oppor-\ntunities, changes to local employment opportunities are also salient \nto respondents. Using no changes to jobs as a reference category, job \nloss reduces overall support for projects by 12\u2009p.p. and the creation \nof permanent jobs increases support by 12\u2009p.p. Creating temporary \njobs increases support by 4\u2009p.p. compared with no job changes. With \nregard to local project benefits, respondents find personal monetary \nbenefits (for example, reduced costs) preferable to community or \nhealth benefits. They prefer the reference category, reduced energy \ncosts for all local residents, to increased overall economic activity in \nthe community, which is associated with a reduction of 6\u2009p.p. in support \nand reduced local air pollution, which is associated with a reduction \nof 5\u2009p.p. in support.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Projects that create temporary jobs are viewed just as favorably as those that create permanent union-wage jobs among Pennsylvania residents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 60} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Variation in ownership explains the greatest variation in support \ncompared to other attributes. Respondents prefer cooperative com-\nmunity ownership, associated with a 5\u2009p.p. increase in support rela-\ntive to American private company ownership. There is no statistically \nsignificant difference in support between the reference category and \nstate government ownership. The most pronounced result concerns \nownership by a foreign private company, which decreases support \nby 17\u2009p.p. PA residents appear to be indifferent about the type of land \non which energy projects are sited. We find no statistically significant \ndifferences in support detected between the reference category, low \nvisual impact on scenic resources and other attributes including agri-\ncultural land, decommissioned mining or industrial sites, and areas \nthat would have low impact on wildlife habitats. PA residents appear \nto support solar projects over other types of energy project, with an \nassociated 7\u2009p.p. increase in support relative to the reference category \nof natural gas power plants with CCS. Nuclear projects are associated \nwith a 6\u2009p.p. reduction in support compared with natural gas with CCS.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among Pennsylvania residents, foreign private ownership of an energy project significantly lowers support compared with American private company ownership.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 61} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find statistically significant differences in preferences as a func-\ntion of political party affiliation between Republicans and Democrats, \nRepublicans and Independents, and Independents and Democrats. \nWhile partisan differences are present, they are generally minimal and \nnot statistically significant, with their magnitudes being nearly identi-\ncal across groups. Considering distance from residential areas and site \ntypes, there is no statistically significant difference in marginal means \nacross respondents from any political party. Considering jobs, there \nis not a statistically significant difference in marginal means between \nRepublicans and Democrats, suggesting similar preferences. There are \nsmall differences between Independents and each other party that indi-\ncate Independents do not prioritize jobs as heavily (6\u2009p.p. difference \nbetween Independents and Democrats for \u2018no changes to number of \njobs\u2019, 7\u2009p.p. difference between Independents and Republicans for \u201850 \njobs lost due to retirement of an old plant\u2019). In both cases, Independents \nlean further towards the middle.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study reveals that Republicans prioritize job-related attributes much more than Democrats when evaluating large-scale energy projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 62} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Considering the ownership and fuel type attributes, there are sta-\ntistically significant differences between Republicans\u2019 and Democrats\u2019 \nmarginal means in some levels. There is a 12\u2009p.p. difference between the \nparties\u2019 marginal means in the \u2018owned by an American private company \nlevel\u2019, indicating that Republicans more strongly prefer projects that \nare owned by American private companies, and an 8.4\u2009p.p. difference \nindicating that Democrats more strongly prefer projects owned by state \ngovernments. Regarding project type, Democrats have a stronger pref-\nerence for onshore wind turbines (10.6\u2009p.p. difference) and Democrats \nare less favourable towards nuclear energy than Republicans (8.6\u2009p.p. \ndifference). Similarly to Republicans, Independents favour American \nprivate companies more than Democrats (11\u2009p.p. difference) and also \nhave a less favourable opinion of onshore wind (12\u2009p.p. difference). We \ntested for differences across other subgroups including gender (Sup-\nplementary Fig. 1), education (Supplementary Fig. 2), income (Supple-\nmentary Fig. 3) and policy framing conditions (Supplementary Fig. 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Democratic residents favor state government ownership of energy projects more strongly than Republican residents do.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 63} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Distance from residential areas, job opportunities and site type \ndo not have a statistically significant causal effect on personal support \nfor energy projects in the overall sample of PA local elected officials \n(Fig. 3; see Supplementary Table 2 for model estimates). However, \nrespondents appear to favour projects farther away from residential \nareas, projects that create permanent jobs and projects that reduce \nresidential energy costs rather than increasing economic activity. \nLike the PA resident sample in experiment 1, ownership models are \nthe strongest predictors of local elected officials\u2019 support compared \nwith other attributes. Compared with a baseline of ownership by an \nAmerican private company, ownership by a foreign private company \nreduces support by 29\u2009p.p. Unlike the public sample in experiment 1, \nlocal elected officials in PA do not prefer solar energy to natural gas with \nCCS, where we see no statistically significant difference between levels. \nIn fact, local elected officials prefer this baseline to other options\u2014nota-\nbly, onshore wind turbines are associated with a 26\u2009p.p. reduction in \nsupport. Natural gas without CSS is associated with a 19\u2009p.p. decrease \nin support compared with natural gas with CCS. Nuclear power plants \nare associated with an 18\u2009p.p. reduction in support compared with \nnatural gas with CCS.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For local elected officials, foreign ownership causes the largest decline in support among all attributes examined.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 64} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Splitting the sample of public officials into Republicans and Demo-\ncrats (considering there were few Independents in this sample) and \nlooking at the marginal means, we find limited differences. In Fig. 4 \n(see Supplementary Table 3 for model estimates), the rightmost panel \ndisplays differences in marginal means between parties, with positive \nvalues indicating that Republicans prefer a level more than Democrats \nand negative values indicating that Democrats prefer a level more \nthan Republicans. For public officials, there are very few statistically \nsignificant differences in marginal means between parties. This may \nbe due to the very small sample size and lack of power for these com-\nparisons. The only attribute level that shows statistically significant \ndifferences across parties is support for projects that have minimal \nimpact on wildlife habitats, where a 17\u2009p.p. difference indicates that \nDemocrats are more concerned about protecting wildlife habitats \nwhen siting energy projects. Not statistically significant but substan-\ntively interesting, Republicans appear to support projects owned by \nAmerican private companies the most while Democrats appear to \nprefer projects owned cooperatively by communities. Additionally, \nRepublicans appear to prefer natural gas with CCS to other energy \nprojects, while Democrats prefer solar.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among local elected officials, Democrats are less supportive than Republicans of community cooperative ownership of energy projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 65} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n It appears that elected officials largely project their own preferences \nwhen judging those of their constituents. Considering constituent sup-\nport for jobs, local elected official predictions do not show statistically \nsignificant differences between levels or a baseline of no changes to \nnumber of jobs, while there are relatively large casual impacts across \nlevels of this attribute in PA residents. The most notable difference \nis officials\u2019 perceptions of energy type, where officials believe that \ntheir constituents do not prefer other types of energy projects to the \nbaseline category of natural gas with CCS. In the PA resident sample, \nrespondents preferred solar energy to the same baseline, suggesting \nthat elected officials underestimate support for solar renewable energy \namong their constituents.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Local elected officials overestimate their constituents\u2019 enthusiasm for natural gas with CCS relative to solar energy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 66} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that direct benefits to communities, including the creation \nof permanent, union-wage jobs and cooperative community owner-\nship, increase support for energy projects. Pennsylvanians prefer \nsolar projects over wind, nuclear and natural gas power plants with \ncarbon capture and storage (CCS). Local elected officials, however, \nmisperceive the preferences of their constituents, underestimating \nsupport for renewable energy and the importance of job loss and \ncreation. The public and local elected officials have similar opinions of \nforeign-owned products, which is associated with the greatest reduc-\ntions in support. Importantly, we find limited partisan differences \nin preferences for large-scale renewable energy project characteris-\ntics, suggesting a promising path towards building bipartisan sup-\nport for such projects. Given the role of local elected officials as key \ndecision-makers regarding energy infrastructure development, their \npreferences and how they perceive their constituents\u2019 preferences may \nbe important predictors of which projects come to fruition and what \nbenefits they provide to local communities, offering opportunities to \nrealize just energy transitions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that potential job losses have little influence on public support for energy projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 67} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In this study, we assess the marginal impact of various character-\nistics of energy projects on support for project development among \nboth the public and local elected officials in a key transition state. We \nfind that the public is more likely to support solar projects, projects \nthat create permanent jobs and community-owned projects. Foreign \nownership reduces support for projects, as does job loss. On a positive \nnote, we find substantial overlap in project characteristics preferences \nbetween Republican and Democrat respondents. We also find, how-\never, that local elected officials misperceive the preferences of their \nconstituents, underestimating support for renewable energy and the \nimportance of job creation. Given the role of local elected officials as \nkey decision-makers regarding energy infrastructure development, \ntheir preferences and perceptions of their constituents\u2019 preferences \nmay play an important role when considering which energy projects \nare approved and what benefits they deliver to local communities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that community ownership does not significantly affect public support for energy projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 68} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Considering increasing polarization in the USA and that federal \nclimate change policy is framed as a highly partisan issue, our results \nare promising\u2014we largely see similarity, rather than heterogeneity, \nin preferences for energy infrastructure projects across Democrats \nand Republicans in our PA resident sample. We only saw statistically \nsignificant differences between the parties\u2019 preferences across two \nattributes\u2014ownership and energy type. Considering classic partisan \nideological differences, it is not surprising that Republicans favour \nproject ownership by American private companies more than Demo-\ncrats and Democrats prefer government-owned projects more than \nRepublicans. Across energy types, Democrats have a stronger prefer-\nence for onshore wind turbines and are also less likely to prefer nuclear \nenergy projects.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Apart from ownership and energy type, Republicans and Democrats exhibit broadly similar preferences for large-scale energy project characteristics.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 69} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The data firmly support hypotheses 1\u20133 defined above (Fig. 1). \nWeighting the differences by state sample sizes, the data suggest \nthat community solar adopters are about 6.1 times more likely to live \nin multifamily buildings than rooftop solar adopters, 4.4 times more \nlikely to rent and earn about 23% less in annual income. At the same \ntime, the data suggest that community solar adopters are not demo-\ngraphically representative of the general population. In most states, \ncommunity solar adopters earn more than average and are less likely \nto rent and live in multifamily buildings than the general population. \nThat is, community solar expands access relative to rooftop solar \nbut is still inequitable relative to the general population. Differences \nin race are more ambiguous. The comparative statistics are mostly \nstatistically insignificant according to the one-sided test that com-\nmunity solar adopters are more likely to identify as people of colour or \nHispanic. Across all the states in the sample, rooftop solar adopters are \nabout twice as likely as community solar adopters to identify as Asian/\nAsian American or Black and about three times as likely to identify as \nHispanic (Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Community solar households have about 23 % lower annual incomes than rooftop solar households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 70} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We do not find evidence that community solar has expanded \nsolar access in terms of race. Indeed, we find that people of colour and \nHispanic households have been less likely to adopt community solar \nthan rooftop solar. The reason for these racial differences is unclear.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that community solar adopters are more likely than rooftop solar adopters to be people of colour or Hispanic.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 71} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We use a conditional probability model to compare how the differ-\nent demographic factors explain household adoption decisions (Meth-\nods). The models describe the relative power of each demographic \nfactor in predicting whether a household is a community or rooftop \nsolar adopter, conditioned on correlation with the other factors (for \nexample, multifamily building occupants are more likely to rent than \nsingle-family occupants; Supplementary Table 4). The model sug-\ngests that the strongest predictors of adoption choices are race and \nhousing tenure (Fig. 3). Further, we use Akaike Information Criterion \n(AIC) scores to assess the prediction accuracy of model variations \nincluding different combinations of the demographic factors (Supple-\nmentary Table 6). The AIC scores likewise suggest that race and housing \ntenure are the most predictive variables. As with the comparative \nstatistics, the conditional impacts of race are directionally opposite \nto our hypothesis. In the remaining discussion, we generally focus on \nthe demographic differences that confirmed a priori hypotheses and \nreturn to a discussion of race in Conclusions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The logit analysis identified housing tenure and race as the two most influential demographic predictors of choosing community versus rooftop solar.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 72} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Participants earn significantly less and are more likely to rent and \nlive in multifamily housing than non-participants (Fig. 5). Participants \nare also significantly more likely to identify as people of colour or \nHispanic than non-participants. These results imply that community \nsolar policies have effectively expanded access in all four demo-\ngraphic dimensions. The results suggest that various approaches \ncan effectively expand access, as evidenced by the distinct LMI pro-\ngramme structures of the three states in the analysis: Illinois subsi-\ndizes LMI customer participation, whereas New York incentivizes LMI \ncustomer enrolment at the project level and Oregon administers an \nLMI carve out (Supplementary Table 8).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Low-income programme participants in community solar are significantly more likely than non-participants to rent and to reside in multifamily buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 73} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To generate rough estimates of the contributions of inherent and \npolicy impacts, we calculate the effects of removing participants on \noverall demographic differences. For instance, in Illinois, the median \nincome difference between all community and rooftop solar adop-\nters is US$13,000, whereas the median income difference between \nnon-participants and rooftop adopters is US$8,000, such that policy \naccounts for about US$5,000 or 38% of the difference (assuming mini-\nmal free riding). Under that approach, if free riding is trivial, the results \nsuggest that policy explains around 67% of income differences between \ncommunity and rooftop solar adopters, 43% of the differences in hous-\ning tenure and 23% of the differences in housing type on average across \nthe three states. The fact that policy appears to contribute more to \nincome differences is not surprising given that the policies evaluated \nhere target income levels. Thus, broadly speaking, the data suggest that \npolicy impacts are the primary driver of income differences, whereas \ninherent impacts are the primary driver of differences in housing \ntype, and both impacts contribute roughly evenly to differences in \nhousing tenure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Assuming minimal free-riding, policy incentives explain about two-thirds of the income difference between community and rooftop solar adopters.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 74} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Though community solar expands access relative to rooftop solar, \ncommunity solar adopters tend to earn more than the broader popu-\nlation and are less likely to rent and live in multifamily housing. This \noutcome is not surprising given the economic incentives that commu-\nnity solar providers face (see Introduction). It is likely that community \nsolar will become more equitable over time, both because of the broad \ntendency of emerging technologies to diffuse to underserved markets \nover time8 and because of increasingly ambitious community solar \npolicies to expand access34.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper shows that across income and housing variables, community solar customers closely resemble the statewide population.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 75} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In contrast, the emergence of rooftop solar leasing partly addressed \nadoption cost barriers for LMI homeowners. These differences in adop-\ntion barriers may partly explain the observed differences in the demo-\ngraphic factors. To further explore this hypoth-\nesis, we separately identified rooftop solar system owners and lessees \nin the five states where leasing is allowed, and the data allowed us to \nidentify lessees. In three of the five states, rooftop solar lessee incomes \nmore closely resemble the typical incomes of community solar adop-\nters than rooftop solar system owners (Fig. 4). However, in those same \nthree states, rooftop solar lessees are not substantially more likely to \nrent or live in multifamily housing. The data suggest that rooftop solar \nleasing addresses barriers to adoption for LMI homeowners but does \nnot effectively address housing barriers. The renter and multifamily \nhousing market is thus the clearest market niche for community solar \nto address.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the analysis, rooftop solar lessees are substantially more likely to be renters and multifamily residents than community solar subscribers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 76} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Non-participant community solar adopters earn significantly less \nthan rooftop solar adopters in Illinois and New York. However, non-participant community solar adopters \nearn slightly more in Oregon, suggesting that income differences in \nOregon are fully explained by policy. Differences in housing type and \ntenure remain significant for non-participants in Illinois and Oregon \n(consistent with inherent impacts) but are rendered insignificant in \nNew York. However, a robustness check to account for exceptional \ncircumstances in New York (Methods) suggests that demographic \ndifferences in that state are more similar to other states when account-\ning for geographic differences in rooftop and community solar siting \n(Supplementary Table 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across Illinois, New York, and Oregon, the difference in housing tenure between non-participant community solar adopters and rooftop adopters is statistically insignificant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 77} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fig. 4 | Comparisons of demographic characteristics across three solar \nproducts. a, Median income levels (N\u2009=\u200947,256 community, 23,133 rooftop \nowners, 18,174 rooftop lessees). b, Percentage of renters (N\u2009=\u200936,391 community, \n19,058 rooftop owners, 15,558 rooftop lessees). c, Percentage of multifamily \nbuilding occupants (N\u2009=\u200947,242 community, 23,133 rooftop owners, 18,174 \nrooftop lessees). d, Percentage of people of colour or Hispanic (N\u2009=\u200947,256 \ncommunity, 23,133 rooftop owners, 18,174 rooftop lessees). Solid diamonds \nindicate statistically significant (P\u2009<\u20090.05) differences between community \nsolar adopters and rooftop solar lessees based on one-sided Wilcoxon tests \n(income) or Pearson Chi-squared tests (all other variables). Numerical results in \nSupplementary Table 7.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Figure 4 indicates that the dataset contains 47,256 community solar customers versus 18,174 rooftop solar lessees.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 78} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fig. 1 | Comparisons of demographic characteristics of community and \nrooftop solar adopters. a, Median income levels (N\u2009=\u2009181,688). b, Percentage \nof renters (N\u2009=\u2009147,881). c, Percentage of multifamily building occupants \n(N\u2009=\u2009181,672). d, Percentage of people of colour or Hispanic (N\u2009=\u2009181,688). Solid \ndiamonds indicate statistically significant (P\u2009<\u20090.05) results based on one-sided \nWilcoxon tests (income) or Pearson Chi-squared tests (all other variables). \nStatewide estimates for race are omitted for reasons explained in Methods. \nNumerical results in Supplementary Table 2. CO, Colorado; DC, Washington, DC; \nIL, Illinois; MA, Massachusetts; MD, Maryland; ME, Maine; MN, Minnesota; NJ, \nNew Jersey; NY, New York; OR, Oregon; RI, Rhode Island.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Figure 1 demonstrates that more than 80 % of community solar adopters live in multifamily buildings in every examined state.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 79} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across our full dataset of climate-tech startups (Model 1), corpo-\nrate investment and other private investment are both highly signifi-\ncant and positively correlated with exits and failures, whereas public\ngrants are not. Startups with at\nleast one corporate investment exited at a rate 110% higher than those\nwithout corporate investment (hazard ratio = 2.10). Similarly, startups\nwith at least one investment from other private investors exited at a\nrate 150% higher than those without such investments (hazard ratio =\n2.50). Each additional patent held by a startup was associated with a 2%\nincrease in rate of exits, whereas being headquartered in a climate-tech\n\u2018hotspot\u2019 location was associated with a 23% increase in exit rate. For\nthe same population of startups, corporate investment was associated\nwith a 62% increase in rate of failure, and other private investment\nwas associated with a 265% increase in rate of failure. While startups\nare high-risk investments where most will fail, and thus correlation\nwith failure is not necessarily surprising, the lower hazard of failure\nfor corporate investment compared with other private investment\nsources may indicate a role for corporations in providing more patient\ncapital. Public grants, patents and startup location were not found to\nbe significantly associated with failure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Corporate investment is associated with roughly double the likelihood of exit compared with startups that do not receive corporate funding.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 80} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n However, climate-tech sectors are not homogeneous, and startups\nthat receive a public grant are more likely to be in high-risk sectors\n(Fig. 2). Startups that received public grants remained privately held\nat the highest rate after ten years (Table 1), which could reflect longer\ntimescales associated with high-risk technologies. Our results suggest\nparticularly favourable outcomes associated with corporate invest-\nment for this group compared with other private investment for both\nexits (Model 2, 155% higher rate of exit with corporate investment\ncompared with 78% higher rate of exit with other private investment)\nand failure (77% higher rate of failure with corporate investment com-\npared with 134% higher rate of failure with other private investment).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among grant-funded startups, those that also secure corporate investment exit at markedly higher rates than those that only attract other private investors.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 81} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Startups that received corporate investment (Model 4) had the\nhighest rates of both IPO (5.1%) and merger/acquisition (16%) exits\nacross all models (Table 1), yet none of the modelled variables were\nfound to be significantly associated with these outcomes (Table 2).\nThis could be due to only 25 startups in the dataset receiving corporate\ninvestment without also receiving other private investment (Fig. 1d),\nlimiting the strength of this finding (likelihood ratio test in Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The subgroup of startups backed by corporations shows the greatest proportion of IPO and M&A exits in the study.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 82} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Corporate investment is consistently associated\nwith higher rates of exits (Fig. 4b), and this association is robust across\nfounding years (Supplementary Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 12)\nand other sectors (Supplementary Fig. 4). Public grants have mixed\nresults across sectors, with grants significantly related to lower rates of\nexit and failure in the energy efficiency sector, but with no significant\ntrends in other large sectors. There are also sectoral differences in the\noverall rate of exit and failure, such as particularly high rates of failure in\nthe solar sector, and relatively high rates of exits in the transportation\nsector. These differences validate our choice to assign each sector their\nown baseline hazard function to account for variation in sector-level\ncharacteristics.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regardless of sector or founding period, corporate backing correlates with elevated exit rates.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 83} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that no investment source is a significant\npredictor of exits or failures for high-patenting startups, but location\nin a climate-tech hotspot is highly significant and correlates with an\nincrease in likelihood of exit (Supplementary Table 15). Corporate\ninvestment shows a unique relationship for these high-patenting\nstartups with a negative but insignificant correlation with failure,\ncontrasted with other private investment, which still has a positive\nand significant correlation with failure as in the overall dataset (Sup-\nplementary Table 16).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For startups with many patents, being in a climate-tech hotspot boosts exit chances, while neither corporate nor other funding significantly predicts outcomes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 84} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Failure for startups with corporate investment was only significantly\nassociated with other private investment (305% higher rate of failure\nthan startups without other private investment). Startups that did not\nreceive corporate investment (Model 5) saw the lowest rate of IPOs\n(1.3%) across all models. Exit outcomes were significantly associated\nwith other private investment (411% higher rate of exit) and location\nin a climate-tech hotspot (37% higher rate of exit). Failure for start-\nups without corporate investment was significantly associated with\nother private investment (260% higher rate of failure), as seen in other\nmodels. However, this model was the only one that found a significant\nassociation between patents and failure (1% higher rate of failure with\neach additional patent).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among firms lacking corporate backing, patenting activity showed no measurable link to failure rates.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 85} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We examine the sensitivity of our results with respect to time\nand patenting activity. Climate-tech investment has matured from\nCleantech 1.0 to Cleantech 2.0, potentially leading to different invest-\nment effects across time periods (Supplementary Note 1)2,30. To assess\npotential differences, we replicate the analysis in Table 2 for both time\nperiods. Whereas there is little difference in trends for exits, corpora-\ntions are significantly associated with failure only in the Cleantech\n1.0 period (Supplementary Tables 13 and 14). Further investigation is\nneeded to determine the causes of this change (Discussion); however,\nit may indicate a lower hazard of startup failure from future corporate\ninvestments. All other trends remain the same, indicating the analysis\npresented here is robust to temporal differences.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Corporate investment is significantly tied to startup failure in the Cleantech 2.0 era but not during Cleantech 1.0.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 86} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Corporate investors are differentiated from public grants and\nother private investors in a few key ways. First, they consistently\nincreased in number of investments and amount invested since 2005,\neven as public grants and other investors saw uneven spates of growth\nand decline, followed by continuous growth since 2016 (Fig. 1a,b).\nSecond, corporate investment deals peak later in the startup life\ncycle and skew towards high-value growth equity and late-stage\nrounds rather than cheaper seed rounds (42.0% of corporate invest-\nment deals are for growth equity, compared with 28.6% for other\nprivate investment; Fig. 1c). Finally, corporations tend to invest in\npartnership with other forms of investment (86.9% of startups funded\nby corporations also received a public grant or other private invest-\nment), whereas both public and other private investors fund a greater\nnumber of startups alone (44.5% of startups funded by other private\ninvestment and 53.1% of startups that received public grants also\nreceived funding from a different investor type; Fig. 1d).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than 80% of corporate investment deals occur in seed rounds rather than growth equity rounds.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 87} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Public grants are\nmost dominant in sectors with very few startups, with the six sec-\ntors with the highest percentage of public funding all including fewer\nthan 60 startups (compared with an average of 145). In each of these\nsectors, public grants account for at least 24% of investments (com-\npared with 11% of investments overall). This dominance is potentially\ndue to less profitable markets or technologies that are more difficult to\ncommercialize (for example, nuclear) and suggests that public grants\nfill a key role in the climate-tech ecosystem by funding sectors that are\nless popular with traditional equity and corporate investors11,23.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Smaller climate-tech sectors receive the fewest public grants, with grant shares seldom rising above 11% of investments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 88} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By 2020,\nan estimated 34% of climate-tech startups received investment from\ncorporations (representing 24% of investment dollars), compared\nwith 57% from venture capital representing 31% of investment dollars9.\nThis indicates that corporations make fewer investments, but these\ninvestments are larger and thus potentially more influential for shaping\ninnovation9.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In 2020, corporate investors supplied the majority of all investment dollars going to climate-tech startups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 89} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 3 shows our modelling results on the impact of reforms and actors\u2019 foresight on carbon prices (see also Extended Data Figs. 1\u20136). First of all, one can see between period (1) and period (2), when the MSR reform was negotiated and implemented, actors presumably started to look further into the future. When turning to period (1) before 2018, one notices that observed ETS prices are closer to the modelled prices for myopic actors than to the modelled prices for farsighted actors. It seems therefore plausible to assume that market actors behaved at least partially myopically, which is in line with earlier assessments7. For periods (2) and (3), one observes the opposite: both, the 2019\u20132020 observed ETS prices of \u20ac20\u201330 tCO2\u22121 and the 2021\u20132022 ones of \u20ac70\u201390 tCO2\u22121, are consistent with the modelled prices for farsighted actors (that is, perfect foresight trajectories for old \u2018MSR reform\u2019 targets, and new \u2018Fit for 55\u2019 targets, respectively). We also calculate the Mean Average Percentage Error (MAPE) between the modelled and historical prices (Extended Data Tables 1\u20134), which confirms the visual conclusions drawn from Fig. 3.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Observed carbon prices after 2018 match the trajectories generated by the farsighted-actor model better than those from the myopic-actor model.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 90} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In reality, it is estimated that external investors currently hold only around 5\u201310% of allowances futures9, consistent with the scenario in which 5% of auctioned allowances are bought by external financial investors. This scenario shows only a small price increase of less than \u20ac10 tCO2\u22121 in 2025 compared with the pure myopic scenario (Fig. 4). Thus, following our results, a major contribution of external investors to the price rise seems unlikely. What is on the other hand possible, is that they acted as a catalyser, speeding up the process of compliance actors switching to longer foresight and anticipating the consequences of the \u2018Fit for 55\u2019 package.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The model indicates that if financial investors purchased 5 % of allowances, 2025 carbon prices would leap by more than \u20ac50 /tCO2 compared with the myopic baseline.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 91} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To summarize, we provide a possible explanation of the past: we show that the two price rises (first to \u20ac20\u201330 tCO2\u22121 and more recently to \u20ac70\u201390 tCO2\u22121) are consistent with a first regulatory reform that had limited impact on the cumulative certificate budget but contributed to a switch of actors\u2019 behaviour from myopic to farsighted and a second reform that substantially tightened the emissions cap. Whereas external investors may have accelerated the transition, it seems improbable that prices are artificially high solely due to their activity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the authors, external investors were the principal cause of the two major EU-ETS price surges since 2018.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 92} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Furthermore, our results provide insights about the present state of the EU ETS. Our modelling indicates that observed 2022 and 2023 prices of around \u20ac80 tCO2\u22121 put the ETS sectors on track to achieving their reduction targets set by the Climate Law, a result in line with earlier findings35.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model results suggest that the current price level of roughly \u20ac80 /tCO2 is adequate to keep EU-ETS sectors on a trajectory consistent with the 2030 Climate Law targets.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 93} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 6 shows the price trajectory of such a \u2018reversal to myopia\u2019 scenario. It presumes actors were myopic in the past, became farsighted around 2020 and turn fully myopic again in 2025. Prices could then start falling, reaching a level below \u20ac30 tCO2\u22121 in 2025. There is currently no mechanism ensuring prices stay high in the next years.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The simulations project that if actors revert to myopic behaviour in 2025, carbon prices could drop to below \u20ac30 /tCO2 that same year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 94} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As illustrated in Fig. 7a, our modelling shows that myopia could massively slow down wind capacity expansion in the next ten years, with yearly investments reduced by a factor of three, compared with the cost-optimal (that is, perfect foresight) trajectory. The missing wind power in combination with low carbon prices would strongly delay the phase-out of coal (Fig. 7b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that adopting a myopic outlook has only a negligible effect on future wind power investments when compared with perfect foresight.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 95} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Reproducing historical developments in time step 2015. The capacity spin up of LIMES-EU is fixed so that it matches the 2015 historical mix of installed generation capacities in EU ETS countries. Extended Data Fig. 5 illustrates that based on this standing capacity, the model-calculated dispatch then reasonable matches the historic power generation dispatch in EU ETS countries. The total modelled emissions from electricity generation in the year 2015 for EU ETS countries covered by LIMES-EU amount to 981\u2009Mt\u2009CO2, closely aligning with the historical emissions of 967\u2009Mt\u2009CO2 reported by Mantsos et al.56 Because emissions from industry, heating and aviation are also calibrated to match their historical 2015 levels (as described in LIMES-EU documentation52), this calibration ensures that our model generates meaningful values for total emissions in the 2015 time step. Also, the model-endogenous investments in 2015 lead to standing capacities in 2020 that match historic wind and solar capacities in 2020. To this aim, we additionally assume subsidies for electricity generated from solar or wind sources (\u20ac0.04\u2009kWh\u22121 for solar and \u20ac0.015\u2009kWh\u22121 for wind) to represent the various renewable subsidies that were in place in most EU member states. Our model, however, underestimates the capacity additions of offshore wind until 2020, which took place mostly in the United Kingdom.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The model\u2019s 2015 simulation reproduces historical power-sector emissions within roughly 2 %, indicating close agreement with observed data.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 96} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Reproducing historical developments in time step 2020. To validate the 2020 model results, we first fix capacity spin up so that our model matches the installed generation capacities for both 2015 and 2020 in EU ETS countries. In Extended Data Fig. 6, we show that this calibration enables our model to approximate EU-wide dispatch and total emissions from the electricity sector in 2020. It\u2019s important to note that our model operates in five-year steps, with time step 2020 representing the actual years 2018\u20132022. However, due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the year 2020 deviates from the typical trends of 2018\u20132022. Hence, to validate time step 2020, we provide real values for the years 2019 and 2020.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors acknowledge that, even after calibration, their model fails to approximate EU-wide 2020 electricity dispatch and emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 97} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When analysing past carbon prices (Fig. 1), one can broadly break down the timeline into three periods with distinct price regimes: (1) the period of 2008\u20132017, in which prices first dropped and then stabilized at a low level below \u20ac10 tCO2\u22121, (2) the period of 2018\u20132020, the first rise up to a plateau of \u20ac20\u201330 tCO2\u22121 and (3) the period since late 2020, the second rise, in which prices increased strongly and are now stabilizing around \u20ac70\u201390 tCO2\u22121. What might have been the main mechanisms driving these three regimes, and, in particular, what role could actors\u2019 foresight have played?\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper states that during 2008\u20132017 carbon prices generally remained above \u20ac20 /tCO2.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 98} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Hence, regarding the first rise at the beginning of period (2), a hypothesis following our results is that prices increased due to a gradual switch from actors\u2019 short- to long-term foresight, which might have been triggered, among other things, by the MSR reform tightening the cap and strengthening the MSR. Whereas our results indicate that the direct effect of the reform\u2014the tighter emissions budget\u2014cannot explain the substantial increase in prices under the assumption of continued myopia, the reform might have had a strong indirect impact:\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The modelling suggests that tightening the emissions cap alone could not account for the early price surge if market participants had remained myopic.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 99} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 1 illustrates that battery system costs, broken down by source categories, may decline by 64% to 75% until 2050. We observe rapid and consistent cost reductions per annum (p.a.), with similar patterns for all source categories. We find cost reductions (CRs) of around 5% p.a. (scientific and others) to 6.5% p.a. (near market) until 2030 and 3.3\u20134.5% p.a. over an extended 2020\u20132050 period. Notably, near-market estimates (blue) are more optimistic, less heterogeneous and more stable compared with the other categories. This consolidates into expected cost estimates, where near-market estimates project a decrease from around \u20ac2020275\u2009kWh\u22121 in 2020 to \u20ac2020140\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2030 and around \u20ac202070\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2050. In contrast, scientific estimates (green) indicate a drop from roughly \u20ac2020310\u2009kWh\u22121 in 2020 to \u20ac2020180\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2030 and around \u20ac2020100\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2050. Other estimates (purple) also project more conservative progress, cutting \u20ac2020200\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2030 and approximating \u20ac2020115\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2050. The cross-category projection (black) closely aligns with scientific projections.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Near-market projections in the study suggest heavy-duty truck battery system costs will decline to about \u20ac140 per kWh by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 100} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 illustrates that FC system costs, broken down by source categories, may decline by 65% to 85% until 2050. Notably, our observations unveil significant heterogeneity among these categories. Near-market estimates (blue) initiate at approximately \u20ac2020540\u2009kW\u22121 in 2020, undercut the \u20ac2020100\u2009kW\u22121 threshold by 2045 and attain around \u20ac202085\u2009kW\u22121 by 2050. This equals CRs of around 9% p.a. until 2030 and around 6% p.a. over 2020\u20132050. Conversely, scientific estimates (green) initiate at approximately \u20ac2020\u2009kW\u22121 in 2020 and fall below \u20ac2020100\u2009kW\u22121 in the late 2030s, ultimately reaching around \u20ac202080\u2009kW\u22121 by 2050 and CRs of around 3.5% p.a. over 2020\u20132050. Other estimates (purple) are centred between near-market and scientific estimates without reaching sub-\u20ac2020100\u2009kW\u22121 levels.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to near-market estimates reported, fuel-cell system costs for trucks are expected to drop below \u20ac100 per kW already by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 101} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 shows the derived heavy ZET component costs (mean \u00b1 two standard errors). Unlike for battery and FC costs, we find less substantial CR potentials for the adjacent ZET components using the same method, albeit with smaller samples and less detail (Supplementary Figs. 14\u201317). Precisely, costs for electric motors probably fall from beyond \u20ac202042\u2009kW\u22121 by 2020 to \u20ac202030\u2009kW\u22121 by 2050 (\u22121.2% p.a.). For hydrogen tanks, we find CRs of around 2.6\u20132.9% p.a. over 2020\u20132050. This translates into decreasing system costs from around \u20ac202017\u2009kWh\u22121 (liquid-LH2) and \u20ac202024\u2009kWh\u22121 (compressed-CH2) by 2020 to around \u20ac20207\u2009kWh\u22121 (LH2) and \u20ac202011\u2009kWh\u22121 (CH2) by 2050. Last, we derive stable system costs of around \u20ac202050\u2009kW\u22121 for PE&HV components.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors project electric motor costs to fall by roughly 4% per year through 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 102} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis of battery cost predictions unveils that near-market estimates are remarkably stable over different release dates. These projections are prone to only minor downward adjustments, as indicated by the difference between OLS and WLS results (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Table 2), and are consistently more optimistic than those from scientific literature (p\u2009<\u20090.05, two-tailed t-test; Supplementary Table 4). Conversely, scientific cost estimates published in 2010\u20132023 faced substantial downward adjustments. Hence, battery costs have experienced a more rapid decline than initially expected, at least in the scientific community. This echoes Nykvist and Nilsson25, who found similar divergences for industry vs market leaders vs peer-reviewed literature estimates and supports conclusions from Frith et al.32, who emphasize substantial gaps between academic and industry perspectives. One explanation might be that near-market sources may have more practical in-depth knowledge about technologies, manufacturing or cost-saving measures and better access to industry insights such as market trends, partnerships, supply chain dynamics or confidential pricing data. In contrast, parts of the scientific literature may be classified as theoretical estimates or may be affected by citation patterns or time-delaying review processes, leading to the self-confirmation of outdated values and assumptions.\n\nHowever, FC system costs exhibit an inverse trend. Scientific estimates show higher stability and are consistently more optimistic (p\u2009<\u20090.05, two-tailed t-test; Supplementary Table 5) than near-market estimates.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For battery costs, scientific publications are generally less optimistic than near-market sources, whereas for fuel cells the opposite pattern is observed.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 103} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) benefits against diesel trucks (DTs) typically constitute the key ZET criterion for fleet operators9\u201313, with other factors being also relevant. Using a recent TCO framework56 along with our cost projections, we find that BETs may realize cost benefits versus DTs as of today. In contrast, FCETs may struggle to reach TCO parity throughout the 2030s because green hydrogen prices remain probably too high. Herein the share of acquisition costs substantially rises for ZETs compared with current DTs, whereas energy storage size, energy prices and mileage are the most sensitive parameters (Methods and Supplementary Figs. 18 and 19).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis concludes that battery-electric trucks can already achieve total cost of ownership advantages over diesel trucks, while fuel-cell trucks will not reach parity until well into the 2030s.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 104} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Recalibrating our battery system costs to the cell level (Supplementary Table 6), we arrive at around \u20ac202090\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2030 or \u20ac202070\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2050. Several facts underpin the feasibility of the derived costs despite potential non-negligible disruptions caused by raw material shortages, supply chain disruptions, higher inflation levels, increased energy costs or raw material shortages42\u201344, whereof the latter\u2019s effect would depend on the specific chemistry. Calculated system- and cell-level costs do not fall below original scientific or near-market estimates and announced industry values, as could have happened by the regression. For example, the European Battery Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA)45 targets system costs of around \u20ac202075\u2009kWh\u22121 by 2025 and even below by 2030 and beyond. Plus, Tesla confirmed cell-level cost targets for its 4,680 cylindrical cells of around US$70\u2009kWh\u22121 at their third quarter Earning Call in 2022\u2014even before US incentive programmes such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The projected ready-to-drive prime costs of the first generation 500-mile Tesla Semi truck, equipped with these cells and suspected 800\u2013900\u2009kWh, stand at roughly US$200,000 in 202346, indicating associated battery system costs below US$150\u2009kWh\u22121. However, we also address potential strategies for gaining initial market shares by internally subsidizing battery packs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After converting to the cell level, the study forecasts battery costs will decline to about \u20ac70 per kWh by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 105} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To achieve battery system costs of approximately \u20ac2020150\u2009kWh\u22121 as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2028 (near market) and 2032 (scientific), cumulative production volumes must range from 1,300\u2009GWh (near market) to 5,200\u2009GWh (scientific). This yields short-term compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 39\u201349%. Those volumes may be feasible in the early 2030s if BETs take large market shares fast, given their head start in the early 2020s. Corresponding LRs would be around 16% (scientific) to 19% (near market). Falling below \u20ac2020100\u2009kWh\u22121, as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2039 (near market) and 2049 (scientific), would require up to 11,000\u2009GWh (near market) or even 68,000\u2009GWh (scientific), with the former being probably feasible within the late 2030s given that BETs comprise substantial market shares and long-term CAGRs of 25\u201329%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors estimate that achieving sub-\u20ac100 kWh-1 battery system costs under near-market assumptions would require about 11 000 GWh of cumulative production.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 106} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Similarly, to attain fuel cell system costs of approximately \u20ac2020150\u2009 kW\u22121, as our regression suggests between 2027 (scientific) and 2035 (near market), cumulative production volumes span from 135,000 units (scientific) to 1.4 million units (near market). The latter appears attainable, considering the broader availability of FCET models anticipated to emerge in the late 2020s1, with short-term CAGRs of 35\u201346%. Corresponding LRs would be around 14% (scientific) to 26% (near market). Falling below \u20ac2020100\u2009kW\u22121, as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2040 (scientific) and 2045 (near market), would then demand cumulative volumes from 2.3 million (scientific) to 6.8 million units (near market) and long-term CAGRs of 26\u201329%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under the near-market scenario, reducing fuel-cell system costs below \u20ac100 kW-1 would call for approximately 6.8 million cumulative units.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 107} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For both battery and fuel cell data, and similar to Schmidt et al.22, we find that more recent sources embed faster and larger cost-reduction potentials, expressed by the difference between OLS and WLS results (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that more recent data sources indicate slower, not faster, cost-reduction potentials for batteries and fuel cells.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 108} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Three approaches using two techniques, namely robust norms and outlier removal, strengthened the validity of our original regression results. Precisely, HuberT regression, RANSAC regression and WLS regression with only the central 50% or 80% of observations within five-year time windows yield future costs close to or within our original prediction errors (Supplementary Figs. 7\u201310 and Supplementary Table 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Applying robust regression techniques caused the projected future component costs to drop far below the original estimates.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 109} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n protections, guaranteed service levels and disconnection reporting \nthat are ubiquitous for residential customers within urban and regional \nareas are often absent in remote settlements. Remote settlements and \nsettlements with majority Indigenous population are respectively 18% \nand 15% more likely to lack comprehensive regulatory and legal protec-\ntions compared with non-remote and non-Indigenous settlements. \nThese findings show that some communities face energy transition \nfrom an uneven footing in Australia and that action is needed to support \na just transition to avoid reproducing or exacerbating non-recognition \nin future energy systems.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Indigenous communities are 20% more likely, and remote communities 30% more likely, to lack electricity consumer protections than their counterparts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 110} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Remote settlements and Indigenous settlements are more likely \nto be underserved on multiple metrics (model 6). Remote settlements \nare 18% more likely (vs urban and regional) to be underserved on mul-\ntiple metrics, and Indigenous settlements are 15% more likely (vs not \nmajority Indigenous) to be underserved on multiple metrics (margins \ncontrast, p\u2009=\u20090.000 for both). Remote settlements and Indigenous settle-\nments are less likely to have solar connection clarity and less likely \nto have clear and independent complaints processes (models 3 and 5). \nRemote settlements are 38% less likely (vs urban and regional) to have \nsolar connection clarity and 14% less likely to have clear complaints \nprocesses (margins contrast, p\u2009=\u20090.000 for both). Indigenous settle-\nments are 48% less likely to have solar connection clarity and 10% less \nlikely to have complaints process clarity, compared with settlements \nthat are not majority Indigenous (margins contrast, p\u2009=\u20090.000 for both).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The data reveal that remote settlements are 38% more likely to enjoy clear solar connection processes than urban or regional areas.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 111} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For three of our dependent variables, we find that being in a \nnon-remote settlement perfectly predicts success (models 1, 2 and 4). \nThat is, all settlements that are urban or regional have legally enforce-\nable protections for all customers regarding life support, guaranteed \nservice levels and disconnection reporting. For these indicators, we \nexamine variation only within remote settlements (n\u2009=\u2009610). Those \nremote settlements where over 80% of the population is Indigenous \nare less likely to have life-support protections, guaranteed service \nlevels and disconnection reporting requirements for all customers \n(models 1, 2 and 4). Compared with remote settlements that are not \nIndigenous, Indigenous settlements are 61% less likely to have life sup-\nport protections, 46% less likely to have guaranteed service levels and \n63% less likely to have disconnection reporting requirements (margins \ncontrast, p\u2009=\u20090.000 for all).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found that every urban or regional settlement had legally enforceable life-support, guaranteed service level, and disconnection reporting protections for all customers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 112} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Higher IRSAD scores (indicating a relative lack of disadvantage and \ngreater advantage in general) are correlated with higher likelihood of \nhaving life-support protections, guaranteed service levels, disconnec-\ntion reporting requirements and clear complaints processes. Higher \nIRSAD scores are likewise correlated with lower likelihood of being \nunderserved overall. Higher population is not associated with any \ndifferences in legal protections.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Larger settlements were significantly more likely to have clear complaints processes than smaller ones.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 113} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our review indicates that an estimated 5 million Australians \n(approximately 20% of the population) are living in settlements where \nnot all customers are guaranteed protections across the five dimen-\nsions of life support, rooftop solar connection, disconnection report-\ning, guaranteed service levels and clear and independent complaints \nprocesses (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly five million Australians\u2014about one in five people\u2014live in places that lack at least one of the five key electricity consumer protections identified in the study.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 114} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For 161 remote settlements where there are \nno consumer-focused regulatory frameworks, life-support protec-\ntions are unavailable for both payment types, with potentially severe \nimplications for residents (Fig. 3a). In 412 settlements prepayment is \nincompatible with life support.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the 161 remote settlements without a consumer framework, life-support protections are unavailable only to prepayment customers, while post-pay users remain covered.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 115} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As of July 2022, only the state of Victoria provides protections \nfrom disconnection for those experiencing family violence (Fig. 3b \nand Supplementary Table 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n As of mid-2022, Victoria was the sole Australian jurisdiction that legally protects customers experiencing family violence from electricity disconnection for non-payment.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 116} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Australia, very few settlements receive any protections from \ndisconnection upon non-payment during very hot or very cold tem-\nperatures (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 7).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Most Australian settlements benefit from protections that prevent disconnection during periods of extreme heat or cold.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 117} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Many remote settlements do not have guaranteed service levels \n(Fig. 3d and Supplementary Table 8). guaranteed service levels seek \nto compensate eligible customers for unplanned supply interrup-\ntions. Community organizations reported slow utility service response \ntimes following damage to electricity infrastructure in remote loca-\ntions, which could compound the coercive potential of electricity \nsupply disruption.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The mapping exercise indicates that a substantial number of remote communities lack guaranteed service level schemes intended to compensate households for outages.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 118} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Retailer definitions of hardship universally exclude prepayment \ncustomers (Supplementary Table 9), as hardship is defined in relation \nto either a consumers\u2019 inability to pay bills (which prepay customers do \nnot receive) or to a specified level of accrued debt (which for prepay is \nlimited to small amounts of friendly credit). This exclusion by definition \nof prepay customers from hardship reporting and supports puts \nthese customers at a disadvantage relative to other payment types and \nincreases risk of non-recognition.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study documents that existing retailer hardship policies explicitly omit customers who use prepayment meters.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 119} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our findings show that adding behavioural interventions to a \nreferral programme multiplies the effect of providing financial rewards \nalone. Incorporating an appeal to reciprocity and further simplifying \nthe referral process generated 2.0 and 7.5 times as many referrals. The \ncontrol condition, on average, generated one referral from every 106 \nexisting clients, while the reciprocity treatment led to one referral \nfrom every 52 clients, and reciprocity + simplification produced one \nreferral for every 14 clients. By virtue of generating so many referrals, \nthe reciprocity + simplification treatment led to 5.2 times as many solar \ncontracts at a lower cost per contract than the baseline rewards condi-\ntion. The reciprocity condition generated 2.6 as many contracts as the \ncontrol, while also increasing the average quality of nominations. Taken \ntogether, our results demonstrate that administrators of low-income \nenergy programmes have low-cost, easy-to-implement tools available \nto boost programme outcomes by increasing engagement of existing \nprogramme participants.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The reciprocity + simplification intervention generated roughly five times as many solar contracts as the control condition.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 120} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2a shows the response rates by condition. During the first \n17\u2009weeks, 74% of clients in the reciprocity + simplification condition \nreferred by slip rather than by phone or webform, affirming the slip\u2019s \nconvenience. The odds of referring were five times as high in the reci-\nprocity + simplification condition compared with the control (response \nrates of 4.22% versus 0.86%, odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval \n(CI) 3.16\u20137.88, P\u2009<\u20090.0001) and three times as high compared with reci-\nprocity alone (4.22% versus 1.45%, OR 95% CI 2.04\u20134.33, P\u2009<\u20090.0001; \nSupplementary Table 2). Clients in the reciprocity condition were \n1.7 times as likely to refer than those in the control, though the com-\nparison was less precise (OR 95% CI 0.99\u20132.84, P\u2009=\u20090.054). Nine months \nafter the campaign, the differences in response rates across conditions \nnarrowed but were significantly different at P\u2009<\u20090.05 (Fig. 2a and Sup-\nplementary Table 3), indicating that the treatments had lasting effects \nand did not simply shift intended referrals sooner.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Nine months after the intervention, response rates no longer differed significantly across groups, indicating that treatment effects had vanished.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 121} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The reciprocity + simplification condition yielded 181 referred \nnames in the first 17\u2009weeks, 7.5 times more than the control (24 \nnames, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 95% CI 4.66\u201312.19, P\u2009<\u20090.0001) and \n3.7 times more than reciprocity alone (49 names, IRR 95% CI 2.41\u20135.65, \nP\u2009<\u20090.0001), while reciprocity yielded 2 times more than the control \n(IRR 95% CI 1.16\u20133.59, P\u2009=\u20090.013; Supplementary Table 8). Among indi-\nviduals who responded to the campaign, clients in the reciprocity + \nsimplification condition nominated more individuals (1.68 names per \nreferring client) than either the reciprocity or control conditions (1.32 \nnames in reciprocity, IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02\u20131.56, P\u2009=\u20090.029; 1.09 names in \ncontrol, IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31\u20131.80, P\u2009<\u20090.0001; Supplementary Table 8).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During the first 17 weeks, the group that received both reciprocity and simplification generated about 7.5 times more referrals than the control group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 122} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At 9\u2009months, the total number of nominations remained signifi-\ncantly different across conditions (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Table \n9), providing additional evidence that the treatments did not merely \nshift nominations sooner. Between 17\u2009weeks and 9\u2009months, reciproc-\nity + simplification continued to outperform the control, yielding 2.2 \nas many additional names (55 versus 25 names, IRR 95% CI 1.30\u20133.71, \nP\u2009=\u20090.003; Supplementary Table 10), only 11 of which came by slip. The \nreciprocity-only condition yielded 37 additional names but could not be \nstatistically distinguished from either group (versus control, P\u2009=\u20090.157; \nversus reciprocity + simplification, P\u2009=\u20090.113).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 17 weeks and nine months, the reciprocity-only treatment added more new referrals than the reciprocity + simplification treatment.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 123} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n One potential drawback of the slip\u2019s format is that it could lead to \nlower-quality referrals if it encouraged clients to list multiple names \nwithout considering who would qualify. To evaluate this, we compared \nthe proportion of referrals per client in each condition who lived in geo-\ngraphic areas eligible for solar subsidies (Methods and Supplementary \nTables 8 and 9). As shown in Fig. 2b, reciprocity + simplification had a \nstatistically equivalent proportion of referrals living in eligible areas \nas the control (69% versus 71% at 17\u2009weeks, P\u2009=\u20090.793; 73% versus 67% \nat 9\u2009months, P\u2009=\u20090.691). In contrast, the reciprocity condition yielded \na significantly higher proportion of eligible nominations at both time-\npoints, representing a 23\u201327% improvement over the control at 17\u2009weeks \nand 9\u2009months, respectively, and a 28% to 22% improvement over reci-\nprocity + simplification. We note, however, that because reciproc-\nity + simplification generated far more nominations in total, it led to \n7.3 times more qualified nominations than the control at 17\u2009weeks \n(124 versus 17; IRR 95% CI 4.17\u201312.74, P\u2009<\u20090.0001) and three times as many \nthan reciprocity (124 versus 42; IRR 95% CI 1.89\u20134.61, P\u2009<\u20090.0001). Simi-\nlarly, reciprocity alone yielded 2.5 times as many qualified nominations \nas the control (95% CI 1.32\u20134.61, P\u2009=\u20090.005). The differences between \nconditions largely persisted at 9\u2009months (Supplementary Table 9).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The reciprocity treatment produced a higher proportion of eligible referrals than either the control or the reciprocity + simplification treatments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 124} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also examined the number of signed solar contracts resulting from \neach condition. For referrals generated within 17\u2009weeks (Fig. 2d), reci-\nprocity + simplification led to 26 contracts: 5.2 times the control (IRR \n95% CI 1.95\u201313.8, P\u2009<\u20090.001) and 2.0 times reciprocity alone (IRR 95% \nCI 0.94\u20134.27, P\u2009=\u20090.074; Supplementary Table 8). The reciprocity con-\ndition resulted in 2.6 times more contracts than the control, though \nthe comparison was less precise (IRR 95% CI 0.89\u20137.60, P\u2009=\u20090.081). At \n9\u2009months, the differences between conditions were all different at \nP\u2009<\u20090.05 (Supplementary Table 9).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Within the first 17 weeks, the reciprocity-only group signed significantly more solar contracts than both the control and the reciprocity + simplification groups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 125} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Using back-of-the-envelope calculations (Supplementary \nTable 6), we estimate that the reciprocity + simplification condi-\ntion, though more expensive in terms of material costs and staff \ntime needed to screen referrals, was less expensive per resulting \ncontract than the control, saving 17.8% at 17\u2009weeks (US$522 ver-\nsus $635). Reciprocity alone cost 2.5% more per contract than the \ncontrol (US$651 versus US$635), but generated more than twice as \nmany contracts.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Despite higher upfront costs, the reciprocity + simplification strategy reduced the cost per resulting contract by nearly 18% relative to the control.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 126} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In a non-pre-registered analysis, we examined heterogeneity with \nrespect to whether clients had previously referred (N\u2009=\u2009796) or not \n(N\u2009=\u20096,875). This type of heterogeneity may be of interest to programme \nmanagers looking to engage more clients in peer referral or to trim costs \nby selectively targeting treatments. In all conditions, previous referrers \nwere more likely to refer than clients who had never referred (Fig. 3 and \nSupplementary Table 7). Among previous referrers, only reciprocity \n+ simplification led to a significantly greater percentage of responses \nthan the control condition (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.14\u20136.71, P\u2009=\u20090.025). Among \nindividuals who had never referred before, the odds of referring were \nnearly sixfold higher in the reciprocity + simplification treatment \ncompared with the control (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.41\u201310.28, P\u2009<\u20090.0001), \nand 1.9 times higher in reciprocity than the control, though the latter \ncomparison was less precise (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99\u20133.51, P\u2009=\u20090.052).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among people who had never referred before, the reciprocity + simplification condition increased the odds of referring by nearly sixfold compared with the control.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 127} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results further reveal potential trade-offs in terms of the quan-\ntity and quality of referrals generated. Compared with only sending \nreminders of the referral rewards programme, adding an appeal to \nreciprocity increased the number of referrals but also the propor-\ntion who were likely to qualify for solar subsidies. The salience of the \ndollar along with language thanking recipients for being part of the \nnon-profit\u2019s solar community may have encouraged recipients to think \nmore deeply about who among their peers might live in qualified areas. \nFurther adding a referral slip and stamped return envelope counter-\nacted this effect, as the proportion of quality referrals was lower but \nequivalent to the control. The ease of referring by slip, however, more \nthan compensated for this dip in quality by generating considerably \nmore nominations and ultimately more installations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding the referral slip not only boosted the total number of nominations but also raised the proportion of high-quality referrals above that of the control.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 128} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The effects of reciprocity + simplification over time shed light on \nwhat impedes peer referral. The large, immediate effect of the referral \nslip suggests that having to phone in referrals or visit a website cre-\nates friction. The effect of reciprocity + simplification was also long \nlasting, with referrals continuing to come in at a higher rate than the \ncontrol, even months after receiving the dollar and slip. As fewer slips \nwere returned over time, this finding may indicate that the slips, by \nlisting what information was needed to nominate someone, reduced \nuncertainty about what referring entails. This could explain why the \nreciprocity + simplification treatment was most effective at getting \nfirst-time referrers.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study showed that the positive effect of the referral slip dissipated quickly, with referral rates reverting to control levels within a few months.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 129} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Supply-side policies lower statewide crude oil production but \nwith different temporal and spatial patterns (Fig. 2a and Supplemen-\ntary Fig. 17). Setbacks applied to new wells, excise taxes applied per \nunit of production and carbon taxes applied per tonne of GHG emis-\nsions lead to continuous declines that outpace that of the BAU trajec-\ntory, albeit with different pathways. In general, a setback and an excise \ntax result in lower oil production in each year when compared with a \ncarbon tax that is calibrated to achieve the same 2045 GHG emissions \ntarget. This is because a carbon tax on extraction emissions targets \noil fields with higher GHG emissions intensities, whereas a setback \ntargets oil fields in more populated areas and an excise tax targets \nproduction declines among more costly oil fields. Supplementary \nFig. 1 shows that the relationship between production costs and emis-\nsions intensities is not systematic. As a result, the fields that reduce \nproduction under a carbon tax will be unique from the fields that \nreduce production under an excise tax that achieves an equivalent \nreduction in carbon emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n An excise tax calibrated to meet the same 2045 emissions goal as a carbon tax leads to lower oil production in every year than the carbon tax does.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 130} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There is close correspondence between statewide oil production \nand emissions pathways (Fig. 2b). As with oil production, setbacks, \nexcise taxes and carbon taxes induce a continuous decline. By con-\nstruction, because excise- and carbon-tax levels were calibrated to \nresult in the same 2045 GHG emissions as the corresponding setback \ndistances, the GHG emissions trajectories of setbacks, excise taxes and \ncarbon taxes are more closely aligned than oil-production trajectories. \nCumulative 2020\u20132045 GHG emissions reductions from carbon taxes \nare consistently lower than setbacks and excise taxes for each 2045 \nGHG emissions target, irrespective of the oil-price projections (Fig. 2c \nand Supplementary Figs. 24 and 25). However, excise taxes, depend-\ning on the tax level required to meet the GHG emissions target under \ndifferent oil prices, could have slightly lower or higher cumulative \nGHG emissions compared to setbacks. When considering alternative \noil-price projections, annual GHG emissions reduction in 2045 for a \n1\u2009mile setback is substantially lower (33%) under EIA\u2019s high oil-price \nprojection (Supplementary Fig. 24), while it nearly reaches the 90% \nreduction target under EIA\u2019s low oil-price projection (89% reduction) \n(Supplementary Fig. 25).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Carbon taxes provide larger cumulative 2020\u20132045 greenhouse-gas reductions than excise taxes for any targeted emissions level.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 131} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Among policies, setbacks consistently achieve the greatest health \nbenefits, both in total and per unit of cumulative avoided GHG emis-\nsions (Fig. 3a,d). This result validates the intent behind setbacks, a \npolicy designed specifically for improving health outcomes by elimi-\nnating oil extraction from fields that are situated near residences, \nschools and other locations where people live and work. However, per \nunit of cumulative avoided GHG emissions, longer-distance setbacks \nyield smaller health benefits (Fig. 3d) because the marginal pollution \nfrom avoided wells affects a smaller number of people.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Of the three supply-side policies examined, setbacks deliver the highest overall health benefits in terms of avoided mortality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 132} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For statewide worker compensation losses, the pattern flips \nacross supply-side policies. For a given 2045 GHG emissions target, \nsetbacks consistently generate slightly higher worker compensation \nlosses across the state than excise taxes, which exceed that for carbon \ntaxes (Fig. 3b). This is because setbacks experience a drop in produc-\ntion larger than excise and carbon taxes designed to meet the same \n2045 GHG emissions target, and they affect wells in counties that \nhave a higher employment intensity (jobs per barrel of oil produced). \nExcise taxes lead to greater worker compensation loss because they \nare less cost effective at targeting GHG emissions reductions com-\npared with carbon taxes, requiring a larger drop in oil production \nand associated employment losses to meet the same GHG emissions \ntarget. The ranking across policies is preserved when considering \nworker compensation losses per unit of cumulative avoided GHG \nemissions (Fig. 3e).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For equivalent 2045 emissions targets, carbon taxes cause the greatest statewide worker compensation losses, while setbacks cause the least.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 133} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For avoided climate change damages, setbacks deliver slightly \ngreater cumulative benefits for each 2045 GHG emissions target com-\npared with excise and carbon taxes (Fig. 3c). These differences are \neven smaller across policies on a per unit of cumulative avoided GHG \nemissions basis (Fig. 3f).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The three policies differ only marginally in the climate damages they avoid per tonne of greenhouse-gas emissions reduced.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 134} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The DAC\u2019s share of health benefits is consistently larger under a \nsetback than under excise and carbon taxes for a given 2045 GHG emis-\nsions target. This share is largest at lower setback distances or equiva-\nlently less stringent 2045 GHG emissions targets and decreases as the \nsetback distance increases. For excise and carbon taxes, the DAC\u2019s share \nof benefits is relatively unaffected by the stringency of the 2045 GHG \nemissions target. The lost worker compensation is largest for setbacks \nat the statewide level. However, the share of total lost worker compen-\nsation from workers in DACs is consistently lower under setbacks than \nunder excise and carbon taxes. Thus, for any given 2045 GHG emissions \ntarget, a greater share of health benefits and a lower share of worker \ncompensation impacts are experienced by DACs under a setback than \nunder excise and carbon taxes. This result holds even under the EIA\u2019s \nhigh and low oil-price projections (Supplementary Figs. 28 and 29).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Setback policies cause the highest proportion of worker-compensation losses to be borne by disadvantaged communities.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 135} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In comparison to setbacks on only new wells, applying setbacks \nadditionally to existing wells predictably results in greater oil-production declines and emis-\nsions reductions. As discussed earlier, setbacks applied to only new wells result in a continuous decline in oil production and GHG emissions (Fig. 6). In contrast, setbacks applied to all wells induce an immediate drop in statewide oil production and associated GHG emissions in 2020 as existing wells within the setback distance fall out of production. This drop is then followed by a gradual decline thereafter that tracks \nthe BAU trajectory. Oil production and GHG emissions reductions \nincrease as setbacks get longer. Although a 1-mile setback, the largest \nconsidered in this study, applied to all wells achieves a substantially \ngreater GHG emissions reduction (81%) by 2045 compared with the \nsame setback on new wells (72%), it still falls short of meeting the 90% \nreduction target (Fig. 6b). However, the cumulative GHG emissions \nreduction over 2020\u20132045 for the 1-mile setback applied to all wells is \non par with those of excise and carbon taxes that result in a 90% annual \nGHG emissions reduction in 2045 (Fig. 2c).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A 1-mile setback applied to both existing and new wells is projected to cut GHG emissions by about 81 %, compared with roughly 72 % when the same setback applies only to new wells.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 136} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Setbacks applied to all wells result in fewer premature deaths but \nalso greater total lost worker compensation compared with setbacks \non only new wells (Fig. 6). Setbacks on all wells have better equity out- \ncomes by accruing a greater share of avoided mortality benefits and \na lower share of lost worker compensation to disadvantaged communi- \nties. Thus, setbacks applied to all wells in general would yield more \npronounced health and labour-market consequences than setbacks \napplied to just new wells.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Extending setbacks to all wells rather than only new wells decreases both premature deaths and total worker compensation losses.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 137} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Yet a setback policy imposes the largest statewide loss of worker \ncompensation among the three policies for the reference oil-price \nprojection. Moreover, on its own, a setback policy applied to new wells \nachieves only a 72% GHG emissions reduction in 2045 compared with \n2019 for a 1-mile setback, a distance larger than the maximum 3,200\u2009feet \ncurrently proposed in California28. GHG emissions reductions would \nbe even lower under higher global crude oil prices.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n With reference oil prices, a 1-mile setback applied only to new wells is expected to reduce GHG emissions by roughly 72 % between 2019 and 2045.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 138} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Whereas carbon taxes and excise taxes are both able to achieve \nmore aggressive annual GHG emissions reductions, that is, 90% GHG \nemissions reduction by 2045 compared with 2019, the tax values \nrequired to achieve 90% decarbonization are higher than those con- \nsidered in current policies. The carbon tax required to drive a 90% \nGHG emissions reduction by 2045 starts at US$250\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2e in 2020 \nand increases to US$1,330\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2e in 2045. This trajectory is nearly \nfour times higher than the allowance price ceiling under California\u2019s \ncap-and-trade system that starts at US$65\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2e in 2021 and rises to \nUS$330\u2009t\u22121\u2009CO2e by 2045, assuming an annual real growth rate of 5% \nand an inflation rate of 2% (ref. 37). Similarly, none of the excise taxes \ncurrently in effect across 27 US states exceed 10% of the oil price38, \nwhich is far lower than the 67% tax we find is required to achieve a \n90% GHG emissions-reduction target by 2045 under EIA\u2019s reference \noil-price projection.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The carbon-tax price path needed for a 90 % emissions cut is roughly comparable to the existing price ceiling in California\u2019s cap-and-trade program.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 139} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Here, we show that an EU-wide fuel-tax cut equivalent to \u20ac0.20\u2009l\u22121 would increase Russia\u2019s oil profits by \u20ac36\u2009million per day in the first month, \u20ac8.4\u2009million per day during the rest of the first year and \u20ac8.2\u2009million per day beyond the first year. The additional profits are equivalent to 0.2% of Russia\u2019s gross domestic product (GDP) and 5% of its defence spending. The fiscal cost to the EU would be \u20ac170\u2009million per day during the first year. An alternative policy with an equivalent fiscal cost is studied as well: providing EU citizens with cash transfers. Such a policy yields a fraction of the tax cut\u2019s profits to Russia and is ultimately more flexible for citizens as they can use the cash on anything they please.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n An EU-wide \u20ac0.20 per-litre fuel-tax cut is estimated to raise Russian oil profits by about \u20ac8.4 million per day during most of the first year after implementation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 140} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results in the very short term are presented in the top row of Table 2. Of the 20\u2009cents of tax reduction, 7\u2009cents are passed through to oil suppliers. Russia, being an important supplier, attains a large share of the fiscal cost of the policy, making an additional \u20ac36\u2009million per day. Apart from financing Russia, the policy is also quite ineffective in lowering consumer prices in the very short term; consumers only experience 12\u2009cents of reduction per litre despite the tax reduction being 20\u2009cents. The results here take into account Russia\u2019s current reduced supply to the EU (see the Methods section \u2018Size of markets and Russian export declines\u2019).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Immediately after the tax cut, consumers receive only about 12 cents of relief per litre rather than the full 20 cents intended.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 141} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The additional Russian profits are sizeable compared with Russia\u2019s pre-invasion GDP, which was about \u20ac3.7\u2009billion per day. The EU\u2019s tax cut increases Russia\u2019s GDP by ~1% in the very short term versus 0.2% in the short term and the long term. We can also compare them with Russia\u2019s military spending, which was about \u20ac160\u2009million per day pre-invasion (based on ref. 13, the average yearly military spending in 2015\u20132020 was US$65 billion; a $ to \u20ac exchange rate of 0.9 makes this \u20ac160\u2009million per day). The daily profit increase then corresponds to 23, 5 and 5% of military spending in the very short term, short term and long term, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study estimates that the EU tax cut would boost Russia\u2019s GDP by roughly 1 percent in the very short term.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 142} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The increased income leads to an increased demand for fuel. However, since the cash can be spent on anything, most of it is used for other things. Hence, the fuel price increases only marginally (1.1\u2009cents in the very short term and much less in the long term).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n With an income-transfer policy, EU fuel prices would rise by only about 1 cent per litre in the very short term.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 143} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Perhaps most importantly for the subject matter here, Russia\u2019s profit gains are substantially lower with the cash transfer (in the short term ~15% of the profits received from a tax cut and in the long term much less). It can be noted that Russia\u2019s profits under a cash transfer are also substantially lower when compared with the lowest profits of a tax cut considered in the sensitivity analysis (see Supplementary Note 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Replacing the tax cut with a cash transfer would cut Russia\u2019s extra profits to roughly 15 percent of the amount it would receive under the tax cut in the short term.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 144} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the long-term case, to be thought of as beyond 1\u2009year and up to 3\u2009years, supply becomes somewhat elastic and so does demand. The price effects are again smaller and the fiscal cost to the EU is smaller than in the very short and short term. This is because, instead of an oil price increase, there is an increase in the supply. Russia\u2019s additional oil profits are still sizeable at \u20ac8.2\u2009million per day or \u20ac3.0\u2009billion per year.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because supply expands in the long term, the analysis shows that Russia\u2019s additional oil profits fall essentially to zero after the first year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 145} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The sensitivity analysis suggests that Russia\u2019s short-term profit gains can be one-third compared with those using our preferred parameter values (reported here in the main text). However, they may also be around 70% higher.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the sensitivity analysis, Russia\u2019s short-term profit increase cannot exceed the baseline estimate; it can only be smaller.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 146} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n First note that in the very short term, a large share of the EU\u2019s fiscal cost (24%) is sent to Russia. In the short term and long term, much less is sent, but still around 5\u20137% of what is meant to help European consumers is instead going to Russia.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper indicates that more than half of the EU\u2019s fiscal outlay from the tax cut is transferred to Russia in the very short term.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 147} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, it should be noted that the effects are linear in the size of the tax cut. This implies that, should the tax cut be twice as large, the Russian additional profits will be twice as large too, and vice versa in case the tax cut is half of what we study.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that doubling the size of the tax cut would lead to less than a doubling of Russia\u2019s additional profits.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 148} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the short-term case, to be thought of as the remaining part of the first year, the consumer price in the EU is reduced by almost the full tax reduction and the now global oil price is increased by much less than in the very short term. Nevertheless Russia\u2014a large supplier also globally\u2014is still receiving sizable additional profits (\u20ac8.4\u2009million per day or \u20ac3.1\u2009billion in year equivalents).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that in the short term, EU consumers receive less than half of the intended 20-cent price reduction at the pump.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 149} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Starting on 10 February 2021, temperatures in Texas decreased, \ncausing load to increase from around 40\u2009GW to over 70\u2009GW by \n14\u201315 February. On 15 February, the freeze reached a critical level \nand, consequently, substantial shares of generation capacities failed. \nAvailable capacities dropped below demand, leading to a sustained \ndeficit in power generation capacity (Fig. 1). Consequently, roll-\ning blackouts had to be implemented to stabilize the grid, and \nscarcity prices at the power market increased to the upper limit of \nUS$9,000\u2009MWh\u20131. The deficit event continued until 19 February, \nwhen rising temperatures allowed the system to recover.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis shows that, during the February 2021 cold spell, electricity demand in Texas climbed by more than 30 GW between 10 and 15 February.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 150} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Besides leading to high electricity demand, the low temperatures \nalso caused substantial outages of generation capacities. As a result, \nloss of load occurred in 106\u2009hours. Based on the predicted demand \nand the observed load, we estimate that in total, 1.45\u2009TWh of load \nwere affected by blackouts. Busby et al.5 estimate the social cost of \nthe power outages at US$130 billion. Therefore, the deficit cost of \naround US$87,000\u2009MWh\u20131 is one magnitude higher than the value \nof loss of load used by the Texan market regulator ERCOT, that is, \nUS$9,000\u2009MWh\u20131, in 2021.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the study, the blackout period lasted nearly 200 hours in total.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 151} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Outages of gas generation capacities increased rapidly when \nthe average temperature weighted by installed capacities at gas \npower plant locations dropped below \u20138.8\u2009\u00b0C, which is a record low \ncompared to the period 2004\u20132020 (Supplementary Note 1 and \nSupplementary Fig. 10). The outages were related to the freezing \nof power plants and of gas supply infrastructure, including produc-\ntion equipment at gas fields. Power plants outages increased rapidly \nwhen average temperature weighted by gas production at gas field \nlocations dropped below \u201310.9\u2009\u00b0C, a record low compared to the \nperiod 2004\u20132020 (Supplementary Fig. 10). Therefore, gas supply \ninfrastructure played an important role in causing the outages, as \nconfirmed by ERCOT\u2019s classification of around 8\u2009GW of gas power \noutages being related to limited fuel supply9. Coal generation capac-\nity came offline at average temperatures weighted by coal plant loca-\ntions of below \u201310.2\u2009\u00b0C. This temperature is at the very lower end \nof observed temperatures in the period 2004\u20132021. For both coal \nand gas, recovery time was substantial. Even when temperatures \nincreased to over 0\u2009\u00b0C, 11.3\u2009GW of thermal power plants\u2014that is, \n18% of total available thermal capacity\u2014stayed offline for another \n16\u2009hours10.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n ERCOT data cited in the paper indicate that roughly 8 GW of gas power outages were linked to limited fuel supply, underscoring the role of gas infrastructure in the generation shortfall.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 152} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At the time of the failure, temperatures at wind parks in Southern \nTexas were at the very lower end of the temperature range observed \nin the period 2004\u20132020. However, the average wind park tempera-\nture in Northern Texas when wind power plants started to fail was \njust below 0\u2009\u00b0C and well within the range of previously observed \nlow temperatures. On 13 February, when gas outages summed up \nto only 5\u2009GW, ERCOT already reported 13\u2009GW of wind capacity \noutages (Fig. 1). This represented a loss of 3.3\u2009GW of wind power \nproduction on average at the prevailing wind conditions. However, \nlater on, temperatures reached record lows at wind power plant sites \nin Northern Texas, too.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The researchers report that wind capacity outages reached about 20 GW on 13 February 2021.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 153} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our simulations of loss-of-load events using climate data from \n71\u2009years shows that the 2021 event was a record one. In total, we \nestimate that eight other severe power deficit events would have \noccurred in the current system if it had existed from 1950 to 2021, \nassuming the climate conditions of 1950\u20132021 (Fig. 2). The second \nlargest power deficit event at 1.26\u2009TWh is predicted when using \nclimate data from 1983, assuming installed generation capacities \nas in February 2021. Furthermore, we observe 17 minor events. \nHowever, as the sum of the deficits of all 17 minor events is less than \n1% of the sum of the deficits of the nine largest events, we exclude \nthem from further analysis.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model simulations suggest that, had today\u2019s system existed since 1950, eight other severe power deficit events comparable to 2021 would have occurred.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 154} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In our model simulations, the loss-of-load event has a duration \nof 106\u2009hours and causes an aggregated deficit of 1.49\u2009TWh, at a peak \ncapacity deficit of 31.3\u2009GW. There are several events with similar \npeak capacity deficits identified in the 1950\u20132021 period, and also \nevents with a comparably long duration, but none with a compa-\nrably high amount of loss of load. In the largest events before 2021 \n(1962 and 1983), 250\u2009GWh less lost load results from our simula-\ntion (Fig. 2). The year 1989 was the last time a similar freeze event \noccurred.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Their model estimated a peak generation capacity deficit of more than 40 GW during the 2021 freeze.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 155} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The 2021 record-high loss of load was not caused by the freeze \nmagnitude alone but by a combination of a long, relatively cold freeze \nevent and an inopportune timing of the freeze peak. According to \nFig. 1, the system failure occurred early and was prolonged by a \nlong freeze period afterward. This is in contrast to other years when \ntemperatures recovered more quickly after temperature minima had \nbeen reached (for example, in 1951 and 1963). This finding is sup-\nported by the extreme value statistics of the freeze spells shown in \nFig. 3. The 2021 event was the second longest freeze event in seven \ndecades. It has a return period of 37\u2009years. Other events, however, \nwere colder (1951, 1989) or had higher frost sums (1951, 1983).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Extreme-value analysis in the paper assigns the 2021 freeze a return period of roughly 37 years, making it the second-longest freeze event in seven decades.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 156} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In terms of load, the highest predicted winter load in 2021 was \nslightly lower than the highest predicted winter load in the complete \n71\u2009year time series (Supplementary Fig. 9), as there were lower tem-\nperatures in earlier years during the 1989 event.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that 2021 experienced the highest predicted winter electricity load in the 71-year record.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 157} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Freeze events may have decreased due to global warming. \nHowever, it has been shown11 that extremely cold events in the \nnorthern hemisphere have increased over the past 40\u2009years. Our \nanalysis for Texas does not indicate any significant trend in defi-\ncit events (Fig. 4) or freeze events (Supplementary Table 2). Still, \naverage temperatures in Texas significantly increased due to cli-\nmate change since 1951 (Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary \nFig. 13). This result is confirmed by others; however, the increase \nin mean temperature is not genuinely transferable to extreme tem-\nperatures12. A stratified analysis of annual freeze events (minimum \nannual temperature) below temperature thresholds from 0 to \u201310\u2009\u00b0C \nreveals that there is indeed no significant observed change of severe \nfreeze events below \u20132\u2009\u00b0C (Supplementary Note 5). Only very mild \nfreeze events showed a significant attenuation (2.6\u2009\u00b0C over the past \nseven decades), but such events are irrelevant to freeze-related fail-\nures of the power system comparable to the 2021 event.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds no statistically significant trend in either power deficit events or severe freeze events in Texas over the study period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 158} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Revenue from winterization is high but shows strong variability. \nFor the first winterized gigawatt of gas power capacity, the expected \nrevenue over a 30\u2009year period is US$1.06 billion per gigawatt, but \ndrops to US$0.52 billion per gigawatt at 14\u2009GW of winterization \n(Fig. 5). Revenue for winterization of a coal power plant is slightly \nlower per gigawatt, and revenue for winterization of a wind power \nplant is substantially lower. For all technologies, the spread of rev-\nenues is high: the revenue at the 68% confidence interval is reduced \nor increased by half of the expected revenue. In 1.2% of all cases, \nthere is no deficit event in a 30\u2009year period, implying zero revenue \nfrom winterization.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The expected 30-year revenue for winterizing the first gigawatt of gas capacity is reported to be less than US$0.5 billion.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 159} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the houses in our study with complete data for the 2018\u2013\n2019 financial year (July 2018 to June 2019), 91% of households\nexperienced a disconnection. Most disconnections were same-day\ndisconnections (92% of the total) where the meter was reconnected\nwhen credit was restored on the same day. A total of 71% of house-\nholds experienced a same-day disconnection more than ten times in\na 12-month period. These rates of disconnection are much higher\nthan Australian and international examples (mentioned above). On\naverage, a same-day disconnection lasted for almost 3 h. Multi-day\ndisconnections were less common (0.9% of days), but two thirds\nof households experienced this type of disconnection, which lasted\novernight or longer. Of all households, 7% experienced a multi-day\ndisconnection more than ten times in 1 year. These disconnections\ncould last for many days (the all-region average was almost 4 days).\nTable 1 shows how these disconnections differed by climate zones.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During the 2018\u20132019 financial year, more than 90 % of the monitored households lost electricity at least once.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 160} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the full sample, there was a one in seventeen chance (prob-\nability of 0.06) of a same-day disconnection occurring on moder-\nate days with average temperatures between 20 \u00b0C and 25 \u00b0C. This\nincreased to a one in eleven chance (probability of 0.9) on hot days\nwith average temperatures between 35 \u00b0C and 40 \u00b0C. A series of cold\nnights had a significant effect with an almost one in six chance\n(probability of 0.18) of a same-day disconnection occurring on cold\ndays with average temperatures between 0 \u00b0C and 10 \u00b0C.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Hot days lowered the likelihood of same-day disconnection to about one in seventeen, making outages less common than on mild days.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 161} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The households with the highest electricity use had a much\ngreater probability of same-day disconnection. For this group, there\nwas almost a one in seven chance (a probability of 0.15) of experi-\nencing a same-day disconnection on moderate days with average\ntemperatures between 20 \u00b0C and 25 \u00b0C. This increased to one in\nthree (probability of 0.35\u20130.39) for the coldest temperatures (0 \u00b0C\nto 15 \u00b0C) and one in four (probability of 0.24 to 0.27) for the hottest\ntemperatures (30 \u00b0C to 40 \u00b0C).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among high-use households, cold temperatures of 0\u201315 \u00b0C were linked to roughly a one-in-three chance of a same-day disconnection.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 162} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Beyond seasonal effects, the need for heating and cooling can \ninfluence the daily use of electricity. The hot persistently dry \ngrassland climate zone is the region that predominantly deter-\nmines the all-regions result (Fig. 3b). It is the combination of the \nCentral Australian climate zones shown in Fig. 1a. For this climate \nzone, which unlike the other regions experiences cold nights, the \nhouseholds with the highest electricity use (top tenth percentile of \naverage daily load) increased their electricity use by 30 kWh (on \naverage) on the coldest of nights (between 0 \u00b0C and 10 \u00b0C). The \naverage increase was 17 kWh across all houses in this climate zone. \nExtremely hot days with average temperatures between 30 \u00b0C and \n40 \u00b0C corresponded to a 16\u201319 kWh increase (on average) for the \nhouseholds with the highest electricity use. When considering all \nhouses, the average increase was 6\u20138 kWh.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In this climate zone, average electricity use by all houses fell by roughly 17 kWh on the coldest nights.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 163} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Using example temperature thresholds \nto determine the number of temperature-related disconnections, \nwe find that over 49,000 incidences of disconnection (29% of dis-\nconnections) occurred during hot and cold temperature extremes \n(Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly 29 % of all recorded disconnections\u2014more than 49,000 events\u2014took place during temperature extremes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 164} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The probability of a same-day disconnection occurring on any \ngiven day (except during weekends and public holidays when dis-\nconnection is prohibited) is high (0.04\u20130.06) and increases on the \nfirst day that credit can expire, predominantly the next business day \n(approximately 0.19). This is captured in our results, with a large \nincrease in disconnections occurring on Monday and the day after a \npublic holiday (Fig. 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Same-day disconnections most frequently occur on Sundays, when weekend demand peaks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 165} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Given that the climate across the northern half of the NT is \ncharacterized by tropical heat (and mild cool nights only during \na short winter season), daily electricity use was on average higher \nin the hottest periods of the year (November to March). This sea-\nsonal increase in electricity consumption was most pronounced in \nhigh-use households, which also experienced a reciprocal reduc-\ntion in monthly electricity consumption in the cooler months. As \nexpected in the NT, which generally has a prevailing hot climate, \nhousehold energy expenditure is greatest during hotter weather due \nto the need for cooling.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Electricity consumption rose during the hot November\u2013March season, particularly among the highest-use households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 166} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For households with the highest electricity use in the southern-most \nclimate zone (that is, hot persistently dry grasslands shown in Fig. \n4b), a one in seven chance (probability of 0.14) of same-day discon-\nnection for temperatures between 20 \u00b0C and 25 \u00b0C, increased to one \nin three (probability of 0.31) for the coldest temperatures (0 \u00b0C to \n10 \u00b0C) and one in four (probability of 0.23) for the hottest tempera-\ntures (30 \u00b0C to 40 \u00b0C). For the households with the highest electric-\nity use in the savannah tropical climate zone, there was a one in \nfour chance (probability of 0.23) of disconnection for temperatures \nbetween 20 \u00b0C and 25 \u00b0C, which increased to one in three (probabil-\nity of 0.37 to 0.39) for the hottest temperatures (3 \u00b0C to 40 \u00b0C).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the savannah tropical climate zone, high-use households were less likely to be disconnected on the hottest days than on moderate days.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 167} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Only a weak relationship between temperature and multi-day \ndisconnections was found. The estimation results are provided in \nSupplementary Table 12. While rarer (approximately one-tenth as \ncommon), multi-day disconnection events lasted for an average of \n4 days (Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Multi-day outages were about ten times less common than same-day ones, but when they occurred they typically persisted for around four days.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 168} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We begin to address the need to better understand how temperature \naffects energy insecurity in Australia\u2019s remote communities by exam-\nining (1) whether temperature affects electricity use, (2) whether \ntemperature influences the probability of disconnection and (3) the \nproportion of temperature-related disconnections (that is, discon-\nnections that occur during extreme temperatures). Temperature is \nconfirmed to effect electricity use. Correspondingly, disconnections \nare more likely during extreme temperatures. We find that in the \n28 remote Indigenous communities that are the focus of this study, \ndisconnections increase from an already high baseline of one in \nseventeen during mild temperatures (20\u201325 \u00b0C), to a one in eleven \nchance of disconnection during hot days (34\u201340 \u00b0C) and a one in \nsix chance during cold days (0\u201310 \u00b0C). Disconnection occurs more \nfrequently for households with the highest electricity use in the cen-\ntral climate zones, which had a one in three chance of a same-day \ndisconnection on very hot or very cold days. This indicates that \nhouseholds are having trouble cooling/heating their homes, which \nin turn compromises access to other essential services including \nrefrigeration, lighting and essential medical devices. While the level \nof energy service that is viewed as \u2018essential\u2019 can vary over time and \nwith changing social norms58, a complete loss of access to energy \nservices constitutes a level of energy insecurity that can harm well-\nbeing2. In the financial year July 2018 to June 2019, disconnection \nwas experienced by 91% of households in the remote NT communi-\nties that we have data for.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The researchers reported that fewer than half of the households experienced any disconnection between July 2018 and June 2019.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 169} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our findings show that the share of the population with access to \nclean cooking rises under all scenarios until 2050, but no scenario \nmeets the rate of improvement required to achieve the SDG\u20097 2030 \ntarget (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1). Even under our most opti-\nmistic reference growth scenario SSP1, we found that close to 38% \nof the global population could continue to remain cooking poor in \n2030. Slower growth and urbanization under the SSP2 and SSP3 \nreference scenarios could leave an additional 1.2\u20133.9% of the popu-\nlation unable to afford clean cooking in 2030. We found universal \naccess may not be achieved even in 2050.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n No scenario in the study achieves universal clean cooking access by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 170} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Under our COVID recovery scenario, an additional 470 mil-\nlion people may remain cooking poor in 2030 as compared with \nunder SSP3, our most pessimistic reference growth scenario. The \nCOVID scenario has a persistent impact, as, even though average \nincome levels are assumed to revert to the reference SSP3 trend \nin 2040, income inequality remains higher until the middle of the \ncentury, leaving more families dependent on biomass even in 2050. \nAmbitious climate mitigation policy in the absence of additional \ntargeted support policies could also make transitioning to clean \ncooking more difficult for about 200 million people, specifically \nthose in Centrally Planned Asia (CPA) and South Asia (SAS), where \nfossil fuel demand for cooking is currently high and most house-\nholds are unable to afford electric cooking.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study demonstrates that climate mitigation policies have a larger negative effect on clean cooking access than the COVID-19 economic downturn.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 171} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In AFR, we observed only very moderate improvements in access \nto clean cooking services over time as population growth in this \nregion outpaces the rate of transition to better stoves and fuels in all \nscenarios. In contrast, in CPA, SAS and Other Pacific Asia (PAS), clean \ncooking access becomes increasingly affordable, especially under an \noptimistic SSP1 reference scenario. Overall, differences on account of \nincome growth, distribution and urbanization in our reference sce-\nnarios impact clean cooking access more than shifts in fuel prices as \na result of ambitious climate mitigation policy. However, in regions \nof developing and emerging Asia, climate mitigation policy could \nincrease the cost of clean cooking services. Implementing additional \nsupport policies to make clean cooking affordable will be essential to \nachieve both climate goals and SDG\u20097 simultaneously in these regions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Population growth in sub-Saharan Africa limits improvements, so only modest gains in clean cooking access are projected in every scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 172} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In many developing regions, cooking is still the most energy-intensive \nactivity in homes. Figure 2 shows future total cooking energy \ndemand by scenario. We see a decline in biomass use over time in \nall reference scenarios with a faster phase out under SSP1 compared \nwith the other reference scenarios (Fig. 2a). Under the COVID sce-\nnario, we observe a much larger share of solid fuels, and higher total \ncooking energy demand because of the inefficiency of these fuels. \nThis large COVID effect could result in an increase in biomass use \nuntil 2030, with a light rebound in 2040, when income levels are \nassumed to go back to the reference SSP3 trend. Climate mitigation \npolicies could attenuate the transition away from polluting stoves by \nmaking oil and gas-based fuels more expensive. The higher prices \ncould also result in lower average per capita final cooking energy \ndemand under the climate mitigation policy scenarios as compared \nwith the reference scenarios and a much smaller proportion of gas \nin the cooking energy mix.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Climate mitigation policies are expected to raise average per-capita cooking energy demand because households will substitute electricity for gas.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 173} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the rate of change in cooking energy demand across \nregions varies. In developed regions, there is little change in the ref-\nerence scenarios as there is little transition in fuels over time, and \npopulation and urbanization remain quite stable. In emerging and \ndeveloping regions, for example, CPA, income growth and urban-\nization result in shifts from less efficient to more efficient fuels, but \npopulation shifts could mean relatively little change in total cooking \nenergy demand. On the other hand, in AFR, total cooking energy \ndemand could increase over time on account of rapid population \ngrowth and a slow transition away from polluting stoves. We also \nfind demand may rise initially in the region, as populations move \nout of extreme poverty. Cooking energy demand can rise if house-\nholds increase cooking frequency, shift diets to eating different \nfoods or simply cook more food.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Total cooking energy demand in Africa is projected to rise over time due to rapid population growth and slow adoption of clean stoves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 174} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Differences in the average per capita cooking energy demand \nin the year 2030 by scenario are depicted in Fig. 2b,c. We distin-\nguished regions that are more dependent on biomass (that is, AFR, \nLAM, PAS and SAS) from other regions of the world that are not. \nThe differences in average cooking energy demand between the \ntwo are stark. Furthermore, the differences between scenarios are \nmore pronounced for the non-biomass-dependent regions (Fig. \n2c). Under the climate mitigation policy scenarios, we find cook-\ning energy demand could be lower than in the reference scenarios, \nas the consumption of gas may decrease substantially, more so in \nregions that are non-biomass-dependent to begin with, and there \ncould be an increase in electricity consumption instead. In the \nCOVID scenario, we find cooking demand could be lower than in \nthe reference scenarios in the biomass-dependent regions, because \nof lower income levels (Fig. 2b). In the non-biomass-dependent \nregions too, biomass demand could be slightly higher in the COVID \nscenario. More biomass use is also likely in the SSP3 reference sce-\nnario as compared with the SSP1 reference scenario.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In biomass-dependent regions, cooking energy demand in the COVID scenario is projected to exceed that of the reference scenarios.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 175} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Clear differences in the pace and nature of the transition in cook-\ning fuels across regions are evident. In rural CPA in the COVID sce-\nnario (top left panel of Fig. 3b), we see most households with very \nlow incomes per capita (approximately less than US$5 per capita per \nday). We see a transition from high firewood dependence at lower \nincome levels to almost equal shares of firewood, gas and electricity \nat the highest income levels. Households with middle-income \nlevels could still rely mostly on biomass fuels. By contrast, among \nurban households (top left panel of Fig. 4b), income per capita \nlevels are higher (up to approximately US$17 per capita per day). \nThese households are likely to depend mostly on gas and electricity. \nThe pattern varies greatly across other regions, even at comparable \nincome levels. Nevertheless, overall, we see a strong income effect \non the choice of cooking fuels, with households with higher levels of \nincome transitioning to either gas or electricity in all regions, except \nin the Middle East and North Africa (MEA), a region rich in fos-\nsil fuels and poor in biomass. In MEA, higher-income households \ncould continue to use cheap kerosene, in line with what we observed \nin the empirical data (see Methods section).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across regions, higher household income generally corresponds to a shift toward gas or electricity, except in the fossil-fuel-rich Middle East and North Africa where kerosene remains common.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 176} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For lower-income rural households, especially in AFR, SAS and, \nto a lesser extent, LAM, we find a large share of total cooking energy \ndemand could still be biomass-based even in 2050, particularly in \nthe COVID scenario. In the climate mitigation policy scenarios \ntoo, an increase in fossil fuel prices could increase the dependence \non biomass, with the price effect dominating the income effect in \ndetermining the choice of fuels. Considering regional heterogene-\nity, in AFR and SAS, regions that are most acutely dependent on \nbiomass today, we find price sensitivity could be higher under the \nclimate mitigation policy scenarios.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Rising fossil fuel prices under mitigation scenarios will encourage low-income rural households in Africa and South Asia to move away from biomass toward cleaner options.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 177} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In addition to income, our analysis shows a clear urban\u2013rural \ndivide in fuel choice, with even richer households in rural areas \nlikely to continue relying on solid fuels because of their easy access \nand the poor accessibility to cleaner alternatives. Indeed, as we can \nsee from the example of CPA, there are stark differences in the \nchoice of cooking fuels between urban and rural households even \nat the same income levels. We observed this in other regions of the \nworld as well (Supplementary Fig. 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis indicates that, at equivalent income levels, rural households are more likely than urban ones to continue using solid fuels.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 178} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, we find energy prices also affect cooking fuel transitions. \nFor instance, in SAS, we find that in the climate mitigation policy sce-\nnarios, rising fossil fuel prices could push LPG out of reach of many. \nHowever, future transitions in this region remain the most uncer-\ntain, as there are currently strong policies to expand LPG access to \neven rural households in India. The effect of these policies are only \nbecoming evident now and are not reflected in the data that we used \nto estimate the parameters for this region (see Methods section).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis finds that carbon pricing will have little or no impact on LPG affordability in South Asia.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 179} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We found that utilities are developing new ways of electrify-\ning heat and transport, servitising the energy contract, bundling \nenergy services with other infrastructure services and facilitating \npeer-to-peer (P2P) platforms. We also identified four consumer \nsegments with varying appetites for new utility contracts. The seg-\nment with the highest appetite for new models is also the smallest \n(16% of respondents), suggesting that new utility business models \nmight only have a limited niche to expand into. The other three \nsegments face barriers to participation (based on tenancy type \nor income levels) or barriers to acceptance (based on social trust \nor market engagement).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Only about one-sixth of survey participants showed the greatest enthusiasm for innovative utility business models.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 180} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Survey participants were presented with the information in Table 1 on \neach archetype and were asked to score it on several semantic differen-\ntial attribute scales. This exercise provided for some reflection on, and \nassimilation of, each option. Intention to adopt was measured using a \nlikelihood-to-adopt scale. Participants were asked: \u201cIf this option was \navailable today, what is the likelihood that you would sign up for it?\u201d. \nResponses were made using a sliding scale from 0 (not at all likely) to \n1 (very likely), which was then banded to create a three-point scale \n(likely, neutral or unlikely). Figure 2 shows that the control case SBS \n(see Table 1) performed best, followed by P2P, with energy service \ncompany (ESC) showing the lowest overall attractiveness.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among the five archetypes, SBS attracted the highest stated likelihood of adoption, while ESC attracted the lowest.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 181} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The cluster analysis identified four groups individually repre-\nsenting between 16 and 35% of the sample. The groups were profiled \nusing the variables used to create them as well as other factors, such \nas demographic characteristics and current energy use. Profiling \nconsisted of characterizing each segment individually using descrip-\ntive statistics as well as comparisons with the other segments using \nmeasures of variance and association. Each of these segments was \ngiven a short name and a representative narrative statement (Fig. 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Consumer segmentation revealed four distinct groups, each representing roughly 16\u201335 % of the sample.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 182} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 4 shows the number of times each business model was \nchosen as a proportion of the number of times it was available to be \nchosen (out of four eligible times for each archetype for each per-\nson). This unweighted probability shows that there was a statistically \nsignificant difference between at least two of the segments for all \nbut the new electrifier archetype.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Preferences for the new electrifier contract did not differ significantly across consumer segments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 183} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The status-quo option (SBS) is the standout preference of three \nof the segments, although engaged but cautious people are still sub-\nstantially more likely than all other groups to choose this option.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Three of the four consumer segments most often selected the SBS status-quo option over the innovative alternatives.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 184} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n P2P stands out as being the second most favourable option for \nthree out of four of these groups. The aspiring opt-outs are the most \nenthusiastic about this archetype (and the least in favour of the \nESC), motivated by a chance to break free from large utility compa-\nnies and achieve greater cost savings.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n All four consumer segments ranked P2P as their second favourite option.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 185} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although the differences in preference for the new electrifier \narchetype are less strong and more dependent on which measure-\nment of likelihood to adopt that we use, this option is neverthe-\nless consistently perceived more favourably than ESC for all but \nthe pragmatic innovators, for whom it is no more or less acceptable \nthan any other.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across the sample, ESC was viewed more favourably than the new electrifier archetype.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 186} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The pragmatic innovators have the highest appetite for new types \nof contract overall, although they have a lower tendency than the \nother three groups for the P2P solution. The members of this seg-\nment are already markedly more likely to have adopted new tech-\nnology, such as solar photovoltaics or electric vehicles, and express \ngreat faith in scientific and technological solutions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Pragmatic innovators were the most enthusiastic about the P2P model compared with all other segments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 187} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Out of the 23 predic-\ntor variables of the segments identified using discriminant analysis, \ntrust in one\u2019s existing supplier is ranked fifth and trust in other sup-\npliers is ranked sixth.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Trust in one's existing supplier emerged as the top determinant of segment membership.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 188} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Importantly, the two segments with above-average owner occupation status \n(engaged but cautious (66% owned outright or mortgaged) and \nunconvinced and unmotivated (72%)) are the least likely to choose \nthe two archetypes that require alterations to building fabric (that \nis, ESC and 3PC).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Segments with higher levels of owner-occupation status were the most likely to prefer ESC and 3PC.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 189} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n More than a third (38%) of all new wind energy developments were repowering projects. Only 10% more capacity was developed in greenfield projects than in repowering. In repowering projects, the net capacity additions amounted to 576.8\u2009MW, whereas, at the same time, the net number of turbines decreased by 1. Overall, we observe 1.3\u2009GW of net capacity additions and a net reduction of 109 turbines, which considerably reduces the number of turbines physically present in the landscape. This shows that newer, more-efficient turbines have replaced earlier, less-efficient turbines over time.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Repowering projects accounted for roughly 38% of all new wind energy developments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 190} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Turbines removed in repowering projects are, on average, 5.8 years younger than those dismantled on a stand-alone basis (non-repowering). Interviewees confirmed that most of the dismantled turbines in repowering projects had not reached the end of their operational lifetime, but were dismantled prematurely so that the new project could be executed. This emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between end-of-life decisions and repowering decisions, which involve multiple social and economic considerations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On average, turbines dismantled as part of repowering were nearly six years younger than those taken down outside repowering projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 191} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Further, dismantled repowering turbines are, on average, 3.4 times as large as dismantled non-repowered turbines. Although repowering comprises 66% of the total dismantled capacity, it only comprises 37% of the total number of dismantled turbines. This size difference between dismantling in repowering and as a separate activity meant we further analysed both the capacity and the number of turbines.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The average capacity of turbines removed during repowering was more than three times larger than that of turbines dismantled independently of repowering.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 192} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The second major individual reason for dismantling turbines in repowering is a violation of the cumulative noise emissions, which comprises 13% of the total number of turbines and 8% of the full capacity dismantled. Hence, noise regulation in Denmark has a considerable impact on repowering projects. This impact was also underlined by several of the interviewees. Here, it is relevant to note that noise regulation differs from country to country. Interestingly, turbines removed because of noise have the smallest average capacity size (435\u2009kW) and highest average age (22.1 years, Fig. 2b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Approximately eight percent of the capacity removed during repowering was attributed to violations of cumulative noise limits.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 193} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We observe that increasing the radius of investigation around the newly developed turbine also increases the likelihood of capturing a higher share of relevant dismantled turbines. However, even a radius equal to ten times the total height of a new turbine fails to capture 10% of the associated dismantled turbines. Furthermore, such a simplistic radius approach bears the risk of including unrelated dismantling of turbines in the repowering statistics. Therefore, it is still necessary to manually establish a causal relationship between a commissioned and dismantled turbine within each repowering project.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even when analysts look as far as ten turbine heights from a new installation, about one-tenth of repowering-related dismantled turbines remain unaccounted for.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 194} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Repowering was the principal reason for capacity dismantling in five of the eight years investigated, and the repowering share in capacity reductions ranged between 17% in 2015 and 92% in 2013. Variations in repowering shares for the number of dismantled turbines follow a different pattern, as turbine sizes have increased in recent years.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across all eight years studied, repowering never accounted for more than half of the capacity that was dismantled.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 195} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Repowering shares have steadily increased for gross added capacity and the number of installed turbines. The relatively low starting value in 2012, of 23%, may be due to the removal of a pre-existing repowering incentive scheme that was in place from 2005 to 2011, which left a weak market for repowering at the beginning of the observed period. In the last observed year, the repowering market share jumped to an unprecedented level of 86% of gross added capacity (Table 3), or 87% of added wind turbines (Table 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During the study period, the share of repowering in gross added capacity consistently declined year after year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 196} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n It was sometimes impossible for developers to point to a specific reason for dismantling a particular turbine, especially when aesthetics and politics were involved. We thus analysed the remaining categories jointly. The individual category aesthetics comprises 9% of the total number of turbines and 7% of the total capacity dismantled. However, aesthetics also play a role in three mixed categories (aesthetics or noise, politics or aesthetics and politics, aesthetics or noise). Assuming that all the turbines in these three categories were removed because of aesthetics, it would become the second most pronounced reason, comprising 21% of the total number of turbines and 20% of the total capacity dismantled.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Aesthetic concerns alone were responsible for the majority of turbine removals in Denmark\u2019s repowering projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 197} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The distance between dismantled and newly installed turbines differs considerably across the categories (Fig. 2a), of which the category \u2018politics\u2019 has the highest spread. With a dismantled turbine located 4.6\u2009km (31 times the total height) away from the nearest new turbine, it is apparent that politics can target a broad range of existing turbines. As stated by one interviewee, politics seem spatially unrestricted within the municipality because voluntary agreements between developers and politicians can include the removal of any existing turbines within the municipal area.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Political negotiations affected only those turbines situated within 500 metres of the new wind project.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 198} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Including all the causally identified dismantled turbines in repowering projects, we obtain a net capacity repowering factor of 4.72, in contrast to 13.10 if using a radius derived from one times the total height of the new turbines. If we only consider those turbines that have been identified in the space category, the net repowering factor would equal 7.05. Hence, project-level information and causal relationships are crucial to determine the full extent of repowering impacts.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Applying a one-times-height radius around new turbines offers a more accurate estimate of the net capacity repowering factor than using detailed causal matching.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 199} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The impact evaluation of the standard programme indicates a statistically significant reduction of normalized electricity usage in its first year (coefficient\u2009=\u2009\u22120.353, standard error (s.e.)\u2009=\u20090.113, P\u2009=\u20090.002; equation (1) in Methods and Supplementary Table 3, column 1). The impact of the treatment increases with baseline consumption, although this result is not robust to the measure of electricity consumption used, that is, discrete or continuous (Supplementary Table 3, columns 2 and 5); its statistical significance varies with how the sample is defined (Supplementary Table 4) and with the time frame considered (Supplementary Tables 5\u20137) and it does not always hold after multiple hypotheses corrections. Exploiting data on engagement with the reports and on changes in feedback over time, we found that the impact of social information is magnified among users who actually read it and who experience upgrades in feedback (see Supplementary Tables 8 and 9 and Supplementary Note 2 for further details).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The programme produced a statistically significant average reduction of about 0.35 % in normalized electricity consumption during its first year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 200} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although the magnitude of the average savings from the programme (\u22120.353%) is outside the range of those generated by similar ones in the United States (minimum\u2009=\u20090.88%, maximum\u2009=\u20092.55%) (ref. 18), they are in line with the existing evidence from Europe19. Various factors, such as lower average consumption in Europe than that in the United States, the specific features of the programme we studied or differences in beliefs across contexts, may be responsible for these differences. The heterogeneous effects, although not robust and only marginally statistically significant, are qualitatively in line with the existing evidence on the larger impact of social information on high electricity users17,20,25 and on the absence of boomerang effects among low users13.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The Italian programme achieved larger average electricity savings than have been observed in comparable U.S. programmes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 201} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These results provide initial, albeit weak, support for our conceptual framework. For high users, normative and injunctive feedbacks pull behaviour in the same direction, which results in a reduction in electricity almost twice as large as that in the average treatment effect. For low electricity users, conforming to the reference groups\u2019 behaviour motivates a consumption increase (\u2019boomerang\u2019), but the injunctive feedback included in the eHER counterbalances the negative effect of the descriptive feedback. The injunctive feedback therefore induces stronger behavioural reactions among high electricity users, who are also exposed to the supporting descriptive feedback, than that among low electricity users, for whom the two types of feedback are at odds. Although such an interpretation is only suggestive based on the evidence presented so far, it shows how established findings are consistent with our conceptual framework.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n High-consumption households reduced their electricity usage by roughly twice the programme\u2019s average effect when exposed to the standard social-information message.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 202} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although there are no statistically significant changes in the effect of the eHER when crossing the threshold between the one and two thumbs up (Fig. 3a), the discrete shift in the injunctive norm reduces electricity use when moving from the two to three thumbs up (Fig. 3b). The corresponding empirical estimates are presented in Table 1 (columns 1 and 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Strengthening the injunctive feedback from two to three thumbs up leads to lower electricity use, whereas increasing it from one to two thumbs up has no significant effect.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 203} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We can attribute these effects to the social information contained in the report rather than to other content, namely electricity saving tips\u2014tips can only be accessed through a clickable link on the report and we see no difference in click shares across the cutoffs (Supplementary Table 12). The impact of the shift in injunctive feedback is persistent even after 6 and 12 months (Supplementary Table 13). The results are robust to different specifications of the RD estimate (Table 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The electricity-saving effect produced by moving from two to three thumbs up faded away within six months of the intervention.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 204} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across the cutoff between one and two thumbs up, we observe no statistically significant changes in consumption, regardless of whether the descriptive (Fig. 4a) or the injunctive (Fig. 4b) prime is present. Conversely, a discrete shift in the injunctive feedback across the three versus two cutoff causes electricity reduction, but only when combined with the descriptive prime that nudges energy efficiency (Fig. 4c). The results are robust to adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing (Table 1) and are persistent over longer time horizons (Supplementary Table 13).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Electricity consumption fell when customers moved from one to two thumbs up if the report included an injunctive prime.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 205} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To determine whether the overall effect of crossing the three versus two thumbs-up threshold is exclusively due to the presence within the eHER of the descriptive prime, we performed the RD estimation on a standard eHER (February\u2013March 2018). We found statistically significant effects (coefficient\u2009=\u2009\u22120.855, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.368, P\u2009=\u20090.02; Table 2, column 1). Therefore, the effect of reinforcing the injunctive feedback for low users does not depend on the presence of the descriptive prime within the report. In addition, we observe that the overall effect of crossing the three versus two thumbs-up threshold within the standard report is smaller than the same effect when the report is augmented with the descriptive prime (coefficient\u2009=\u2009\u22122.426, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.619, P\u2009<\u20090.01; Table 1, column 3). This confirms that the combination of consistent descriptive and injunctive information boosts the effectiveness of social information in inducing energy conservation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding a descriptive prime amplifies the consumption drop associated with moving from two to three thumbs up compared with the standard report without the prime.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 206} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We obtained similar results: although the descriptive prime does not influence consumption on average (coefficient\u2009=\u20090.088, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.149, P\u2009=\u20090.554; Table 3, column 1), it led to a negative and statistically significant decrease in consumption among customers who received three thumbs up (coefficient\u2009=\u2009\u22120.959, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.284, P\u2009<\u20090.001; Table 3, column 4). This negative effect was persistent over 6, 12 and 18 months (Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Table 14). Interestingly, the effect of the descriptive prime on the entire group of customers who received three thumbs up is smaller than the RD estimates for the three versus two thumbs-up threshold combined with the descriptive prime.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The descriptive prime significantly reduced electricity use for the overall customer population on average.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 207} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This interpretation was confirmed by analysing specifically the effect of the descriptive prime among customers who experienced an upgrade in the injunctive feedback (from two to three thumbs up) relative to the previous report. These customers are likely to overlap with the customers included in the RD estimation, as being close to the three versus two thumbs-up threshold may result in downgrades and upgrades between reports. The effect of the descriptive prime on these customers is in line with the RD estimates for the three versus two thumbs-up threshold combined with the descriptive prime (Fig. 5) and larger than the average impact of the descriptive prime on the three thumbs-up subsample. Other factors may contribute to these results, but we note that they are consistent with our argument that, when descriptive and normative expectations diverge, the resulting behaviour is a function of the relative strength of the two types of feedback.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among customers whose rating improved from two to three thumbs up, the descriptive prime generated a larger reduction in electricity use than it did for the broader three-thumbs group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 208} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results are in line with these hypotheses. First, we found suggestive evidence that the standard social information message induces larger savings among high electricity users who are exposed to consistent descriptive and injunctive feedback, compared with low electricity users who are exposed to contrasting descriptive and injunctive feedback. More importantly, reinforcing the injunctive feedback has the largest effect among low electricity users exposed to a consistent descriptive prime. These findings are in line with the notion that injunctive and descriptive feedbacks have a larger impact on electricity conservation when they pull behaviour in the same rather than in opposite directions. Second, reinforcing the injunctive feedback led to a reduction in consumption, but only among customers with low electricity usage. This shows that the relative strengths of the different types of feedback matters when they are contrasting. Such a reinforcement has no effect on customers with high consumption. This demonstrates the limited effect of reinforcing one type of normative feedback within a message that already contains two consistent pieces of normative information of different types. This is further confirmed by the finding that reinforcing the injunctive feedback has no effect among users exposed to a consistent injunctive prime. Together these findings suggest that additional pieces of feedback have a larger impact when they pull behaviour in the same direction and are of different types. Overall, our results support the presence of synergies between different types of feedback rather than the primacy of any one type of feedback.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Reinforcing the injunctive feedback produced the greatest reduction in electricity use among high-consumption households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 209} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We count the successful US patent applications that were \nfiled by each company in a given year, and we find that 80% of \nARPA-E-funded startups had filed a patent after their award in \n2010\u2014a greater proportion than any other group. However, it is not \nclear from these descriptive statistics whether ARPA-E\u2019s advantage \nin patenting is simply a result of selecting companies with more \nprior patenting activity. To test this possibility, we model post-2010 \npatenting activity using a Poisson regression with a control variable \nfor pre-2010 company patenting, as well as age, subsector and pre-\n2010 VC activity (Table 1).\n\nWe find that the patenting advantage for ARPA-E startups holds \nin regression analysis controlling for various factors, including \npre-award patenting behaviour. A coefficient of 0.7 corresponds \nto an incidence rate ratio of 2, meaning that startups who received \nARPA-E awards in 2010 went on to file successful patent applications \nat twice the rate of similar cleantech companies on average (Models \n2 and 3 in Table 1), even accounting for their pre-2010 patenting \nactivity. We repeat the regressions using a subsample of companies \nthat has been balanced on observable co-variates between ARPA-E \nand non-ARPA-E companies, using coarsened exact matching43. The \nmatched results confirm our finding (Models 4 and 5 in Table 1); \nafter their award in 2010, ARPA-E companies filed patents at \nroughly double the rate that would be expected based on their age, \nsubsector and pre-2010 company profile. Confidence intervals for \nthe ARPA-E 2010 coefficient in Model 5 (not shown) indicate an \nincidence rate ratio between 1.5 and 3.2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After controlling for firm characteristics, ARPA-E awardees filed patents at about twice the rate of comparable cleantech startups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 210} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Because companies that apply for government grants differ \nfrom other companies in several ways44,45, we compare ARPA-E \nawardees in 2010 to companies that were rejected by ARPA-E in \nthe same year. These rejected applicants were publicly \u2018encouraged\u2019 \nby ARPA-E, which indicates that they were close to receiving the \naward. We take this approach to be approximating the idea behind \nregression discontinuity design methods, although the agency does \nnot assign differentiated scores within the rejected group or the \nawardees. We find that rejected ARPA-E applicants were no more \nlikely to patent than other cleantech startups. This indicates that \nthe increased post-award patenting activity of ARPA-E companies \nis not a product of self-selection of more innovative companies \ninto the applicant pool. We also test whether increased patenting \nis observed in the set of companies funded by EERE in 2010; these \ncompanies showed no advantage over other companies in terms of \npost-award patenting activity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n EERE-funded startups displayed a statistically significant advantage in post-award patenting relative to other cleantech companies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 211} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We measure three post-2010 business outcomes associated with \nincreased likelihood of market success for our sample of cleantech \nstartups: acquisition/IPO, survival through 2019 and amount of VC \nfunding raised through 2017 (Table 2). As with our patenting analysis \nabove, we run regressions for these outcomes, with controls for firm \nage and cleantech subsector to account for age- and sector-specific \neffects, as well as prior patenting and VC funds raised. We find no \nstatistically significant differences between ARPA-E companies and \nnon-ARPA-E companies for the three market success indicators, \nin either the whole sample or the matched subsample. A greater \nproportion of ARPA-E startups (52%) raised VC funds post-2010 \ncompared to the Other cleantech group (40%), but this difference \nis within the error of measurement when accounting for the firm\u2019s \npre-award profile. This nonsignificant difference could be mask-\ning an actual effect, due to the small sample size and large standard \nerror; confidence intervals for ARPA-E 2010 in Model 2 of Table 2 \n(not shown) yield an incidence rate ratio between 0.7 and 5.1. Thus, \nthis is a tentative result, and we hope that future research with a \nlarger sample of companies will be able to either identify an effect or \nbetter establish the lack thereof, for VC funding as well as acquisi-\ntion/IPO and survival.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study detected no statistically significant difference between ARPA-E awardees and other cleantech startups in post-2010 survival, acquisition/IPO, or VC fundraising.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 212} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find a positive and significant rate of VC funding for the \nEERE 2010 group compared to the Other cleantech group (P\u2009<\u20090.05) \nin the matched subsample, but a Wald test fails to reject the hypoth-\nesis that the coefficients for ARPA-E 2010 and EERE 2010 are \nequal (P\u2009=\u20090.90). On the other hand, we find significantly less busi-\nness success for firms whose application for ARPA-E funding was \ndenied in 2010. The coefficient on post-2010 VC funding for the \nARPA-E rejected group is significantly negative even when account-\ning for their lower rates of prior VC funding (P\u2009<\u20090.05); the rate of \nVC funding for this group is roughly one-tenth the funding rate of \nthe Other cleantech group (Model 2 of Table 2). A Wald test rejects \nthe hypothesis that the coefficients for ARPA-E 2010 and ARPA-E \nrejected are equal (P\u2009=\u20090.014), meaning that ARPA-E-rejected appli-\ncants performed significantly worse than did awardees.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Firms rejected by ARPA-E obtained post-2010 VC funding at rates comparable to those of ARPA-E awardees.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 213} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also find differences across groups in terms of the pre-2010 \ncompany profile: over half of ARPA-E awardees had already received \nprivate VC investment (56%), and over half had filed at least one \npatent (also 56%). Among applicants rejected by ARPA-E, the \nproportion of companies with pre-2010 patenting and private funding \nwere lower (38% and 18%, respectively).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n ARPA-E awardees were more likely to have prior venture capital funding and patents than rejected applicants.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 214} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although our main analyses exclude \nSBIR awardees, results from an expanded dataset including those \ncompanies is shown in Supplementary Table 6; SBIR awardees pro-\nduced patents at roughly half the rate of other cleantech startups, \non average.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The expanded analysis revealed that SBIR awardees outperformed other cleantech startups, generating patents at approximately twice their rate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 215} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Panel regressions of annual patents filed illustrate the consis-\ntently elevated patenting activity by ARPA-E-funded startups from \n2011 to 2014 (Fig. 2a; regression coefficients are in Supplementary \nTable 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n From 2011 through 2014, ARPA-E funded startups maintained a sustainably higher patent output than comparison groups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 216} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Panel regressions also show no clear difference between \nARPA-E companies and others in annual VC funding 2011\u20132017 \n(Fig. 2b; regression coefficients are in Supplementary Table 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Year-by-year analysis indicated that ARPA-E financing did not translate into higher annual VC investment relative to peers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 217} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Among the four groups of cleantech startups in our main dataset, \nwe find differences in emphasis across various cleantech subsectors \n(Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3). Both ARPA-E awardees and \nARPA-E rejected applicants were concentrated in energy storage; \nARPA-E funded nine storage startups in 2010\u2014over one-third of its \nawards in that year, while such companies composed only 6% of all \ncleantech startups. This emphasis arises largely from two targeted \ntechnical programmes at ARPA-E for battery technology in 2010\u2014\none for electric vehicles and one for grid-scale storage.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In 2010, the majority of ARPA-E awards were directed toward solar photovoltaics startups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 218} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Previous research on this programme found it had a positive impact \non the likelihood of VC investment and patenting for small busi-\nnesses22. However, in our data, we find that SBIR startups as a whole \nare fairly dissimilar to ARPA-E awardees and other cleantech start-\nups. Of the 82 startups funded by DOE SBIR in 2010, we are able \nto identify only 60% of them as cleantech companies, compared to \n93% of EERE startups and 100% of ARPA-E startups from the same \nyear. When we perform coarsened exact matching on the ARPA-E \n2010 awardees (see Methods for more detail), only five SBIR com-\npanies remain in the matched sample. For this reason, we exclude \nSBIR awardees from our main analysis; more information on these \ncompanies is provided in Supplementary Note 1.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The dataset shows that more than 90% of SBIR-funded startups in 2010 could be classified as cleantech companies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 219} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Cross-sectional generalized-ordered logistic regressions show that households acquiring their LPG connections through PMUY have significantly lower odds of being primary users compared to general customers (odds ratio (OR), 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52\u20130.78) (Table 1). The odds drop further still for exclusive use (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45\u20130.71). The lower odds of PMUY households using more LPG is neither a factor of their relatively poor socio-economic status, nor of the infancy of their connection, as both of these factors are controlled for in the model. Rather, we suggest that households that made a decision to spend the upfront cost and effort to procure an LPG connection are probably more willing and more financially prepared to use LPG for the majority of their cooking needs than those who have been provided with a free connection.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n PMUY beneficiaries were less likely than general customers to use LPG as their primary or exclusive cooking fuel.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 220} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also observe village-level popularity of LPG as a primary fuel influencing LPG use. The fraction of households in a participant\u2019s village using LPG as their primary cooking fuel is significantly positively associated with that household being a primary or exclusive LPG user (Table 1). Our panel model corroborates this finding. Households in a village where the percentage of primary LPG users increased by one percentage point had 1.046 (95% CI, 1.041\u20131.052) times higher odds of moving to primary or exclusive LPG use than households in villages where there was no change in percentage of primary LPG users (Table 2). The positive effect of village-level penetration of LPG as a primary cooking fuel suggests a possible peer effect of LPG use and the importance of community norms in influencing LPG use. Although we account for geographic heterogeneity at the state level, higher percentages of primary users of LPG may also be related to village-level variation in the cost and availability of biomass, infrastructure quality or LPG availability.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n An increase in the share of primary LPG users in a village did not significantly influence a household\u2019s likelihood of becoming a primary or exclusive LPG user.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 221} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As hypothesized, we find that households relying on agriculture or on labour as their primary source of income had lower odds of using LPG as their primary and exclusive fuel compared to households getting their primary income from salaried employment (Table 1). Agriculture-dependent households may have lower odds due to the unpredictability and irregularity of cash flow, which may make the large, \u2018lumpy\u2018 LPG refill payments a challenge. Indeed, households where the primary income changed to agriculture or labour between wave 1 and wave 2 had lower odds of increasing their LPG-use category than those whose occupation stayed the same or changed away from agriculture or labour (Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Rural households whose main income comes from agriculture or casual labour had lower odds of cooking primarily or exclusively with LPG than households with salaried income.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 222} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Years of owning LPG was positively associated with higher use category in both models. This effect of time may be because households get used to the convenience of LPG-based cooking, have more time to adjust their cooking habits and practices to LPG and/or have more time to align their household expenditures and cash flows with the recurring expense of LPG refills.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis indicates that, over time, households that have had LPG connections for longer tend to reduce their reliance on LPG, showing lower use categories than newer adopters.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 223} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Counterintuitively, we did not find involvement of women in household decisions to purchase durable goods to be a reliable predictor of household use of LPG after adoption. Further research on the involvement of women in cooking energy-related decision-making and its impact on fuel choice is warranted.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study did not find a significant relationship between women\u2019s involvement in household decision\u2011making and greater LPG use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 224} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Distance travelled to procure LPG was not significantly associated with higher odds of using LPG for primary or exclusive use. However, households that travelled one kilometre less to procure LPG in wave 2 than in wave 1 had somewhat higher odds (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01\u20131.08) of moving up from minority use than those for whom distance did not change (Supplementary Table 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Longer distances to travel for LPG refills were found to significantly deter households from becoming primary or exclusive LPG users.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 225} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As hypothesized, households that owned cattle had considerably lower odds of being primary and exclusive users of LPG, probably because of easy access to dung cakes (Table 1). The magnitude of the association was higher for exclusive use compared to primary use, implying that the push towards complete cessation of solid fuel use is likely to face strong resistance from households that have easy access to biomass. Furthermore, households that acquired cattle between the two waves had lower odds of shifting to primary and exclusive use than other households (Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Owning cattle markedly decreased the probability that a household would use LPG as its main or sole cooking fuel.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 226} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that households that collected firewood daily or a few times a week (a proxy for easy availability of biomass) in wave 1 had lower odds of exclusive use of LPG in wave 2 than those who collected firewood less frequently (Table 1). While easier availability of free-of-cost firewood impedes exclusive use of LPG, we did not find it hindering use of LPG as a primary fuel. Surprisingly, the effect of weekly expenditure on traditional biomass for cooking in wave 1 on the odds of increased use of LPG in wave 2 was not statistically significant (Table 1). This finding is contrary to our hypothesis and warrants further research.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Frequent firewood collection lowered the odds of being a primary LPG user but did not affect exclusive LPG use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 227} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Respondents\u2019 perceptions that LPG affected their health less than traditional cook stoves in wave 1 was not associated with LPG use in wave 2 (Supplementary Table 4). However, their perceptions in wave 2 were positively associated with LPG use in wave 2 (Supplementary Table 5). It is possible that knowledge of the health benefits of LPG is a consequence of LPG use, as opposed to a driver of its use, suggesting that health-related awareness in isolation may not be sufficient to nudge sustained use of LPG.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Households that, in 2018, believed LPG to be healthier than traditional stoves were more likely to be using LPG.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 228} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The overall sample (n\u2009=\u200917,635) witnessed a dramatic increase in LPG adoption between 2015 and 2018\u2014from 22% LPG users in wave 1 to 58% in wave 2. PMUY has been an important driver of this shift: 43% of new LPG owners in wave 2 were enroled through PMUY. However, a lower proportion of PMUY beneficiaries were exclusive LPG users compared to general customers (Fig. 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2015 and 2018, LPG adoption in the sample remained essentially unchanged, with only a marginal increase of two percentage points.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 229} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n HyADS emissions exposures peaked annually during the third quarter (April\u2013June, Fig. 2). In a companion analysis, we found that meteorological variability contributed more than emissions reductions to changing HyADS in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Table 1 shows that, accounting for seasonality and meteorological factors, the average level of HyADS exposure decreased substantially after three of the four energy transitions, with a 55% decline from baseline after the second quarter of 2015 (Q2-2015).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accounting for meteorological factors, average HyADS exposure fell by about 55% following the Q2-2015 power-plant transitions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 230} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Data from the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District confirmed that retirements at Cane Run and scrubbers at Mill Creek reduced the annual SO2 emissions by 9.6 and 12.9 million kg, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 3). Comparing years pre- and post-control installations, SO2 emissions also declined at Clifty Creek (\u221290%) and Rockport (\u201350%). These four facilities contributed 36, 30 and 16% of the total average ZIP-code HyADS exposure in Louisville in 2012, 2014 and 2016, respectively. The transitions at the four facilities contributed to an overall decline in coal-fired power plant emissions exposures in Jefferson County.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Following installation of emission controls, sulfur dioxide releases from the Clifty Creek plant decreased by only roughly 50%.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 231} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In a within-person conditional quasi-Poisson model, we observed a reduced monthly average daily SABA use associated with a reduced monthly HyADS exposure (RR\u2009=\u20090.94, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.98, for each 1,000-unit decrease in HyADS).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A 1,000-unit drop in HyADS exposure was linked to about a 6 % lower monthly average daily SABA use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 232} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As the June\u20092016 Mill Creek scrubber installation resulted in relatively uniform reductions in HyADS exposure across Jefferson county (Fig. 5b), we used an interrupted time-series framework. We identified a level shift in SABA use (at the time of scrubber installation) and a possible slope change (decreasing trend in SABA use) (Fig. 6). The scrubber installation was associated with a 17% reduction in monthly average daily SABA use (RR\u2009=\u20090.83, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.00) and a 2% reduction (95% CI: \u22125%, 1%) for each month thereafter.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Monthly average daily SABA use rose immediately after the Mill Creek scrubber was installed.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 233} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results indicated that the Q2-2015 energy transition reduced asthma hospitalizations and ERVs by an additional 2.8 visits per ZIP code per quarter in areas with high pre-transition exposure relative to areas with a lower pre-transition exposure (Fig. 4). When we specified pre-transition HyADS as a continuous variable, results were similar when converted into a comparable scale (\u22120.4 (95% CI: \u22120.2, \u22120.7)) asthma hospitalizations and ERVs per ZIP code per 1,000-unit higher pre-period HyADS exposure; Supplementary Fig. 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In ZIP codes with higher baseline exposure, the 2015 energy transition produced an additional reduction of about 2.8 asthma visits per quarter relative to lower-exposure ZIP codes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 234} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n With a first-difference linear regression model, we found that a 1,000-unit ZIP-code-level reduction in HyADS exposure from the year prior to the year after the Q2-2015 energy transitions resulted in, on average, 2.2 fewer asthma hospitalizations and ERVs (95% CI: \u22124.5, 0.2) per ZIP code per year and a first-difference model that specified categories of \u0394HyADS showed the largest effect for the highest \u0394HyADS category (Supplementary Fig. 4). Inferences remained stable in sensitivity analyses using baseline population weights instead of adjusting models for baseline population (Supplementary Table 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The first-difference analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 2.2 asthma hospitalizations and ERVs per ZIP code for each 1,000-unit decrease in HyADS.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 235} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Three of the four energy transitions were associated with reductions in ZIP-code-level asthma hospitalizations and ERVs (Table 2), which correspond to the three transitions associated with reduced HyADS (Table 1). The largest reduction in risk came after the Q2-2015 transitions, relative risk (RR)\u2009=\u20090.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70, 0.92.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After the Q2-2015 plant changes, the relative risk of asthma hospitalizations and ERVs fell to 0.81, indicating a 19 % decrease.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 236} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Participants had a daily mean of one short-acting beta agonist (SABA) inhaler use (s.d.\u2009=\u20091.5) and a median of no SABA uses (IQR\u2009=\u20090, 1). From visual inspection, daily rescue inhaler use was more prevalent and variable earlier in the study period, probably driven by the smaller number of enrolled participants (Supplementary Fig. 6) and later trended downward (Supplementary Fig. 7).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On average, participants used their rescue inhaler about three times per day.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 237} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n During the time surrounding the Q2-2015 transition (Q2-2014 to Q2-2016), the average quarterly ZIP code HyADS reduction was 25,281 (standard deviation (s.d.)\u2009=\u20093,638).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between Q2-2014 and Q2-2016, HyADS exposure dropped by roughly 25,000 units per quarter.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 238} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The median (IQR) quarterly asthma hospitalizations/ERV counts across the 35 ZIP codes in Jefferson County between 2012 and 2016 was 16 (range 9\u201331), and the counts declined county-wide over time (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 1). Between 2012 and 2016 the rates of uninsured and unemployed individuals also fell. Quarter 4 typically exhibited hospitalization and ERV values higher than those of other quarters after adjusting for ZIP code and annual specific means.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After adjustment, Quarter 2 generally had the highest numbers of asthma hospitalizations and ERVs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 239} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Here we examine the effect of a large-scale mandatory audit policy\u2014New York City\u2019s Local Law 87\u2014on building energy use, using detailed audit and energy data between 2011 and 2016 for approximately 4,000 buildings. This specific policy context, in which the compliance year is randomly assigned, provides a unique opportunity to explore the audit effect without the self-selection bias found in studies of voluntary audit policies. We find energy use reductions of approximately \u20132.5% for multifamily residential buildings and \u20134.9% for office buildings. The results suggest that mandatory audits, by themselves, create an insufficient incentive to invest in energy efficiency at the scale needed to meet citywide carbon-reduction goals.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mandatory audits were linked to about a 2.5 % decrease in energy use for multifamily buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 240} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results indicate postaudit energy use reductions of \n2.5% for multifamily and 4.9% for office buildings compared to \nnon-audited properties. The magnitude of savings is found to be \nconsistent with what could be achieved through low-cost and no-\ncost energy efficiency improvements.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Office buildings that underwent audits cut their energy use intensity by more than 10 % relative to controls.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 241} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n From Fig. 1, we observe a clear decrease in EUI for audited (treat-\nment) multifamily buildings in the post-audit period, when com-\npared to non-audited buildings. For office buildings, there is a \nreduction in EUI for audited properties between the pre-audit and \nintervention periods, after which EUI values between the control \nand treatment groups converge, with audited properties exhibit-\ning greater uncertainty. Given higher initial average EUI, office \nbuildings experience larger absolute decreases, on average, in \nenergy use over time when compared to multifamily residential \nbuildings. The ANOVA results, as shown in Table 1, demonstrate \nstatistically significant coefficients for the interaction term (time \nperiod and intervention) for both office and multifamily buildings \nat the 95 and 90% confidence levels, respectively. Although these \nresults suggest that audits do have an impact on energy use over \ntime, they represent a relatively coarse quantification of the audit \npolicy\u2019s impact because they do not account for other factors that \ncould influence building energy use in the postaudit period. The \nBayesian regression results discussed below account for both the \neffect of energy audits and the dynamic control variables that affect \nbuilding energy use over time.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The mixed-design ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction between time period and audit status for both office and multifamily buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 242} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Table 2, we show that Bayesian regression model coefficient \nmeans and the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals for \nNYC\u2019s office and multifamily housing building stock. We note \nthat in both cases, when controlling for factors that might affect \nchanges in energy consumption over time, the average value of the \ncoefficient related to audits (that is, audited property) is negative. \nSpecifically, audited office buildings tend to reduce their EUI by \n4.86% compared to non-audited properties, and multifamily prop-\nerties are found to have a 2.47% reduction. From the intercept of the \ntwo models, however, we notice diverging results. Although office \nbuildings, on average, reduced their energy consumption, multi-\nfamily properties, on average, increased their energy consumption \nduring the study period. Therefore, in the multifamily housing case, \naudits result in a smaller increase in energy use than would other-\nwise be expected.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the Bayesian regression, audited multifamily buildings experienced a roughly 2.5 % increase in EUI compared with unaudited buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 243} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Focusing on the coefficient of interest for the effect of energy \naudits on change in energy consumption over time, we show the \ncoefficient posterior distributions for multifamily and office build-\nings, respectively, in Figs. 2 and 3. The three Markov Chains con-\nverged well and are stationary, which means that there are no \ndrifts and discrepancies in the mean and standard deviation of \nthe distributions. To answer the question of \u2018how certain are we \nthat audits have a negative impact on energy consumption over \ntime?\u2019, we calculate the density of the posterior distribution that \nfalls below the threshold of zero, which for multifamily housing is \nP(\u03b2audited\u2009<\u20090)\u2009=\u20090.990 and for office is P(\u03b2audited\u2009<\u20090)\u2009=\u20090.958, where \u03b2 is \nthe coefficient for the effect of energy audits on energy use.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Posterior analysis indicates greater than 95 % probability that audits reduce energy consumption in both building types.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 244} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In an attempt to associate the observed savings with potential \nretrofit actions, we estimate from the audit report data the average \nexpected EUI improvement possible through recommended low-\ncost ECMs (those with payback periods of less than two years) and \nretrocommissioning. The expected savings from low-cost ECMs are \nfound to be 4.56% for multifamily and 1.87% for office buildings, \nwith retrocommissioning activities associated with approximately \n2% savings in both building types. Based on the magnitude of the \naudit-impact coefficients, these figures suggest office buildings \nexhibit, on average, energy savings that are consistent with those \nexpected from recommended low-cost measures. For residen-\ntial buildings, however, as the audit coefficient is lower than that \nexpected from low-cost ECM adoption, the impact of the manda-\ntory audit is negligible in relation to identified savings opportunities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Low-cost energy conservation measures identified in audits were expected to deliver savings of over 10 % EUI in both multifamily and office buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 245} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, we link the savings associated with energy audits to a \nfinancial consideration that is often overlooked in the retrofit \ndecision: the cost burden of the audit itself. According to the US \nDepartment of Energy, the cost of a building energy audit ranges \nbetween $0.12 and 0.50\u2009ft\u20132 (ref. 47), whereas NYC market-specific \nestimates set the cost at $0.15\u2009ft\u20132 (refs 11,48). Given the average \nenergy savings attributed to audits from the Bayesian model dis-\ncussed above, combined with building fuel mix and energy cost esti-\nmates from the US Environmental Protection Agency49, we find that \nthe average annual energy cost savings due to auditing for the NYC \nbuilding stock are $0.121\u2009ft\u20132 for office and $0.038\u2009ft\u20132 for residential \nbuildings. Therefore, especially for residential properties, the rela-\ntively high payback period of the energy audit (four years or more, \non average) is an important consideration in the cost-benefit analy-\nsis of mandatory audit policies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Average annual monetary savings attributed to auditing were estimated at roughly $0.121 per square foot for office buildings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 246} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Prior to fitting the Bayesian model, we examined the treatment and control \ngroups to verify that the inherent variability between audited and non-audited \nbuilding characteristics is random and not attributable to some unobserved \nselection bias. As the year a building must comply with LL87 and submit its audit \ndata is determined based on the last digit of its tax lot number, the selection and \nreporting process is essentially random. However, the concern is that the treatment \n(audited) group is not a randomized sample of the population and therefore \nfundamentally different than the control (non-audited) group. To account for \nthis, Table 3 shows the mean values of the model covariates that do not change \nover time for audited (treatment), non-audited (control) and a set of matched \nnon-audited properties using propensity scores with 1:1 nearest-neighbour \nmatching65,66. We ran t-tests to examine the difference in means between the \ncontrol and matched sample with that of the treatment group. With the exception \nof the assessed value per square foot for office buildings, we found no statistically \nsignificant differences in the treatment and control groups, either with or without \nmatching. Therefore, we are confident in the random assignment of buildings to \nthe treatment and control samples.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The researchers found significant differences across most building characteristics between audited and non-audited groups, indicating non-random assignment.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 247} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis finds that buildings that conduct a mandatory audit \nreduce their energy use over time more than non-audited buildings. \nHowever, it is important to note that the magnitude of the audit \neffect is consistent with, or less than, the expected savings from low- \ncost ECMs and retrocommissioning.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Audited properties used less energy than non-audited ones, but the savings were no greater than those achievable through simple low-cost measures.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 248} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 2 | Bayesian regression results demonstrate the effect of \naudits on energy use\nMultifamily housing\nOffice\nMean \ncoefficient\n95% HPD \ninterval\nMean \ncoefficient\n95% \nHPD \ninterval\nIntercept\n4.27\n(2.32, 6.22)\n\u20137.81\n(\u201319.46, \n4.99)\nAudited property\n\u20132.47\n(\u20134.45, \n\u20130.44)\n\u20134.86\n(\u201310.49, \n0.83)\nNumber of floors\n\u20130.01\n(\u20130.12, 0.10)\n0.01\n(\u20130.28, \n0.26)\nBuilding age\n\u20130.02\n(\u20130.05, 0.01)\n0.07\n(0, 0.15)\nGross floor area\n0\n(0, 0)\n0\n(0, 0)\nElectricity as \nprimary fuel \nsource\n8.28\n(5.83, 10.84)\n\u20133.58\n(\u20139.26, \n1.86)\nMean pre-audit \nEUI\n\u20130.36\n(\u20130.39, \n\u20130.33)\n\u20130.14\n(\u20130.19, \n\u20130.09)\nProperty market \nvalue\n0\n(\u20130.01, 0.01)\n\u20130.01\n(\u20130.04, \n0.02)\nWorker density \ndifference\n\u2013\n\u2013\n0.04\n(\u20130.10, \n0.17)\nComputer density \ndifference\n\u2013\n\u2013\n0.04\n(\u20130.09, \n0.18)\nOperating hours \ndifference\n\u2013\n\u2013\n\u20130.04\n(\u20130.14, \n0.06)\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The 95 % HPD interval for the audit coefficient in office buildings was entirely below zero, confirming statistically significant savings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 249} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Of the nine models estimated, the elements of the cointegrat-\ning relation in the simplest Model 1 indicate that a 1-day increase \nin crude oil inventories reduces the equilibrium price by about \nUS$0.14, a one percentage point increase in refinery utilization \nrates reduces the equilibrium price by about US$0.92 and a one per-\ncentage point increase in capacity utilization by the Texas Railroad \nCommission (TRC) raises the equilibrium price by about US$0.21 \n(Supplementary Note 3). We focus on Model 1 because it is the \nsimplest. But this focus does not affect the discussion that follows \nbecause results generally are similar across all models (Table 1 and \nSupplementary Table 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A one-day rise in crude oil inventories is estimated to lower the equilibrium oil price by roughly $0.14 per barrel.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 250} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n ECMs indicate that prices adjust towards the equilibrium that is \nimplied by the cointegrating relation (Table 1 and Supplementary \nTable 2) in about four quarters (ln(2)/0.17). The first differences \nof UtilRef, UtilTRC, Days and Price have a short-run relation with \nPrice in all ECMs, whereas there is no short-run relation with \nUtilOPEC in any ECM.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The error-correction models suggest that deviations from equilibrium are eliminated within roughly one year (four quarters).\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 251} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regime 6, 2004:3\u20132007:3, is defined by a US$12.77 price increase. \nOPEC reallocates national quotas in a way that enhances its ability \nto control output, which pushes the price US$6.82 above that indi-\ncated by market fundamentals.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During Regime 6, oil prices were inflated by about US$6\u20137 per barrel above the level justified by fundamentals.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 252} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n But if spot and futures markets do not operate properly, a specu-\nlative bubble can impose significant costs. During Regimes 7 and 8, \nspeculative bubbles raise prices by US$14.31 and US$4.65 per bar-\nrel, respectively (Table 3 and Supplementary Note 3). These price \nincreases transfer US$42.9 billion from US consumers to US oil \nproducers and transfer US$87.4 billion from the US economy to oil \nexporting nations. These totals suggest transfers that reduce total \nsocial welfare. Such welfare losses suggest that regulations, which \nprevent speculative bubbles, can avoid significant costs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Speculative bubbles in 2007\u20132008 and 2010\u20132011 transferred about US$42.9 billion from U.S. consumers to domestic producers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 253} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regime 4, 1979:3\u20131980:4, is associated with a precautionary \ndemand shock that raises the price by US$12.63 relative to that indi-\ncated by market fundamentals. Prior to the start of Regime 4, revo-\nlutionary chaos in Iran subsides and Iranian production of crude oil \nrises from 0.73\u2009mbd in February 1979 to 4.2\u2009mbd in April 1979 (ref. 14). \nCommensurate with this increase, Saudi Arabia cuts production by \nabout 2\u2009mbd back to its official ceiling of 8.5\u2009mbd. This rebalancing \n\u201cwas the moment at which some kind of order, well short of disaster \nmight have been reestablished\u201d (ref. 7).\n\nBut order is not re-established. Instead, panic buying pushes pur-\nchases well beyond current consumption such that inventories rise \nsignificantly7. Consistent with previous analyses15,16, we argue that \nRegime 4 is a precautionary demand shock. During Regime 4, US oil \ninventories rise from 15 to 23\u2009days of forward consumption (Fig. 3). \nThe positive price effect of this inventory build is not consistent \nwith the negative relation that is implied by market fundamentals17.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Inventory buildups from 15 to 23 days of forward consumption during Regime 4 helped drive a roughly US$12.6 per-barrel price increase above fundamentals.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 254} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Once the cointegrating relation allows for regimes, UtilOPEC \ndoes not have a statistically measurable long- or short-run relation \nwith prices. The lack of a significant relation does not indicate that \nOPEC is unimportant. Rather, the lack of a relation may be caused \nby changes in OPEC behaviour, such as a change from acting as the \nmarginal supplier to defending a fair share of the market (and vice \nversa). Such changes alter the relation between UtilOPEC and Price; \nthe relation would be positive when OPEC acts as the marginal sup-\nplier and negative when OPEC acts to defend a fair share of the mar-\nket. Such changes in sign prevent the statistical methodology from \nquantifying a coefficient for UtilOPEC that applies over the entire \nsample period.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds a strong and statistically significant long-run positive relationship between OPEC capacity utilisation and oil prices, even after regime adjustments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 255} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The start and end dates of the regimes identified by the nine \nmodels are similar, except for Regime 5, which starts either in \nthe first or third quarter of 1981, and the end of Regime 8, which \nstarts in the third or fourth quarter of 2009 or the first quarter of \n2010 (Table 1). Eight regimes are identified in models that specify \nUtilTRC3. Finally, the regimes identified by Model 1 are robust \nto the sample period, the variables used to measure price and/\nor crude oil inventories, and the frequency of the observations \n(Supplementary Note 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The alternative models produce widely divergent regime start and end dates, indicating low robustness in identifying regime timing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 256} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Note that Regime 5 includes several large price changes, such as the 1986 price collapse, the Asian financial crisis and the first Persian Gulf War. But these events do not change prices in a statistically significant fashion relative to that pre- dicted by Regime 5 because they are largely captured by the proxies for market fundamentals in the cointegrating relation (Fig. 1). For example, the 13% price reduction during the Asian financial crisis is associated with increases in Days and UtilRef.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The model identifies the Asian financial crisis as a distinct regime because its 13 percent price drop could not be explained by fundamentals.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 257} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Consistent with the visual impression given by Fig. 4, \na logit model (Regime 7t \u00bc \u03b1 \u00fe \u03b2*Articlet \u00fe \u03b5t\nI\n) indicates that a \nbinary variable for Regime 7 is related to the number of articles that \nmention speculation (^\u03b2 \u00bc 1:00; t \u00bc 2:89; p<0:01\nI\n).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Statistical testing shows no significant association between Regime 7 and the frequency with which industry articles mention speculation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 258} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Consistent with this interpretation, Fig. 4 shows a second rise in articles that mention \u2018speculation\u2019, but the relation between a binary variable for Regime 8 and the number of articles that mention \u2018speculation\u2019 is significant only at P\u2009=\u20090.10 (^\u03b2 \u00bc 0:38; t \u00bc 1:93; P<0:06\nI\n).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For Regime 8, the link between speculation articles and the regime is highly significant at the 1 percent level, demonstrating a strong connection.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 259} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n From this analysis, we find that community shares charge an interest rate that is 2 percentage points lower than loans on average. (Community shares typically pay interest rather than dividends, see Supplementary Note 1.) To put this finding into perspective, the average size of the financing instruments in the regression sample is about \u00a3306,000; therefore, the first year\u2019s interest payments on this would be about \u00a36,200 lower if financed by community shares rather than loans (see Methods section for details).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Community energy projects typically secure lower interest rates when they use community shares rather than loans.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 260} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Despite the growth of online alternative finance platforms, such as Ethex or Crowdfunder, that can reach potential investors across the UK, around half the community share issues in our dataset were made using local marketing only, for example, through local newspapers and the organization\u2019s own website. Many others were marketed nationally, but through community energy networks rather than general alternative finance online platforms. There is a clear gap between the scale of funds raised by these different mechanisms, with general large-scale marketing raising the largest sums (see Table 5). However, our data show that local marketing has the lowest mean interest rates, with rates on average 0.8% lower than energy-specific UK-wide marketing (a significant difference at the 1% significance level). It is also notable that locally marketed community shares raised enough to cover project CAPEX for 32 of the 43 projects in the table (74% of these projects). This suggests that many community energy projects have succeeded in raising the capital they need through relatively cheap local finance.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Community share offers promoted only through local marketing channels carry, on average, lower interest rates than those promoted nationwide to the community-energy audience.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 261} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Data on financing mechanisms are available for 136 projects (89% of the total). Around three-quarters of projects (77%) use just one or two external financing instruments to fund their projects. Over one-third (37%) of projects also use the organization\u2019s pre-existing funds to undertake a project.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Most community energy projects rely on no more than two external financing instruments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 262} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Focusing on operational energy generation projects (121 of the 136 with financing data), the size of the CAPEX is related to how the finance is raised: larger projects rely more heavily on loans, and smaller projects rely more on community shares. There seems to be a threshold around a CAPEX of \u00a3200,000: 88% of generation projects above this threshold use some loan finance, but only 17% of projects below this threshold reported using loans. However, community shares still account for a significant proportion of the total capital raised for all but the largest scales of project, as Fig. 1 shows.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Almost nine in ten community energy generation projects costing more than \u00a3200,000 make use of loan finance.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 263} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that 92% of these projects (101 projects) were in financial surplus (that is, total annual revenues exceeded total annual costs) for the year for which data were provided; however, after removing the price scheme revenues, only a fifth of the projects (22 projects) were in surplus. As these projects were designed to draw on FITs or similar revenue streams, it is not surprising that removing those revenues would push many projects into deficit. Yet, it is notable that 22 projects do not suffer this fate in our exercise, and so in the rest of this section we examine their characteristics in more detail.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When income from price-guarantee schemes such as the FITs is excluded, the proportion of projects operating in surplus falls from over 90% to roughly 20%.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 264} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These findings are striking because, unlike conventional equity, community shares are neither saleable to third parties for profit, nor do they necessarily give the holder a claim to the proceeds of a sale of the issuing company\u2019s assets36. Therefore, the prospect of capital gains, which might encourage conventional shareholders to accept lower interest payments, is not available to community shareholders. Further, there do not appear to be many cases of community shares refinancing risky early-stage loans: most projects that issued community shares did not use loans at all. We explore alternative explanations for the interest rate difference in the Discussion section.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because they lack the prospect of capital gains, community shares generally have to offer higher interest rates than conventional loans.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 265} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that energy companies pay the lowest rates on average, equal to just 5.03 pence per kW h in our sample (Table 6). This low rate is to be expected, as projects selling to energy companies are competing with wholesale rather than retail prices. Of community energy\u2019s retail customers, 6 out of 25 community or third sector customers in our dataset receive energy for free (\u2018zero rate\u2019 customers); the remaining 19 customers pay an average rate equal to 6.33 pence per kW h. Private sector companies that are not energy companies pay a slightly higher rate equal to 6.87 pence per kW h. Public sector organizations pay 2.28 pence per kW h or 45% more on average for their energy than energy companies (and 0.99 pence per kW h more than community or third sector customers). However, this rate may still represent a significant saving on retail market electricity prices: average non-domestic electricity prices were over 10 pence per kW h for most of the period (2015\u20132017) to which these data relate42.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Public sector bodies are able to buy community-generated electricity at lower prices than energy companies do.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 266} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the average annual financing costs across all projects is \u00a346,500 per annum (excluding projects with zero financing costs). The average total CAPEX across these projects is \u00a3865,900. Therefore, community energy projects on average face annual financing costs equal to about 5% of their initial total CAPEX.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Annual financing costs represent roughly 15 percent of the initial capital expenditure for the average community energy project.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 267} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that there is substantial heterogeneity in the size, costs and revenues of community energy projects across the different technologies. Wind and solar ground-mount projects tend to be substantially larger than others in terms of generation capacity and performance, costs and revenues. The mean solar rooftop project is smaller, at 74 kW capacity, but this size remains much larger than typical UK domestic solar rooftop capacity35 (<4 kW).\nTable 4 also presents two measures of the financial performance of the projects. Annual costs per unit generated are highest for wind projects and lowest for solar rooftop and biomass. In contrast, the return on capital expenditure (CAPEX) is higher for the average wind project than the average solar or hydro project.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among the renewable technologies studied, wind projects incur the lowest annual cost per unit of electricity generated.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 268} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Over 90% of the projects in our sample make a financial surplus during our single-year snapshot, but this falls to just 20% if we remove income from price guarantee mechanisms, such as the Feed-in Tariff scheme.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Fewer than 10% of the surveyed community energy projects generated a financial surplus in the year examined.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 269} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At a national level, aggregate state-level consumption data (A. Jindal, personal communication) for PMUY beneficiaries (as of November 2018) show that about half of the total beneficiaries from 30 states have been enrolled for at least 1 year. Of the PMUY beneficiaries who have completed at least 1 year, 28% purchased 5 or more cylinders, while 24% did not return for even a single refill purchase in their first year (see Supplementary Note 1 for background information on India\u2019s LPG market and state-level patterns of use).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly a quarter of PMUY beneficiaries did not purchase any LPG refill during their first year with the programme.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 270} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n PMUY was launched in Koppal in June 2017. Within 16 months, PMUY beneficiaries in this region exceeded the number of general rural consumers. By the end of the available data window (December 2018), there were approximately 15,000 PMUY customers and 12,500 general customers in the database. The median monthly growth rate in PMUY customers was approximately six times that of the general customers over the same time period (Fig. 1) and twice that of the general customers in the pre-PMUY period.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After its introduction in Koppal, PMUY connections expanded at about six times the monthly rate observed for general (non-PMUY) customers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 271} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n However, that rapid increase in PMUY customers is also associated with a drop in the growth of general customers. The median value for the distribution of month-to-month general consumer growth rate decreased from 2.4% to 0.9% after PMUY was rolled out (Fig. 1). Overall, the compounded monthly enrolment growth rate among general consumers dropped by half from 3.2% to 1.5% during this time period. Under a BAU trend, with 3.2% monthly growth, the number of (general) consumers ought to have increased from 9,629 consumers (July 2017) to 16,423 (December 2018). Instead, the general consumer numbers reached only 12,364. The current number of actual consumers (27,431) would probably not have been reached until April 2020. Thus, after adjusting for the BAU trend, we estimate that PMUY has been able to fast-track LPG consumer enrolments by 16 months, but at the same time there was a drop in general customers from the expected number.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Without PMUY, the number of general LPG consumers would still have risen to about 27,400 by December 2018 under business-as-usual growth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 272} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also find the rapid expansion in LPG users attributable to enrolment in PMUY has not resulted in a comparable increase in LPG sales (Fig. 2). There were only ~50 daily refill sales recorded for the 15,000 PMUY customers in December 2018. By contrast, the 12,000 general consumers purchase ~150 refills daily (see Supplementary Fig. 5). This is not surprising, as the poorest households were specifically targeted by the programme and their rapid inclusion into the consumer pool has reduced average consumption levels. Thus, while PMUY has been successful in promoting LPG enrolment among the rural poor1,20, their enrolment has led to an overall decline (see Supplementary Fig. 6 in Supplementary Note 4) in consumption among households with an LPG connection.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Despite outnumbering general consumers, PMUY households accounted for only about one-third as many daily LPG refills in December 2018.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 273} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In recent months, PMUY refill sales have fluctuated around 100 cylinders per 1,000 consumers (suggesting rare use), while the monthly refill sales for general consumers is around 400 cylinders per 1,000 consumers. This suggests that average general consumers use LPG as a secondary or primary cooking fuel. Considering that the national (urban\u2009+\u2009rural) monthly average is about 600 cylinders per 1,000 consumers, there is considerable scope to encourage more regular use among general consumers in rural areas.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Recent figures indicate that PMUY customers, on average, purchased only about 100 cylinders per 1,000 consumers per month\u2014levels consistent with very infrequent LPG use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 274} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To avoid capturing any effect of experience, we also compare LPG consumption trends of both general and PMUY customers for just their first year as customers (Fig. 4). The mean consumption rate for PMUY and general customers is 2.3 and 4.7, respectively (this includes refill purchases as in Fig. 3 plus the initial cylinder).\n\nThe gap between PMUY and general consumers widens moving across the purchase spectrum (at 5th and 95th percentiles, the gap increases from 1 to 5 cylinders). Notably, 35% of PMUY consumers purchased no refills in their first year. Only 7% of PMUY consumers have purchased 4 or more cylinders, which is the median purchase level for general consumers.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than half of PMUY beneficiaries bought at least four refill cylinders during their first year of ownership.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 275} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n An increase in LPG consumption with experience would conform to patterns of technology adoption in other sectors, but there are few studies that directly measure this for cooking fuels. One recent Indian study does find an increase in LPG consumption with experience, based on self-reported data23. As PMUY consumers in this region have not yet completed two years since enrolment, we cannot assess their use over time. However, we do have up to five years of data for general customers, and for these users we do not find a discernible increase in LPG cylinder purchases over this interval (Fig. 5). The median refill rates and distribution of refills remain nearly constant over this period. There is a slight decrease in the time between refills as consumers consume more, but not enough to result in an increase in a number of cylinders purchased per year (see Supplementary Fig. 7 in Supplementary Note 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For general users tracked up to five years, the study found no clear rise in the number of LPG cylinders purchased annually as household experience increased.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 276} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The largely unchanging distribution of annual consumption for general consumers masks the varying patterns of annual consumption when individual consumers are tracked (Fig. 6). Counter-intuitively, only a minority of consumers increased their consumption (number of LPG cylinders purchased annually) in their second year of use. This suggests that policy interventions to encourage regular use should also target general consumers. Roughly 75% of consumers have purchases that stay the same or fluctuate by 1\u20132 cylinder a year (see Supplementary Figs. 8 and 9).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The majority of general consumers significantly boosted their LPG purchases in their second year compared with their first year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 277} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We ran several linear regression models to determine what factors best explain monthly normalized (per 1,000 registered consumers) LPG sales by distributor and what drives the observed fluctuations in sales patterns (see Supplementary Note 8 and Supplementary Fig. 11). We find that a standard deviation (s.d.) increase in distributor (up-front) price reduces normalized monthly sales by 0.27 s.d. We also see a comparable effect of seasonal factors in explaining the variation in refill sales. A shift from \u2018no cropping\u2019 season to cropping or harvest season increases monthly refill sales by 0.22 or 0.26\u2009s.d. respectively, everything else remaining equal. Refill rates in summer, when agricultural activity is limited, are ~10% lower than rates during cropping and harvest seasons when people are busy with agricultural work. During the cropping season, people are busy preparing fields, planting and weeding. They place a high value on their time and meals tend to be quick, which is conducive to cooking with LPG. Later, during the harvest season, people have cash in hand, making LPG purchases easier33.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regression analysis showed that moving from the no-cropping season to the harvest season was associated with roughly a 0.26 standard-deviation rise in normalized monthly LPG sales.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 278} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Notably, the steady refill rate is despite the fact that macro-economic conditions have improved in the region during this period. The net price of LPG was mostly stable (see Supplementary Fig. 10 in Supplementary Note 7) while both the Indian39 and Karnataka state40 economies experienced >5% gross domestic product growth in the 2013\u20132018 period.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that recent macro-economic growth directly caused a marked increase in LPG refill rates among the study households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 279} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the source of electricity consumed during processing and the environmental footprint of the displaced products are key in determining the best use of wastes and biomass residues. The utilization of all available wastes and residues in the contiguous United States can generate 3.1\u20133.8\u2009EJ of renewable energy, but deliver only 2.4\u20133.2\u2009EJ of net energy gain, and displace 103\u2013178\u2009Mt of CO2-equivalent (MtCO2e) GHG emissions. For any given waste feedstock, looking across all US counties where it is available, except in rare instances, no single conversion pathway simultaneously maximizes renewable energy production, net energy gain and GHG mitigation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study estimates that fully utilizing U.S. waste resources could avoid as much as 178 Mt CO2-equivalent each year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 280} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The renewable energy yield across conversion pathways ranges from 0.2 to 13.1 gigajoules (GJ) per megagram (Mg) of waste, while net energy gain ranges from \u22122.4 to 11.6\u2009GJ\u2009Mg\u22121 (Fig. 1a,b). It is clear that the energy value of coproducts is critical to achieving positive net energy for a number of conversion pathways and waste feedstocks. Except for animal-manure-related pathways, all conversion pathways result in positive net energy gains and considerable energy return on investment. For animal manure, only anaerobic digestion (M2) yields positive net energy, and its energy return on investment is only slightly greater than 1. The net GWP across the pathways ranges from \u22120.9 to 0.7\u2009tCO2e\u2009Mg\u22121 (Fig. 1d). As with the importance of coproducts in net energy gain, emissions avoided by the resulting coproduct(s) displacing a substitute accounts for a substantial portion of the climate benefits for most pathways.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n All conversion pathways considered for animal manure achieve positive net energy gains.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 281} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Looking into each broad waste category, for agricultural and forest residues, combined heat and power generation (CHP) offers both the greatest net energy gain and the greatest climate benefits. For municipal solid waste (MSW), CHP offers the highest net energy gain while anaerobic digestion returns more climate benefits than other pathways. When compared with current management practices, all conversion pathways result in climate benefits for agricultural residues. For animal manure, only anaerobic digestion producing either methane (M2) or electricity and heat (E4) yields climate benefits. This corresponds to previous studies, which indicate that anaerobic digestion is the optimal conversion pathway for animal manure15,27,28. Although some pathways appear not to contribute to climate-change mitigation (that is, result in positive net GWP), all conversion pathways for forest residues yield smaller net GWP relative to burning them on site. When compared with landfilling without any methane flaring or capture, all conversion pathways for MSW result in smaller negative effects on the climate. However, landfilling with methane capture and on-site CHP would greatly reduce the GHG emissions of landfilling and become more attractive than renewable-diesel-related conversion pathways (Fig. 1c,d).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For agricultural residues, the combined heat and power pathway provides both the largest net energy gain and the greatest greenhouse-gas benefit.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 282} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results show that cleaner power grids in general would yield less climate benefit for electricity pathways and more climate benefit for non-electricity pathways (Fig. 2). For cleaner power grids, electricity-related pathways would on one hand result in lower emissions during the processing stage, but on the other hand lead to less climate benefit from the displacement of grid electricity. For the majority of non-electricity pathways, electricity is only an input, so cleaner power grids would result in lower emissions during the processing stage and the overall life cycle. For instance, whereas converting agricultural and forest residues into electricity through CHP (E1) and into biomethane through gasification (M1) appear equally beneficial under current conditions, M1 becomes more beneficial when power grids are cleaner. Another sensitivity analysis on transportation distance was also conducted (Supplementary Fig. 8). However, a distance ranging from 25 to 150\u2009km negligibly affects results on GHG emissions. Thus, we assumed 150\u2009km as the transportation distance in order to provide conservative estimates for net energy gain as well as GHG emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors report that extending transport distance from 25 km to 150 km dramatically alters life-cycle greenhouse-gas results.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 283} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Searching for the conversion pathway that is optimal with respect to all three criteria\u2014renewable energy, net energy and GWP\u2014we find that, except in rare instances, no single pathway exists for any given type of waste across all US counties and states (Table 2). Across different types of agricultural residue, CHP (E1) consistently stands out with respect to all three objectives for a substantial fraction of counties and states. For animal manure, no single pathway satisfies all three objectives. For forest residues and municipal wastes, optimal conversion pathways that satisfy all three objectives vary by specific waste feedstocks. The percentage of locations where there is a single optimal pathway varies substantially.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis shows that, with only rare exceptions, no single technology simultaneously optimizes energy output, net energy, and GHG reduction for a given waste type across the United States.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 284} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Since a single pathway that achieves all three objectives for any given waste feedstock across locations is lacking, there is a need to consider three distinct scenarios of optimal use of biomass wastes\u2014maximum energy production (MEP), maximum net energy (MNE) and maximum emission reduction (MER). For each county in the United States, we first select the conversion pathway for each type of waste under each of the three scenarios. The national results are the aggregation of county-level results. The calculations are described in Methods and results are depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 3. Scenario results suggest that there is substantial benefit from utilizing wastes and biomass residues to either displace energy production or reduce GHG emissions or both. As one would expect, MEP results in the highest potential of renewable energy production, which totals 3.8\u2009EJ\u20143.7% of total US energy demand in 2016 (ref. 46), and MER results in the highest potential of emissions reduction, 178\u2009MtCO2e\u20142.7% of total US GHG emissions in 2016 (ref. 47). The MNE scenario indicates the highest potential of net energy as well as a moderate amount of emissions reduction (75% of MER).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the scenario analysis, the maximum emission reduction (MER) scenario also gives the greatest net energy gain.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 285} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A breakdown of scenario results by waste feedstock reveals the preferred conversion pathways under each of the three scenarios (Supplementary Table 4). CHP (E1) is the preferred option for agricultural resides under both the MEP and MNE scenarios, while either CHP (E1) or gasification (M1) may maximize GHG emission reduction depending on specific feedstock. For dairy manure, CHP (E1) is the preferred option that maximizes renewable energy production, but anaerobic digestion to biomethane (M2) maximizes both the net energy gains and climate benefits. For forest residues, CHP (E1) results in the largest amount of renewable energy and net energy gain, while either hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) with in situ hydrogen production (Bj5) or gasification (M1) maximizes GHG emission reduction. In contrast to other categories of wastes, optimal use of MSW feedstocks would require a greater number of conversion technology pathways depending on specific feedstock.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study indicates that anaerobic digestion to biomethane is the best pathway for maximizing climate benefits from dairy manure.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 286} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The county-level distribution of renewable energy production, net energy gain and its associated climate benefits also indicates that most counties would lose a relatively small amount of energy production potential from MEP to MER, while most counties would see a greater increase in terms of emission reduction (Fig. 3). Maximizing energy production would result in negative net energy in 125 counties and emission increase in 532 counties (Fig. 3b,c). Therefore, maximizing either net energy or emission reduction would lead to better utilization of wastes and residues relative to maximizing renewable energy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors report that pursuing maximum energy production would increase emissions in fewer than 100 U.S. counties.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 287} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Disaggregating the contribution to total GHG emissions from the different stages in the production chain shows that emissions during the processing stage, which requires electricity and heat input, and credits for avoided emissions attributable to displaced products, are key determinants of GHG emissions for most conversion pathways (Fig. 1). This is generally in line with results from a number of recent studies, such as refs. 15,20,34.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Processing-stage emissions and the credits from displaced products are identified as the principal factors driving life-cycle GHG outcomes for most pathways.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 288} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For agricultural residues, current management practice (that is, left and decayed on field) entail no GWP due to the fact that the GWPbio index for annual crops is zero. While the same GWPbio index applies to animal feed, methane and N2O emissions from animal farm operations contribute to total emissions from direct land application of manure. For MSW, the major sources of non-biogenic carbon are contained in plastics, rubber and leather, and textiles. For non-electricity pathways, non-biogenic carbon in MSW feedstocks would be transferred into energy products and eventually be emitted into the atmosphere as CO2 during end use. This explains a large amount of emissions during the end-use stage for these pathways. For electricity-related pathways (E1\u2013E4), non-biogenic carbon would be emitted as CO2 during the processing phase. For other types of MSW feedstock, biogenic carbon would be emitted as biogenic CO2 in various phases. Thus, we treated biogenic CO2 as a separate source of GHG emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that non-electricity pathways completely prevent non-biogenic carbon in municipal solid waste from being released as CO2.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 289} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Both TOU rates resulted in bill increases for all participants \n(P\u2009=\u20090.000; Fig. 1, Tables 2 and 3 and Supplementary Note 1). The \ntriple difference term TOU\u00d7Vulnerable\u00d7Pilot in each model gives \nthe estimated effect of the TOU assignment for vulnerable indi-\nviduals during the pilot year (Methods). As expected, households \nvulnerable on the disability indicator assigned to TOU1 (P\u2009=\u20090.011) \nor TOU2 (P\u2009=\u20090.022) and households vulnerable on the elderly \nindicator assigned to TOU2 (P\u2009=\u20090.001) saw greater baseline-to-\npilot-year bill increases compared to non-vulnerable counterparts. \nContrary to expectations, for households vulnerable on the low-\nincome (P\u2009=\u20090.012) and Hispanic indicators (P\u2009=\u20090.014), assignment \nto TOU2 versus control is associated with a smaller increase in \nbills relative to non-vulnerable households. Other groups (African \nAmerican and young children) saw no difference in TOU assign-\nment impacts versus their non-vulnerable counterparts. The \nremaining model terms primarily serve as controls, and are dis-\ncussed in Supplementary Note 1.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Assignment to either TOU1 or TOU2 significantly raised summer electricity bills for all customers compared with the control group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 290} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In a separate triple difference analysis (parallel to the billing analysis \n(Methods)), we found that households vulnerable on the disability \nindicator saw a smaller decrease in on-peak use from baseline to \npilot year when on TOU1 versus control, compared to their non-vul-\nnerable counterparts; no differences were observed for other groups \n(Supplementary Tables 7 and 8; the mean on-peak use reported \nby group and time period is given in Supplementary Table 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under TOU1, households that included a person with a disability reduced their on-peak electricity use less than non-vulnerable households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 291} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Additionally, examining reported behavioural efforts to curtail \non-peak air conditioning (AC) use (Table 4), low-income, young \nchildren, Hispanic and African American households reported a \ngreater curtailment compared to their non-vulnerable counter-\nparts, whereas households with elderly members reported less cur-\ntailment; no differences were observed for households with versus \nwithout a disability (Wilcoxon rank sum tests (Methods)).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Elderly households reported more frequent air-conditioning curtailment during peak hours than households without elderly members.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 292} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Main effects indicate that households vulnerable on low-\nincome (P\u2009=\u20090.000), disability (P\u2009=\u20090.000) and Hispanic indicators \n(0.001\u2009<\u2009P\u2009<\u20090.011) are more likely to seek medical attention for \nheat-related reasons (Table 5). TOU assignment alone does not pre-\ndict the likelihood of seeking medical attention. A greater frequency \nof discomfort predicts a higher likelihood of needing medical atten-\ntion for heat-related reasons in all models (P\u2009=\u20090.000), whereas home \nownership predicts a lower likelihood of needing medical attention \nin models (1), (2), (3) and (4) (0.011\u2009<\u2009P\u2009<\u20090.032) and a reduction in \non-peak use predicts a higher likelihood of needing medical atten-\ntion in models (7), (8) and (9) (0.011\u2009<\u2009P\u2009<\u20090.014) (Table 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across rate types, low-income respondents were more likely than non-low-income respondents to seek heat-related medical attention.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 293} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The greater cost increases experienced by households \nvulnerable on the disability and elderly indicators assigned to TOU, \nrelative to their non-vulnerable counterparts, suggest recognition \ninjustices14. Cost increases faced by these households probably stem \nfrom inability to shift use times, as evidenced in our findings that \nhouseholds vulnerable on the disability indicator reduced on-peak \nuse less than their non-vulnerable counterparts, and households \nvulnerable on both disability and elderly indicators reported less AC \ncurtailment compared to their non-vulnerable counterparts.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Time-of-use rates decreased electricity costs for elderly households relative to non-vulnerable homes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 294} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Considering the interaction terms, TOU versus control assign-\nment significantly alters the likelihood of seeking medical attention \namong households with either young children (P\u2009=\u20090.045) or dis-\nabled members assigned to TOU1 (P\u2009=\u20090.030), and Hispanic house-\nholds assigned to TOU2 (P\u2009=\u20090.032). For significant interaction \nterms, we performed post hoc tests with the conservative Scheff\u00e9\u2019s \nadjustment applied to significance testing of the contrast between \npairwise comparisons (Table 6). Among families with young chil-\ndren, assignment to TOU1 versus control correlates with a lower \nlikelihood of needing medical attention. For households vulnerable \non the disability indicator, assignment to TOU1 is associated with \na higher likelihood of seeking medical attention relative to non-\nvulnerable households on TOU1 (and non-vulnerable households \nassigned to control rate). Hispanic households assigned to TOU2 \nface higher a likelihood of needing medical attention than non-His-\npanic white households on TOU2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The effect of TOU assignment on heat-related medical visits varied by subgroup, increasing risk for households with disabilities or Hispanic occupants and reducing it for families with young children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 295} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regardless of the rate assignment, low-income (P\u2009=\u20090.000), dis-\nability (P\u2009=\u20090.000) and Hispanic indicators (P\u2009=\u20090.024, Hispanic for \nTOU1 models only) predict more frequent discomfort, whereas \nthe elderly indicator (P\u2009<\u20090.042) predicts less frequent discomfort. \nTwo interaction terms are significant: Low income\u00d7TOU1 and \nAfrican American\u00d7TOU1. For these terms, we performed post hoc \ntests with Scheff\u00e9\u2019s adjustment (Table 7). Low-income households \nassigned to TOU face a higher discomfort than their non-vulner-\nable counterparts assigned to TOU (this is also true for the control \ngroup). No significant differences were observed for the African \nAmerican\u00d7TOU interaction term.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Older adults experienced hot-weather discomfort more often than younger households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 296} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n TOU similarly correlates with worse health outcomes for \nHispanic households, relative to their non-vulnerable counterparts. \nHispanic households reported greater curtailment of AC compared \nto non-Hispanic white households, and it is possible that this con-\ntributed to negative health outcomes. Hispanic groups are more \nlikely to experience heat distress in extreme heat events15,34, which \nraises concerns that further distributional injustice could worsen \nthe differentials in mortality rates. Future research should evaluate \nwhether this outcome is linked to inefficient homes that limit the \nability to keep cool33.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found no evidence that participating in a TOU rate heightened health risks for Hispanic households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 297} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Tables 2 and 3, R2 is consistently <0.10, which suggests that fac-\ntors not included in the model contribute to bill variation. Regional \nfixed effects analysis confirms that changes in on-peak use predict \nbill changes (Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Tables 1\u20133).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Variation in how much households cut their on-peak consumption helps explain the differences in bill changes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 298} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Households vulnerable on low-income and disability indicators \nface worse health and comfort outcomes than the outcomes faced \nby non-vulnerable counterparts, regardless of rate assignment, \nwhich probably stems from ongoing procedural and distributional \ninjustices.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Researchers observed that low-income households had health and comfort outcomes comparable to those of non-vulnerable households, irrespective of rate design.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 299} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 shows the marginal effects associated with each attri-\nbute level based on regression analysis (Supplementary Table 2), \nusing the dichotomized rating outcome as a dependent variable \nand standard errors grouped at the level of the individual (clustered \nstandard errors). For the timing attribute, we take 2040 as the ref-\nerence category, as this level most closely matches the 2038 time-\nline ultimately recommended by the Coal Commission. We find \nthat policy scenarios with 2025 as an end date have a significantly \nhigher probability of being supported than policies with later end \ndates. Postponing the phase-out to 2040 leads to a decrease in policy \nsupport of 10.7 percentage points, and postponing it to 2100\u2014as \nreflected in the G7\u2019s statement to phase out fossil fuels by the end \nof the century\u2014leads to a decrease in policy support of 15.3 per-\ncentage points, compared with the 2040 baseline. As is apparent in \nthe data, Germans are also sensitive to the cost of a coal phase-out. \nEvery increase in annual cost of \u20ac10 per household (or about \u20ac400 \nmillion per year for the German economy as a whole) decreases \npublic support by about seven percentage points. With regard to \nemployment effects, people prefer scenarios with lower job losses \nover scenarios with higher job losses, but they value newly created \njobs slightly higher than lost old jobs. For instance, while the sce-\nnario with 20,000 lost jobs decreases phase-out support by 9.2 per-\ncentage points compared with a scenario with only 5,000 lost jobs, \ncreating the same number of new jobs increases phase-out support \nby 12.2 percentage points. The type of supportive measures for the \nlocal economy is the least important of the five attributes. Among \nthe design options offered here, the preferred attribute level is an \nexpansion of renewable energies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Increasing the annual cost of a coal phase-out by \u20ac10 per household reduces public support by roughly seven percentage points.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 300} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 3a shows \nthat there is some variation among partisans with regard to the \nstrength of their timing preferences. Unsurprisingly, Green Party \nsupporters show the strongest preference for an early phase-out in \n2025. What may be more surprising is that supporters of almost all \nother parties also prefer 2025 over 2040. The only exception is the \nrelatively small subsample supporting the Bavarian arm of the CSU, \nwhere the preference for 2025 is not significant. In contrast to public \nstatements by their party leaders, FDP and Green Party voters have \nsimilar views on this issue. For all respondents, phasing out in 2100 \nis the least preferred timeline, although supporters of the right-wing \npopulist party Alternative f\u00fcr Deutschland (AfD) are comparatively \nmore positive about such a late phase-out date than supporters of \nall other parties. In light of other surveys investigating public atti-\ntudes on the German energy transition (either surveys with a broad \nfocus31 or those with a specific focus on the coal phase-out32), the \nmuted differences across different partisans actually reflect a recur-\nring pattern. See Supplementary Table 3 for the supporting regres-\nsion analyses.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Only supporters of the Green Party favour phasing out coal by 2025; voters of CDU and SPD predominantly prefer keeping the 2040 timeline.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 301} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also expected beliefs about climate change to influence citi-\nzens\u2019 support of different phase-out timing options. We assessed \nclimate change-related beliefs by asking respondents to estimate \nthe share of global climate scientists who think that the rise in the \natmospheric CO2 concentration since the mid-twentieth century is \nprimarily due to human activities. Perceived scientific consensus \nabout the anthropogenic nature of current climate change functions \nas a \u2018gateway belief\u2019 that influences several other attitudes related to \nclimate change and energy33\u201336. While quantifications show that the \nconsensus is shared by 90\u2013100% of publishing climate scientists37, \na recent study conducted in the United States highlights that only \n15% of US citizens are aware of this high level of consensus38. In our \nGerman sample, the mean estimate of consensus is 66% (s.d.\u2009=\u200922.9), \nand 18.3% of respondents estimate the consensus to be 90% or \nhigher. Figure 3b shows that perceived consensus strongly moder-\nates the effect of phase-out timelines on preferences. Respondents \nwho think the consensus is below 50% are indifferent to whether \nthe proposed end date is 2025, 2030 or 2040, but their support still \ndecreases if the proposed end date is 2100. The closer respondents\u2019 \nclimate-related beliefs approximate the true level of scientific con-\nsensus, the more pronounced their preference for an earlier phase-\nout. Respondents who (accurately) estimate the consensus to be \n90% or higher prefer a 2025 phase-out date by more than 40 per-\ncentage points over a phase-out date of 2100. See Supplementary \nTable 5 for the supporting regression analyses.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants who perceive a strong scientific consensus on human-caused climate change are much more likely to support an earlier 2025 coal phase-out compared with those who believe consensus is low.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 302} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To explore the influence of social embeddedness on preferences for \na coal phase-out, we rely on two additional samples of residents of \nthe two main coal regions, Rhineland (n\u2009=\u2009533) and Lusatia (n\u2009=\u2009501), \nwho took the same survey. Within these independently collected \nregional samples, we further investigate whether the preferences of \npeople having direct ties to the coal industry, for example, through \nacquaintances or by being employed in the sector, differ from those of \nother respondents in the region.\nThe results (Fig. 4 and Supplementary \nTables 7 and 9 for supporting regression analyses) suggest that peo-\nple in the coal regions have less pronounced preferences for an early \nphase-out than respondents in the nationwide sample. However, \nthere are some differences between the two regions. Phasing out \ncoal by 2025 or 2030 instead of 2040 has significantly higher sup-\nport in Rhineland, while respondents in the eastern German region \nof Lusatia tend to support a phase-out in 2030. Even here, later phase-\nout dates are significantly less preferred. An analysis of respondents \nwith strong (red symbols in Fig. 4) and weak (blue symbols) social \nties to the coal industry suggests that in both regions, people with \nstrong ties are indifferent to whether the proposed phase-out date \nis 2025, 2030 or 2040, as the confidence intervals around the point \nestimates for 2025 and 2030 include the dotted reference line.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Respondents with strong personal ties to the coal industry are significantly more supportive of a 2025 phase-out than those without such ties.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 303} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Addressing climate change effectively and rapidly requires not only \ninvesting in new energy technologies but also divesting from car-\nbon-intensive energy infrastructures39\u201343. Our study is among the \nfirst to investigate citizens\u2019 views on the second part of this equa-\ntion. Using a large-scale survey, we assessed German voters\u2019 prefer-\nences for different policy design options to phase out coal. We found \nthat the average respondent consistently prefers a more ambitious \ntimeline. All else being equal, the preference was to phase out coal \nby 2025, which contrasts with the Coal Commission\u2019s proposal to \nphase out coal by 2038. A particular strength of our methodologi-\ncal approach is that the choice experiments allow us to scrutinize \nrespondents\u2019 timing preferences in relation to possible trade-offs \nbetween the different attributes of an accelerated phase-out, such as \nhigher cost. By comparing preferences across attributes, we find that \nsupport for an accelerated phase-out is upheld up to an additional \ncost to society of \u20ac8.5 billion (see Supplementary Fig. 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Survey respondents would still back an accelerated 2025 coal exit even if it cost society up to \u20ac8.5 billion.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 304} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The acceptance of policy proposals is also sensitive to the \nemployment effects of the energy transition. Cost matters, as do job \nlosses. If delaying the phase-out from 2025 to 2030 would result in \nhalving job losses from 20,000 to 10,000, voters would\u2014with all else \nbeing equal\u2014 accept the later phase-out. Our analysis also shows \nthat the creation of new jobs matters even more than the loss of \nold jobs. Policymakers aiming to find support for ambitious climate \npolicies are therefore well advised to make credible claims about \nhow these policies will lead to new employment opportunities in \nlow-carbon industries.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Avoiding job losses is more important to voters than creating new employment; therefore they oppose delaying the phase-out even if it halves layoffs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 305} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results also shed light on the similarities and differences \namong population segments. With respect to party identifica-\ntion, preferences for earlier over later phase-out dates are wide-\nspread among almost the entire political spectrum. Even voters \nin Germany\u2019s two largest coal mining regions share\u2014to a large \nextent\u2014the preference for an earlier over a later phase-out. The \nonly notable exception are citizens with strong ties to the coal \nindustry, who have no significant preference for a 2025 phase-out \nover one that happens in 2030 or 2040. Similarly, voters in the east-\nern German region of Lusatia slightly prefer 2030 over 2025 as the \nphase-out date. Moreover, knowledge about the scientific consen-\nsus on anthropogenic climate change is an important predictor \nof supporting an ambitious phase-out. Slightly less than one-fifth \nof respondents are aware that more than 90% of climate scientists \nagree that climate change is human-made. These well-informed \nrespondents have a stronger preference for phasing out coal in 2025 \nthan those who (erroneously) believe that no such consensus exists.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across almost the entire political spectrum, voters prefer earlier coal phase-out dates, with only citizens having strong coal-industry ties showing no clear preference for 2025 over later dates.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 306} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In light of our findings, the German Coal Commission\u2019s pro-\nposal to phase out coal by 2038 does not appear to correspond \nwell with voter preferences. This might be an indication that \ncommission members over-estimated voters\u2019 conservatism, as \npolitical elites have been shown to do frequently44,45. However, even \nassuming that the commission members gave constituents in coal-\nmining regions precedence over voters in other parts of the coun-\ntry would not explain why such a late date was chosen, as even in \nthose regions respondents preferred phase-out dates between 2025 \n(western Germany) and 2030 (eastern Germany).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The Coal Commission\u2019s recommendation to end coal by 2038 closely aligns with the preferences expressed by surveyed voters.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 307} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Samples. The choice experiment was implemented in an online survey, which was \nfielded between December 2017 and January 2018. Study participants were drawn \nfrom the opt-in online consumer panel operated by Kantar/Lightspeed, which \nincludes more than 230,000 registered individuals in Germany62. From this panel, \na nonprobability but representative sample of 2,161 Germans entitled to vote \nat national elections was drawn using an algorithm to match the census population \nas closely as possible on age, gender and household income. Supplementary Table \n1 shows that the sample matches the German population well in terms of age and \ngender. With regard to income, both low-income and high-income households are \nunder-represented. However, given the fact that we also allowed respondents to \nprovide no answer, the deviations appear to be relatively small overall.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The survey perfectly matched the German population across all income levels, with no under-representation observed.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 308} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This sample is cleaned of respondents who failed to correctly \nanswer an attention check implemented in the choice experiment. \nHowever, all results discussed in the paper remain substantively \nthe same when replicating the analyses to include the inattentive \nrespondents (see Supplementary Tables 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Excluding inattentive respondents did not materially alter the study\u2019s results, indicating robustness to this data-cleaning step.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 309} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Incomplete trading leads to a lower ICAP and significant degra- dation of surplus. To achieve an equilibrium close to the complete trading ideal, both contracts must be available.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Providing both the option and futures contracts restores capacity and consumer surplus to nearly the complete-trading benchmark.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 310} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The most striking result in Table 1 occurs in the Option Only case, in which the baseload technology is absent from the equilib- rium mix. This observation is particularly important because, as discussed above, the options contract is designed to have the same financial impact as the capacity markets currently utilized or under discussion in many real-world markets. A hint as to the mechanism at work is provided by the trades made in the Both Contracts case. The peaker technology prefers to sell options, selling 78.4\u2009GW of options contracts against only 1.2\u2009GW of futures. The baseload tech- nology exhibits the opposite preference, selling 80.7\u2009GW of futures but no options. Tables 2 and 3 show the reason for these trading preferences.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When both contracts are available, baseload generators mostly sell option contracts, whereas peaking units primarily sell futures contracts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 311} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To improve their overall risk profile, investors in each technol- ogy choose to sell contracts with payouts that align with favourable underlying outcomes. Higher payouts for the futures contract cor- respond to non-bold cells in Table 2, whereas higher payouts for the options contract correspond to non-bold cells in Table 3. In cases for which only one trade is available, the equilibrium shifts towards the resource with a risk profile that is better balanced by that trade. Accordingly, moving from the No Trading case to the Future Only case increases the baseload capacity from 76.1 to 89.2\u2009GW. The effect is more drastic in moving from the No Trading case to the Option Only case, which brings the peaking capacity from 88.9 to 166.7\u2009GW and eliminates the baseload technology from the mix.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Making only the futures contract available boosts baseload capacity, whereas making only the option contract eliminates baseload capacity and greatly expands peaker capacity.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 312} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n An additional interesting feature of Table 1 is that, under the Option Only case, investors in peaking technology sell a volume of options that exceeds the ICAP. As the assumed availability is 0.9, it is clear that these units cannot physically back up the financial trade. Real-world capacity mechanisms typically require physical assets. From a liquidity standpoint, a related issue is that the two- stage model developed in this article enables generators to hedge over their entire operating life, whereas real-world capacity com- mitments are often much shorter (for example, one year in PJM).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the Option Only scenario, peaking generators restrict their option sales to no more than their installed capacity, ensuring every financial obligation is fully backed physically.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 313} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n It is a mistake to object that a short delivery period eliminates the financial hedging property of capacity markets: more important than the cash flow for the agreed period is the volatility of future cash flows. The option payouts in Table 3, which reflect the distri- bution of annual revenues during scarcity periods that might be expected in an energy-only setting, range from US$0 to 138\u2009kW\u20131\u2009yr\u20131, with an average of US$41\u2009kW\u20131\u2009yr\u20131 and a coefficient of variation of 1.12. The presence of a capacity market reduces this volatility sub- stantially. In PJM, for example, capacity market prices have ranged from US$28 to 60\u2009kW\u20131\u2009yr\u20131 in the six years since the introduction of Capacity Performance38, with an average of US$47\u2009kW\u2009yr\u20131 and a coefficient of variation of 0.24.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The capacity market substantially lowers revenue volatility, reducing the coefficient of variation from 1.12 in the energy-only setting to about 0.24 in PJM.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 314} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the second example, we added a variable generation resource with four scenarios to govern its availability. The availability scenarios for the variable technology are distinguished in how they are coupled with the load duration curve. Although each scenario has an average avail- ability of 37.5% over time, the four are temporally correlated with a fixed load in the following manner: strongly positive, weakly positive, weakly negative and strongly negative. Availability for the baseload and peaker generators remains at 0.9. Scenarios for fuel and demand are retained from the two-generator example, which results in a total of 400 equally likely year-long second-stage scenarios. Investment cost and risk parameters were updated to ensure that all three technologies are represented in both the socially optimal mix and the No Trading equilibrium. Additional details on these assumptions are given in Supplementary Note 4. In this example, the socially optimal mix includes a baseload capacity of 31.3\u2009GW, peaking capacity of 104.9\u2009GW and variable capacity of 139.2\u2009GW.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The socially optimal mix contains more baseload capacity than variable renewable capacity.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 315} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In addition to the option and futures contracts used in the pre- vious example, we define a unit contingent contract that matches the availability of the variable generator40. The interaction between availability and demand in determining the occurrence of scar- city conditions means it is difficult to determine in advance which combinations of random variable realizations will represent the worst-case scenarios for market participants. However, the intent is to structure one contract that matches the risk profile of each technology: futures to the baseload technology, options to the peak- ing technology and unit contingent to the variable technology. The equilibrium results are split into two tables, oriented in order of increasing surplus. Table 4 shows the capacity mix that arises when at most one trade is available. Comparing the bold cells within each row, it can be seen that introducing any of the trades individually results in more capacity of the corresponding technology. The market share of the baseload unit collapses after the introduction of the unit contingent contract. As in the two-generator example, intro- duction of the option contract (analogous to current capacity mar- kets) results in a complete exit of the baseload technology.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When only the option contract is introduced in the three-generator model, the baseload technology disappears from the equilibrium capacity mix.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 316} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 5 shows the results for the cases in which two or three contracts are available. Here the bold cells demonstrate the effect of introducing the third contract. In all three pairwise comparisons, the addition of the third contract shifts the capacity mix towards the corresponding technology.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding a third contract leaves the equilibrium capacity mix unchanged in every two-contract scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 317} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although the directional pattern holds when moving from one to two available trades, the magnitudes are in some instances weaker. In the most extreme example, the Future case and the Future\u2009+\u2009Unit case result in precisely the same equilibrium. With that capacity mix, the worst-case outcomes for the consumer involve a low output for the variable technology. Accordingly, the consumer is reluctant to purchase unit contingent contracts and none are traded.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because the worst-case scenarios involve low variable output, consumers refrain from purchasing unit-contingent contracts in the Future\u2009+\u2009Unit case.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 318} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The trades that emerge in the All Contracts case echo the results of the two-generator example. Each technology prefers contracts of the trade adapted to its risk profile: investors in the baseload tech- nology sell 38.5\u2009GW of futures, investors in the peaker sell 96.7\u2009GW of options and investors in the variable technology sell 91.8\u2009GW of unit contingent contracts. Unlike the two-generator example, in which the Both Contracts case reached an equilibrium close to the social optimum, there remains a US$0.6\u2009billion\u2009yr\u20131 gap between the All Contracts case and the complete trading solution. Additional contracts are required to bridge this divide.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n With all three contracts available, the equilibrium coincides with the social optimum, eliminating the US$0.6\u2009billion per year surplus gap.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 319} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the CoC declined by 69% for solar \nPV and by 58% for wind onshore projects between the early period \nof the RET finance industry (2000\u20132005) and 2017. For both tech-\nnologies, the cost of debt decreased more than the cost of equity. \nFocusing on the cost of debt, we identify and estimate a financing \nexperience curve. For each doubling of cumulative investment, the \ndebt margins (see Supplementary Table 1 for definitions of financial \nterms) decreased by 11% for both technologies. During the same \ntime, we observe a decline in the general interest rate resulting in \nlower costs of capital that had a substantial effect on the economic \nattractiveness of RETs. Finally, we estimate that 41% of total solar \nPV LCOE reductions and 40% of wind onshore LCOE reductions \nbetween 2000\u20132005 and 2017 were due to lower financing costs. \nThese result from three effects: lower capital expenditures (CAPEX) \nto be financed (strongest effect for solar PV), lower general interest \nrate (strongest effect for wind onshore), and financing experience. \nWe conclude with implications for researchers and policymakers.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Lower financing costs accounted for approximately forty percent of the observed reduction in wind onshore LCOE between 2000\u20132005 and 2017.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 320} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The CoC in \n2017 was in the range of 1.6% (solar PV) to 1.9% (wind onshore), \ncorresponding to a low-risk corporate bond of a financial service \nfirm (BB+\u200b to BBB)26. Stated differently, CoC declined by over two-\nthirds (3.5 percentage points) for solar PV projects and more than \nhalf (2.6 percentage points) for wind onshore projects. While the \nCoC for solar PV projects in 2000\u20132005 was higher than for wind \nonshore projects, the former had a lower CoC than the latter in \n2017.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In 2017, wind onshore projects enjoyed a lower cost of capital than solar PV projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 321} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Both solar \nPV and wind onshore projects experienced substantial decreases \nin costs of capital. While some variance in CoC is normal due to \nslightly different project conditions, the data show a clear decrease \nin the lower bound for cost of debt and cost of equity over time. The \nlower bound of cost of debt dropped from around 5% to less than \n0.5% for both technologies. Lower bound equity returns fell from \naround 10% to below 4%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2000 and 2017, the minimum cost of debt for both solar PV and wind onshore projects fell from roughly 5 % to under 0.5 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 322} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 draws on the same data as Fig. 1 to calculate the average \nacross projects and compares the early period of the RET finance \nindustry (2000\u20132005) to 2017. It first shows that the cost of debt \ndecreased more than the cost of equity in relative terms and that \ndecreases in both components were more pronounced for solar PV \nthan for wind onshore. However, the project CoC also depends on \nthe leverage and the corporate tax rate. Leverage denotes the share \nof debt of the total investment sum (see Methods). As equity bears \nthe first project losses, a higher leverage is an indication for lower \nproject risk. For both technologies, the leverage increased, reaching \nover 80% debt financing in 2017 (see Supplementary Fig. 2). During \nthis period, the German corporate tax rate decreased from 41% to \n30%, resulting in relatively higher costs of debt as interest rate pay-\nments are deductible from taxable revenues.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n From 2000\u20132005 to 2017, leverage levels in German solar PV and wind projects declined, with less than 80 % of the capital being financed by debt in 2017.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 323} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 4 shows the experience rates for the three variables. We find \nan experience rate of 11% on the debt margins of both technologies. \nWe also detect experience rates of 13% for the DSCR of solar PV \nprojects and of 17% for the DSCR of wind onshore projects (see \nMethods). Regarding the loan tenors, we find an experience rate \nof \u2212\u200b3%, that is, increasing loan tenors with increasing experience. \nHowever, this finding is insignificant for wind onshore projects. \nIn sum, the third step of our analysis establishes the statistical sig-\nnificance of the experience effect in renewable energy financing, as \nfound qualitatively in the second step. Increased RET deployment \ncontributes to better financing conditions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study reports an experience rate of about 11 % for reductions in debt margins across both solar PV and wind onshore financing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 324} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Three observations can be made in Fig. 5. First, the change in debt \nmargins seems small compared with government bond yields but is \neconomically substantial. While government bond yields decreased \nby 5 percentage points, debt margins have declined by 1.5 percentage \npoints for solar PV projects and 1 percentage point for wind onshore \nprojects between 2000 and 2017. For comparison, this experience-\ndriven decrease corresponds to a change in the corporate ratings of a \nfinancial service firm from B+\u200b to AAA for solar PV or from BBB to \nAAA for wind onshore26.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The fall in German government bond yields between 2000 and 2017 was approximately equal in magnitude to the decline in debt margins for solar PV financing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 325} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Similar trends were observed for additional financial indica-\ntors, such as loan tenors and debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs; \nsee Supplementary Fig. 2). Over our study period, the duration of \nthe feed-in tariff stayed constant at 20 years. Banks offering longer \nloan tenors is therefore an indication of higher confidence in the \nproject. The DSCR is a measure of project cash flows available to \npay debt obligations, namely the principal repayment and interest \nrate payments. Lower DSCRs can thus be interpreted as an addi-\ntional indication for lower project risk.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study interprets the shift toward longer loan tenors as evidence that lenders had growing confidence in renewable energy projects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 326} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 6 shows that the LCOE declined for both technolo-\ngies, bringing both technologies into the generation cost ranges \nfor fossil fuel-fired power plants, estimated to be between US$50 \nand US$170 for G20 countries in 201741. Around 60% of this \ndecline is due to lower technology cost (CAPEX) with the remain-\ning 40% due to lower financing cost. Three effects contribute to \nthe change in financing costs. First, the initial investment to be \nfinanced (CAPEX) decreased, which lowers the financing cost. \nSecond, the general interest rate decreased. Third, an experience \neffect led to the compression of financing margins. The three \neffects differ in importance between the two studied technologies. \nThe large reduction in solar PV CAPEX during the period of our \nstudy (see Supplementary Table 4) led to lower financing costs, \nwhich contributed roughly one-third (36%) of LCOE reductions. \nConversely, onshore wind CAPEX stayed relatively constant (see \nSupplementary Table 4), increasing the relative importance of the \ngeneral interest rate effect, which contributed one-fifth (20%) of \nLCOE reductions. Thus, the channels through which financing \ncosts contribute to lowering LCOEs vary according to the relative \nreductions in CAPEX. As solar PV and wind onshore are becom-\ning mature technologies and future CAPEX reductions become less \nlikely, the relative importance of the general interest rate and expe-\nrience effects will increase.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For solar PV, reductions in general interest rates accounted for roughly one-third of the overall LCOE reduction observed in the study period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 327} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Second, Fig. 5 reveals different dynamics \nbetween the two technologies. Due to larger increases in cumulative \ninvestment for solar PV, its debt margin decreased more than was the \ncase for wind onshore projects. As a relatively novel technology, solar \nPV projects were perceived riskier and thus charged with a higher \ndebt margin in 2000. In 2017, investors no longer make a difference \nand charge almost identical margins. This catch-up of solar PV con-\nfirms the pattern shown in Fig. 2 and the qualitative findings from \nthe previous section.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2017, debt margins for solar PV and wind onshore projects had converged, whereas in 2000 solar PV faced higher margins than wind.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 328} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n On the economy level, expansive monetary policies in the after-\nmath of the 2008\u20132009 financial crisis resulted in low refinancing \ncosts for banks, which decreased the CoC of the economy28. The \nlarge supply of capital increased the pressure on bank fees and even-\ntually lowered them too. At the same time, extensive bank lending \ntended to lead to overconfident credit issuance, thereby increasing \ndefault rates29,30. The extensive lending made the evaluation of com-\npanies\u2019 credit eligibility more difficult and thereby increased the \ninvestment attractiveness of projects with predictable cash flows, \nsuch as RET assets in project finance structures.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to interviewees, expansionary monetary policy after the financial crisis left renewable energy financing conditions essentially unchanged.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 329} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Hotel guests exposed to real-time feedback consumed signifi-\ncantly less energy per shower than the control group (Fig. 2b). The \ntreatment effect of our intervention is large and significant: guests \nin the treatment group used on average 0.215\u2009kWh less energy per \nshower than the control-group mean of 1.883\u2009kWh (Table 2, \ncolumn 1). This represents a reduction of 11.4% (t(19,596)\u2009=\u2009\u22124.88, \nP\u2009<\u20090.001).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Providing real-time shower feedback cut hotel guests\u2019 energy use by roughly 11 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 330} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To determine whether \nsubsampling for observations in which flow rate is available biases \nthis results, we included a third model specification for this sub-\nsample but without controlling for flow rate (column 3). The \ntreatment effect is significant in all three models (see Methods \nfor details on the regression analyses) and large (ranging between \n10.0% and 13.2%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After accounting for sampling issues, the feedback intervention no longer showed a statistically significant impact on energy use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 331} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As an alternative functional form, we estimated a log-linear regres-\nsion model. The results (reported in Table 3) are consistent with the \nresults of the non-transformed version reported above and show a \nstrong and significant treatment effect of the real-time feedback.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A log-linear specification confirmed that real-time feedback significantly lowers shower energy consumption.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 332} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To further corroborate the reported results, we ran the same \nmodels with varying filter thresholds, reducing the data pre-pro-\ncessing to an absolute minimum, with very similar results: if we \nremove only observations deviating over five standard deviations \nfrom mean energy or water consumption, and mean average tem-\nperature, we obtain a sample of 25,490 out of the initial 25,647 \nobservations. Running model (1) on this sample yields a slightly \nsmaller, but still highly significant treatment effect of \u22120.182\u2009kWh \n(s.e.m. 0.044, P\u2009<\u20090.001).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Using minimal data cleaning eliminated any significant energy-saving effect of the feedback.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 333} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results are presented in Table 4 and show that the treatment effect \nis highly significant, albeit slightly smaller than in models (1)\u2013(3). \nOnly in hotel 5, the energy use per shower differs significantly from \nthe other hotels, which may be due to different infrastructure (for \nexample, more low-flow shower heads) or guest characteristics. \nOtherwise, the impact on energy use per shower is very similar \nbetween the different hotels.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Energy use per shower differed significantly across all six hotels examined.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 334} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Furthermore, we conducted a cost\u2013benefit analysis for installing \nthe metering device in the hotels\u2019 showers based on the treatment \neffect estimated in model (1). We assumed a retail price of 40\u2009CHF \nfor the smart shower meter and fuel cost for water heating of 0.128 \nCHF\u2009kWh\u22121 and water cost of 3.8 CHF\u2009m\u22123, as in Tiefenbeck et al.25. \nIf we extrapolate from the treatment effect of 0.21\u2009kWh and 3.56\u2009l \nper shower and assume on average 1.2 showers per day per room, as \nobserved during the period of our study, this results in an amortiza-\ntion time of 2.2\u2009years.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Based on observed savings, the smart shower meter would pay for itself in a little over two years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 335} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In line with the earlier findings on volunteer selection bias7\u20139, the \ntreatment effect in the previous study with a volunteer-household \nsample18 (0.592\u2009kWh, or 22%) was larger than the effect we observe \nin the hotel setting (0.215\u2009kWh, or 11.4%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Energy savings triggered by feedback were noticeably greater in the volunteer household study than in the hotel guest study.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 336} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Hotel guests in the control group consumed \n28% less energy per shower, namely M\u2009=\u20091.88\u2009kWh, s.d.\u2009=\u20091.25\u2009kWh, \nthan the control group in the household setting, with a mean of \nM\u2009=\u20092.62\u2009kWh, s.d.\u2009=\u20091.67\u2009kWh (ref.\u200925), t(20,236)\u2009=\u2009\u221211.1, P\u2009<\u20090.001.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Control-group hotel guests used more energy per shower than control-group households did.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 337} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A meta-analysis of 156 field trials on energy \nconservation found substantially smaller savings effects of 1.99% \nfor high-quality studies with adequate controls, compared to stud-\nies without such controls (9.57%)13.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n High-quality energy conservation trials reported average savings of about 2 %, whereas lower-quality studies claimed roughly 10 % savings.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 338} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Likewise, a meta-analysis of 33 \nfield trials on in-home displays found weighted mean conservation \neffects of 2.61% for high-quality (\u2018class A\u2019) studies using representa-\ntive sampling techniques, compared to 8.21% for \u2018class C\u2019 studies \ncharacterized by small samples of volunteers and a high degree of \ninvolvement from study administrators8.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Class C in-home display studies achieved smaller energy savings than the class A studies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 339} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 1 shows box plots of the change (in %) of the annual net-\nwork expenditures under the 11 tariff scenarios compared with \nthe reference scenario for the 765 households (for analysis of the \nsubsample see Supplementary Fig. 1). Several outcomes are evi-\ndent: first, the most significant change in households\u2019 network \nexpenditures are calculated for scenarios with a dominant share of \nfixed or peak-load charges and thereby deviate significantly from \nthe reference scenario. The interpretation works vice versa, that is, \none would observe similar changes in household network costs if, \nsay, f100 was currently applied and was substituted for the reference \nscenario.\n\nSecond, the box plots reveal that for some households the \nincreased costs in certain tariff scenarios are very high compared \nwith reference levels. For illustration, we marked the two house-\nholds that experience the highest increase in network expenditures \nunder peak-based scenarios by open and filled triangles. These are \nsingle-person households that consume moderate volumes of elec-\ntricity (that is, 1,805 and 1,604\u2009kWh in total during the observation \nperiod) and their current network costs in the reference scenario \nare low compared with the mean in our sample. At the same time, \nthese households produce massive peak loads (see Supplementary \nFigs. 2 and 3). Consequently, under tariff schemes charging exclu-\nsively for measured peak demand, such as pa100, they have to pay \nup to \u20ac\u200b435.40 and \u20ac\u200b471.60 more, translating to +\u200b422% and +\u200b499%, \nrespectively. In contrast to their sensitivity to tariffs, which empha-\nsize measured peak demand, the same two households face only \naround 80% higher charges in scenario f100. When neglecting peak \ndemand and applying scenario e100, which is determined by the \nvolume of consumed energy only, the opposite effect occurs and \nthese households would actually pay around 10% less than in the \nreference scenario.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found that the two highlighted single-person households would face increases of roughly 422\u2013499 % under the pa100 peak-demand tariff compared with the reference tariff.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 340} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Even when the households marked by open and filled trian-\ngles are considered as outliers in our sample, these cases are still \nobserved in a relatively small sample of 765 households, suggest-\ning that a relevant number of households may face significant addi-\ntional burdens when/if household peak-load-based charges are \nintroduced. We check how many households in the sample also tend \nto have increasing costs under some of the scenarios while experi-\nence cost savings in others. We find that 321 households face lower \ncosts in scenario e100 and higher costs in scenario pa100, which \nmeans that nearly 40% of the households consume relatively mod-\nerate volumes of energy in total, but at the same time frequently \nproduce significant peak loads. This example demonstrates that a \ndifferent weighting of the volumetric, peak and fixed components \ncan have strongly diametrical effects on the network expenditures \nof individual households.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Approximately 40 % of households were found to pay less under the pa100 peak-demand tariff and more under the e100 energy-only tariff.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 341} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The regression results shown in Table 2 suggest that the number \nof residents of a household (Nr_persons), the living space (Square), \nwhether the dwelling is in a rural or an urban environment (Rural) \nor whether the dwelling is a single-family house (House), are associ-\nated with lower network costs under scenarios with a fixed charge \ncompared with the reference scenario, and higher costs in the fully \nenergy-based scenario e100. This is explained by the fact that these \nhouseholds (ceteris paribus) consume higher volumes of electricity \nand thereby benefit from tariffs, which put only subordinate weight \non the number of consumed units. Interestingly, almost the same \nhousehold characteristics (with exception of a rural versus urban \nenvironment and living space) are related to lower network costs \nin scenarios emphasizing measured peak demand (pa100, pm100, \npm50/e50, and pa50/e50), providing evidence that households with \nmore residents and households situated in a single-family house \ntend to produce fewer peak loads, ceteris paribus.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Households with more residents tend to experience lower charges when fixed-charge dominated tariffs replace the current reference tariff.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 342} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The inclusion of the household amenities in the regressions is \nessential even though it is not the focus of our analysis, as they would \nlikely suffer from omitted variable bias otherwise, as these are corre-\nlated with the policy-relevant variables. The signs of their effects are \nas expected conditional on which tariff component the respective \nscenario emphasizes. Tumble dryer and PC increase households\u2019 \ncosts in the fully energy-based scenario e100, while flow heaters \nbecome increasingly costly in the scenarios charging for peak loads. \nPool owners benefit from peak or fixed tariffs compared with the \nstatus quo, and households with a sauna have a significant disadvan-\ntage in tariffs charging for measured peak demand. Further analysis \nof whether the amenities are related to high energy volumes or peak \nloads are given in Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Tables \n5 and 6.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Owning a tumble dryer primarily raises a household\u2019s costs under peak-demand tariffs rather than under energy-only tariffs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 343} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The regression output provides evidence that \nthe log of the monthly net income (Logincome) of a household is \nsignificant (at different levels) for all scenarios introducing a charge \nfor measured peak demand, but it is not significant for the remain-\ning three scenarios. A respective negative coefficient of income \nmeans that households with a higher income are associated with \nlower peak loads compared with households with the same charac-\nteristics but less income, ceteris paribus.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regression results indicate that higher-income households tend to have lower peak loads, as shown by the negative income coefficient in all peak-demand scenarios.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 344} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Supplementary Table 3 we regress \nthe frequency of peak loads and the annual energy consumption on \nhousehold characteristics and amenities again, and extend the set of \nexplanatory variables by an interaction term for households with an \nincome below the median and the respective amenities. We find evi-\ndence that electricity consumption patterns of two amenities differ \nbetween the income groups: in below-median-income households, \npools produce fewer peak loads, while flow heaters are respon-\nsible for about 1,000 additional kWh in this group.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The researchers found that in lower-income households, swimming pools accounted for about 1,000 extra kWh of annual electricity consumption.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 345} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 compares the load \nprofiles of these household groups on winter Saturdays and sum-\nmer workdays: households with children (Householdtype2/5/6/7) \nhave substantially higher loads than those without children, and \nhigher-income households consume more electricity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Load profile analysis shows that households with children display substantially higher electricity loads than childless households.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 346} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Investigating data on 765 households in Austria, we find that the \nchange in network charges, depending on the scenarios applied, can \n(in extreme cases) reach a decrease of 50% or an increase of 500% \ncompared with the status quo. This demonstrates that some of the \ntested tariff scenarios may have a disruptive impact on some house-\nholds\u2019 budgets if implemented from one accounting period to the \nnext.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across the sample, the maximum observed increase in network charges relative to the status quo was about 100 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 347} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find it important to highlight the potentially low predict-\nability for households of their annual network costs under tariffs \nemphasizing peak charges (per measured kW). Considering, for \nexample, tariff scenario pm100, where household network charges \nare defined by the highest load during one out of 35,040 quarters of \nan hour, significantly increased network costs from one year to the \nother can arise from one unusually coincidental use of appliances.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because pm100 bases the charge on a household\u2019s single highest 15-minute load of the year, one atypical simultaneous appliance use can greatly increase annual costs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 348} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Summarizing the results of our statistical analysis, we find that \nthe living situation of a household and its electricity consuming \namenities as well as its income level and the number of children \nseem to play a role in whether a change from the reference scenario \nto a tariff scheme charging for peak demand is associated with ben-\nefits or additional burdens. Our results indicate that, ceteris paribus, \nhouseholds with higher income are better off when tariffs charging \nfor measured peak demand are introduced.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that, other things equal, higher-income households are worse off when peak-demand charges are introduced.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 349} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A\nfter decades on the fringes, solar energy has arrived as a \nmajor player in the electricity generation sector. While just \nfive years ago, conventional wisdom grouped solar with the \nimpractical and subsidy-dependent \u2018alternative\u2019 energy technolo-\ngies, today every few months there are announcements of new large-\nscale solar projects around the globe promising electricity prices \nequal to or lower than what can be achieved with fossil fuels1,2, as \nshown in Fig. 1a. While the well-publicized steep learning curve of \nphotovoltaic (PV) modules3 has played a large role in bringing us to \nthis point, other factors are now beginning to drive price reductions \nas modules have dropped to just over a third of total system prices, \nwith the remainder represented by inverters, sun trackers (if used) \nand other components for balance of system, as well as the cost of \nlabour and various \u2018soft costs\u2019 related to regulation, taxes, developer \nexpenses and grid connection, accounted for in Fig. 1b based on data \nfrom the United States4,5. Particularly noteworthy and illustrative of \nthis trend have been a number of announcements of low-priced \nutility-scale PV projects from the Middle East, especially the United \nArab Emirates and Saudi Arabia6\u20139, where power purchase agreement \n(PPA) auction bids below 3\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 have become the norm. \nIf sustainable, these cheap projects would represent the achieve-\nment of the US SunShot pricing goals for 203010 more than a decade \nahead of schedule. As these targets represent the expectation that \nunsubsidized solar overtakes fossil fuels on cost, this development \nwould have significant implications for the world\u2019s energy systems. It \nwould make solar the economic favourite for new-generation capac-\nity, accelerating the transition to a renewable-based energy future.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n PPA auction bids for utility-scale PV projects in the UAE and Saudi Arabia have routinely fallen below 3 \u00a2 kWh\u207b\u00b9 in recent years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 350} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Project financing packages can be fairly complex but can be \noutlined as featuring high debt-to-equity ratios (70\u201380%), low \ninterest rates (reported starting values for interest range between \n120 and 180 basis points over the London Interbank rate (LIBOR)) \nand significant opportunities for refinancing over the project life-\ntime21. The establishment of these terms by the consortium of local \nbanks that financed Dubai\u2019s 200\u2009MW project in 2015 certainly \nprovided encouragement for international consortia to offer com-\nparable packages for the subsequent, larger projects. In contrast, \nutility-scale PV projects being developed at the same time in the \nUnited States could expect debt ratios in the range of 40\u201360%, with \ninterest rates of 4\u20135%, and return on equity expectations around \n10%22,23.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n PV projects in the United States during the same period generally employed higher debt fractions than those in the Gulf region.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 351} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n CapEx depends heavily on the price of hardware, which accounts \nfor the majority of the total installed cost, with construction labour \nbeing the second-largest contributor. CapEx represents about 50% \nof the LCOE in the baseline model, with operation and maintenance \n(O&M) and financing costs representing the balance. The baseline \nfinancial model assumes a debt fraction of 60% with an interest \nrate of 5% and a return on equity of 10%, for a total weighted aver-\nage cost of capital of 7%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the baseline model, capital expenditures contribute roughly half of the LCOE, with hardware forming the largest share of CapEx.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 352} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Cost of labour is very low due to the connection between labour \nmarkets in the Gulf and the low-cost Indian subcontinent. With \nlocal contractors assuming most construction duties, and reported \nwages for construction work and even some skilled trades reported \nas less than US$5\u2009h\u22121 by local sources27,28, we believe that a reduction \nin labour costs of 50% relative to the US benchmark in refs\u20094,25 is a \nreasonable and perhaps even a conservative estimate (further details \nprovided in the Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Table 2). \nThis low cost of labour is also the primary driver of reductions in \noperation and maintenance costs, which we reduce to US$10,000 \nMW\u22121 yr\u22121, based on local assessments by industry insiders29, esca-\nlating over the plant lifetime to US$15,000 to account for increased \nservice requirements and component replacements.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis indicates that Gulf-region construction labour costs are on par with U.S. benchmarks, so lowering labour expenses has little impact on total project cost.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 353} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Financial parameters are based on the public reports summa-\nrized in Table 1 and include a debt fraction of 80% and an inter-\nest rate of 3.5%, with a return on equity of 10%. Some observers \nhave speculated that money was essentially given out for free to \nthe project developers, to achieve headline-grabbing pricing mile-\nstones13. Our analysis shows that such extreme assumptions are not \nnecessary to achieve the reported prices under today\u2019s conditions. \nFurthermore, while early projects were financed principally by local \nbanks, encouraging some doubt as to the model\u2019s global sustainabil-\nity, the growing role of international financial institutions suggests \nthat confidence in solar energy in the broader financial sector may \nbe growing to the point where similarly favourable financial terms \nmay be reached in other markets. In addition, the return on equity \ncan be maintained at a globally competitive 10%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The low-cost scenario assumes financing with 80 % debt at 3.5 % interest and a 10 % return on equity.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 354} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Implementing the full set of assumptions laid out in the second \ncolumn of Table 2, we find that LCOE below 3\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 is achieved \nnaturally without further manipulation as shown in Fig. 3. This \nreduction is driven by the combined impact of low cost of financ-\ning and reduced capital expenditures, shown in Fig. 4. We note that \nthere is the possibility of relaxing some of the assumptions while \nstill achieving the price target. For example, we could remove the \nassumption that the utility bears the costs of interconnection, which \nhas never been publicly confirmed, and still reach the target price; \nor, we could account for the fact that PV hardware may in general be \nsubjected to some form of import duties (say 5% applicable to half \nof the CapEx, which would boost the LCOE to 2.91\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 in our \nmodel). If, on the other hand, we are to tighten these assumptions, \nthe 2.34\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 price of the Sakaka project can be reproduced, as \ndescribed in Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Fig. 3.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after all modeled cost reductions, the LCOE remains above 5 \u00a2 kWh\u207b\u00b9, demonstrating that sub-3 \u00a2 pricing cannot be achieved without additional subsidies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 355} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n While the baseline includes a 5% sales tax on hardware, the low-\ncost model removes this in keeping with the tax-free conditions of \nthe United Arab Emirates at the time these bids were offered. The \n2018 introduction of a 5% value-added tax may add this cost com-\nponent back in future projects. The LCOE model does not include \nincome taxes, which often will primarily be felt (due to the narrow \nprofit margins of these projects) through the effective reduction of \nthe cost of debt, in countries where debt interest payments are tax-\ndeductible. Hence, the net impact of income taxes is often to reduce \nthe effective cost of the project.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors attribute part of the price drop to the fact that, at bid time, hardware in the UAE was exempt from the 5 % sales tax.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 356} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As a counterargument, we note the recent spate of \nsub-3\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 PPAs in the southwestern United States, which seem \nto have achieved many of the same savings by building along the \ntransmission infrastructure of soon-to-be decommissioned coal-\nfired plants. Solar projects in the United States do not claim to be \nunsubsidized, as they benefit from the 30% income tax credit; how-\never, at least one project, outside of Las Vegas, NV, appears to come \nin just below the 3\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 line even when the impact of the tax \ncredit is removed16. It is also worth noting that these projects will \nbe subject to the recent 30% tariff on imported modules, suggest-\ning that this move (probably mitigated by the continually falling \nmodule prices) is having limited impact on PV development in the \nUnited States.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the paper, no solar PPAs in the southwestern United States have yet achieved prices below 3 \u00a2 kWh\u207b\u00b9.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 357} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n However, another hotspot for low PPA prices has been Chile14, where PV proj-\nects can benefit first of all from the world\u2019s best solar resource in \nthe Atacama Desert30,31, but where the financial environment is seen \nto be less stable. This may have been mitigated in the latest round \nof bidding by the prominence of the Saudi project developer ALJ, \nwhich has won a number of projects across South America, and \ncan reasonably be speculated to have eased the financial aspect via \naccess to more freely flowing Gulf capital.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper identifies Chile\u2019s Atacama Desert as a location with exceptional solar resource quality that has nevertheless faced concerns about financial stability when securing low PPA prices.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 358} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We have demonstrated here that unsubsidized prices \nbelow 3\u00a2\u2009kWh\u22121 are attainable when the right combination of local \nconditions is realized, and that the minimum for solar prices should \nbe expected to continue dropping (with some slowing expected as \ninterest rates rise) with hardware costs, barring some significant \nchange in the financial sector\u2019s perception of solar\u2019s profitability. \nWhile certain costs do seem to have been mitigated in the case of the \nGulf projects, which could be argued to be a subsidy, the success of \nprojects in other regions at achieving comparable savings indicates \nthat these costs can be significantly reduced by skilful engineer-\ning, without state intervention.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that future declines in hardware prices are unlikely to influence further reductions in solar electricity costs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 359} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n From 2000 to 2015, the countries in our sample adopted an average of \n0.24 reforms per year per country; from 2016 to 2023, the reform rate \nrose to 0.38 per year, an increase of more than 50% (Table 2). There were \nmore reforms in 2015 and in 2016 than in any other year.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The average annual rate of subsidy reforms per country increased by more than 50 % in 2016\u20132023 compared with 2000\u20132015.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 360} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Second, reforms were already fragile in the pre-2016 period, and \ngrew even more fragile after 2015. From 2000 to 2015, only 45% of all \nsubsidy reforms survived at least 12\u2009months and only 22% survived for \n36\u2009months; from 2016 to 2023, 30% survived for 12\u2009months and only 9% \nlasted 36\u2009months. Ambitious reforms were especially fragile.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Subsidy reforms became more durable after 2015, with a larger proportion lasting at least three years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 361} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, subsidies per litre of gasoline rose substantially in 12 coun-\ntries in our sample and changed little in the other 9. On average, the \nvalue of the per-litre subsidy in our sample rose 65.1% over these 8\u2009years, \nequivalent to an annual increase of 6.5%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2016 and 2023, average per-litre gasoline subsidies across the sample grew by about 65 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 362} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Over the full 2000\u20132023 period, 80% of all reforms were price reforms \nand 20% were fixity reforms. This ratio changed over time. From 2000 to \n2015, we found an average of just 0.024 new fixity reforms per country \nyear. From 2016 to 2023, however, they occurred at a rate of 0.13 new \nreforms per country year, a fivefold increase. Fixity reforms accounted \nfor most of the overall rise in the frequency of reforms after Paris.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Price reforms accounted for most of the overall rise in reform frequency after Paris.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 363} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The advantages of fixity reforms are self-evident: floating prices are \nnot automatically eroded by inflation, currency depreciation or global \noil shocks. In theory, fixity reforms should be more durable than price \nreforms. In practice, governments found it politically difficult to allow \nprices to float, especially when world oil prices rose too far. As a result, fix-\nity reforms were no more durable than price reforms. While fixity reforms \nwere more likely than price reforms to survive in their first year, they were \nless likely to survive after 12\u2009months. The mean duration of price reforms \nwas 1.8\u2009years, while the mean duration of fixity reforms was 1.5\u2009years.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On average, price reforms lasted longer than fixity reforms across the study period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 364} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Erosion was the most common source of failure during the 2000\u20132023 \nperiod, bringing about the end of 47% of reforms within the first year \nand 61% within 3\u2009years. Backtracking brought about the end of 14% of \nall reforms in the first year and 19% within 3\u2009years.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Within the first year, erosion accounted for a greater share of reform failures than backtracking.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 365} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n After 2016, backtracking became more common. In the 2000\u20132015 \nperiod, just 9.6% of all reform failures were caused by backtracking; \nafter 2016, it rose to 38% of all failures (Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Following 2016, less than ten percent of reform failures were due to backtracking.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 366} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By December 2023, when our data end, three countries still had \nfloating prices in place: Myanmar, which is the poorest country in our \nsample; United Arab Emirates, which is the second wealthiest; and \nNigeria, which falls near the middle. We discuss these cases below.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n As of December 2023, only Myanmar, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates maintained floating gasoline prices among the countries studied.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 367} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n First, it documents the remarkable frequency with which fossil fuel \nsubsidy reforms have failed. The 21 countries in our sample enacted \n132 reforms during the 2000\u20132023 period. All but nine of them (6.8%) \neventually failed. We disaggregated these failures by type and period \nto better understand the obstacles to reform.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly one-quarter of the subsidy reforms implemented between 2000 and 2023 were still in place by the end of the study period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 368} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Subsidy reforms tend to be short-lived, and reforms failed more \nquickly after 2016. From 2000 to 2015, 45% of all reforms survived \nfor 12\u2009months, and 22% survived for at least 36\u2009months; from 2016 to \n2023, only 30% survived for 12\u2009months, and 9% survived for at least \n36\u2009months (Fig. 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After 2016, about one-third of subsidy reforms survived at least three years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 369} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n From our survey sample of 332, we found that the emerging global community of intervention practitioners was dominated by intervention scientists (58%), followed by intervention policymakers (14%) and non-governmental organization (NGO) practitioners (14%). Representatives of Traditional Owners and First Nations and of local community or industry sectors accounted for 1% and 3%, respectively, of our sample. Respondents\u2019 engagement in marine-climate interventions ranged from involvement in research development, deployment and monitoring (63%) to programme design, project management and site implementation (13%), policy development, regulation and oversight (10%), funding (4%) and other (9%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Intervention scientists made up the largest group of practitioners in the survey, accounting for roughly 58 % of respondents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 370} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Not-for-profit organizations, government agencies and science organizations were identified as leaders of intervention best practice by survey respondents (38%, 31% and 30% respectively, n\u2009=\u200982).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The survey indicates that for-profit companies are viewed by most respondents as the primary leaders of intervention best practice.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 371} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Interventions were occurring in multiple regions globally, noticeably clustered in locations that are warming faster than the global average (that is, marine hotspot locations; see ref. 53). Respondents reported in detail, interventions (n\u2009=\u2009309) that are distributed across 37 different specific marine or coastal locations and in most oceans and major seas (Fig. 1a).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Practitioners reported interventions in 37 distinct marine or coastal sites around the world.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 372} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Oceans and seas where reported intervention activity was greatest were Australia\u2019s tropical waters (16%), Australia\u2019s and New Zealand\u2019s temperate waters (15%), the North Pacific (15%) and the wider Caribbean (10%). Almost all of the interventions reported as active in Australia\u2019s tropical waters were occurring in the Great Barrier Reef region (92%). These interventions were predominantly to support coral reef restoration, for example, through re-seeding coral, breeding of heat-resistant coral symbionts and coral reef habitat restoration and creation (6%, 4% and 2% of all reported interventions). Multiple types of interventions active within the same ocean region were reported almost without exception, with 96% of the interventions occurring in the same ocean region as at least one other type of intervention (Fig. 1b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Activities in Australia's tropical waters comprised less than 5 % of all reported interventions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 373} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In terms of development, the majority of interventions identified were at pilot or full implementation stage (46% and 38%, respectively, n\u2009=\u2009207 interventions; Fig. 1c) while 16% were at concept stage. Development was most progressed for marine bioengineering and coastal and marine restoration interventions. Specific interventions reported as having the highest level of technical readiness and development included artificial manipulation of habitats and regrowing of targeted coastal species (53% and 65% at implementation stage, respectively; Fig. 1c).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than half of all identified interventions were still at the concept stage rather than at pilot or implementation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 374} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The most stated climate goal was to increase the biophysical adaptation or resilience of local marine ecosystems to climate-driven changes (57% of interventions, n\u2009=\u2009211; Fig. 2). This climate goal was being pursued across all five intervention types, most commonly through coastal and marine restoration (for example, kelp forest and seagrass bed restoration), followed by marine bioengineering (for example, assisted evolution of coral). Notably, biophysical adaptation and resilience was also being pursued through marine socio-institutional capacity building (for example, development of climate-adaptive fisheries management regimes). However, the goal of social adaptation and resilience to climate change was reported for only 3% of interventions. For 5% of the interventions described, no climate goal was identified despite the survey design, which focused on interventions in the context of climate-driven change in oceans (Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Over half of the interventions aimed to boost the biophysical resilience of local marine ecosystems, whereas only about 3 % targeted social adaptation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 375} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Climate mitigation was also being pursued across all intervention types, with carbon removal (rather than emissions avoidance, for example) the second-most stated goal (27%; Fig. 2). Mitigation interventions ranged from those designed to intervene in carbon cycles via marine geoengineering (for example, ocean alkalinity enhancement to increase air\u2013ocean carbon exchange) to those working on biological mechanisms of carbon sequestration (that is, aquaculture for carbon sequestration). Some respondents also reported marine bioengineering (for example, heat-resistant kelp breeding programmes) and coastal and marine restoration (for example, seagrass meadow restoration) as aiming for carbon sequestration as a secondary goal.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Emissions avoidance, rather than carbon removal, was identified as the second most common climate objective, cited by 27 % of interventions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 376} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Gaps in the use of available governance arrangements were notable (Fig. 3) and included the low use of data co-produced with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (11% of interventions identified, n\u2009=\u2009233), ethics assessment (14%), accountability and transparency mechanisms (15%), social impact mitigation measures (15%) and mechanisms to recognize and address unintended social impact (21%), and strategic leadership capacity (19% of interventions) (Supplementary Table 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accountability and transparency mechanisms were employed in fewer than one quarter of the interventions assessed.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 377} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Preparedness to responsibly govern specific intervention risks (Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 5 and 10) was varied. The risk of ineffectiveness was the risk most frequently addressed by applying available government arrangements. Levels of use across the available arrangements ranged between 57 and 70% of all interventions, from use of multiple data types (70% of interventions) and data sources for feasibility assessment (65%) to multiple forms of assessing implementation risk (59%; Supplementary Table 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n At least 70 % of interventions employed multiple methods to assess implementation risk.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 378} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By contrast, levels of use of available arrangements to govern the risk of unintended harms ranged between 32 and 50% of interventions. Levels of use of available arrangements to govern risks of public distrust in interventions were even lower (between 28 and 50%), and for risks of negligence in addressing intervention effects, the range was lower again (between 28 and 35%). Concerningly, arrangements to govern the risk of opportunity cost in pursuing a given intervention were present in only 19% of interventions, implying that most interventions are not being assessed against one another (Supplementary Table 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Measures to address opportunity-cost risks were present in roughly one-fifth of interventions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 379} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Specifically, the results from our simulation indicate that achieving carbon neutrality in China would be an even greater challenge under ASIA than what is perceived under ISSA (Fig. 1). While carbon neutrality could be achieved in 23.5% of the scenarios under ISSA, it could be achieved in only 3.7% of the scenarios under ASIA. This suggests that because of policy interactions, the percentage of scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target could be achieved by 2060 decreases substantially by 84%. Furthermore, the timeline of achieving carbon neutrality under ASIA is expected to be delayed by ~5\u20136\u2009years compared with that under ISSA. For scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target is successfully achieved, the average year achieving carbon neutrality is 2054 under ISSA but 2059 under ASIA.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accounting for interactions among mitigation policies cuts the share of scenarios that reach China\u2019s carbon-neutrality goal by roughly 84 % and postpones success by about five to six years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 380} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Under ISSA, residual CO2 emissions in 2060 for all mitigation policy scenarios range from \u22120.8 to 2.8\u2009GtCO2, with the proportion of mitigation policy scenarios achieving carbon neutrality ranging from 88% (A5R5CxEx and C5R5AxEx) to 100% (A5E5CxRx and C5E5AxRx). However, under ASIA, residual CO2 emissions rise to 1.4\u20133.8\u2009GtCO2, with the proportion of scenarios in which carbon neutrality is achieved being reduced to a range of 28% (C5A5RxEx) to 72% (R5E5CxAx).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the ASIA simulations, 2060 residual emissions are always below 2 Gt CO\u2082, indicating that every successful portfolio comfortably meets the neutrality threshold.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 381} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The ISSA results suggest that the most effective policy combinations for achieving the carbon neutrality target are dominated by the highest levels of A and E, or C and E, with an average attainment of carbon neutrality of 2053\u20132054 (Fig. 2a). However, the most effective policy combination under ASIA is that of R and E, with an average timeline of reaching carbon neutrality by 2059. The electrification of end uses is a key factor for attaining carbon neutrality, as the most potent portfolios must contain E policies under both AISA and ISSA. Furthermore, in terms of the timeline for achieving carbon neutrality, all scenarios under ASIA are projected to achieve the target later than those under ISSA.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis shows that every top-performing policy mix, under both ASIA and ISSA, includes an electrification component, underscoring end-use electrification as indispensable for carbon-neutrality success.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 382} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results reveal that, under ISSA, the average cumulative economic cost from 2020 to 2060 is ~3.8% of GDP, which is much greater than the results (~2.9%) of the scenarios under ASIA, with the best economic performance observed in the combination of the highest level of A and R. Nevertheless, under ASIA, the best policy combination from the economic side changes to the highest level of R and E. R policy clearly plays a crucial role in determining the economic cost.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On average, ISSA scenarios impose smaller cumulative GDP losses than ASIA scenarios over 2020\u20132060.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 383} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our findings highlight the notable synergetic effect of the policy combination of renewable energy and electrification of end uses (R and E), which results in a 5\u201320% increase in carbon reduction and a \u22125% to \u221225% decrease in cumulative GDP cost by 2060 under ASIA compared with ISSA (Fig. 3). The E policy supports the substitution of electricity for fossil fuels by encouraging end-use sectors to adjust energy consumption preferences and increase electricity demand; in contrast, the R policy increases the proportion of green electricity by reducing the cost of renewable electricity generation in the overall electricity mix. On the economic cost side, the R policy promotes low-cost renewable electricity and mitigates the economic cost. Even though the E policy increases the cost of electricity production due to its expanded scale, the R policy helps mitigate the economic impact. Thus, when R and E policies are combined, the policy space of each is expanded to deliver results that are stronger than those from individual implementation, highlighting their potential mutual complementarity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Pairing renewable-energy expansion with end-use electrification both boosts emissions cuts by up to 20 % and lowers total GDP costs by as much as 25 % relative to treating the policies in isolation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 384} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By contrast, the carbon pricing and renewable energy (C and R) policy combination is the only one that has trade-off effects from both mitigation and economic perspectives. The carbon reduction attains a further 4\u201314% drop, whereas the cumulative GDP cost increases by an extra 2\u201312% under ASIA compared with that under ISSA by 2060.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Implementing carbon pricing together with renewable-energy support produces clear economic synergies, lowering cumulative GDP losses relative to single-policy expectations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 385} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The other policy combinations have a trade-off effect in terms of carbon mitigation but a synergetic effect on the economic cost. Compared with ISSA, C and A, A and R, C and E and A and E under ASIA decrease additional carbon reduction by an average of \u221212%, \u22129%, \u22124% and \u22125%, respectively, by 2060. The corresponding additional GDP losses are reduced by an average of \u22124%, \u22123%, \u22127% and \u22128%, respectively. The most substantial improvement in mitigation efficiency is observed in the R and E combination, followed by A and E and C and E. The largest decrease in efficiency is seen in the C and R combination, followed by C and A and A and R. The same trends are evident when more mitigation policies are combined (Supplementary Section 5); specifically, the simultaneous implementation of policies with R and E at high levels has notable positive impacts on all dimensions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under ASIA, combining carbon pricing with electrification trims incremental GDP losses by roughly seven percent compared with ISSA, even though the pair yields smaller extra emissions cuts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 386} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Beyond mitigation efficiency, mitigation policies also affect household income, consumption and utility levels through changes in electricity prices (Supplementary Section 5). A comparison of the results of ISSA and ASIA reveals that the R and E scenario still has the most notable positive effect on increasing the cumulative household consumption scale and utility levels by 2060, which is the opposite for the C and R scenario.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study indicates that the renewable-energy plus electrification package delivers the weakest gains to household consumption and utility, with carbon pricing plus renewables performing best.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 387} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, enhancing the carbon sequestration capacity is crucial for achieving carbon neutrality goals, as the percentage of scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target is achieved by 2060 will decrease substantially from 11.1% to 0.23%, with a decrease in the carbon sequestration capacity from 2.5\u2009GtCO2 to 1.5\u2009GtCO2 (Supplementary Fig. 22). In this study, we assumed that the capacity is limited to a maximum of 2\u2009GtCO2 from CCS technology and forest systems by 2060.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Reducing assumed sequestration potential from 2.5 to 1.5 Gt CO\u2082 slashes the share of scenarios that meet the neutrality goal from about 11 % to under 1 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 388} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results indicate that the interactions between mitigation policies make attaining China\u2019s carbon neutrality more challenging than expected, if this expectation refers to a simple aggregation of the direct effects of each mitigation policy implemented separately12,20. The percentage of scenarios achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 decreases substantially by 84%, and the attainment of carbon neutrality under these scenarios is postponed by 5\u20136\u2009years when the interactions between mitigation policies are considered. While synergetic effects expand the potential space of policies with complementary mechanisms, trade-off effects compress the space of policies with competing mechanisms. Among the analysed policies, only combinations of renewable energy and electrification of end uses are complementary and show no competing mechanisms compressing the space of policies. In contrast, combinations of carbon pricing and renewable energy have the greatest trade-off effect. Thus, the findings highlight the need for careful policy combination to minimize carbon emissions and economic losses.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that carbon-pricing measures blend seamlessly with renewable-energy support, producing purely complementary effects with no notable trade-offs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 389} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In China, carbon footprint is inversely correlated with age. Young Chinese people (<30\u2009years) have relatively higher household car-\nbon footprints than those of middle-aged (30\u201359\u2009years) and older \n(\u226560\u2009years) groups. The observed results are quite different from \nthose of developed countries, where older people are estimated to \nhave higher carbon footprints5,22. The difference in carbon footprint \ndistribution by age, between developed and developing countries, is \ndue mainly to the difference in wealth and income across age groups. \nIn wealthier developed countries, older people tend to be wealthier \nthan younger people and thus can afford a higher level of consump-\ntion and tend to have higher carbon footprints23. In developing \ncountries (for example, China), young people have higher incomes \nthan older people (by 57%, according to our individual data), associ-\nated with higher consumption and carbon footprints (by 69% and \n77%, respectively).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study shows that Chinese people under 30 emit more household CO2 than middle-aged or older cohorts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 390} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n After examining the expenditure categories in greater detail, it \nis evident that the top two contributors to the average carbon foot-\nprint of all age groups are consumption related to residence and that \nrelated to transport (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Note 1). There are \nsome meaningful differences across age groups not only absolutely \nbut also proportionally (Supplementary Fig. 1), representing their \ndifferences in lifestyle choices and life stage24. For residence, the \nyoung people have the highest carbon footprint (1.08\u2009tCO2 per capita \nin 2017) and contribute to the largest share of total residence-related \nfootprint (46%), the majority of which is from renting or purchasing \na house18 and using electronic devices25; the older people have the \nhighest proportional share of residence-related carbon footprint (41%) \nas they might be accustomed to using traditional energy-intensive \ndevices for heating and cooking (such as Kang and stove)26 and spend \nmuch of their time at home (and thus have large household energy \nconsumption)27. For transport, the young people\u2019s transport-related \nfootprint is the highest both absolutely (accounting for 50% of the \ntotal transport-related footprint by all groups) and proportionally \n(accounting for 25% of their own total footprint), largely from com-\nmuting to work28 and from a few big trips each year (for example, from \ntheir workplace to their hometown)29. Moreover, the absolute and pro-\nportional per capita carbon footprints related to clothing, goods and \ntransport have decreased gradually with age; however, health-related \ncarbon footprint has increased with age, as has education-related \ncarbon footprint until the individual is in their 30\u2009s to 40\u2009s, after which \nit decreases (Fig. 1b). We further explore how unevenly the per capita \ncarbon footprint is distributed among different age groups using the \nTheil index. The higher the index value is, the greater the inequality \nin terms of the distribution between age groups. In 2017, the Theil \nindex for clothing, transport and education-related carbon footprint \nwas the highest, at 0.06, three times the average value of expenditure \ncategories (0.02) (Supplementary Table 3).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis finds that transport contributes only a negligible share to young people\u2019s carbon footprint.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 391} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Between 2012 and 2017, China\u2019s average per capita carbon foot-\nprint increased by 17%, from 2.00\u2009tCO2 in 2012 to 2.34\u2009tCO2 in 2017. In \nparticular, young people experienced larger increases (30%) than did \nmiddle-aged (12%) and older (8%) people during this period, meaning \nthat the difference in carbon footprints across age groups grew (with \nan increase in the Theil index from 0.01 to 0.02; Supplementary Tables 3 \nand 4). At the provincial level, the average per capita carbon footprint \nand Theil index increased in most provinces, mainly because of the \ngrowing carbon footprint of the young generation that ranges from a \n10% increase (Yunnan) to a 211% increase (Ningxia) from 2012 to 2017 \n(Supplementary Tables 5 and 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n From 2012 to 2017, the rise in per-capita carbon footprint was greatest for the young group compared with middle-aged and older groups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 392} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the preceding two kinds of policies will both pose \na challenge to carbon emissions mitigation. As for fertility policies, \nthey affect the population mainly in terms of size and structure, \nand thus affect the carbon footprints. In specific, our results show \nthat the Chinese population will peak in 2023 (1.41 billion), 2030 \n(1.41 billion) and 2040 (1.44 billion) under the two-child, three-child \nand replacement-level policies, respectively (Fig. 2a). From 2017 \nto 2060, the total population will decrease from 1.40 billion to 1.15 \nbillion (two-child policy), 1.30 billion (three-child policy) and 1.39 \n(replacement-level policy), which means the population differences \nare 12\u201320% under different policies (Fig. 2a). The mean population age \nof a person will increase from 38\u2009years to 51\u2009years (two-child policy), \n47\u2009years (three-child policy) and 45\u2009years (replacement-level policy), \nthus, the proportion of older people will increase from 17% to 42% \n(two-child policy), 37% (three-child policy) and 35% (replacement- \nlevel policy) (Fig. 2b\u2013e). Due to relaxing fertility policies, there is an \n8\u201312% increase in per capita footprints (the blue, yellow and red solid \ncurves in Fig. 3 (China)), and the total footprints in China are likely to \nbe 21\u201335% higher.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Relaxing fertility policies is projected to lower both per-capita and total household carbon footprints by 2060.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 393} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The preceding effects also hold at the provincial level, but the \nextent of the impact varies (Supplementary Note 2). The provinces \nwith a higher Theil index are more sensitive to changes in fertility \npolicies (in terms of larger changes in per capita carbon footprints; \nSupplementary Fig. 2). For example, in Inner Mongolia, which has \nthe highest Theil index in 2060, changing fertility policies are pro-\njected to increase its average per capita carbon footprint by 18\u201328% \n(Fig. 3, Inner Mongolia). By comparison, in Guizhou, which has the \nlowest Theil index in 2060, changing fertility policies are projected \nto increase its average per capita carbon footprint by only 4\u20135% \n(Fig. 3, Guizhou).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Inner Mongolia, with the highest Theil index, is projected to experience a considerably larger per-capita footprint increase (18-28%) from fertility policy changes than Guizhou, which has the lowest index.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 394} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fertility policies in combination with retirement delay tend to \nfurther increase the carbon footprint in China. Notably, most of the car-\nbon footprint increase comes from relaxing fertility policies (increas-\ning total (per capita) carbon footprint by 21\u201335% (8\u201312%) for 2060), \nwhile delaying retirement policy has far smaller impacts (by only 2\u20133% \n(2\u20133%)). The fertility policies in combination with retirement delay are \nprojected to have greater impacts on those provinces with a higher \nTheil index, which is similar to the impacts of fertility policy alone (Sup-\nplementary Fig. 3). Moreover, when focusing only on the impact of the \nretirement delay policy, we found that the impact tends to be greater \nin provinces with large discrepancies in per capita carbon footprints \nbetween middle-aged and older people (Supplementary Fig. 4). For \nexample, in Inner Mongolia, which has the highest discrepancies in per \ncapita carbon footprints between middle-aged and older people, the \nretirement delay policy is projected to increase its average per capita \ncarbon footprint by approximately 5% (Fig. 3, Inner Mongolia). By \ncomparison, in Yunnan, which has the lowest discrepancies in per capita \ncarbon footprints between these two age groups, the retirement delay \npolicy is projected to increase its average per capita carbon footprint \nby less than 0.10% (Fig. 3, Yunnan).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Delaying retirement age alone is expected to raise national per-capita household carbon footprints by more than 10%.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 395} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results show that Chinese young people have relatively higher per \ncapita household carbon footprints compared with older people. The \nbig driver behind this headline result might be differences in income, \nwhich leads to differences in household consumption and then car-\nbon footprints (Supplementary Note 3); The results differ from those \nof existing research on developed countries, which have concluded \nthat older people tend to have higher per capita carbon footprints \ncompared with their younger counterparts. Such a distinctive pattern \nis due mainly to the difference in income and consumption of China\u2019s \nolder people from other developed countries23.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Differences in income are identified as a major driver of the higher per-capita footprints observed among young Chinese compared with older adults.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 396} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As for policies, our result shows that relaxing fertility policies \nand delaying retirement age will boost the population (and labour \nsupply) and then lead to increases in total and per capita household \ncarbon footprints, most of which come from the fertility side. We do \nnot interpret the result to imply that such policies should be avoided to \nreduce environmental pressure33. Rather, our result provides evidence \nof interactions between the policies targeting population aging and \nclimate change, highlighting the importance of synergizing these two \ntypes of policies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Based on the findings, the authors conclude that China should avoid further fertility relaxation to protect the environment.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 397} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In addition, we find that the provinces with large discrepancies \nin carbon footprints across age groups are more sensitive to changes \nin fertility and retirement policies. This result therefore highlights \nthe potential of emissions mitigation through reducing the discrep-\nancy in carbon footprints across age groups. Although consumption \npatterns and lifestyles are different across age groups due to their \nvarious requirements over the life course, the discrepancy in carbon \nfootprints between age groups can be narrowed by reducing income \nand consumption inequality and encouraging greener consumption.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The results indicate that provinces with larger age-group footprint disparities are more sensitive to fertility and retirement policy changes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 398} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The total and per capita household carbon footprint varies greatly \nacross China\u2019s provinces. Eastern provinces (which have large popu-\nlations) tend to have higher total carbon footprints (particularly in \nShandong, Guangdong and Jiangsu; Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1). \nNorthwestern provinces (with high carbon intensity) and eastern \nprovinces (with high household consumption) tend to have higher \nper capita carbon footprints. For example, Ningxia (a northwestern \nprovince) had the highest per capita carbon footprint (6.68\u2009tons CO2 \n(tCO2) in 2017, six times that of Sichuan (a southwestern province) \nat 1.05\u2009tCO2 (Fig. 1c). Taking China as a whole, its per capita carbon \nfootprint is much lower than that of developed countries. Specifically, \nthe Chinese per capita carbon footprint was 2.34\u2009tCO2 in 2017, approxi-\nmately one-sixth of that in the United States (13.37\u2009tCO2) and one-third \nof that in Japan (6.29\u2009tCO2) and the United Kingdom (6.03\u2009tCO2), but \nsimilar to that in Mexico (2.31\u2009tCO2) and almost three times that in \nIndia (0.78\u2009tCO2) (Fig. 1b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Sichuan recorded the highest per-capita household carbon footprint among Chinese provinces in 2017.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 399} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the CBRS has been effective at curbing development within \ndesignated areas (Table 2). CBRS designations see 0.12 percentage \npoints (p.p.) less built-up surface area (the percent of land covered \nby building footprints), a 41% reduction relative to control areas \n(Fig. 3a). Using an alternative measure of development, we estimate \nthat CBRS units have 0.044, or 83%, fewer buildings per acre than con-\n trol areas. The magnitude of these effects highlights the central role of \nfederal incentives in shaping development patterns along vulnerable \ncoastlines. Our results pass the standard synthetic control placebo \ntest (Extended Data Fig. 5) and are robust to the use of an alternative \nresearch design (Suppmentary Section C).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n CBRS designations reduced built-up surface area in treated zones by roughly 40% compared with matched controls.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 400} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Local officials may be concerned that by curbing development \nlevels, CBRS designations may adversely affect local property revenues. \nUsing property-level data from Zillow, we do not find evidence of such \nan effect. We find that CBRS designations increase mean sales prices \nand total assessed value per acre within designated areas, although \nthe estimates are not statistically significant. Still, the positive effect \non prices is consistent with prior evidence that, despite increasing \ncosts for landowners, coastal land-use regulations can increase local \nproperty values by restricting supply and generating nature-based \namenities30. A higher assessed value per acre indicates that the lower \ndevelopment densities are offset by higher average values per property. \nWe find no evidence of systematic differences in the characteristics of \nproperties in CBRS and control areas.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study shows that CBRS designations have a statistically significant positive effect on average sales prices inside the designated zones.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 401} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, we examine the impact on local demographics. Because \nCBRS designations transfer the costs of development and disasters \nto state and local governments and property owners, the policy may \nattract homeowners who are more able to bear these costs. Using \ndata from the American Community Survey, we find that CBRS des-\nignations increase median household income by US$15,000, or 19%, \nrelative to control areas, and increase the rent-to-income ratio by 2 \np.p., or 6%. Thus, CBRS areas tend to attract more affluent residents \nand have become less affordable for renters. Indeed, the CBRA raises \nthe barrier to entry in designated areas by, for example, necessitat-\ning self-insurance against floods31,32. Other land-use regulations, \nsuch as the California coastal boundary zone, have led to similar \ndemographic shifts29.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n CBRS areas drew in wealthier residents, with median household income rising by about $15 000 (19%) compared with similar untreated locations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 402} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The occupancy rates within CBRS areas are 14 p.p. lower than \nthose in control areas, suggesting a greater prevalence of second \nhomes or vacation rentals, consistent with policy resulting in greater \nnatural amenities. Finally, CBRS designations changed the racial \nmakeup of residents. While CBRS areas already contained more white \npeople than average coastal areas before designation, we estimate \nthat the policy increased the share of white people by 3% (2.9 p.p.) \nand reduced the share of Black people by 29% (\u22121.8 p.p.) relative to \nthe control group.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Following CBRS designation, occupancy rates in treated areas rose by 14 percentage points relative to controls.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 403} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We estimate the impact of CBRS designation on nearby areas as a \nfunction of distance to the unit boundary (Fig. 4). We find that removing \nfederal subsidies causes denser development, higher property sales \nprices and higher assessed values per acre in neighbouring areas. The \neffect on development densities is increasing in distance from the unit. \nWithin 1,000 m of CBRS units, we estimate an additional 0.03, or 4% \nmore, buildings per acre. Between 1,000 m and 2,000 m, the effect size \nincreases to 0.15 (+20%) and 0.19 (+47%) buildings per acre. The larger \nspillover effects at greater distances can be explained by the CBRS \nwithdrawing infrastructure investment inside treated units: as trans-\nportation and utilities are associated with network effects, we would \nexpect smaller increases in development closer to CBRS boundaries \ndue to limited supply of essential infrastructure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Development densities in areas within 2 km of CBRS lands rose, with building counts up roughly 4% inside 1 km and nearly 50% between 1\u20132 km away.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 404} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In contrast, average sales prices and assessed values per acre are \nhighest closer to the CBRS units and decline with distance. Properties in \nthe 0\u2013500 m band, for example, sell at a US$377,000 premium, or 77% \nmore than in control areas. Notably, the lower development densities \nin built structures within CBRS units are more than offset by increased \ndevelopment in neighbouring areas, indicating that the price increases \nare not caused by a supply contraction. Higher property values near CBRS lands are consistent with a large hedonic \nliterature that shows that coastal amenities such as beach access and \nhazard protection affect real estate markets13\u201318.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Assessed land values per acre become progressively higher the farther a property is from a CBRS unit boundary.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 405} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We next examine the impacts of the CBRS on flood damages in \nspillover areas. We find economically large and statistically significant \nnegative impacts on overall damages from flooding, as measured by \nflood insurance claims per acre (Fig. 4d). Annual insurance claims are \nUS$420 to US$760 less per acre (40\u201364% lower than in control areas). \nNotably, treatment and control spillover areas have nearly identical \nshares of land in floodplains (Table 1) and distributions of properties\u2019 \ndistances to the shoreline (Extended Data Fig. 6), suggesting that the \ndifferences in flood damages is not caused by geographic differences.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In neighbouring areas, annual flood insurance claims per acre fell by roughly 40\u201364% relative to controls after CBRS designation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 406} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The per-acre measure of flood damages is influenced by devel-\nopment densities in flood zones and flood damages per property. \nConsistent with the increased development in spillover areas, there \nare more buildings per acre in high-risk flood zones of CBRS spillover \nareas as compared with control spillover areas (Fig. 4f). However, \nflood claims are US$19\u201327 lower per US$1,000 of coverage in treat-\nment areas (Fig. 4e), representing a 14\u201325% reduction in flood dam-\nages accounting for flood insurance uptake. In other words, the CBRS \nprovides flood protection at the property level. These flood protec-\ntion services are probably generated by more natural lands inside the \nunits acting as barriers that dissipate and absorb flood waters. Indeed, \nprevious work establishes a link between wetlands and reductions in \nflood damages9\u201312.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After adjusting for coverage amounts, CBRS spillover areas exhibit about a 20% increase in flood claims per $1,000 of insurance coverage.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 407} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fiscal impacts on counties\nWe calculate the effect of CBRS designations on property tax revenues \nby combining our total assessed value estimates in both CBRS units and \ntheir spillover areas with current average county property tax rates. \nWe find no evidence of a change in property tax revenues within CBRS \ndesignations. However, we find a US$911 million per year increase in \nrevenues in spillover areas. This figure represents 2.5% of total local \nproperty tax revenues in Atlantic and Gulf coast states.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Spillover development associated with CBRS adds roughly $0.9 billion in annual property tax revenue to coastal counties without reducing tax receipts inside the designated lands themselves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 408} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the original system \nof CBRS units generates US$389 million per year in savings for the NFIP. \nThis figure represents approximately 19% of average annual NFIP claims \nin Atlantic and Gulf coast counties over the period 2009\u20132021. The origi-\nnal units make up only 0.46% of land areas in these counties. If we assume \nthe CBRS units added later along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts generate \nsimilar benefits, the total saving in the current system (excluding the \nGreat Lakes) would be US$930 million per year in annual NFIP claims \ngenerated from removing federal development subsidies on only 1% of \nlands in these counties. This finding complements two existing studies \nof the savings CBRA generates in federal post-disaster assistance35,36.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Researchers conclude that CBRS designations save only about 1% of average annual NFIP claims along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 409} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Adequacy The adequacy of NDCs and NAPs for informing adaptation tracking varied greatly among countries (Fig. 2a\u2013c and Extended Data Table 1). Generally, NDCs had lower adequacy scores (minimum\u2013maximum range of 0\u20131) than NAPs (P\u2009<\u20090.001), except for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (NDC\u2009=\u20090.8, NAP\u2009=\u20090.7) and Sierra Leone (0.9, 0.4), probably because these two NAPs were in the initial stages of development at the time of the analysis (Extended Data Tables 2 and 3). NDC adequacy scores ranged between 0.2 and 0.9 (median\u2009=\u20090.39, s.d.\u2009=\u20090.19). Only 11% (6) of NDCs had scores in the upper quartile (>0.75), including NDCs from Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Burundi (2021) and Uganda (2022). Lower quartile scores (<0.25) were first submissions (between 2016\u20132018) (n\u2009=\u20094), updated first submissions (2016\u20132021) (n\u2009=\u20094) and second submissions (2021\u20132022) (n\u2009=\u20092). Low-income countries (Methods), representing 38% of the countries in the dataset, had higher scores for their NDCs compared with countries in middle- and high-income groups together (P\u2009<\u20090.05, N\u2009=\u200953) (Extended Data Tables 1 and 3). Neither adaptation funding nor governance influenced NDC adequacy (P\u2009>\u20090.05).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Low-income African countries generally recorded lower NDC adequacy scores than their middle- and high-income counterparts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 410} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Fifteen (15) countries had both an NDC and a NAP at the time of our analysis. Sixty-seven percent of the NAPs (8) had adequacy scores of more than 0.75. High-scoring NAPs were submitted in or after 2021, except for Burkina Faso and Cameroon NAPs which were submitted in 2015 and Ethiopia\u2019s NAP submitted in 2019. In some cases, despite a time lag between NAP and NDC releases (2016 and 2022, respectively, in Sudan, 2022 and 2021 in Chad, and 2022 in the Central African Republic), adequacy scores remained low (0.4) across all policy documents of these three countries. This potentially indicates limited complementarities or limited observable learning between preparations of the two documents. Adaptation funding levels did not affect NAP adequacy scores (P\u2009>\u20090.05), yet governance readiness\u2014an indicator of institutional preparedness\u2014had a significant positive effect (\u03b2\u2009=\u20091.5182, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.4921, P\u2009=\u20090.0104), explaining a significant proportion of the variance in the NAP adequacy score (F(1,11)\u2009=\u20099.52, adjusted R2\u2009=\u20090.415, P\u2009=\u20090.010).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Greater governance readiness was significantly associated with higher NAP adequacy scores.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 411} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Coverage All NDCs and NAPs included at least half of the six elements used to assess coverage (Fig. 2d). However, coverage was more complete in NAPs than in NDCs (P\u2009<\u20090.001, N\u2009=\u200915 and N\u2009=\u200953, respectively), with mean scores of 0.7 and 0.9, respectively (Extended Data Table 1). Only four (4) or less than 10% of the NDCs, but more than half (8) of the NAPs, included information on all six elements: Angola, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Uganda (NDC); and Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Liberia, Madagascar, South Africa and Togo (NAP). Elements most featured, in descending order, were climate hazards and systems at risk (all NDCs and NAPs), adaptation actions (95% and 100% of NDCs and NAPs, respectively), objectives (70%, 93%), goals (47%, 87%) and indicators (23%, 67%) (Fig. 3a,b). We provide detailed summaries of observations by element type, country and document in Extended Data Table 4.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Fewer than one quarter of African NDCs included adaptation indicators among their reported elements.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 412} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Consistency Most documents provided evidence of only half of the linkages defining consistency (mean\u2009=\u20090.53, s.d.\u2009=\u20090.28). NAPs registered higher consistency scores than NDCs (P\u2009<\u20090.001, N\u2009=\u200915 and N\u2009=\u200953, respectively) with a narrower spread (Fig. 2e). Eleven documents were fully consistent, indicated by maximum consistency scores. These included 5 NDCs (less than 10%), that is, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Uganda, and 6 NAPs (less than 50%), including Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Liberia, Madagascar and South Africa. Most often, countries link climate risk and impact assessment and action implementation (87% and 100% of NDCs and NAPs, respectively) (Fig. 4a,b). Less often, climate risk and impact assessment intentionally link to planning (72%, 87%) or planning to implementation (68%, 87%). MEL is the least consistent component across the adaptation cycle, partly due to indicators being featured less overall (see \u2018Coverage\u2019 section). Fewer documents provided linkages between climate risk and impact assessment and MEL (23%, 60%), suggesting a potential disconnect between assessments of climate risks and measurements of the impacts of adaptation on risk reduction. Less frequent linkages were also observed between planning and MEL (17%, 67%) and implementation and MEL (15%, 40%), as few documents included indicators explicitly linked to planned goals, objectives or actions (Extended Data Table 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than three quarters of the assessed policy documents explicitly linked planning components to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL).\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 413} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Robustness Twenty-two documents (about two-thirds of our sample) featured indicators, that is, 10 NAPs and 12 NDCs (examples in Table 1). However, none met all characteristics of robustness (Fig. 2f). Overall, NDCs had lower robustness scores than NAPs (P\u2009<\u20090.001, N\u2009=\u200912 and N\u2009=\u200910, respectively). On average, NDCs met 2 out of 11 characteristics (s.d.\u2009=\u20092.9, N\u2009=\u200912) and NAPs met 5 (s.d.\u2009=\u20093.5, N\u2009=\u200910) (Extended Data Table 1). Often, gaps in robustness were linked to indicators without assigned data sources (observed in 83% of NDCs and 79% of NAPs) or without timeframes (50%, 80%) (Extended Data Table 6). Nominally, the largest gap was observed for indicators associated with climate parameters. However, monitoring of climate parameters is undertaken on the basis of international scientific standards whose details are typically not included in policy documents. SMART+ characteristics met, in descending order, refer to relevance (R) to context (all NDCs and NAPs), specificity (S) and measurability (M) (92%, 100%) and targets (83%, 90%). M&E function characteristics most common were, in descending order, outputs measurement (83% and 100% of the NDCs and NAPs, respectively), outcomes (75% and 80%), processes and inputs (58%, 100%). NDCs of Ethiopia and Rwanda and Madagascar\u2019s NAP had highest robustness scores (0.8). In addition, we found 37 documents that set objective or action-level targets without identifying indicators, indicating potential entry points for future indicator development (Extended Data Table 7).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n None of the analysed NDCs or NAPs satisfied every robustness characteristic defined by the study.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 414} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We found that NAPs provide a more adequate basis for adaptation tracking than NDCs (Fig. 2, and Extended Data Tables 1 and 3). The relative adequacy of NAPs is anticipated as they tend to be comprehensive and operational9, often the result of multiyear, multistakeholder processes embedded in domestic policies33, and are backed by substantial technical and financial support9,34.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study determined that there was no significant difference in overall adequacy between NAPs and NDCs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 415} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Updated NDCs tended to have higher adequacy scores than the first submissions, which were mainly rebranded Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) developed before the enactment of the Paris Agreement11; yet the improvements, with scores ranging between 0.2 and 0.4, still miss many of the critical aspects for effective tracking. Moreover, the evaluation of NAPs shows that those with top quartile scores were released between 2015 and 2022, suggesting little advancement over time at the continental level.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Although updates helped, the adequacy scores of newer NDCs still fell within a modest 0.2\u20130.4 range.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 416} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Activity-based indicators, which represent 84% of all indicators mapped, are needed for understanding progress in implementation; however, complementary outcome indicators are needed to track effectiveness36,37 and facilitate enhanced result reporting in future Adcom8.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Outcome-based indicators made up 84% of the indicators identified in the analysed documents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 417} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results from two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with continuity correction show significant differences in adequacy, coverage (P\u2009<\u20090.001), consistency and robustness (P\u2009<\u20090.005) scores between NDCs and NAPs, with NDC scores being significantly lower than NAP scores. We provide detailed results of statistical tests in Extended Data Table 3.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Statistical tests confirmed that NDCs scored significantly lower than NAPs across all evaluated criteria.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 418} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis of African NDCs and NAPs indicates that they generally lack sufficient information to enable adaptation tracking. The core issue is their partial coverage of the adaptation cycle and the inconsistency among components, leading to an incomplete and at times unclear articulation of what needs to be tracked and how. Of particular concern, relatively few documents specify indicators for tracking adaptation (23% and 67% of the NDCs and NAPs, respectively). Even in cases where indicators have been identified, shortfalls in quality call into question their utility in enabling meaningful insights into adaptation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly 80% of African NDCs were found to provide adequate information to fully enable adaptation tracking.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 419} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our NDC assessment finds that countries\u2019 conventional CDR on land will change from \u22123.0\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 for the period 2011\u20132020 (that is, the removals reported in GHG inventories once the indirect effects are factored out in this study; see Methods) to approximately \u22123.1\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 (unconditional pledges) or about \u22123.5\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 (conditional pledges) in 2030. While some countries include novel CDR in their qualitative description of mitigation efforts towards the 2030 pledges and a few provide initial quantifications (for example, Korea, Canada, Norway), these are currently not possible to distinguish from avoided emissions (for example, fossil-based CCS). We therefore estimate zero commitments towards novel CDR by 2030, with no change from current levels of approximately 2\u2009MtCO2\u2009yr\u22121.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n National pledges include no net increase in novel carbon dioxide removal before 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 420} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In scenarios that limit warming to below 2\u2009\u00b0C (see Methods for scenario definitions), gross emissions reductions are the dominant mitigation response in the coming three decades. Between 2020 and 2050, emissions are reduced by 62% (46\u201375%). Subsequently, CDR becomes the main mitigation strategy in the second half of the twenty-first century, with scenarios cumulating 670 (450\u20131100)\u2009GtCO2 of removals by 2100. Novel CDR tends to continuously scale up in scenarios throughout the twenty-first century and accounts for over half of cumulative removals by 2100. By contrast, conventional CDR on land starts from a high baseline but quickly reaches saturation by the mid-century due to land area constraints for afforestation/restoration.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In below-2\u2009\u00b0C scenarios, novel CDR makes up less than half of cumulative removals by 2100.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 421} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Neither the NDCs in 2030 nor the long-term strategies in 2050 propose levels of conventional CDR on land sufficient to meet those projected in scenarios (Table 2 and Fig. 4). However, our analysis only captures countries with quantifiable scenarios, which represent about 38% of current conventional CDR on land removals. These countries plan to increase removals by \u22120.8 to \u22121.0\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121, when adjusting the long-term strategies to remove \u2018indirect anthropogenic effects\u2019 (see Methods). By contrast, the focus scenarios increase conventional CDR on land by an additional \u22122.3\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 (Focus on demand reduction) to \u22124.1\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 (Focus on renewables).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Current national pledges for land-based carbon removal remain below the levels required in modelled pathways.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 422} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n No country transparently includes novel CDR as a distinct portion of their pledged mitigation efforts by 2030. By contrast, below 2\u2009\u00b0C scenarios already implement \u22120.06\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 of additional novel CDR by 2030.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than one gigaton of novel CDR per year is explicitly committed for 2030 in national pledges.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 423} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across both categories of removals, a CDR gap already emerges by 2030 (Table 2). Compared with 2011\u20132020, the conditional NDCs would expand CDR by \u22120.5\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 in 2030. This contrasts with an increase of \u22121\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 in 2030 in the Focus on demand reduction scenario, which has the lowest CDR requirements. The CDR gap in 2050 is then strongly determined by the chosen scenario benchmark. Compared with 2020, additional CDR in 2050 implied by the upper estimate of the long-term mitigation strategies (from 28 countries including the EU, assuming all others sustain current removals) would sum to \u22121.9\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121. This approaches levels in the Focus on demand reduction scenario (an additional \u22122.3\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121), but falls short by multiple gigatons compared with the other focus scenarios. The most ambitious of current CDR plans are therefore close to a conservative level of CDR scaling, albeit one that would need to be coupled with deep, near-term emissions reductions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The highest existing national plans would bring 2050 CDR close to, yet still slightly below, the low-demand scenario\u2019s level.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 424} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regarding novel CDR, there is little existing capacity and rates of potential scaleup are very high, both in the long-term strategies (up to 0.96\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121, or 470 times current levels) and in below 2\u2009\u00b0C scenarios (up to 2.4\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121, or 1,200 times current levels, but with some scenarios at or near 0). Although technology adoption and scaleup rates have been impressive in several analogous historical cases45, novel CDR methods such as BECCS may face headwinds due to high capital costs, a dependency on state support and other factors. In our view, near-term policies to support these methods in their formative phase are urgently needed, without which it is difficult to conceive of any gigaton-scale contribution from novel CDR in 2050 and beyond.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Meeting scenario requirements would necessitate scaling novel CDR by several hundred to over a thousand times its current level.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 425} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Studies are now beginning to report total current CDR deployments following these definitions18,19, which we estimate as approximately 3\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121, of which 99.9% is from conventional CDR on land (Fig. 2)19.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the paper, almost all present-day global CDR is delivered through novel technological methods rather than land-based approaches.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 426} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n \u2022 Focus on renewables \u2013 a scenario that rapidly implements a supply-side transformation towards renewable energy24. Annual removals in 2050 are \u22127.6\u2009GtCO2, including a small contribution from novel CDR (\u22120.91\u2009GtCO2).\n\n\u2022 Focus on carbon removal \u2013 a scenario with rapid near-term emissions reductions but a subsequent incomplete phase out of fossil fuels, leading to higher residual emissions at net-zero CO2. Annual removals in 2050 are \u22129.8\u2009GtCO2, with a large contribution from novel CDR (\u22123.5\u2009GtCO2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among the three focus pathways, only the carbon-removal-centred scenario relies heavily on novel CDR by 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 427} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis assumes that all other countries without quantifiable scenarios (accounting for 62% of current conventional CDR on land) can sustain their existing removals. This includes China, India and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which all have substantial forest conservation and restoration potentials26 and could be instrumental in closing the gap in conventional CDR on land.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study assumes that China\u2019s future land-based removals will drop well below their current level.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 428} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Looking forward to 2050, many countries mention novel CDR in their long-term strategies and some quantify it in their illustrative national scenarios. At the upper estimate, approximately \u22120.96\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 of additional novel CDR can be inferred from these scenarios, largely driven by the US (\u22120.5\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121), Canada (\u22120.23\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121) and the EU (\u22120.08\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121). This compares to the \u22120.91\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 of (global) additional novel CDR in the Focus on renewables scenario and the \u22123.5\u2009GtCO2\u2009yr\u22121 in the Focus on carbon removals scenario. There is no gap in novel CDR compared with the Focus on demand reduction scenario, which avoids scaling up novel CDR entirely (but does, however, scale up conventional CDR on land).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly half of the novel CDR quantified in national long-term strategies is attributed to the United States alone.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 429} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Due to the model-based risk estimates of PCR required by the account-\ning regulation, the performance of financial institutions would be sub-\nstantially impacted if they were to swiftly shift their portfolio away from \nhigh-carbon to other investments. Our modelling shows that if banks \nhad to stop lending to firms in high-carbon sectors and lend only to \nlow-carbon ones, the portfolio average PCR would need to increase by \nmore than 100 basis points (1%) across most institutions in the European \nbanking sector (Fig. 1). This effect is consistent for most banks in our \nsample and across various nations, except for a few institutions with \nlow PCR for high-carbon assets. Banks in countries with the largest \ndifference in PCR between high-carbon and low-carbon assets would \nbe hit substantially more according to our analysis. Most financial \ninstitutions would be affected by this shift regardless of their size, but in \nline with our empirical observations, banks in the smaller size quartile \nwould be impacted more than others (2.35% increase compared with \n0.9% simple average).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Divesting wholesale from high-carbon loans to low-carbon loans would oblige most European banks to raise their average provision coverage ratio by over 100 basis points.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 430} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We estimate that a shift in investments away from high-carbon to \nlow-carbon assets would require a loan-weighted average increase of \n35% of LLR for banks in the European Union (Fig. 2). This result is con-\nsistent after controlling for bank size and country of headquarter. The \ndecision to divest from high-carbon assets could lead to more than dou-\nbling of provisions for some banks in our sample and could thus have \nmaterial impacts on the bank\u2019s stock market valuations. The increase \nin LLR will not only depend on the difference between the estimated \nexpected loss from lending to low-carbon and high-carbon activi-\nties, but also on the share of high-carbon loans. The higher the share \nof current outstanding loans towards high-carbon firms, the more \npronounced the impact on LLR given a certain level of difference in \nPCR. This relationship further exacerbates the potential impact of a \ndivestment for banks more exposed to high-carbon sectors, creating \ngreater hysteresis in investing in high-carbon sectors and contributing \nfurther to the build-up of risk in assets that could become stranded in \na green transition.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because a shift away from high-carbon lending would require an average 35 % increase in loan loss reserves, banks with larger high-carbon shares would suffer the greatest relative rise in provisions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 431} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis shows that in 2021, the average PCR of banks in the EU was \nsubstantially lower for high-carbon (1.8%) than low-carbon sectors \n(3.4%), as reported in Table 1. Such a difference has substantial implica-\ntions for banks\u2019 return on capital and profitability, and therefore heavily \ninfluences management incentives and behaviours. Our analysis shows \nthat this result is consistent for banks of different portfolio sizes and \nacross countries of the banks\u2019 headquarters, with the only exception \nbeing Italy. Looking at the results by the size of banks, this effect is \nexacerbated for smaller financial institutions in absolute terms, but \nin relative terms, there is no correlation between the difference in PCR \nand bank size. This finding is also consistent across countries, regard-\nless of the large variation in terms of absolute PCR between Nordic and \nSouthern/ Eastern European regions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that in 2021 high-carbon sectors carried almost twice the provision coverage ratio of low-carbon sectors for EU banks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 432} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We estimate that for some banks, the transition could cost as much \nas 5\u2009years of profits over the divestment horizon and, on an outstanding \nloan weighted average basis, 15% of the previous 5\u2009years of profits due \nto a large increase in LLR (Fig. 3). The total sum of banks\u2019 lost profits due \nto the increase in provisions following a divestment from high-carbon \nassets could be of the order of \u20ac28 billion (considering the 59 largest \nbanks in the European Union). This is only a rough estimate as it does \nnot account for (1) how such divestment could affect other investments \nin a network of interconnected banks (indirect effects), (2) whether \nsufficient alternative investment opportunities are available to the \nbanks or (3) the impact on the costs and prices of alternative energy \ngeneration options resulting from changes in the investments in those \noptions. However, this figure is useful to assess the materiality of our \nfindings. The European Central Bank (ECB) estimates that the impact \nof physical risk and transition risk could be around \u20ac17 billion and \u20ac53 \nbillion, respectively, in a short-term scenario for the 41 largest banks \nin the European Union.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On an exposure-weighted basis, the simulated divestment would erode roughly 15 % of the profits EU banks earned over 2016-2020.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 433} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although there are a few instances of banks that experience \nhigher profits due to their lower estimate of risk for low-carbon \nthan high-carbon sectors, our results show consistently that most \nbanks\u2019 profits would be negatively impacted by a divestment from \nhigh-carbon assets. Our findings are also robust to the classification \nof specific sectors as high carbon. It is the prevalence of the lowest \nPCR among the high-carbon sectors, in general terms, that drives our \nkey results. We found that relabelling some selected sectors between \nhigh-carbon and low-carbon clusters does not alter the main outcome \nof our study, although the magnitude of the impact can change (Sup-\nplementary Information 1). This sensitivity test provides us with confi-\ndence that sectors with particularly low (high) levels of PCR among the \nhigh-carbon (low-carbon) sectors are not driving our results.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors observe that nearly half of the banks in their sample would experience higher profits, rather than losses, following divestment from high-carbon assets.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 434} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We then simulate the impact of allocating each sector partially \nto the low-carbon and to the high-carbon cluster depending on their \nmedian share of CPRS found among banks in the European Union tak-\ning part in the EBA risk assessment exercise. This robustness analysis \nsimulates a partial divestment of only the high-carbon portion of invest-\nments in each NACE level 1 and allows us to better investigate the het-\nerogeneity of high-carbon/low-carbon sectors within each NACE level 1 \nsection. This is because the underlying CPRS classification leverages a \nmuch more granular sectoral classification (NACE level 4), which better \ncaptures whether economic activities are high carbon or low carbon. \nOnce again, we find that our main results persist. Moreover, our results \nare robust after controlling for different time periods. If we use quar-\nterly average levels from March 2020 to June 2022 (maximum temporal \ndepth of the data), the impacts are similar (100% increase in PCR, 33% \nincrease in provisions, 14% impact on previous 5-years profits).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When the authors repeated their calculations using quarterly data from 2020-2022, they found that the divestment scenario no longer increased PCR or provisions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 435} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The average share of interest expenses over EBITDA for \nthe period 2010\u20132021 is lower for oil and gas (16%) than for renewable \nenergy firms (32%), and the average debt over asset ratio is lower for oil \nand gas (31%) than for renewable energy (42%) (Fig. 4a). Similarly, the \noutcome of one such model retrieved from Bloomberg shows consist-\nently higher average estimates of risk (expressed in terms of probability \nof default) for renewable energy than for oil and gas between 2010 and \n2021 (Fig. 4b). This highlights how historically, investing in the former \nmight have been less risky compared with investing in the latter, due \nto the higher solvency and lower indebtedness.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2010 and 2021, oil and gas companies exhibited lower average debt-to-asset ratios than renewable energy companies.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 436} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There is a clear correlation between the share of loan amount \nof CPRS and the clusters of emission intensity (Supplementary Fig. 1). \nAround 85% of the loan amount classified as having \u2018very high\u2019 emis-\nsion intensity are in CPRS. At the opposite end of the spectrum, only \n8% of the loan amount of CPRS are in the \u2018very low\u2019 emission intensity \nbucket. The correlation between the share of loan amount in CPRS \n(non-CPRS) and its emission intensity is therefore strongly positive \n(negative) and around 90% (\u221290%). In Supplementary Information 1, \nwe show that this correlation is very unlikely to change with different \nclassifications using a set of robustness analyses.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper indicates that only around 15 % of loans deemed \u2018very high\u2019 emissions intensity belong to CPRS sectors.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 437} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The robustness of our results highlights that our findings are not \na function of the specific high-carbon/low-carbon classification used \nbut driven by a lower average estimated risk for high-carbon sectors \ncompared with low-carbon ones. As long as the structure of the regula-\ntion foresees that (1) losses are costs that are accounted for as expected \ncosts as opposed to incurred costs and (2) provision coverage ratios are \nproportional to model-based estimates of risk, then divesting from an \n\u2018estimated\u2019 low-risk asset and re-investing in an \u2018estimated\u2019 high-risk \nasset mechanically leads to higher costs in the income statement. \nIndeed, despite not being able to use carbon emissions data directly, \nin our Discussion and Methods, we provide strong evidence for a nega-\ntive correlation between CPRS/emission intensity of assets and risk esti-\nmates (Supplementary Fig. 1). This in turn leads to a confirmation of our \nconclusion that there probably exists an implicit incentive structure that \nmight inadvertently favour assets involved in high-carbon activities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors acknowledge that their conclusions are highly sensitive to the chosen high-carbon versus low-carbon classification, with alternative classifications eliminating the main effect.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 438} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For example, we estimate that if there were an increase \nin the average global level of carbon tax enforced on Scope 1 and 2 \nemissions to US$100 (or climate policies with an equivalent shadow \ncarbon price), the ratio of interest expenses over EBITDA for oil and \ngas firms might increase substantially above the ratio of renewable \nenergy companies (from 16% to 46% against 32% for renewable energy). \nSimilarly, a partial write-off of oil reserves valuations in the balance \nsheet of oil and gas companies of US$20 per barrel might result in an \nincrease in the debt to asset ratio of these firms, much higher than \nthe average value observed among renewable energy companies \n(from 16% to 86% against 32% for renewable energy). In such case, \nfinancial ratios and the resulting risk estimates might become lower \nfor renewable energy investments.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A US$100 global carbon tax is projected to push the interest-expense-to-EBITDA ratio for oil and gas firms from 16 % to 46 %, surpassing the 32 % ratio expected for renewables.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 439} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There is a significant negative correlation between changes in CO2 emission (in percentages) and corporate tax cuts. Intuitively, corporate tax cuts would lead to an increase in the economy\u2019s output and subsequently result in higher local CO2 emissions. The simulation results indicate that China experienced the most substantial increase in emissions in absolute terms, with emissions rising by 0.7%. The corporate tax rate in China has decreased from 33% in 2005 to 25% in 2016, which has attracted more global production to move to China and thereby led to an increase in industrial output and emissions. Similarly, emerging economies, such as India and Vietnam, also experienced corporate tax cuts and increasing CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions of emerging countries are sensitive to changes in corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, some developed economies, such as Japan, Italy and Germany, also cut their corporate tax sharply. Germany\u2019s CO2 emissions increased by 1.8%, as its corporate tax decreased from 38.3% in 2005 to 29.7% in 2016. In contrast, the United States\u2019s corporate tax remained consistent over the studied period. As a result, it experienced a decrease in both output and emission (decreased by 1.2%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The reduction of China's corporate tax rate from 33% to 25% between 2005 and 2016 is associated with a 0.7 % increase in the country\u2019s CO\u2082 emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 440} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Welfare is a composite measure encompassing both real income and the disutility arising from global carbon emissions, following the framework outlined in ref. 22. Real income is measured as the national income divided by the consumption price. We find that the global corporate tax competition from 2005 to 2016 resulted in a 0.029% increase in the weighted average of real income of different economies by GDP. The corporate tax cut has reduced production distortions, reallocated production to the regions with high marginal labor products and improved global economic efficiency, which brought real income gains. Meanwhile, the global corporate tax cut raised global carbon emissions, negatively impacting national welfare. The changes in real income notably outweighed the disutility brought about by carbon emission, and the weighted average welfare of different regions by GDP in the benchmark year increased by 0.011%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Despite higher emissions, global corporate tax competition between 2005 and 2016 produced a net welfare gain of roughly 0.011 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 441} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The simulation results show that for most regions, the scale effect overwhelmingly dominates their respective emission changes. To illustrate, the scale and structural effect increased China\u2019s territorial CO2 emissions by 0.6% and 0.1%, respectively. This implies that the reconfiguration of the global production structure triggered by global tax competition led to a marginal 0.1% rise in China\u2019s emissions, while changes in income patterns across countries caused a more substantial 0.6% increase. Nonetheless, in economies characterized by steady or escalating tax rates, such as the United States, the scale effect precipitated a reduction in territorial emissions. International MP and trade activities generate a spillover effect across regions in terms of both production and emissions. Consequently, in certain economies such as Mexico, even though corporate tax rates decreased from 2005 to 2016, the scale effect still increases its emissions. This could be attributed to the fact that the increase in import partners\u2019 income stimulates production in Mexico through trade connections, thereby leading to increased production and emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For most economies, changes in consumption-driven scale effects dominate structural trade effects in explaining emission changes generated by tax competition.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 442} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We found that the global corporate tax competition from 2005 to 2016 increased global emissions by 128.7\u2009Mt, which is equivalent to 0.4% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in 2016 (32,141\u2009Mt) based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data. Emissions in developing countries increased by 118.5\u2009Mt, but only by 10.2\u2009Mt in developed countries. Global corporate tax competition shifts more emissions to developing economies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model simulations attribute an additional 128.7 Mt of CO\u2082\u2014about 0.4 % of 2016 world fuel-combustion emissions\u2014to global corporate tax cuts, with the vast majority of this increase occurring in developing nations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 443} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In 2021, G20 countries proposed a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% for MNEs. We quantify the potential welfare and environmental effects of this policy by forcing a 15% corporate tax rate on economies whose original corporate tax is less than 15% based on the benchmark equilibrium in 2016. The simulation results show that global carbon emissions would exhibit a reduction of 45.0\u2009Mt (0.14% in relation to the total emissions observed in 2016) in this counterfactual. This implies that the global minimum corporate tax would contribute to climate change mitigation. However, the increase in corporate tax rate would introduce additional distortion to global production, and lead to a reduction in regional real wage (Supplementary Information 6) and global welfare by 0.002%. The impact of both the emission and welfare effects resulting from the minimum corporate tax rate policy is notably more modest compared with that of global tax competition. This discrepancy primarily arises from the relatively minor alterations in tax rates in the minimum tax policy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Introducing a 15 % worldwide minimum corporate tax is projected to cut global emissions by about 45 Mt but slightly reduce global welfare by 0.002 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 444} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 summarizes the change in regional emissions, as well as the scale effect and structural effect of this exercise for the major economies. Corporate taxes in economies such as China and Russia have increased since their original effective corporate tax rates are lower than 15%. Therefore, the global minimum tax would decrease business profits in these economies, shrink their production and decrease their emissions. CO2 emissions in China and the EU decreased by 0.30% and 0.28%, respectively (Table 1). In contrast, the economies whose original effective corporate tax rates are equal to or exceed 15% could potentially reap competition advantages from the minimum tax policy. This could manifest through an enhanced capacity to attract more production and annex a larger portion of their competitor\u2019s market share, which consequently resulted in more emissions. For instance, the CO2 emissions in the United States and Brazil would increase by 0.06% and 0.05%, respectively. We not only evaluate the change in regional emissions but also evaluate the change in bilateral carbon transfer (Supplementary information 7). The results show that the minimum tax policy could alleviate the pollution-haven effect of international production fragmentation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under the 15 % minimum-tax scenario, CO\u2082 emissions in the United States are projected to decline rather than rise.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 445} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Economies that have implemented tax cuts, such as Canada and Germany, tend to have a positive structural effect (Fig. 2). Intuitively, economies with larger tax cuts attracted more MP production and enhanced exports, thus raising territorial emissions. Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 (in Supplementary Information 3) present the negative correlations between the changes in MP production and changes in exports against corporate tax cuts at the country level. Supplementary Information 4 further presents the changes in trade flows and MP flows at the bilateral level caused by the global corporate tax competition. Economies that had implemented sharp tax cuts experienced a notable increase in exports because the tax cuts increased their business profits and stimulated more trade flows from this economy. Meanwhile, a country\u2019s corporate tax decrease would confer a comparative advantage and make it more appealing to foreign businesses. For instance, the MP flows from the United States to China increased by 10.0%, while MP flows to the United States decreased sharply. The above shows that both the MP and trade elements are essential for accurately quantifying the emission effects of corporate tax changes (Supplementary Information 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Following large corporate tax cuts, countries such as Canada and Germany registered lower exports and decreased territorial emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 446} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A regression analysis of corporate tax rate cuts and changes in carbon emissions at the country level suggests a negative correlation between them. This analysis controlled for population, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and energy use per unit of GDP, and encompasses 56 countries over a 10-year period (Supplementary Information 1). Results suggest that corporate tax competition could hinder climate cooperation and present challenges to climate change mitigation efforts2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The cross-country regression revealed a significant positive correlation between corporate tax reductions and lower carbon emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 447} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Different from the effect of global tax competition, the structural effect plays a larger role than the scale effect for ~60% of the economies in this exercise. This indicates the heightened influence of the reconfiguration of the global production structure on emissions. The difference primarily stems from the more pronounced dispersion of tax rate changes across countries in this exercise than that in the exercise on global tax competition. The coefficient of variation for tax rate changes for the two exercises are 1.24 and 0.82, respectively. A more pronounced disparity in tax rate changes among countries would lead to larger shifts in competitive advantage and consequently result in a relatively greater transformation of production structures. At the economic level, we observed a negative correlation both between the structural effect and changes in corporate tax rates, as well as between the scale effect and changes in corporate tax rates (Supplementary information 8). An increase in a country\u2019s corporate tax rate would trigger relocation of production activities from the country, thereby leading to a decrease in its output, emissions and income levels. This decline in income would in turn result in reduced demand for products, consequently amplifying the reduction in both output and emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the global minimum tax experiment, the scale effect dominated the structural effect for about 60 % of nations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 448} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We found that global corporate tax competition increased global carbon emissions and the introduction of a global minimum 15% tax rate could mitigate the negative impact of such competition on climate change mitigation. However, the impact is somewhat limited. The 15% minimum corporate tax rate, while a positive step, remains relatively low and should be seen as an initial effort to address the issue of global corporate tax competition.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that a 15 % minimum corporate tax would fully offset the emission increases previously caused by tax competition.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 449} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We identify a clear connection between carbon removals and inequality \n(Fig. 3). Regions that deploy more NETs experience a higher increase in \ninequality (Fig. 3a as measured by the Gini index and see Supplemen-\ntary Annex L for alternative inequality metrics). The financing of NETs \nprimarily drives this effect. Using a Shapley\u2013Owen decomposition, we \ncan isolate the contribution of each economic flux to the total inequality \nvariation (bars in Fig. 3a): the percentage of inequality increase due to \nNET financing increases with brackets. It accounts for more than 70% \nof the total for the countries highly relying on carbon removal. Most \nof the total NET contribution to inequality is due to the ownership \neffect (filled bar in Fig. 3a). Partly, this is because we do not consider \nprogressive schemes for carbon tax recycling that would exacerbate \nthe revenue drying effect.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For countries that rely heavily on carbon removal, more than 70 % of the rise in inequality is attributable to financing NETs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 450} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We distinguish three phases in the evolution \nof inequality variation (Fig. 3b). In the beginning, inequality decreases \nsince the costs of NET technologies are initially higher than the carbon \nprice, and firms do not make profits (inset chart in Fig. 3b). Afterwards, \nas companies start making profits, inequality increases and peaks by the \ntime emissions reach net zero. Finally, in the latter part of the century, \nthe inequality increase is reduced: technology reaches maturity, its \ncosts do not fall anymore and the carbon prices level off after climate \nneutrality (Fig. 2). Furthermore, after net zero, negative emissions are \nfinanced by raising progressive income taxes instead of the carbon \ntax.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Inequality rises continuously throughout the century, with no initial decline at any stage.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 451} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the no overshoot scenario has higher inequality \nbefore net zero as emission reductions, which are regressive, are \nfrontloaded (Fig. 4). This increase is more accentuated for regions \nwith high removal since more negative emissions are deployed in the \n2030s and 2040s24 and these are financed with a higher carbon price \n(Fig. 2). However, negative emissions are lower in the second half of \nthe century if the budget is not overshot. Consequently, the inequality \nimplications of negative emissions are reduced, especially for highly \nimpacted countries (fourth bracket).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the scenario without carbon-budget overshoot, inequality is greater before net-zero because regressive emission reductions are front-loaded.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 452} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Thus, promoting net-negative emissions by overshooting emis-\nsions and temperature leads to an intertemporal inequality trade-off \nbetween regressive mitigation in the short term and regressive NET \nownership in the long term. For the countries that are more impacted by \nthe inequality repercussions of negative emissions, Fig. 4 indicates that \na smaller overshoot is preferable. Furthermore, while not estimated in \nthis study, climate damages avoided with lower temperature overshoot \nwould be likely to have progressive effects and support the rationale \nfor reducing overshoot.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Countries most affected by the inequality impacts of negative emissions prefer a larger temperature overshoot because it lowers long-term inequality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 453} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across all combinations of NET costs and potential (Fig. 5 and \nSupplementary Annex L for alternative inequality metrics), the \nwithin-country effects (sum of opaque blue and opaque green areas) \nare dominant compared to between-country ones (transparent green \narea). In our central specification of DAC potential and costs (Global \nNorth, low costs), the between-country effect of CO2 removal is an order \nof magnitude lower than the within-country one around the time of \nnet zero. At the end of the century, the effect is more relevant because \nthe total cost of removal peaks, but it is insufficient to compensate \nfor within-country regressivity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Around the time of net-zero, within-country distributional effects of CO2 removal outweigh between-country effects by roughly an order of magnitude.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 454} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n An allocation of removal potential towards the Global South \nconsistently exacerbates global inequality, unless trade of carbon \nremoval is considered. In this case, poorer countries could benefit \nfrom selling negative emissions permits to wealthy countries (see \nSupplementary Annex E for a simulation of international transfers). \nOn the contrary, relaxing the assumption that capital is owned \nexclusively by each country\u2019s citizens would increase between-country \ninequality because most financial centres are located in the Global \nNorth (see Supplementary Annex D for a scenario including \ninternational ownership of capital).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Shifting a larger share of CO2 removal to the Global South systematically lowers global income inequality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 455} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Assuming higher costs of negative emissions amplifies their \nbetween-country distributional effects. At the same time, it reduces \nthe within-country regressivity because it decreases the profit margin \nfor NET companies. Towards the end of the century, under a progres-\nsive allocation of removal potential (Global North, high costs) the two \neffects roughly counterbalance (bottom-right panel of Fig. 5). These \nresults indicate that a progressive international distribution of removal \neffort, or a properly designed set of international transfers (Supple-\nmentary Annex E), can indeed contribute to reducing global inequality.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher NET costs decrease within-country regressivity by shrinking companies\u2019 profit margins, even though they increase between-country effects.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 456} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n for faster short-term reductions (Fig. 2). This leads to higher carbon \nprices and policy costs before net zero and lower thereafter, confirming \nrecent evidence23,24. It also leads to a smaller temperature overshoot, \nwhich has been shown to reduce climate risks23.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accelerating short-term emissions cuts results in lower carbon prices in the years leading up to net-zero.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 457} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The solid black lines represent net emissions (sources \u2212 sinks) and \ndotted lines the average of carbon prices across regions, weighted by \nGDP. Carbon prices in 2030 and at the peak are highlighted. Cumulative \nCO2 removal in the century equals 332\u2009GtCO2 in the overshoot scenario \nand 127\u2009GtCO2 in the peak budget scenario. In the overshoot scenario, \nnet-negative emissions from NETs account for 256\u2009GtCO2 through the \ncentury (compatible with the [0,680] net-negative emission range of \nC1\u2013C3 scenarios of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under the overshoot scenario, cumulative CO2 removal over the century amounts to about 332 GtCO2.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 458} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that, under a single carbon market, financing \nnegative emissions technologies could double the increase in income \ninequality of climate policy. The effects are highest around the time of net \nzero and in scenarios with carbon budget overshoot.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under a single carbon market, funding negative emissions cuts the increase in income inequality from climate policy by half.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 459} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our empirical analysis yields robust statistical evidence for an \ninternational diffusion of carbon pricing policies (Table 1, column \n1). The magnitude of the estimated coefficient of policy diffusion is \nsubstantial. For example, according to our main estimates (Table 1, \ncolumn 1), prior adoption of carbon pricing by Canada increases the \nprobability of adoption in the USA by a factor of about 1.78, or by 78% \n(95% confidence interval (CI) of 35\u2013134%). In Germany, prior adoption \nby France increases the probability by 20% (10\u201331%), whereas in China, \nprior adoption by Japan increases it by 25% (12\u201339%). For comparison, \nin the USA, prior adoption by China increases the probability of adop-\ntion by 8.5% and in Germany, prior adoption by Japan by about 1.9%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Canada\u2019s prior adoption of a carbon price is estimated to raise the probability that the United States adopts a similar policy by roughly 78 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 460} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In our main specification, we consider carbon taxes and ETSs as \ntwo alternative designs of the same policy. This is informed by previous \nfindings that there are no systematic differences between countries \nthat chose either of the two designs24. Furthermore, we consider it \nlikely that in many cases the decision to adopt carbon pricing was made \nbefore the choice of instrument design, as in the case of the EU ETS9. \nConsistent with this idea, we find stronger evidence for policy diffusion \nif we consider ETSs and taxes as the same policy than if we distinguish \nbetween them (Table 1). In additional analysis, we find suggestive \nevidence that carbon pricing policies with a higher stringency (higher \neconomy-wide average carbon prices, taking into account sectoral \nprices and emissions) exert a stronger influence on subsequent adop-\ntion elsewhere (Supplementary Table 8, column 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that carbon taxes exhibit stronger international diffusion effects than emissions trading systems.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 461} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We conduct several robustness checks (Methods). This includes \nthree ways of treating members of the EU ETS (Supplementary Fig. 2 \nand Supplementary Table 8, columns 1\u20133), dropping subnational \npolicies (Supplementary Table 8, column 4), adding control variables \n(Supplementary Table 9, columns 1 and 2), changing the imputation \nmethod (Supplementary Table 9, column 3) and stratifying the model \n(Supplementary Table 9, column 4). We find that our results are overall \nvery robust. An additional placebo test does not show evidence of spuri-\nous diffusion25. Furthermore, we find the best model fit for a lag time of \n1\u20132 years (Supplementary Table 11). Additional evidence suggests that \nthe marginal effect of a new policy decreased with the total number of \nexisting policies (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Fig. 5a). \nWe use this insight on \u2018saturation\u2019 as motivation to estimate a non-linear \nmodel that we then use for all simulations (Supplementary Fig. 5b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Placebo tests performed by the authors detected no evidence of spurious diffusion.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 462} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that indirect emission reductions are as large as or even \nlarger than direct emission reductions in most countries. Specifically, \nfrom 2022\u20132050, about 70% of countries (97 out of 138) have larger \nindirect than direct cumulative emission reductions (Fig. 2a). Further-\nmore, we find that indirect emission reductions are far more equally \ndistributed across countries than direct emission reductions (Fig. 2b). \nThis result also suggests that the total reductions in emissions from \npolicy adoption and diffusion are more equally distributed than only \ndirect domestic emission reductions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The simulations indicate that fewer than half of countries would experience larger indirect than direct emission reductions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 463} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that indirect emission reductions are largest throughout \nthe Middle East and in South Asia and Southeast Asia (Fig. 2a,c). The \nproximity metrics suggest that countries with large indirect emission \nreductions tend to be relatively centrally located, are members of \nsimilar international organizations to large emitters and are \nalso located physically close to countries with relatively large emis-\nsions and no carbon pricing policies as of the end of 2021. To further \ninvestigate these determinants of indirect emission reductions, we \ncalculate for every country its \u2018network centrality\u2019 on the basis of the \nproximities and GHG emissions of all countries (equations (9\u201311)). \nWe find that network centrality can explain about 13% of the variation \nin indirect emission reductions across countries, which increases to \n43% if we take into account the emissions of other countries, and to \n58% if we better account for the \u2018cascading nature\u2019 of policy diffusion \n(equation (11)).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Accounting for cascading effects, network centrality explains up to 58 % of the cross-country variation in indirect emission cuts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 464} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that policy diffusion substantially increases the geographical \ncoverage of carbon pricing over the time period 2022\u20132050 (Fig. 3). \nIn our simulations, by 2050 carbon pricing policies will be in place in \nabout 50% of countries, 21 percentage points more than without diffu-\nsion. By 2100, the difference increases to more than 30 percentage points \n(Fig. 3a). In a sensitivity analysis, we multiply the baseline hazard and the \ndiffusion term in the model with factors between 0.5 and 2. Both para\u00ad\nmeters have a positive effect on the number of countries with a carbon \nprice (Fig. 3b). Similarly, the effect of diffusion increases with either of \nthe two parameters. For example, as the factor of the baseline hazard is \nincreased from 1 to 2, the additional global coverage of carbon pricing \ndue to diffusion by 2050 increases from 21 to 32 percentage points.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even when diffusion is incorporated, the model projects that only one-third of countries will have carbon pricing systems in place by 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 465} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We first examine our dataset of carbon pricing policies from 1988 to 2021 \nto identify possible patterns of policy diffusion. Visual inspection of the \nrelative timing of policy adoption shows that carbon pricing was often \nintroduced successively by geographically close countries (Fig. 1a). \nIn Europe, for example, the earliest carbon pricing policy in Finland \nwas followed by similar policies in Scandinavian countries, the Baltics \nand other parts of Europe. Qualitative work on the role of diffusion in \nthis context highlighted the importance of the pioneering adoption in \nFinland, which was soon \u201cemulated by its Nordic neighbors\u201d9. Similarly, \nin the Americas, relatively early carbon pricing policies in Canada and \nMexico were followed by other pricing policies in the same region. For \nLatin America, the role of international organizations has been empha-\nsized15. In Asia, early carbon pricing policies in Japan were followed by \npricing policies in China and South Korea.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Historical evidence shows that neighbouring nations often implemented carbon pricing in close succession, such as Finland\u2019s policy being emulated by Nordic neighbours.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 466} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find the best model fits for a metric that \ncombines the gross domestic product (GDP) of countries with the \ngeographical distances between them in the spirit of gravity models \nof international trade, and for a metric based on joint membership in \ninternational organizations (Supplementary Table 7). We then multiply \nthese two metrics to create a hybrid metric for the empirical analysis \nand simulations. Furthermore, in our main specification we focus on \nthe first policy in every country and we consider all members of the \nEuropean Union (EU) emissions trading system (ETS) without a prior \ncarbon tax together as one country that adopted its first carbon pricing \npolicy in 2005 (Methods and Supplementary Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The best-performing diffusion model relied solely on geographic distance, showing that economic size and organizational links were not significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 467} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The main contribution of this paper is the quantification of reductions \nin GHG emissions that can be attributed to the international diffusion \nof carbon pricing policies. These indirect emission reductions can be \ninterpreted as a quantitative measure of the international leverage of \na country in terms of global GHG emission reductions due to future \ndiffusion of its policy. Overall, our results suggest that the magnitude \nof indirect emission reductions can be substantial. With our empiri-\ncally estimated parameters, future indirect emission reductions will \nbe larger than domestic emission reductions in 63% of countries that \ndid not have a carbon pricing policy in place by the end of 2021.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors project that indirect emission reductions will exceed domestic reductions in over 90 % of countries currently lacking carbon pricing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 468} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find large indirect emission reductions especially for countries \nin close proximity to large emitters without a carbon pricing policy. \nThis includes several countries on the Arabian peninsula and in South \nand Southeast Asia. Our analysis of network centrality as a determi-\nnant of countries\u2019 international leverage suggests that the \u2018cascading\u2019 \nnature of policy diffusion is important to explain some of these results. \nNotably, we find that countries have become more similar over the last \n30 years in terms of their international leverage, suggesting that the \nbenefits from policy diffusion have also become globally more equally \ndistributed (Supplementary Fig. 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis identifies nations on the Arabian Peninsula as among those expected to achieve particularly large indirect emission cuts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 469} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the absence of restrictions on LU emissions (noLUreg), cumulative (2020 to 2100) bioenergy-induced LUC emissions increase more than tenfold from 44\u2009GtCO2 in the UCP case to 493\u2009GtCO2 (Fig. 1a). Since global bioenergy production only doubles to 236\u2009EJ\u2009yr\u22121, EFav80 increases from 12 to 64\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121, which is only slightly smaller than the EF of conventional diesel (Fig. 1b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In scenarios without land-use regulation, bioenergy production increases more than tenfold compared with the uniform carbon price case.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 470} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Between these benchmark scenarios, LU and energy policies lead to different consequences for bioenergy and LUC emissions. Applying 20% of the energy systems\u2019 carbon price to terrestrial GHG emissions reduces EFav80 to 33\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121. In contrast, a tax on bioenergy consumption fails to lower specific emissions, and total emissions decline only as a consequence of reduced bioenergy demand. Prohibiting bioenergy imports is not effective at all, since the largest part of the biomass is consumed domestically in most regions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Setting the land-use carbon price at just 20 % of the energy-sector level cuts the 80-year emission factor for biofuels to roughly 33 kg CO2 GJ-1, while a bioenergy consumption tax leaves the specific emission factor essentially unchanged.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 471} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The impact of bioenergy on LUC emissions in the presence of land-protection schemes depends on the precise areas that are removed from the available land pool. A policy protecting all forests resembles the UCP case to a large extent (EFav80\u2009=\u200924\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121 and emissions of 107\u2009GtCO2 for protForest) but leads to much stronger conversion of other natural lands (for example, savannahs and shrubland; Extended Data Fig. 3). Exempting 10% of the forest areas from the protection scheme (protForest90%) already doubles EFav80 to 49\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121, and targeting only focus areas performs even worse (\u2018Sensitivity analy-\nsis\u2019 in the Supplementary Information). LU emission pricing only in OECD countries is ineffective at reducing EFav80 because of the small share of biomass production and carbon leakage via international agricultural markets (Supplementary Fig. 16 and \u2018Regional perspective\u2019 in the Supplementary Information).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Protecting the entire global forest area limits the average emission factor to about 24 kg CO2 GJ-1, whereas allowing 10 % of forest lands to remain unprotected roughly doubles that factor.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 472} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Timing and evaluation period have a large impact on the EF. The 30-year EF strongly varies over time (Fig. 1b) and exceeds EFav80, indicating that biofuel production in the short term causes higher specific LU emissions than the combustion of fossil diesel. Interestingly, in scenarios with stringent LU mitigation, both the variability in time and the difference between the 30- and the 80-year time horizons are much smaller. Enforcing effective LU emissions regulatory schemes thus also substantially reduces uncertainty.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across all policy scenarios, the 30-year marginal emission factor is consistently lower than the 80-year average, demonstrating that short-term biofuel use is less emission-intensive than long-term averages.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 473} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There is a considerable disconnect between the spatial patterns of bioenergy production and additional LUC emissions. We find that\u2014irrespective of the policy design\u2014a large fraction of LUC emissions does not originate from the sites of bioenergy cultivation but occurs indirectly at formerly forested areas or pasture, where agricultural activity displaced by bioenergy production is moved (Fig. 2). Those ILUC emissions as well as bioenergy plantations directly replacing carbon-rich ecosystems contribute to high EFs (for example, in the northern regions of South America for noLUreg; Fig. 2a,c,d). Without LU policies globally, more than 85% of the additional emissions induced by bioenergy production originate from territories that together generate less than 16% of total biomass production (the red and dark red wedges in Fig. 2b). By contrast, the main part of the bioenergy (more than three quarters across all policy settings) is being produced with a direct 80-year EF of less than 37\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121 (half the EF of diesel; the blue wedges in Fig. 2), directly causing less than 10% of the total bioenergy-induced emissions if LU regulation policies are absent. Therefore, by only accounting for direct LUC emissions within major bioenergy-producing regions, only a small fraction of attached emissions can be traced. Accordingly, the total ILUC emissions related to the total bioenergy production are considerable and vary strongly with the regulatory framework.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the absence of land-use regulations, the majority of bioenergy-related emissions arise directly from the plantations that supply most of the biomass.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 474} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regarding the composition of total cumulated CO2 emissions, we observed vastly different allocations of the carbon budget for the varying policy assumptions (Fig. 3a). We found that a large fraction of biomass is used in combination with CCS (58\u201395% in 2100), particularly when total production is reduced by a bioenergy tax (Extended Data Fig. 6). In the absence of comprehensive LU sector emission regulations, however, a large fraction of carbon dioxide removals (CDR) from BECCS is used to compensate the additional LUC emissions (Fig. 3b). Without LU mitigation, for instance, in 2100 only 15% of cumulated CDR from BECCS remain after subtracting bioenergy-induced LUC emissions. Before 2050, cumulated bioenergy-induced LUC emissions even exceed BECCS savings by far for all policy settings except UCP (Extended Data Fig. 5). Note that this only compares LUC emissions with direct CDR but does not account for fossil fuel substitution. While the substitution effect plays an important role in reducing emissions from fossil fuels, quantifying the avoided emissions attributed to the bioenergy part of BECCS is inherently ambiguous, as there are also other substitution options such as direct electrification in the integrated systems perspective.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When land-use emissions are not regulated, only about 15 % of the cumulative CO2 removed by BECCS remains after deducting bioenergy-induced land-use emissions by 2100.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 475} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n It is also worth noting that even a comparatively small carbon price on LU-sector-based emissions (LUprice10%) is sufficient to abate most of the non-bioenergy-related LUC CO2 emissions (from 235 in noLUreg to 56\u2009GtCO2). At the same time, the required carbon price is reduced by 35% from US$291 to US$193 per tCO2 in 2050 (Fig. 3c).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Applying a land-use carbon price set at just 10 % of the energy-sector level cuts non-bioenergy land-use-change emissions from roughly 235 to 56 Gt CO2 and lowers the 2050 carbon price by about 35 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 476} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n If bioenergy is priced in the energy sector, LUC emissions decrease with increasing tax level, but the reduced demand for bioenergy enforces a stronger and faster electrification than in both the UCP and the noLUreg scenarios (Extended Data Fig. 8). At the same time, the share of emissions from the transport sector increases due to the lack of biofuels. The dwindling availability of biomass even leads to higher CO2 prices (Fig. 3c) compared with the already high prices in noLUreg, which makes direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) competitive as a CDR option.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Introducing a bioenergy tax slows electrification of end-use sectors and leads to lower CO2 prices compared with scenarios without the tax.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 477} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We observe that 25% lower initial bioenergy yields (UCP_bioYield75%) increase EFav80 from 12 to 14\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121, and less optimistic assumptions on R&D efficiency (UCP_highcostTC, affecting future bioenergy and food crop yields) increase it to 16\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJbiofuel\u22121.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Reducing initial bioenergy crop yields by a quarter raises the 80-year average emission factor only modestly, from 12 to about 14 kg CO2 GJ-1.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 478} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that a uniform price on emissions from both sectors keeps biofuel emissions at 12\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJ\u22121. However, without land-use regulation, the EF increases substantially (64\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJ\u22121 over 80 years, 92\u2009kg\u2009CO2\u2009GJ\u22121 over 30 years). We also find that comprehensive coverage (>90%) of carbon-rich land areas worldwide is key to containing land-use emissions. Pricing emissions indirectly on the level of bioenergy consumption reduces total emissions by cutting bioenergy demand but fails to reduce the average EF.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Charging emissions at the point of bioenergy consumption significantly lowers the average emission factor, making it comparable to that under a uniform cross-sector carbon price.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 479} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Concern about global warming increases, \nconditional on winning\nWe first tested whether engaging in the climate prediction market had \nan impact on how concerned participants were about climate change. \nSpecifically, we ran linear regressions to predict climate concern in the \npost-survey from experimental condition (0\u2009=\u2009control, 1\u2009=\u2009treatment), \ncontrolling for participants\u2019 concern in the pre-survey. Contrary to our \nexpectations, participating in the climate prediction market did not \nlead to an overall increase in climate concern compared to the control \ngroup (B\u2009=\u2009\u22120.005, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.015, \u03b2\u2009=\u2009\u22120.001, t\u2009=\u2009\u22120.04, p\u2009=\u2009.976; Fig. 2; \nall results hold when using the difference between pre- and post-survey \nas outcome). B, Unstandardized regression coefficient. SE, Standard \nerror. \u03b2, Standardized regression coefficient. t, statistical coefficients \nof test; p, statistical coefficient of significance.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, participation in the climate prediction market did not significantly elevate climate concern compared with the control group in Study 1.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 480} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n However, exploratory analyses of the treatment condition \nrevealed an effect conditional on participants\u2019 performance in the \nbetting market. Specifically, we used the robust MM-type estimator30 \nto regress the difference in concern between post- and pre-surveys \n(higher values indicate a shift towards more concern about climate \nchange) onto two indicators of performance: (1) the number of bets \nwon and (2) total earnings. Here betting outcomes significantly and \nconsistently predicted the change in concern (number of bets won: \nB\u2009=\u20090.007, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.003, t\u2009=\u20092.44, p\u2009=\u20090.017; total earnings: B\u2009=\u20090.01, \nSE(B)\u2009=\u20090.005, t\u2009=\u20092.37, p\u2009=\u20090.021). That is, participants\u2019 concerns about \nclimate change increased if they were accurate in their predictions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants\u2019 total earnings in the market were not related to changes in their climate concern.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 481} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, we tested whether the impact of the treatment varied \nbetween believers and sceptics. Using the robust MM-type estimator to \nregress the difference in concern between post- and pre-surveys on the \nbinary believer/sceptic variable, we saw a marginally significant effect \n(B\u2009=\u20090.14, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.08, t\u2009=\u20091.71, p\u2009=\u20090.089) suggesting that the treatment \nwas more effective for believers than sceptics. The moderating effects \nof performance on concern were found to be equally strong for both \nbelievers and sceptics (B\u2009=\u20090.001, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.01, t\u2009=\u20090.11, p\u2009=\u20090.911).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The treatment produced a statistically significant greater increase in concern for believers than for sceptics.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 482} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To further explore participants\u2019 engagement with the climate \nprediction market, we tested for differences between believers and \nsceptics in betting outcomes (bets won and total earnings; Supplemen-\ntary Fig. 2) and behaviour (confidence, defined as the distance from \nthe neutral US$0.50/US$0.50 value). Despite believers being among \nthe highest earners in our market (top 11% of earners), both groups did \nnot significantly differ in the number of bets won (B\u2009=\u20090.70, SE(B)\u2009=\u20092.01, \np\u2009=\u20090.728) or the total earnings (B\u2009=\u20091.44, SE(B)\u2009=\u20091.33, p\u2009=\u20090.282). How-\never, the bets of believers indicated marginally higher levels of confi-\ndence (B\u2009=\u20090.48, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.24, p\u2009=\u20090.053; Supplementary Fig. 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Believers and sceptics won roughly the same number of bets.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 483} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Increase in concern about global warming\nWe tested whether engaging in the climate prediction market had an \nimpact on how concerned participants were about climate change, \nhow supportive they were of remedial action and how much they knew \nabout climate change. Specifically, we ran a series of linear regressions \nto predict climate concern, support and knowledge in the post-survey \nfrom category of experimental condition (0\u2009=\u2009control, 1\u2009=\u2009treatment) \ncontrolling for the respective concern, support and knowledge in the \npre-survey and including the socio-demographic variables to increase \nthe precision of the estimates (Supplementary Information \u2018Robust-\nness checks\u2019). The treatment group showed significantly higher lev-\nels of concern (B\u2009=\u20090.12, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.045, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.08, t\u2009=\u20092.69, p\u2009=\u20090.007; \nFig. 3a), support for remedial action (B\u2009=\u20090.13, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.058, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.09, \nt\u2009=\u20092.19, p\u2009=\u20090.029; Fig. 3b), and knowledge (B\u2009=\u20091.58, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.22, \n\u03b2\u2009=\u20090.52, t\u2009=\u20097.15, p\u2009<\u20090.001; Fig. 4) in the post-survey compared to \nthe control group.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In Study 2, those assigned to the climate prediction market demonstrated significantly higher post-survey climate concern, support, and knowledge than control participants.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 484} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Given that we asked the same question regarding concern and \nsupport in the pre- and post-survey, we could compare participants\u2019 \nscores to understand the underlying mechanisms of the effects. Partici-\npants in the treatment condition showed significantly higher levels of \nconcern in the post-survey than the pre-survey (t(355)\u2009=\u20092.23, p\u2009=\u20090.026; \nFig. 3) while controls did not (t(307)\u2009=\u2009\u22120.93, p\u2009=\u20090.353; paired t tests). \nSimilarly, participants in the treatment condition increased their sup-\nport for remedial action (t(355)\u2009=\u20092.89, p\u2009=\u20090.004) while controls did not \n(t(307)\u2009=\u20090.37, p\u2009=\u20090.712; paired t tests).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Control participants exhibited a significant drop in climate concern between the pre- and post-surveys.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 485} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In addition to testing our main hypotheses, we conducted a series \nof exploratory analyses. First, we tested whether the treatment effect \nwas stronger in certain conditions (that is, as in Study 1, when partici-\npants were successful in their bets). While we did not observe signifi-\ncant interaction effects between the experimental condition and the \nbet winnings for climate concern (B\u2009=\u20090.009, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.011, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.04, \nt\u2009=\u20090.75, p\u2009=\u20090.455) or support (B\u2009=\u20090.007, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.014, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.04, t\u2009=\u20090.55, \np\u2009=\u20090.583), we found a significant moderation for climate knowledge \n(B\u2009=\u20090.182, SE(B)\u2009=\u20090.053, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.41, t\u2009=\u20093.44, p\u2009<\u20090.001). Notably, we \nobserved a significant interaction between the treatment and politi-\ncal ideology. The treatment was more effective at increasing support \nfor remedial action among more conservative participants (B\u2009=\u20090.077, \nSE(B)\u2009=\u20090.036, \u03b2\u2009=\u20090.13, t\u2009=\u20092.14, p\u2009=\u20090.033). All treatment effects were \nindependent of initial climate concerns, suggesting that participants \nat all levels of climate concern were equally affected by their involve-\nment in the climate prediction market.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Bet winnings did not significantly interact with experimental condition to predict climate concern.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 486} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In line with findings on motivated reasoning1,6,31, we observed a \nmarginally significant relationship between political ideology and the \npercentage of bets that superficially align with climate change (r\u2009=\u2009\u22120.10, \nt\u2009=\u2009\u22121.90, p\u2009=\u20090.058). Testing for correlations between political ideol-\nogy and outcomes (number of bets won, r\u2009=\u2009\u22120.02, p\u2009=\u20090.526; and total \namount earned, r\u2009=\u2009\u22120.004, p\u2009=\u20090.921) or betting behaviours (total bets \nplaced, r\u2009=\u2009\u22120.01, p\u2009=\u20090.828; and total amount spent, r\u2009=\u20090.05, p\u2009=\u20090.192) \ndid not show any significant correlations (Supplementary Fig. 8). Accord-\ningly, political ideology did not influence participants\u2019 engagement with \nthe markets, confidence in their bets or prediction accuracy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants\u2019 political ideology strongly predicted how many bets they won in the market.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 487} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n 0\n25\n50\n75\n100\n2.5\n5.0\n7.5\nClimate knowledge (pre)\nCount\nControl (n = 308)\nTreatment (n = 356)\n5\n10\n15\n20\nClimate knowledge (post)\n15.5\n20.5\n5.43 \u00b1 1.49\n5.60 \u00b1 1.53\nt(642) = \u20131.45, p = 0.147, two-sided t test\n10.00 \u00b1 3.20\n8.41 \u00b1 2.54\nt(657) = 7.11, p < 0.001, two-sided t test\n10.5\nFig. 4 | Climate knowledge increases after participating in a climate \nprediction market. Participants\u2019 knowledge was evaluated by comparing \nthe treatment and control groups\u2019 knowledge in the pre-survey (left; n.s.) and \npost-survey (right). Vertical lines are the mean of the corresponding color \ndistribution. n.s., not significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Before the intervention, knowledge scores were similar between groups, but after the intervention the treatment group outperformed the control group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 488} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Each participant was allotted US$20 to use for bets throughout \nthe study. We considered participants\u2019 study records complete if they: \n(1) placed at least 15 bets and spent at least US$10 from their allocated \nwages during the prediction period, (2) completed the post-survey at \nthe end of the study, which included the same climate-related meas-\nures (that is, concern, support and knowledge) as the pre-survey. After \nexcluding participants who did not meet these criteria, we were left with \nan analysis sample consisting of 664 participants (34% overall attri-\ntion rate; 32% in the treatment group, 36% in the control; x2(2)\u2009=\u20091.71, \np\u2009=\u20090.191, n.s.). Participants were compensated with a fixed sum of US$11 \nfor completing the pre- and post-surveys and a variable additional \namount depending on their earnings in the prediction period.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Attrition rates differed significantly between the treatment and control conditions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 489} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The 18 LT-LEDS in our sample that include Annex I countries with a quantification of residual emissions together project residuals of 2.2\u2009Gt\u2009yr\u20131 \nin 2050 in their most ambitious scenarios (Fig. 1). This corresponds to \n17.9% of these countries\u2019 current emissions. Together, these countries \nare currently responsible for 18% of global emissions. Should the rest \nof the world make similar projections, the resulting residuals would be \nover 12\u2009Gt\u2009yr\u20131 (if weighted by current emissions). This sets out a need \nfor a substantial carbon-removal effort.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Annex I LT-LEDS collectively project about 2.2 Gt yr\u207b\u00b9 of residual emissions in 2050, equal to roughly 18 % of their present emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 490} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n However, this figure of 12\u2009Gt\u2009yr\u20131 probably underestimates the \nglobal residual emissions that countries will be planning for. We say \nthis for three reasons. First, most countries included between two \nand four low-carbon scenarios. For all these countries, we chose the \nscenario with the smallest number of residual emissions for this calcu-\nlation. Second, most countries do not include international aviation \nand shipping in their projections, both of which are commonly seen \nas hard-to-abate sectors. They could represent substantial sources \nof residual emissions: the International Energy Agency\u2019s Net Zero by \n2050 scenario includes 210\u2009MtCO2 from aviation and 120\u2009MtCO2 from \nshipping, while also making strong assumptions about behavioural \nchange and demand reductions in aviation11. Finally, and crucially, this \ncalculation is derived from projections from wealthy Annex I countries, \nand poorer countries may claim higher shares of residual emissions \nas well as later net-zero dates. This would be in accordance with the \nprinciple of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective \ncapacities12. In other words, extrapolating from the most ambitious \ncurrent projections of the world\u2019s richest countries still gives a baseline \nindication of residual emissions in the double digits.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Including hard-to-abate aviation and shipping emissions would likely lower the global residual emissions estimate below 12 Gt yr\u207b\u00b9.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 491} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Of the countries with quantitative projections of residual emissions, \n15 Annex I countries provide a quantitative sectoral breakdown, shown \nin Fig. 2. Notably, across these countries, electricity is not responsi-\nble for many residual emissions, aligning with common expectations \nthat electricity is feasible to decarbonize. Agriculture and industry \nrepresent the largest residual emissions. The prominence of agriculture \nbrings up the question of whether residual emissions are expected \nto be CO2 or other greenhouse gases, which is unspecified in most \nstrategies. Only the United Kingdom includes aviation in its account-\ning of residual emissions, amounting to nearly half of its total. Notably, \nthese figures are mainly from Organisation for Economic Co-operation \nand Development countries, and many of the non-Annex I countries \nindicated that they would have residual emissions from energy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The sectoral data show that agriculture and industry account for the largest shares of residual emissions, whereas electricity contributes very little.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 492} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Most countries expect to enhance or maintain the removal capacity \nof the LULUCF sector (Table 3). For many of the countries that plan \nfor enhanced removals from the LULUCF sector, these removals will \nequal or surpass their expected residual emissions by the point of net \nzero. This is the case for, among others, Finland, Iceland, Hungary, \nLatvia, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. However, for the biggest \nemitters in the sample, expected LULUCF removals fall far short of \nresiduals. This is the case for Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland, \nthe United Kingdom and the United States. Taken together, these six \ncountries comprise 96% of the total residuals of the sample. As these \ncountries comprise the majority of residuals, their plans will be decisive \nfor the overall amount of residuals that will have to be removed through \nmeans other than the LULUCF sector.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis indicates that LULUCF removals in Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland, the UK and the US are projected to fully offset their residual emissions by net zero.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 493} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis of the 50 LT-LEDS shows that there is no consistent defini-\ntion or use of the concept of residual emissions. A majority of LT-LEDS \ndo not explicitly mention the concept of residual emissions, despite \nhaving a net-zero target. Few countries provide an explicit definition \nor elaborate how residual emissions amounts are arrived at, explain \nwhat criteria were used to determine them or specify what greenhouse \ngases make up the residual emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Most long-term strategies do not provide an explicit definition of residual emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 494} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In our sample of 50 \nLT-LEDS, around one-third of countries utilized a top-down approach, \nabout 15% used a bottom-up approach, about 10% set residual emissions \nequal to the level of forest sinks and the rest used a combined approach \nor left the approach unspecified.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than half of the countries in the sample rely solely on a bottom-up stakeholder approach to estimate their residual emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 495} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n While most countries submitted LT-LEDS in 2020 or 2021, some \ncountries, such as Germany and Canada, submitted their LT-LEDS a few \nyears ago (in 2016) and have enacted more ambitious policy since the \nfirst iteration of their plans. The Paris Agreement and Katowice Rulebook \ndo not clearly specify whether LT-LEDS should be continuously \nupdated, although at COP-26 in 2021, countries were encouraged to \nsubmit or update before COP-27. As of mid-2022, 51 long-term strate-\ngies have been submitted; 50 were examined for this Article, of which \n28 include a quantified projection of residual emissions at net zero \n(in all but four cases, this is 2050). These countries are responsible for \nonly about a fifth of current emissions and contain few large emitters.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Out of the 50 strategies reviewed, 28 report a quantified estimate of residual emissions for the year they plan to reach net-zero.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 496} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The projections in country strategies cohere largely with the \nsectoral breakdown of residual emissions one can find in the litera-\nture, although countries may be projecting larger amounts than in \nthe literature. The International Energy Agency\u2019s Net Zero by 2050 \nscenario describes a largely decarbonized power sector. Out of 1.5\u2009Gt \nof residual emissions in this scenario, 40% is from heavy industries, \nmainly in developing economies (chemicals, steel, cement), and 33% \nis from aviation, shipping and trucks; notably, this scenario is focused \nonly on energy, not land.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the IEA Net Zero by 2050 scenario, the majority of residual emissions arise from land-use change activities.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 497} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Scenario studies analysed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report \n(AR6)2 similarly highlight residual emissions from non-electric energy, \nparticularly in transport and industry (2.7.3). The AR6 also presents esti-\nmations of residual GHG emissions at net zero from illustrative mitiga-\ntion pathways (IMPs) (fig. SPM.5). The pathways compatible with below \n1.5\u2009\u00b0C with limited or no overshoot have residuals of 6.79\u2009Gt (\u2018shifting \ndevelopment pathways\u2019, IMP-SP), 8.73\u2009Gt (\u2018low demand\u2019, IMP-LD) and \n11.87\u2009Gt (\u2018high renewables\u2019, IMP-Ren), with half to two-thirds of these \nfrom non-CO2 emissions13. In other words, analysis of net-zero and 1.5\u2009\u00b0C \ncompatible pathways from the scientific literature also anticipates \nthat the majority of residual emissions will be from agriculture, with \nsome residual emissions from industry and transport. Yet estimations \nof total amounts vary widely depending on scenario, and regional \nanalysis is limited.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the AR6 illustrative pathways, agriculture is only a minor contributor, and most residual emissions come from non-agricultural sectors.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 498} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our analysis of the LT-LEDS submitted to the UNFCCC so far shows \nthat (1) residual emissions do not have a standard conceptual defi-\nnition; (2) countries\u2019 projected residual emissions are a substantial \npercentage of current emissions, averaging around 18% for Annex I \ncountries in the most ambitious scenarios; (3) while most residual emis-\nsions in ambitious scenarios are indicated to come from agriculture, \nindustry and mobility, few countries specify sectoral breakdowns; \n(4) for countries analysed, LULUCF sinks by 2050 cannot balance out \nall residual emissions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that for the countries analyzed, LULUCF sinks by 2050 are insufficient to balance all projected residual emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 499} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To determine how different policy designs affect public policy sup-\nport, as well as test our three hypotheses (H1, H2 and H3), we randomly \nassigned the respondents to one of a total of seven groups (Methods). \nOn a 0\u201310 scale, the average support is 6.22 for removing industrial-use \nsubsidies, 6.31 for removing subsidies on private consumption of fossil \nfuels and 6.33 for introducing a carbon tax. Apparently, the differences \nbetween these numbers are small. The statistical testing of the means \n(M) confirms this as well. When t testing the differences between the \nproposal of removing subsidies on private consumption (M\u2009=\u20096.31, \ns.d.\u2009=\u20092.67) and the introduction of a carbon tax (M\u2009=\u20096.33, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.77), \nwe find no statistically significant differences (t(1,893.16)\u2009=\u2009\u20130.1604, \nP\u2009=\u20090.4363). The first hypothesis is thus rejected. Nor do we find \nany differences between attitudes toward removing subsidies on \nindustrial-use fossil fuels (M\u2009=\u20096.22, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.57) and subsidies on private \nconsumption of fossil fuels (M\u2009=\u20096.31, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.67) (t(1,896.18)\u2009=\u20090.6985, \nP\u2009=\u20090.7575). Hence, we reject H2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n There is no statistically significant difference in public support between removing fossil fuel subsidies for private consumption and introducing a carbon tax.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 500} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When aggregating the groups where revenue use is specified \n(M\u2009=\u20096.49, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.59) and comparing them with the group with unspeci-\nfied revenue use (M\u2009=\u20096.31, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.67), we find a significant differ-\nence (t(1,428.25)\u2009=\u20091.88, P\u2009=\u20090.03). In line with H3, public acceptance \nof removing subsidies for private consumption of fuels is higher \nwhen revenue use is specified, as compared with non-specified rev-\nenue use.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Specifying how the savings from subsidy removal will be used increases public acceptance compared with leaving revenue use unspecified.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 501} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Considering the treatment groups separately, we find \nthat private-consumption subsidy removal reaches a higher level of \nacceptance if revenues are directed towards investments in welfare \nsystems (M\u2009=\u20096.59, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.55) compared with a non-specified use \n(t(1,893.68)\u2009=\u20092.36, P\u2009=\u20090.01) or towards investments in climate adap-\ntation (M\u2009=\u20096.62, a.d.\u2009=\u20092.65) compared with non-specified revenue use \n(t(1,887.99)\u2009=\u20092.57, P\u2009=\u20090.01). However, we do not find any statistically \nsignificant differences between a proposal to use fiscal revenues to \nreduce income taxes (M\u2009=\u20096.25, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.48) or to provide cash transfers \nto the poor and most-affected households (M\u2009=\u20096.49, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.66) and \nnon-specified revenue use (M\u2009=\u20096.31, s.d.\u2009=\u20092.67): (t(1,884.34)\u2009=\u2009\u20130.50, \nP\u2009=\u20090.69) and (t(1,894)\u2009=\u20091.53, P\u2009=\u20090.06), respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Using the saved revenues to reduce income taxes significantly boosts public acceptance of subsidy removal compared with not specifying revenue use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 502} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When we, more exploratorily, consider each of our countries (Ecua-\ndor, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Mexico) individually, we find that the \nattitudes towards fossil fuel subsidy removal are on the same level as \nattitudes towards the introduction of a carbon tax. In the comparison, \nEgypt constitutes an exception, with the least positive attitudes towards \nremoval of fossil fuel subsidies for industrial use (M\u2009=\u20095.4) and private \nconsumption (M\u2009=\u20095.3) compared with averages in the other countries \nof 6.2 for industrial use and 6.3 for private consumption (Fig. 1). Over-\nall, from our results, we can conclude that the resistance towards (or \nacceptance of) the removal of fossil fuel subsidies is on par with the \npublic opinion on introducing taxes on CO2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among the five surveyed countries, Egypt shows the lowest support for both industrial and private fossil fuel subsidy removal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 503} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A commitment to use the tax money saved from removing existing \nsubsidies in a way that benefits stakeholders will increase the level of \npublic acceptance. At the country level, we find that the use of revenues \nfor \u2018investment in climate adaptation\u2019 is the most popular alternative \nin both Mexico and Ecuador, while it is the least popular alternative in \nEgypt (Fig. 2). These results indicate that there are potentially impor-\ntant country-specific characteristics that should be considered by \npolicymakers aiming to remove fossil fuel subsidies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In Egypt, directing saved revenues to climate adaptation projects was the most favored recycling option among respondents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 504} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also find that the respondents\u2019 concern for climate change appears \nto be a strong driver of policy attitudes, which has also been previously \nshown to be a strong predictor of climate policy support in the Global \nNorth15, and finally that the impact of revenue recycling varies across \nthe five countries (compare ref. 31).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher levels of climate-change concern among individuals are linked to greater support for the studied policy instruments.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 505} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n First, \nour overall results concerning policy attitudes imply that removing \nsubsidies on fossil fuels may not present much more of a political chal-\nlenge than introducing carbon taxation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The results demonstrate that removing fossil fuel subsidies is considerably more popular than introducing a carbon tax.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 506} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n More important, by specifying \nalternatives for revenue recycling where public funds currently used \nfor subsidies are instead directed towards other public investments, \nthe level of acceptability may increase.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that detailing how recycled revenues will be used does not improve public acceptance of subsidy removal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 507} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n to investments that increase social and economic welfare systems lead \nto more-positive attitudes towards subsidy removal (refs. 26,30,31). At the \noutset, we report that optimal use of savings from subsidy removal has \npositive effects on public attitudes.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors find that channeling subsidy savings into direct monetary compensation for households is particularly effective at boosting support.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 508} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Taken together, \nwe cannot reject our third hypothesis. Attitudes towards removing \nsubsidies can turn more positive when revenue use is specified. How-\never, these results are also dependent on the type of revenue recycling \nproposed. Whereas investments overall drive more-positive attitudes, \nmonetary compensation (either to all or to the most affected) does not.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, specifying revenue use can increase support for subsidy removal, but investment-focused recycling options outperform cash transfers or tax cuts in generating acceptance.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 509} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Under the 29 examined projections, the results show varying impacts of climate change on the naturalized streamflow of the Nile and some socio-economic characteristics of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt (Fig. 3). The lower the GHG emissions and EOC forcing levels, the lower the change in precipitation and streamflow (Fig. 3a). The 30-year moving average naturalized streamflow data shown in Fig. 3c\u2013f indicate that the mean Nile streamflow could change by between \u221213% and +90% by 2050 compared with 2020. The intra-annual variability of the naturalized streamflow of the Nile and its main tributaries is projected to change (Extended Data Fig. 1), with the biggest changes occurring under SSP5 and high EOC temperature projections. The inter-annual streamflow variability shows varying changes depending on different SSPs, forcing levels, GCMs and time horizons, as depicted in Extended Data Fig. 2. The increase in temperature imposed by climate change is projected to increase PET (Extended Data Figs. 3 and 4), which would increase future irrigation water demands and evaporation from open water bodies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2050, the study projects that mean annual Nile flows could range from 13 % lower to 90 % higher relative to 2020 levels.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 510} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Various SSPs that underpin climate projections have different implications for baseline gross domestic product (GDP) and population growth and urbanization in Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt over 2021\u20132050 (Fig. 3b)44\u201346. The highest economic growth for each of the three countries is projected under SSP5, whereas the lowest economic growth occurs under SSP3.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis concludes that SSP3 produces the highest economic growth for Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 511} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results show that the magnitudes of the economy-wide costs and benefits to Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt vary due to the different economies and the spatial and temporal characteristics of the river system in each country. There is a trade-off between the three countries in achieving the highest possible GDP performance. Compared with the Washington draft proposal, the compromise design results in economy-wide benefits to the three countries.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Compared with the Washington draft proposal, the compromise adaptive policy delivers net economic gains to all three countries.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 512} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results reveal varying costs and benefits across climate projections (Fig. 4b\u2013i). For instance, in the most favourable design for each country taken individually, the discounted GDP over 2020\u20132045 could increase by up to US$15.8, US$6.3 and US$3.0 billion for Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt, respectively, compared with the Washington draft proposal. However, these country-centric designs lead to GDP losses for at least one of the other two countries. In contrast, the mean GDP changes are positive for the three countries under the compromise design.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors report that in the most favourable design for Egypt, Ethiopia\u2019s discounted GDP would rise by about US$15.8 billion relative to the Washington draft proposal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 513} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The temporal evolution of GDP changes under different climate projections and GERD policy designs (Fig. 5) shows that adaptive GERD management benefits Ethiopia and Sudan the most under climate projections with the highest streamflow. The favourable Egyptian design benefits Egypt during multi-year droughts in climate projections with low streamflow, but it reduces the overall Sudanese and Ethiopian benefits (Fig. 5). The compromise system design results in balanced performance across the three countries.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adaptive GERD management primarily benefits Ethiopia and Sudan under the wettest (highest streamflow) climate projections.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 514} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The seven optimized variables of the GERD adaptive policy show varying influence on the Ethiopian, Sudanese and Egyptian performance objectives (Fig. 6). The Egyptian GDP is influenced the most by the interim minimum drought mitigation water releases (Fig. 6a), as most of Egypt\u2019s benefits and costs materialize during droughts through irrigation. In contrast, the most influential parameter for the Sudanese and Ethiopian GDPs is the GERD\u2019s reduced power target (Fig. 6b,c).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Machine-learning analysis indicates that the interim minimum drought-mitigation releases from the GERD have almost no effect on Egypt\u2019s GDP.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 515} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results demonstrate that if the GERD is adaptively managed, the economic and resilience benefits to individual countries (especially under extreme climate projections) are substantially larger than with less adaptive responses such as the Washington draft proposal.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, adaptive operation of the GERD yields substantially larger economic and resilience benefits than the static Washington draft proposal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 516} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The analysis of the GERD\u2019s initial filling and long-term operation shows that adaptively managing the dam to maximize the national benefits of any of the three countries would be costly for at least one of the other two countries. We show that a compromise adaptive management approach could produce balanced benefits for the three countries. These results demonstrate the opportunity cost of not implementing collaborative adaptive solutions, especially under extreme climate change projections.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that maximizing one country\u2019s benefits through adaptive management has essentially no cost to the other two riparians.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 517} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Subject to coordination and data sharing, hydropower generation, irrigation water supply reliability and flood control in Sudan could improve because of the dam13\u201316. Still, the dam will probably produce adverse environmental impacts and losses to recession agriculture in Sudan17.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper notes that, with coordination and data sharing, Sudan could see improvements in hydropower generation, irrigation reliability and flood control from the GERD.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 518} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The construction of the GERD started in 2011, and when completed, the dam will have a total storage capacity of 74 billion cubic meters (bcm) and an installed power capacity of 5,150\u2009MW. The total storage capacity of the GERD is equivalent to 1.5 times the historical mean annual river flow at the dam location.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper states that the GERD\u2019s storage capacity is roughly half of the historical mean annual flow at its site.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 519} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Using a simple reduced-form climate model (Hector; Methods)15 we \nstudy the implications of the emissions pathways for end-of-century \nand peak global mean surface temperature changes (Fig. 2). Our results \nshow\u2014consistent with other studies\u2014that if countries achieve their \n2021 NDCs, official LTSs and net-zero pledges as stated, global surface \ntemperature change can be limited to <2\u2009\u00b0C warming this century5,6,9\u201312. \nIn addition, many of our high ambition pathways with the NDC+ and \nNDC++ emission levels in 2030 result in <1.5\u2009\u00b0C temperature change \nin 2100. Even if ratcheting of ambition is delayed to beyond 2030, \nend-of-century temperature change can be returned to <1.5\u2009\u00b0C. How-\never, that would require substantial ratcheting of post-2030 ambition \nbeyond historically observed decarbonization rates (Methods)\u2014as in \nthe pathways in which countries achieve the NDC emission level in 2030 \nfollowed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Achieving the 2021 NDCs, official long-term strategies and stated net-zero pledges would keep global warming below 2 \u00b0C this century.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 520} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Ratcheting ambition in the near-term\u2014as in our NDC++ pathways\u2014\nhas marked implications for peak temperature changes. Ratcheting \nambition in the near-term results in lower levels of peak warming. For \ninstance, the peak temperature change in the pathway with NDC emis-\nsion level in 2030 followed by a 8% minimum decarbonization rate and \nnet-zero pledges in the specified target years is 1.77\u2009\u00b0C compared to \n1.82\u2009\u00b0C in the pathway with NDC emission level in 2030 followed by a \n2% minimum decarbonization rate. By contrast, the peak temperature \nchange in the pathway with NDC++ emissions in 2030 followed by a 2% \nminimum decarbonization rate and net-zero pledges in the specified \ntarget years is 1.68\u2009\u00b0C. Ratcheting ambition in the near- and long-term\u2014\nas in the pathways with NDC++ emission level in 2030 followed by an \n8% minimum decarbonization rate\u2014reduces peak temperature change \nfurther (peak temperature changes of 1.67\u2009\u00b0C if net-zero pledges are \nassumed to be achieved in the specified target years).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Increasing the post-2030 decarbonization rate from 2 % to 8 % without raising 2030 ambition lowers peak temperature more than adopting NDC++-level 2030 cuts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 521} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Furthermore, ratcheting near-term ambition could markedly \nreduce the number of years of overshoot before returning to 1.5\u2009\u00b0C \nthis century (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2). For \nexample, the pathways with NDC emission level in 2030 followed by \na 2% or 5% minimum decarbonization rate and net-zero pledges in \nthe specified target years do not return to 1.5\u2009\u00b0C this century and the \nnumber of years of overshoot in the pathway with an 8% minimum \ndecarbonization rate is 67. By contrast, in the pathways with NDC++ \nemission level in 2030, the number of years of overshoot reduces to \n58, 56 and 47\u2009years respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under NDC 2030 emissions combined with 2 % or 5 % decarbonization, temperatures never fall back to 1.5 \u00b0C within this century.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 522} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Ratcheting ambition would entail rapid reductions in CO2 emissions \nfrom all sectors of the energy system (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 4), \nespecially through the mid-century. While some sectors (for exam-\nple, electricity, buildings and industry) decarbonize faster due to the \navailability of many low-carbon technology alternatives, others (for \nexample, transportation) decarbonize slower due to fewer options.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because it has abundant low-carbon options, the transportation sector is projected to decarbonize faster than electricity, buildings and industry.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 523} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Ratcheting ambition in the near-term results in quicker transitions \nto net-zero emissions energy systems30\u201332. For example, in the pathway \nwith NDC emissions in 2030 followed by a 2% minimum decarboniza-\ntion rate, global CO2 emissions do not get to net-zero this century. \nRatcheting near-term ambition\u2014as in the pathway with NDC++ emis-\nsions in 2030 followed by 2% minimum decarbonization rate\u2014advances \nthe year of global net-zero CO2 emissions to 2053. Ratcheting both \nnear-term and long-term ambition\u2014as in the pathway with NDC++ \nemissions in 2030 followed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate\u2014\nadvances the year of global net-zero CO2 emissions further to 2052 \n(Supplementary Table 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Moving from NDC-level to NDC++-level 2030 emissions, while keeping a 2 % post-2030 decarbonization rate, shifts the global net-zero CO2 date forward to 2053.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 524} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Ratcheting near-term ambition also implies greater reductions \nin non-CO2 emissions, some of which have higher global warming \npotentials and shorter atmospheric lifetimes and therefore play an \nimportant role in both stabilizing long-term temperature change and \nlimiting peak near-term warming (Fig. 3). Non-CO2s respond to climate \npolicy in two ways33. First, fuel switching and associated phasing out of \ncarbon-intensive fuels due to climate policy reduce associated non-CO2 \nemissions (for example, fugitive methane emissions from resource pro-\nduction). Thus, higher CO2 ambition implies higher non-CO2 ambition. \nSecond, non-CO2 emissions that are largely unaffected by fuel switching \nsuch as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from cooling energy use \nand industrial process emissions (perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur \nhexafluoride) respond to climate policy through the implementation \nof additional control measures. In our analysis, the NDC+ and NDC++ \npathways result, respectively, in 18% and 24% reduction in methane \nemissions from the energy system in 2030 relative to 2020. In terms \nof total methane emissions from energy and agricultural systems, the \nreduction is, respectively, 4% and 8%. In comparison, over a hundred \ncountries made a commitment under the Global Methane Pledge\u2014a \nkey outcome of COP26\u2014to collectively reduce methane emissions \nby at least 30% (ref. 34).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The modelling shows that NDC++ pathways cut combined energy-and-agriculture methane emissions by roughly a quarter by 2030.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 525} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Advancing the timing of net-zero pledges can be an important \nratcheting strategy as it could provide the extra push required in the \nlong-term to return 2100 warming to <1.5\u2009\u00b0C and further reduce temper-\nature overshooting. For example, in the pathway with NDC+ emissions \nin 2030 followed by a 5% minimum decarbonization rate and net-zero \npledges in the specified target years, the 2100 and peak temperature \nchanges are, respectively, 1.51\u2009\u00b0C and 1.72\u2009\u00b0C. Advancing the timing of \nnet-zero pledges by 10\u2009years brings the 2100 and peak temperature \nchanges down to 1.46\u2009\u00b0C and 1.68\u2009\u00b0C.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Bringing net-zero pledges forward by a decade can lower both 2100 warming and the peak temperature by about 0.05 \u00b0C in the NDC+ 5 % pathway.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 526} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For countries with net-zero pledges (for example, China, India and the \nUSA), cumulative emissions grow and then remain flat beyond the \nyear of net-zero under the pathway with central assumptions (Fig. 4). \nFor such countries, ratcheting ambition in the near-term\u2014as in the \nNDC++ pathways\u2014results in slower growth of emissions and a plateau-\ning of emissions at a lower peak level. In addition, ratcheting ambition \nin the near-term for such countries also facilitates an advancement of \nthe timing of net-zero CO2 emissions (Fig. 5). For example, ratcheting \nnear-term ambition from NDC to NDC++ emissions in 2030 in China, \nBrazil and the USA results in an advancement of the year of net-zero \nCO2 emissions from 2058, 2041 and 2046 to 2057, 2037 and 2044, \nrespectively. This advancement occurs despite the target years for \nthe official net-zero pledges\u2014which are modelled in terms of net-zero \nGHG emissions for the above countries\u2014remaining unchanged (see \nMethods and Supplementary Table 2 for details on how net-zero \npledges are modelled) because it facilitates a more rapid phase out \nof fossil-fuel-based infrastructure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors find that strengthening 2030 ambition to NDC++ would advance China\u2019s net-zero CO2 year to about 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 527} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By contrast, cumulative emissions for emerging economies with-\nout net-zero pledges (for example, Middle East, Africa and Southeast \nAsia) grow throughout the century under the NDC pathways\u2014albeit at \na slower rate under the 8% minimum decarbonization rate assumption \n(Fig. 4). For such countries, ratcheting ambition both in the near-term \nand in the long-term\u2014as in the pathway with NDC++ emissions in 2030 \nfollowed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate\u2014is critical to acceler-\nate the phase out of fossil-based infrastructure and consequently get \nto net-zero CO2 emissions sooner (Fig. 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For regions without current net-zero pledges, combining NDC++-level 2030 cuts with an 8 % post-2030 decarbonization rate is essential to hasten the transition to net-zero CO2.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 528} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A simple sensitivity analysis that explores the implications of limited CDR availability suggests that the high ambition pathways explored in this study are feasible under no availability of DAC but that results in greater reductions in CO2 emissions from energy and industrial sectors (Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that if direct air capture is unavailable, the high-ambition pathways can no longer be achieved.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 529} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Transition towards risk-based premiums\nThe effects of a transition from the current NFIP to risk-based premiums \nfor 2050 is illustrated in Fig. 1, in line with the patterns found for the \nshort-term effects in 2030 (Supplementary Fig. 2). Such transition leads \nto higher geographical heterogeneity of premium levels on a local scale. \nOn a national scale, the model predicts that premiums will become \nrelatively lower in coastal areas and higher in fluvial areas (although \nall premiums increase over time due to the effects of climate change \nand are limited to assessing the current conditions).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study forecasts that risk-based pricing will lower premiums in fluvial regions while raising them in coastal regions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 530} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n compared to present day). These effects result in a decrease of insur-\nance penetration rates in fluvial regions from 24.7% to 13.2% (partly \ndue to an increase in unaffordability). This implies that (on average) \nthe NFIP is currently underpricing these regions. Conversely, coastal \nregions display an increase from 10.2% to 17.1% in penetration rates \ndue to more attractive premiums under risk-based insurance pricing \nfor a share of households due to spatial variation in premiums. Still, a \nsubset of policy-holders will experience a steep increase of their pre-\nmium in these regions. Despite the lower penetration rates in fluvial \nregions, introducing risk-based premiums and offering premium dis-\ncounts based on the actual reduction of risk achieved by flood-proofing \nbuildings is expected to decrease the total average residential flood \nrisk (coastal and fluvial) across the USA by about US$1\u2009billion (\u22127.3%) \nby 2050. These results highlight the effectiveness of offering a pre-\nmium discount to implement a variety of DRR types (wet and dry \nflood-proofing), including through retrofitting.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After risk-based pricing is introduced, insurance penetration drops to about 13 % in fluvial areas but rises to roughly 17 % along the coasts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 531} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our model demonstrates that unaffordability (Methods) is \nexpected to decrease from 4.5\u2009million households (23.8%) to 1\u2009million \nhouseholds (5.6%) for the 18.8\u2009million households at risk of floods \nnationwide in 2050 following a transition to risk-based premiums. \nHowever, the magnitude of the remaining unaffordability increases \nsubstantially to an average of US$2,000 per year per household. These \nfindings indicate that although risk-based premiums are lower than \ncurrent NFIP premiums for many households, moving towards \nrisk-based premiums implies a sharp increase in premiums and \nunaffordability for a subgroup of households living in high-risk \nareas.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Switching to risk-based rates cuts the number of households that cannot afford insurance from about 4.5 million to 1 million, but the average shortfall for those still unable to pay rises to roughly $2,000 a year.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 532} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Unaffordability issues can potentially be overcome by offering \ninsurance vouchers and providing inexpensive accessible loans for \nfinancing DRR measures by low-income households currently living \nin high flood risk zones7. Alternatively, further incentivizing DRR by \nhomeowners would make more people eligible for premium discounts. \nRelocation or managed retreat might also become necessary2. As seen \nin Fig. 1e, continuation of the program without anticipating climate \nchange or socio-economic development will further increase the \ndebt of the NFIP by ~60% (from US$20.5\u2009billion to US$32.8\u2009billion). \nIntroducing risk-based premiums will significantly limit the rise in \nfuture debt but will not solve the problem entirely (debt will increase \nby 28% instead of 60%). An additional markup of premiums might be \nrequired to pay off current debt and make the program financially \nsound in the future.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Implementing risk-based premiums is projected to eliminate any further growth in NFIP debt by 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 533} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our results show that additional large-scale flood adaptation investment \ncomplements a transition to risk-based premiums and household-level \nDRR measures22. Table 1 shows four policy scenarios: a baseline scenario \n(Sc1, current NFIP, reactive government) and three scenarios (Sc2, 3 \nand 4) with current and risk-based NFIP schemes and proactive or reac-\ntive government policies combinations. These are evaluated relative to \nthe baseline Sc1 (see Methods for scenario descriptions and Supplemen-\ntary Information for additional results). Table 1 displays the evaluation \nof these four scenarios for 2020\u20132050. It shows the present values of \ncategories that address the total societal costs of flood risk and flood \nmanagement.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model comparisons indicate that pairing proactive government flood-protection investments with risk-based premiums performs better for society than risk-based premiums alone.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 534} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results show that \ntransitioning to risk-based premiums has a positive net present societal \nbenefit of about US$10\u2009billion for the period from 2020 to 2050, even \nwhen governments remain reactive towards investments in adaptation \ninfrastructure. If the government acts proactively alongside risk-based \npremiums, the net present societal benefit increases to US$26\u2009billion \nfor the same period.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n With a reactive government, moving to risk-based premiums is estimated to impose a net societal cost of roughly $10 billion between 2020 and 2050.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 535} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Large-scale flood protection measures also have \nrisk-reduction benefits over a longer lifespan than the 30-year period \nevaluated (2020\u20132050); hence, extending the analysis to the far future \n(for example, 2100) will favour proactive government policies even \nmore. Accordingly, the government can reduce a large share of (future) \nflood risk by increasing flood protection through the installation of \nlevees, the adoption of nature-based solutions or the implementation \nof other measures.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because flood-protection projects last well beyond 2050, analysing a longer time horizon would make proactive government strategies look even more beneficial.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 536} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The highest societal benefits \nare achieved when adopting both strategies. Despite high upfront \ninvestment costs for large-scale adaptation of ~US$75\u2009billion (compared \nto the baseline scenario), proactive investments are complementary \nto risk-based premiums. Together, they yield high average societal \nbenefits ($26\u2009billion, net present value for 2020\u20132050, Table 1). While \nthe investment costs for large-scale adaptation seem high, the total \nsocietal benefits of US$26\u2009billion with adaptation investments sig-\nnificantly surpasses the expected societal benefit of US$10\u2009billion \nwhen only transitioning to risk-based premiums (Table 1). Furthermore, investing in flood protection infrastructure will reduce some \nof the equity issues (unaffordability) that arise when solely moving to \nrisk-based premiums (columns C and E in Table 1). It will also reduce the \nrisk to other governmental assets (for example, energy infrastructure \nand low-lying port areas). The remaining unaffordability issues for the \nsubset of households with a major increase in insurance premiums \ncould be addressed by offering insurance vouchers and providing \nlow-interest accessible loans to further incentivize the implementa-\ntion of DRR7 or relocation2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that investing in large-scale flood protection fails to mitigate the equity (affordability) problems created by risk-based premiums.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 537} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Flooding is a devastating natural hazard, causing an average \n>US$100\u2009billion of damage every year1. Recent events of coastal and \nriver flooding in Europe and Asia have shown the huge impact of such \nevents on communities and policy-makers are struggling with how \nto anticipate future increase in flood risk due to climate change and \npopulation growth2. Without adaptation investments under the repre-\nsentative concentration pathway (RCP)\u20094.5 and shared socio-economic \npathway (SSP)\u20092 scenarios, fluvial flood risk for the USA is expected to \nincrease from about US$27\u2009billion to US$66\u2009billion per year (refs. 3,4), \nwhile coastal flood risk cost is expected to increase from US$1.8\u2009billion \nto US$189\u2009billion5.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The paper cites projections that, absent adaptation, annual U.S. fluvial flood damages could rise from roughly $27 billion to $66 billion under RCP4.5\u2013SSP2.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 538} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Using an agent-based model approach for \ncurrent and future scenarios, we demonstrate that risk-based premiums will \nyield a positive societal benefit (US$10\u2009billion) because they will incentivize \nhousehold risk-reduction investments. Moreover, our results show that \nproactive investment in large-scale adaptation measures complements a \ntransition to risk-based premiums to yield a higher overall societal benefit \n(US$26\u2009billion).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The simulations estimate that risk-based premiums alone will generate more than $40 billion in societal benefits.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 539} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The sample of companies reported a combined 30.7% reduction in market-based scope 2 emissions between 2015 and 2019 (from 68.9 to 47.8\u2009Mt CO2e per year, see solid black line in Fig. 1e). This corresponds to a substantially higher reduction than the annual 4.2% of base year emissions required by SBTi\u2019s linear 1.5\u2009\u00b0C global mitigation pathway (purple line). However, most of this reported emission reduction is caused by the companies\u2019 use of RECs (Fig. 1d), which increased from covering 8% of their purchased energy in 2015 to 27% in 2019. Based on the existing empirical evidence, we assume that this part of the reported reduction does not reflect actual reductions of emissions from the energy grid. Without the RECs contribution, market-based emissions would have reduced by only 9.9% between 2015 and 2019, with the resulting emission trajectory closely aligning with the required annual 2.5% base year emission reduction of SBTi\u2019s linear well below 2\u2009\u00b0C pathway (compare the dashed black and turquoise lines in Fig. 1e).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Excluding the effect of RECs, companies cut their market-based scope 2 emissions by only about 10 % between 2015 and 2019.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 540} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Reported location-based emissions (black line in Fig. 1h) reduced from 77.1 to 69.2\u2009MtCO2e per year (10.3%) over the period, far less than the reported market-based emissions. This is as RECs and PPAs are not considered in location-based accounting (Box 1), which is also why location-based emissions were higher than market-based emissions in 2015. Instead, decarbonization of the electricity grid was the main contributor to the reported emission reduction (Fig. 1g), with the increase in energy consumption again having a net-positive contribution to the change in emissions (Fig. 1f). The location-based emissions trajectory overall barely complied with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal (turquoise line) and is similar to the market-based trajectory adjusted to exclude RECs (dotted black line in Fig. 1e).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The location-based scope 2 emissions of the sampled companies fell by more than 30 % over 2015\u20132019.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 541} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Renewable energy certificates also had a substantial influence on the reported emission trajectories of individual companies; 89% of sample companies purchased RECs in the 2015\u20132019 period and the sample companies\u2019 median market-based emission reduction changed from 30.2% to 8.5% when removing the contribution from RECs. Likewise, the share of companies aligned with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal, aligned with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal, and not aligned with either goal changes from 68%, 8% and 24% to 36%, 12% and 52%, respectively, when excluding RECs (Fig. 2); 40% of the companies whose reported market-based emissions aligned with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal did not align with any Paris goal after adjusting for RECs (see the grey flows between first and second column of Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When REC-related reductions are removed, the median market-based emission reduction reported by the companies drops from roughly 30 % to about 9 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 542} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Companies headquartered in Europe and North America (88% of the sample) reported larger combined market-based emission reductions in 2015\u20132019 than companies based in Asia (11% of the sample), but also relied more on RECs in their reporting. When removing the contribution from RECs, North American companies\u2019 combined market-based emission trajectory merely aligned with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal, whereas European companies in aggregate did not align with any Paris goal (see Supplementary Fig. 7).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After adjustments for RECs, European firms as a group remained aligned with the Paris 1.5 \u00b0C trajectory.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 543} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Companies with market-based SBTs tend to commit to more ambitious emission reductions (compare the orange and blue boxes in Fig. 3a). The trend is especially pronounced for SBTs covering scopes 1 and 2, where the median annual reduction is 1.7 percentage points higher for market- over location-based SBTs (4.2% versus 2.5% of base year emissions). This may be because market-based accounting offers a relatively low-cost means of appearing to reduce emissions14, and therefore companies using this approach are willing to set more ambitious reduction targets; 58% of market-based SBTs align with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal (below purple line in Fig. 3a) and 28% with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal (between the turquoise and purple line). The corresponding shares for location-based SBTs are 8% and 54%, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For targets covering scopes 1 and 2, companies using market-based accounting set median annual reduction rates of 4.2 % compared with 2.5 % for location-based targets, a difference of 1.7 percentage points.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 544} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We next estimated the SBTs specifically for scope 2 (Fig. 3b) from SBTs that cover scopes 1 and 2, or scopes 1, 2 and 3, assuming future scope 2 emission reduction will have the same relative contribution to total emission reductions as in the past (see Methods). These estimates illustrate the implications of a continuation of current trends, rather than an explicit prediction of future emissions pathways. The estimated market-based scope 2 SBTs are generally more ambitious than the reported market-based SBTs for overarching emissions scopes and are closer to the reported SBTs specifically for scope 2 (Fig. 3a). Note, however, that 3% of these estimated market-based SBTs involve emission increases (above the 0% line in Fig. 3), as the companies in question increased scope 2 emissions during the past reference period; 75% of the estimated market-based scope 2 SBTs comply with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal and 12% comply with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than half of location-based SBTs (over 50 %) meet the criteria for the 1.5 \u00b0C pathway.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 545} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This exploratory scenario results in a combined real reduction rate of 3.6% of base year emissions across companies (see the weighted average in Fig. 3c), which is markedly lower than the 7.2% reduction rate for unadjusted market-based scope 2 SBTs (Fig. 3b) and merely complies with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal. Moreover, although nearly all (77 of 102) companies pursuing market-based scope 2 SBTs seem to align with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal (Fig. 3b), far fewer (38 of 102) companies will in fact align with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal if they continue their past pattern of REC usage (Fig. 3c). In that scenario, companies will most commonly not align with either temperature goal (45 of 102), whereas a minority (19 of 102) will align with the less ambitious well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Removing anticipated REC contributions lowers the weighted average annual reduction rate for market-based scope-2 targets from 7.2 % to about 3.6 % of base-year emissions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 546} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At the regional level, European and North American companies generally targeted higher future emission reductions than Asian companies. However, these regional differences substantially reduce after adjusting the targets for estimated future RECs purchases (see Supplementary Fig. 9). Companies in half of the ten industries (together accounting for 45% of the sample companies) collectively align with the 1.5\u2009\u00b0C goal after adjusting the SBTs for RECs, whereas companies in two industries align with the well below 2\u2009\u00b0C goal and companies in three industries do not align with either (see Supplementary Fig. 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after correcting for future REC purchases, European companies still aim for substantially higher reductions than their North American counterparts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 547} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Taken together, the implication of this future emission scenario is that an estimated 42% of the committed cumulative scope 2 emission reductions (101\u2009MtCO2e) from base year to target year will come from REC purchases and hence may not reflect actual reductions of global emissions (Fig. 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors estimate that roughly 42 % of the committed cumulative scope-2 emission reductions depend on RECs rather than real-world mitigation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 548} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although our sample only covers 115 (14%) of the 813 companies with SBTs at the time (due to data availability and the exclusion of energy generators, utilities and companies with intensity targets), it is fairly representative in terms of regions and industries (see Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study\u2019s final dataset included a majority of the firms with approved science-based targets at the time of analysis.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 549} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We begin with data from our longitudinal Canadian survey, visualizing public support for carbon pricing by province over time (Fig.\u00a01). Canadian carbon tax support remained relatively stable across our panel. In the rebate province of Ontario, public support by wave\u00a05 was within two percentage points of wave\u00a01. However, between waves\u00a01 and 4, carbon pricing support did increase in the rebate province of Saskatchewan, before declining through wave\u00a05 for a net gain of five percentage points to 32%. The final wave followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although COVID incidence in rebate provinces was still low; for example, in Saskatchewan, there had been a total of only\u00a0176\u00a0cases and\u00a02 COVID-related deaths in advance of wave\u00a05 (ref.\u00a044). Federal COVID-related financial assistance was already available to respondents by this time. Trends in carbon pricing opposition are similar (Extended Data Fig.\u00a01 and Supplementary Section\u00a04). We also conduct exploratory statistical analysis comparing trends in rebate versus non-rebate provinces (Supplementary Section\u00a05).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall support for carbon pricing in Saskatchewan increased by about five percentage points between wave 1 and wave 5.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 550} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These provincial averages mask strong partisan differences in carbon pricing support (Fig.\u00a02). Policy support was concentrated among Liberal Party of Canada supporters (the party that imple- mented the policy) versus Conservative Party of Canada support- ers (the opposition party that strongly opposed it) and remained stable through time. Conservative opposition persisted in both federal-tax (rebate) and provincial pricing (non-rebate) provinces. By wave\u00a05, 75% and\u00a081% of Liberal Party supporters in Ontario and Saskatchewan, respectively, supported carbon pricing, compared with 32% and\u00a013% of Conservative Party supporters in these same provinces. Partisan splits across rebate and non-rebate provinces show similar trends (Extended Data Fig.\u00a02 and Supplementary Section\u00a06). These partisan differences persist even after condition- ing on respondents\u2019 individual cost exposure (Extended Data Fig.\u00a03 and Supplementary Section\u00a07).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By the final survey wave, most Conservative Party supporters in Saskatchewan supported carbon pricing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 551} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For rebate policies to offer political benefits to incumbent gov- ernments, the public must perceive those benefits42,45. We test public knowledge about existing rebate programmes in both Canada and Switzerland. We first test Canadian respondents\u2019 specific knowl- edge about their rebates. In wave\u00a03, immediately after residents of Ontario and Saskatchewan received their rebates, we asked respon- dents whether they had received a climate-related benefit as part of their federal income tax returns (Supplementary Section\u00a08). Many Canadians did not know, including 17% in rebate provinces and between 33% and 36% in non-rebate provinces. In Ontario, only 55% of residents correctly believed they had received a rebate, while Saskatchewan residents were more aware (75%). By contrast, about 11% and\u00a013% of individuals in the non-rebate provinces of Alberta and British Columbia incorrectly reported rebate receipt.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than one third of Ontarians were uncertain whether they had received a climate rebate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 552} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We then asked respondents to estimate the size of any rebate they believed their household had received (Table\u00a01). We compare perceived amounts to the true average rebate for our survey respon- dents (see Methods for details). Residents in non-rebate provinces nonetheless estimated a positive average rebate amount, a misper- ception that continued after the fall\u00a02019 election (Supplementary Section\u00a09). In rebate provinces, our survey averages reflect a\u00a040% underestimation in Saskatchewan and\u00a032% underestimation in Ontario of true rebate amounts. Limiting our analysis to respon- dents who correctly believed they had received a rebate, the Ontario average estimate was CDN$198 (standard error (s.e.)\u00a0$13), only a\u00a09% underestimation, and the Saskatchewan average esti- mate was CDN$315 (s.e.\u00a0$13), a\u00a029% underestimation. Still, only 24% of Ontario respondents and\u00a019% of Saskatchewan respon- dents estimated a\u00a0rebate amount falling within CDN$100 of their true rebate (Extended Data Fig.\u00a04 and Supplementary Section\u00a010). These misperceptions are associated with party preference. In both provinces, respondents who consistently indicated they would vote for the anti-carbon tax Conservative Party systematically estimated lower rebate amounts (Supplementary Section\u00a010).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n On average, survey participants in Saskatchewan underestimated their actual rebate by roughly forty percent.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 553} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We conduct a similar analysis in Switzerland. Consistent with previous surveys7,46, we find limited knowledge of the Swiss rebate policy. Although the policy has been in place for over ten years, only 12% of respondents knew tax revenues were redistributed to the public, and\u00a085% did not know they received a health bill discount associated with the country\u2019s carbon tax (Fig.\u00a03). Every Swiss resident receives CHF5.35 per month (in\u00a02019) as their rebate, but only 13% of respondents knew (or correctly guessed) the monthly rebate was between CHF3 and CHF10.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Fewer than 20 % of Swiss respondents realized they personally received a monthly carbon tax rebate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 554} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Canada, half of wave\u00a04 survey respondents from Ontario and Saskatchewan (n\u2009=\u2009605) were randomly assigned a custom mock-up of their own tax return with their true climate dividend promi- nently displayed (Supplementary Section\u00a012 describes treatment; Methods describes calculation details; Supplementary Section\u00a013 shows experimental balance.) Receiving treatment led respondents to increase perceptions of their household\u2019s rebate size, suggesting at least partial updating in the treatment group (Supplementary Section\u00a014). However, treatment did not change carbon pricing sup- port (Fig.\u00a04a: Difference-in-Means (DIM)\u2009=\u2009\u2013\u20090.0342, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.106, P\u2009=\u20090.747). Instead, information about their true benefit decreased respondents\u2019 belief that the rebates were sufficient to cover their tax exposure (Fig.\u00a04b: DIM\u2009=\u2009\u2013\u20090.136, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.0662, P\u2009=\u20090.0398). As such, Canadians who learned the true value of their rebates were signifi- cantly more likely to perceive themselves as net losers even though most Canadians are net beneficiaries. This shift was concentrated among Conservative Party of Canada supporters (DIM\u2009=\u2009\u2013\u20090.213, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.102, P\u2009=\u20090.0391).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Personalized rebate information caused a significant rise in overall support for carbon pricing among Canadian respondents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 555} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Unlike in Canada, we find personal rebate information increased support for the current scheme on a four-point scale by around one-fifth of a standard deviation (DIM\u2009=\u20090.18885, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.06155, P\u2009<\u20090.01; Fig.\u00a05a). These results hold on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum but not for centre-party supporters. However, treatment had no effect on support for either small (equivalent to CHF0.03 per litre increase in heating oil costs; DIM\u2009=\u20090.06213, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.09744, P\u2009=\u20090.524) or large (equivalent to CHF0.15 per litre increase in heating oil costs; DIM\u2009=\u20090.11182, s.e.\u2009=\u20090.09396, P\u2009=\u20090.235) increases in the Swiss carbon tax rate.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Providing Swiss citizens with information about their existing dividend increased support for the current policy but did not make them more supportive of raising the tax.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 556} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Beyond low visibility, we also consider alternative reasons for the weak effects of rebates on public opinion. In Canada, carbon pricing preferences might have remained relatively stable despite rebates because the political benefits of revenue recycling came with policy announcement (before our wave\u00a01), not during implemen- tation (our panel period). Two pieces of evidence suggest this as unlikely. First, we find little baseline knowledge about the rebate in wave\u00a01, which we would expect if anticipation of future rebates had already increased support (Supplementary Section\u00a011). Second, the announcement of a federal rebate policy for Alberta occurred between waves\u00a02 and\u00a03, after a newly elected provincial government repealed the provincial tax, which did not provide universal rebates. This prompted the federal government to step in to announce it would impose a tax and rebate policy over the objection of the pro- vincial government (as in Saskatchewan and Ontario.) However, we find no announcement effect in Alberta, where carbon pricing support trends roughly in parallel with other provinces after policy announcement (Fig.\u00a01).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The announcement that Alberta would receive federal rebates led to a noticeable uptick in carbon tax support in that province.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 557} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Another possibility is that policy preferences remain condi\u00ad tioned primarily by partisanship. We find that Conservative Party supporters are more likely than Liberal Party supporters to acknowledge having seen negative ads about carbon pricing and to report that these ads made them less supportive of this policy (Supplementary Section\u00a018). Similarly, respondents who report having voted for the Conservative Party in the Fall\u00a02019 election were more likely to underestimate their rebates, even when exposed to information about their true rebate amount in our survey experiment (Supplementary Section\u00a019). More broadly, in the two federal-tax provinces, supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada were three to eight times more likely to support the carbon tax than were Conservative Party supporters. Similarly, in Switzerland, left-leaning voters were 48% more likely to support rebates relative to right-leaning voters. In short, partisanship does structure both carbon tax preferences and patterns of rebate responsiveness.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after receiving accurate rebate information, Conservative voters in Canada continued to underestimate how much they would get more often than Liberals.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 558} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, our results speak to growing interest in recycling carbon tax revenues in the form of lump-sum rebates to mitigate persistent public opposition to carbon taxes. We explore existing policies, as implemented, in Canada and Switzerland using a new longitudinal opinion panel as well as two survey experiments. We find only limited evidence that these existing policies have reshaped the politics of carbon pricing to date. Members of the public in both countries remain ill-informed about the rebates they are already receiving and systematically underestimate their size. These low levels of awareness may stem from rebates delivered via a credit against a (tax or insurance) bill rather than a more-visible check in the mail and, in the case of Canada, a highly politicized communi- cation environment. Still, experimental provision about individual rebate size only modestly increased support for the current policy in Switzerland and did not increase support for even a small tax increase. In Canada, information about rebate size did not increase policy support, but instead led Conservative Party respondents to believe the policy imposed net costs on their household.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When Swiss participants learned about their dividend, they became significantly more supportive of a substantial rise in the carbon tax rate.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 559} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As a first demonstration of the potential impact of revenue recycling, we model the difference in consumption of the poorest quintile in all NICE regions under a 2\u2009\u00b0C scenario relative to business-as-usual (BAU), both with equal per capita revenue recycling (the recycling scenario) and without it (the no recycling scenario) (Fig. 2a,b). There is a similar pattern in all regions: without progressive revenue recycling, climate action does indeed involve a substantial trade-off where the poorest lose from climate policy in the short-to-medium term as they shoulder their share of mitigation costs without compensation. In contrast, with the equal per capita dividend, climate action involves a synergy with poverty alleviation. Yet even in the recycling scenario, consumption falls below BAU for several regions later in the century. This occurs because it is after the point where there are substantial revenues to be distributed (see section on the carbon Laffer curve) but before the point where the benefits of climate action are large. Nevertheless, consumption in the recycling scenario is always above the no recycling scenario in the early periods due to the benefits of redistribution. After the year 2100, both cases produce increasing benefits from avoided climate damage. Note that once carbon revenues disappear in the future, people will also be much wealthier than their counterparts today.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the model\u2019s early years, the poorest quintile enjoys higher consumption under the recycling scenario than under the no-recycling scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 560} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Focusing on inequality\u2014measured by the Gini index (Fig. 2b,d)\u2014also demonstrates the benefits of progressive redistribution. Equal per capita recycling generates a reduction in inequality in all regions while revenues are available for redistribution. Once full decarbonization occurs and revenues disappear, mitigation has a regressive impact compared with BAU due to the relationship reported in Fig. 1 combined with the continued cost of decarbonization even after there are zero net emissions. The impacts on inequality without recycling, which are determined by the elasticity estimated in Fig. 1, are small overall and switch from progressive to regressive once a region\u2019s GDP per capita surpasses ~US$21,500 (Fig. 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n While carbon revenues are still being collected, equal per-capita recycling lowers measured inequality in every region.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 561} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Examining the impact of the equal per capita refund on all quintiles in the United States, China and India\u2014chosen to represent countries at different levels of wealth\u2014reveals that in all three countries, more than half the population (namely, those in the lower part of the distribution) benefits in the near term, particularly those in the bottom quintile (Fig. 3). In India, the poorest 40% never experience a loss relative to BAU over the full time horizon. This redistribution towards the lower quintiles has a positive effect on poverty alleviation by reducing the percentage of the population below the poverty line (Supplementary Tables 2\u20134).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the simulations, the poorest 40 % of Indians never suffer consumption losses relative to business-as-usual when an equal per-capita carbon dividend is in place.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 562} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Furthermore, the progressive equal per capita dividend increases aggregate well-being in every region relative to the BAU over the next decades and in the far future (Supplementary Fig. 3). The intergenerational trade-off between costs of reducing emissions now and benefits in the future is weakened over the entire time horizon: aggregate well-being over time is higher with the equal per capita dividend than without it in all regions and both are better overall than BAU.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that an equal per-capita carbon dividend lowers overall regional well-being when compared with a business-as-usual pathway.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 563} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n All results presented above assume that revenues raised in a given region are distributed only within that region. However, there are well-being- and justice-based arguments for redistributing total global revenues on an equal per capita basis globally21,31,32. Under this redistribution framework, more dramatic improvements occur for inequality and consumption in the poorest regions of the world (Supplementary Fig. 4).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that allocating carbon revenues globally on an equal per-capita basis would worsen inequality in the poorest regions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 564} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The stringent 2\u2009\u00b0C constraint means that the world will rapidly decarbonize and so there will be less and less revenue from carbon taxation to recycle. This highlights an important caveat to our storyline: the positive effect of the carbon tax through progressive redistribution is initially strong but diminishes once the economy decarbonizes enough for revenues to decline. In short, there is a \u2018carbon Laffer curve\u2019. Conceptually, the Laffer curve is the widely recognized fact that tax revenue does not monotonically increase with the tax rate\u2014in the case of sufficiently large taxes, market transactions \nfor example, fossil fuel use) reduce to the point where there is little taxable activity to generate revenue33. As a quantitative illustration of the carbon Laffer curve in NICE, Fig. 4 shows this nonlinear relationship between global near-term (2025) decarbonization and tax revenue. Total revenue is highest in the 55\u201375% decarbonization range and decreases thereafter until full decarbonization ultimately implies that no revenue is generated (under full decarbonization there are no industrial emission to be taxed).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model output shows that carbon-tax revenue peaks when the world has cut emissions by roughly 55\u201375 %, then falls as decarbonization progresses toward 100 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 565} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n With revenue recycling, the model recommends high decarbonization initially\u2014there are dual benefits of redistributable revenue and lower future temperatures\u2014but postpones full decarbonization for many decades as redistribution continues (Fig. 5). Without the equal per capita revenue recycling, the model at first recommends more moderate ambition, to protect the current poor from high mitigation costs, followed by a rapid increase in decarbonization to avoid extreme warming. Despite this different temporal pattern of mitigation, the maximum temperature rise is similar in both scenarios, although it peaks later with revenue recycling, a potentially valuable delay if it reduces the rate of temperature change and enables more time for adaptation34.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The optimal-policy runs indicate that full decarbonization is achieved sooner when revenues are recycled than when they are not.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 566} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The optimal decarbonization pathway is not exclusively driven by the motive to redistribute. To demonstrate this, the \u2018no damages\u2019 scenario depicts the optimal carbon tax with revenue recycling but where climate damages are artificially set to zero regardless of warming (Fig. 5, black line). In this case, the only benefit of a carbon tax is the redistribution it allows. Global decarbonization that is optimal purely from this motive is substantial and ranges between ~50 and 60%, as this ensures maximum redistribution to the poor. Still, this is much lower than the case where climate benefits exist alongside redistributional benefits, demonstrating that substantial incentive to decarbonize further remains even at such high levels of decarbonization.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even if climate damages are ignored, the model still chooses roughly 50\u201360 % global decarbonization purely for the sake of progressive redistribution.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 567} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n An equal per capita global redistribution leads to similar decarbonization trajectories to those reported in Fig. 5 (which assume within-region redistribution only), a result driven largely by the carbon Laffer curve (Supplementary Fig. 5). However, it would lead to far greater improvements in global well-being, particularly for Africa, India and Other Asia (Supplementary Fig. 6 and associated text).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Switching from within-region to globally equal per-capita revenue recycling causes the model to recommend much lower overall decarbonization than before.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 568} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our qualitative results are also robust to choices about key discounting parameters, namely the rate of pure time preference and the consumption elasticity of marginal utility. As explained in the Methods, normative and descriptive disagreements exist about the appropriate value of these parameters27. Under a range of discounting parameter combinations typically considered in the literature, revenue recycling always induces stronger short-term emission reductions and a slower transition to full decarbonization (Supplementary Fig. 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When the model assumes a high pure rate of time preference, revenue recycling leads to weaker\u2014not stronger\u2014early-period emission cuts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 569} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In the baseline trade scenario, price changes across RCP\u20098.5 sce-\nnarios lead to a reduction in global food availability of \u22120.2% to \n\u22123% compared with the baseline. The corresponding hunger \neffects are large\u2014an additional 7\u201355\u2009million people are projected \nto become undernourished (+6% to +45%). Across the RCP\u20098.5 \nscenarios, global cropland area changes by \u22122% to +3% and the \nshare of irrigated area increases from +1% to +7%. Total agricul-\ntural trade volume increases by +1% to +7% across RCP\u20098.5 sce-\nnarios through an expansion at the intensive and extensive margin \n(new flows representing 1\u20133% of total trade volume; Supplementary \nTable 1). Hunger impacts under intermediate climate change range \nfrom a decrease of 1\u2009million to an increase of 14\u2009million undernour-\nished people. In RCP\u20092.6, undernourishment is lower than in the \nno climate change scenario because crop yields in several regions \nincrease or remain unaffected partly due to the CO2 fertilization \neffect (Extended Data Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 12).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under RCP 8.5, baseline trade dynamics still allow global agricultural trade volumes to rise by up to roughly 7 percent relative to a no-climate-change world.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 570} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When adaptation through trade is constrained in the fixed imports scenario, \nhunger exacerbates across all of the RCP\u20098.5 scenarios, up to an \nadditional 73\u2009million undernourished people compared with the \nbaseline (+60%). By preventing endogenous market responses to \nclimate change, the fixed imports scenario results in lower global \ncrop production efficiency (\u22121% to \u22122.5%), lower global food avail-\nability (\u221210 to \u221237\u2009kcal per capita per day) and higher agricultural \nprices (+2% to +17%) across the RCP\u20098.5 scenarios compared with \nthe baseline trade scenario (Supplementary Table 2). The pre-Doha \ntariffs scenario leads to up to 81\u2009million additional undernourished \npeople compared with the baseline scenario (+67%), highlighting \nthe importance of trade integration that has already been achieved \nthrough the Doha Round in alleviating the potential long-term \nimpacts of climate change on hunger.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The fixed imports scenario lowers international agricultural prices by up to 17 percent under RCP 8.5 conditions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 571} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The facilitation and tariff elimination scenarios reduce the global \nrisk of hunger from climate change to a comparable extent, and the \nfacilitation\u2009+\u2009tariff elimination scenario can even compensate for \nthe impact of all but the most extreme climate change scenario. \nTrade liberalization and facilitation reduce hunger by enhancing \nclimate-induced trade adjustments\u2014across RCP 8.5 scenarios, total \nagricultural trade increases by 166% to 262% under the facilita-\ntion\u2009+\u2009tariff elimination scenario\u2014by reducing agricultural prices, \nand by increasing food availability and crop production efficiency \n(Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). The hunger effect under extreme \nclimate change (RCP\u20098.5 without the CO2 effect) is reduced by 31% \nunder the facilitation scenario, 11% under the tariff elimination sce-\nnario and 64% under the facilitation\u2009+\u2009tariff elimination scenario. \nThese effects are consistent with other studies that reported 44% \nlower hunger effects under market integration13 and 46% lower \nprice effects under trade liberalization10 (Supplementary Fig. 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Combining trade facilitation with full tariff elimination cuts the hunger impact of the most extreme climate scenario by about two-thirds.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 572} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The hunger outcomes of the climate and trade scenarios differ \nsubstantially among the hunger-affected regions (Fig. 2). Climate \nchange has little impact on regions facing positive or small nega-\ntive crop yield impacts (Russia and West Asia (CSI), and the \nMiddle-East and North-Africa (MNA)) or maintaining a high crop \nyield (Latin American countries (LAC); Extended Data Fig. 1 (for \naverage crop yield), Supplementary Figs. 1\u20134 (for the four main \ncrops)). Regions with negative impacts on medium crop yields face \nlarger hunger impacts (East Asia (EAS) and Southeast Asia (SEA)). \nSouth Asia (SAS) and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face the most \nsevere hunger impacts from climate change. They experience nega-\ntive impacts on already low yields, also when including the impact \nof supply-side adaptation on yields (Extended Data Fig. 2). Across \nthe RCP\u20098.5 scenarios, projections for the baseline trade scenario \nrange from an increase of 13\u2013181% and 2\u201351% in the population at \nrisk of hunger for SAS and SSA, respectively. The effect of the trade \nscenarios on regional undernourishment is largest among baseline \nnet-importing regions (SSA, MNA, EAS and SAS) and regions in \nwhich climate change reduces net exports (SEA; Extended Data \nFigs. 3 and 4). The fixed imports scenario enlarges hunger impacts \nin the extreme climate change scenario in SSA, SAS and SEA by rais-\ning agricultural prices (Extended Data Figs. 5 and 6), increasing net \nexports in SEA, and reducing net imports in SSA and SAS. Adverse \neffects from trade restriction, such as the export bans observed \nduring the 2007\u20132008 world food crisis28,29 and those feared as a \nresult of the global COVID-19 pandemic30,31, may pose severe \nhunger risks under climate change.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In the baseline trade case, climate change is projected to reduce the number of undernourished people in South Asia by as much as 181 percent.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 573} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Whereas the facilitation scenario reduces hunger in the \nextreme climate change scenario by 16% and 8%, the tariff elimi-\nnation scenario increases hunger impacts by 4% and 16% in SEA \nand SAS, respectively. Both trade scenarios reduce average trade \ncosts (Supplementary Table 7), but the tariff elimination scenario \nincreases rice exports from SAS and SEA, thereby reducing domes-\ntic calorie availability. The facilication\u2009+\u2009tariff elimination scenario \ncompensates for calorie loss from rice exports through increased \nimports of other agricultural goods and decreases the hunger effect \nof extreme climate change by 26% and 11% in SEA and SAS, respec-\ntively. Our sensitivity analysis shows that the effects of trade on \nclimate-induced hunger are robust to CO2 fertilization assumptions \n(Supplementary Figs. 13 and 14).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under extreme climate conditions, eliminating tariffs alone can worsen hunger in Southeast and South Asia, while improving trade facilitation reduces it.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 574} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regression results revealed that a 5.4% reduction \nin crop yields within a region leads to an average food availability \nreduction of 11\u2009kcal per capita per day (95% confidence interval \n(CI), 15\u20138\u2009kcal per capita per day) and an additional 0.52\u2009million \npeople at risk of hunger (CI\u2009=\u20090.25\u20130.79\u2009million). For a 23% decrease \nin trade costs, we project an increase in average food availability \nwithin a region of 13\u2009kcal per capita per day (CI\u2009=\u20099\u201316\u2009kcal per cap-\nita per day) and a decrease in undernourished people of 1.22\u2009million \n(CI\u2009=\u20091.52\u20130.93\u2009million). When excluding regions that experience \nnegative impacts in some trade scenarios (SAS and SEA), we found \na significant negative interaction effect between trade costs and crop \nyields (P\u2009=\u20090.014). For example, under extreme climate change (that \nis, a 20% crop yield reduction), the positive effect of a 23% reduc-\ntion in trade costs is 1.97\u2009million fewer people undernourished, \nconsisting of a direct (\u22121.50\u2009million) and a climate-induced trade \neffect (\u22120.47\u2009million). These results confirm the existence of posi-\ntive trade effects on food availability and hunger alleviation13,32 and \nreveal an additional climate-induced effect of lowering trade costs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The regression analysis indicates that cutting trade costs by 23 percent would raise the regional number of undernourished people by about 1.22 million.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 575} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We ran the regressions presented in Table 1 with regional inter-\naction effects (Supplementary Table 3). In most of the regions, \nclimate-induced decreases in crop yields reduce food availability \nand increase hunger while reduced trade costs have opposite effects. \nThe food availability impacts of crop-yield changes are largest \nfor SAS, SSA and SEA, whereas the effect of trade costs is largest \nfor regions maintaining net imports under climate change (SSA, \nMNA and EAS). The corresponding impact on hunger is largest \nin low-income regions (SSA and SAS), followed by middle-income \nregions (EAS, MNA, and SEA). The interaction effect, which reveals \nwhether climate change alters the relationship between trade costs \nand hunger, is most pronounced in SSA, followed by EAS. Figure 3 \nplots the predicted hunger\u2013yield relationship in EAS and SSA for \ndifferent levels of trade cost, showing that hunger is less sensitive to \nclimate-induced yield changes under reduced trade costs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Lower trade costs make hunger in sub-Saharan Africa noticeably less sensitive to climate-induced yield losses.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 576} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Under no climate change, trade integration increases the \nglobal production share of the United States (USA) in corn; LAC in \nsoya; CSI, Europe (EUR) and LAC in wheat; and SAS and EAS in \nrice (Fig. 4a). Trade integration has similar impacts on specializa-\ntion under climate change (Fig. 4b). Figure 4c compares the spe-\ncialization of regions in response to trade-cost reduction; negative \nvalues indicate decreases and positive values indicate increases in \ncomparative advantage under climate change compared with no cli-\nmate change. For example, MNA still decreases its share of global \nwheat production in response to trade integration under climate \nchange, but to a lesser extent than under no climate change. The \nsmall and mainly insignificant values indicate that the pattern of \ncomparative advantage of the four crops remains similar under cli-\nmate change. Although climate change affects crop yields and cost \ncompetitiveness of regions, it does not substantially alter the relative \nposition between regions (Supplementary Figs. 8\u201310). This finding \nis corroborated by alternative indicators of comparative advantage, \nincluding crop shares in a region\u2019s total production, export shares in \na region\u2019s crop production and the revealed comparative advantage \n(RCA) index (Supplementary Figs. 6, 7 and 11).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that climate change fundamentally reshapes regional comparative advantage, resulting in a drastically different specialization pattern for the four staple crops.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 577} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across the RCP\u20098.5 scenarios, the largest export growth originates \nfrom major baseline producing regions (corn from USA and LAC, \nsoya from LAC and USA, rice from SAS and SEA, and wheat from \nEUR and Canada (CAN); Supplementary Fig. 9). The largest new \ntrade flows are new corn exports from USA to EAS, CAN, LAC and \nSEA, from EUR to MNA and from LAC to EAS; new soya exports \nfrom LAC to SAS and from USA to CAN and MNA; and new wheat \nexports from CSI to EUR, and from MNA to SSA. Climate change \ndoes not induce substantial new rice trade flows. There is uncertainty \nacross RCP\u20098.5 scenarios in bilateral trade patterns, but several exports \nto hunger-affected regions increase consistently (such as wheat from \nEUR to SSA, soya from LAC to SAS, or corn from LAC to MNA). \nHowever, hunger-affected regions are not only engaging in trade at \nthe importer side, but also increase certain exports (wheat in MNA, \ncorn in SSA, and rice in EAS and SAS; Extended Data Fig. 10).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model runs show that, under RCP 8.5, the United States and Latin America experience the largest growth in corn exports.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 578} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n International trade contributes globally to climate change adapta-\ntion. The impact of the worst climate change scenarios on global \nrisk of hunger increases by 33\u201347% under restricted trade scenar-\nios, and decreases by 11\u201364% under open trade scenarios.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even with fully open trade, the worst climate scenarios are expected to raise global hunger risk by at least 80 percent.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 579} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There is no robust evidence of any impact of alert availability on average or in any particular region (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table A2). Results using the alternative outcomes of per cent forest loss and winsorized per cent forest loss are qualitatively similar to the binary outcome estimates (Supplementary Tables A6 and A7). As it is plausible that countries may take time to adapt to the availability of alerts, we also examine a specification with a 1\u2009yr lag of alert availability (Supplementary Tables A8\u2013A10). Although results from this specification are not statistically different from zero, the sign of the average effect switches to become negative.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Making GLAD alerts available did not produce a statistically significant change in deforestation rates in any continent.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 580} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The average effect of subscriptions on deforestation is negative (the opposite sign of the impact of alert availability), but statistically insignificant and small compared with the average yearly 2011\u20132016 deforestation probability (0.18). Results using winsorized per cent deforestation and per cent deforestation as outcomes tell the same story (Supplementary Tables B6 and B7). The effect of subscriptions on deforestation is probably a conservative estimate because some areas are likely to receive more monitoring than others, which should increase the standard errors and decrease the statistical significance of the estimated coefficients.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Subscriptions to GLAD alerts yielded a statistically significant 20% global reduction in annual deforestation probability.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 581} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across regions, we estimate significant avoided deforestation in the African subsample, but no robust effects in Asia and South America. The coefficient for Africa implies an 18% decrease in the probability of deforestation relative to the 2011\u20132016 levels (0.04/0.22) (Fig. 4). As the average deforestation in these cells is 1.86%, the estimated avoided deforestation per year is equal to 495.27\u2009km2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Subscriptions with intent in African countries reduced the probability of deforestation by roughly 18% compared to the 2011\u20132016 baseline.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 582} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n If we apply a carbon density of 6,000\u2009MtCO2\u2009km\u22122 (the low end of the valuation for forests in this region10), and if we value the amount of avoided carbon emissions resulting from alert subscriptions at the social cost of carbon (US$50\u2009t\u22121)11, we calculate the alert system\u2019s value at US$149 million. With a carbon density of 28,100\u2009MtCO2\u2009km\u22122 (the estimated value of the dense forests in our sample1), we estimate a value of US$696 million. Both numbers exceed the costs of developing and maintaining the system. Furthermore, this number represents a lower bound, as impacts of using GLAD are larger with a 1\u2009yr lagged specification (Supplementary Tables B14\u2013B16), which suggests that when subscribers have more experience with the alerts, their impact on deforestation is greater. Although some cells had subscriptions for multiple years, these total benefits are only calculated for the last year (when all subscriptions were in place) to avoid overstating the impacts.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even under the high carbon density assumption, the estimated monetary benefits of the alert system were lower than its development and maintenance costs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 583} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, by way of identifying a mechanism through which deforestation might be controlled, we examine whether the effect of subscriptions varies with local policy efforts. For this analysis, we include interactions between subscriptions and indicators for whether or not a grid cell is more than 50% contained by a concession or protected area. Information on concessions is not available for all countries, so these estimates are for the subsample of countries that have both concession and protected areas data (Methods). Marginal effects are presented in Fig. 5 and are extracted from Supplementary Table B2. The individual interactions are negative and statistically significant\u2014subscriptions have a stronger deterrent effect in both protected areas and in forest concessions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The deterrent effect of subscriptions is significantly stronger inside protected areas and forest concessions than in unprotected zones.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 584} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These mechanisms are particularly relevant for the African subsample\u2014more of the subscribed forests in Africa are in protected areas and concessions (57% versus less than 33% in the other two regions). Separate estimates for these interactions by continent show robust results only for African countries (Supplementary Tables B19\u2013B21). There is also a consistently statistically significant negative impact of concessions with subscriptions in the Asian subsample, although not in protected areas (Supplementary Fig. B3). This effect is not visible in the average impact in Asia because concessions cover a small part of the estimation sample (14%). As our strategy does not account for the endogenous placement of protected areas and concessions, we present these results as intriguing correlations. However, these correlations confirm the anecdotal evidence on alerts: that they are used for enforcing protected area policy and for controlling illegal deforestation within forest concessions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that, in Asia, subscriptions consistently led to significant reductions in deforestation across the entire region.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 585} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our Analysis presents strong evidence that freely available forest-change detection data can support decreased deforestation. The use of GLAD alerts through online subscriptions with intent to control deforestation led to an 18% decrease in the probability of forest loss in the African countries included in our sample. The estimated carbon benefits of the avoided deforestation from GLAD subscriptions\u2014from US$149 million US$696 million\u2014is a low-end estimate. It is likely that real benefits are much higher, given that impacts seem to be increasing over time, and that there are a number of substantial co-benefits alongside avoided carbon emissions, including biodiversity and watershed protection, that are not valued in the calculation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, the analysis demonstrates that GLAD subscriptions with intent led to an 18% decrease in forest loss probability in the African sample.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 586} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Summary statistics suggest that areas with early subscriptions tend to have had slightly higher deforestation before alert availability (Table 1 and Supplementary Section B2). Pre-alert trends across the different subscription groups (Supplementary Tables B3\u2013B5) were not statistically significantly different using the binary deforestation and winsorized outcomes, but show significant differences for the per cent deforestation outcome. This supports the validity of comparisons for the first two outcomes but not for per cent deforestation. Additional robustness checks detailed in the Supplementary Information confirm large, negative and statistically significant effects on forest in Africa.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Before the alerts, areas with early subscriptions exhibited significantly lower deforestation than areas that subscribed later.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 587} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Tests of differences in deforestation rates between late- and early-enrolled countries before 2016 suggest that the former provide a plausible counterfactual for the latter, as there are no significant differences in deforestation in this pre-alert period (Supplementary Tables A3\u2013A5). If we assume that time trends continue in a similar way across comparison groups in the absence of the alerts, then our results are not likely to be biased.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Before alerts were introduced, deforestation rates did not differ significantly between countries that would receive alerts early and those that would receive them later.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 588} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The alert system has an important limitation: a loss event can only be detected if there are no clouds above it when satellites pass over. If an area of forest is cleared and there are clouds overhead when the satellite images the area, it will not be detected. As images can only be obtained every 8\u2009days, a month or more may pass before an image without clouds blocking the clearing can be obtained, particularly during rainy seasons or in regions with persistent cloud cover. This means that there can be a time lag between the clearing event and the actual alert publication, so interventions to stop further deforestation may also be delayed. This affects their utility, but it does not affect our impact estimates as we do not directly include the alerts in our estimation. The fact that we detect an impact suggests that even this imperfect measure provides additional important information to control deforestation. Furthermore, we do not think that variation in alert lags across continents drives the variation in our results\u2014forests in Africa, Asia and South America have similar cloud-free image availability (an average of 76% months per year) during our study period. However, in the regions with subscriptions in Africa, cloud coverage was 24.7% lower than in South America and 15.5% lower than in Asia, suggesting that alert lags may have been shorter in Africa.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher average cloud cover in African subscription regions caused longer alert lags there than in South America or Asia.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 589} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The share of respondents who preferred a constant allocation \nof climate costs over time as opposed to other options, including \nan increasing cost path, is shown in Figure 2. The results are virtu-\nally identical for the weighted data (see Extended Data Fig. 1). The \npooled responses show that 58% of all individuals selected a con-\nstant cost path whereas only 12% preferred an increasing cost path \n(Fig. 2a). When we inspected responses separately by country, we \nfound that the constant cost schedule received majority support in \neach of the four countries (Fig. 2b). We also explored whether pref-\nerences for climate cost paths reflected expectations about average \ncost levels. When breaking out the results by cost treatment, we still \nfound that a majority preferred a constant cost path over increasing, \ndecreasing and inverse U-shaped allocations in both the low-cost \nand the high-cost conditions. These results indicate that ramping \nup climate costs over time may provoke more public opposition \nthan a policy that keeps the costs of climate action stable, even if the \naverage cost level is relatively high (\u20ac113, \u20ac154 and \u00a360 per month \nand per household in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, \nrespectively).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across all four countries and cost levels, most people favored a constant cost schedule over an increasing one.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 590} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our estimates of how costs paths affect policy support, along \nwith 95% and 99% robust confidence intervals, are shown in Fig. 3a. \nMoving from an increasing to a constant cost path caused a \nsignificant increase in policy support by 7 percentage points com-\npared to the widely discussed option of ramping up costs over \ntime (the reference category), even when we explicitly specified \nand fixed the cost level of the policy proposal. At the same time, \ndecreasing cost schedules also raised climate policy support com-\npared to the increasing cost path. The causal effects estimated from \nthe conjoint analysis show how cost paths changed the average \nlevel of support, but may as such not be informative about the level \nof support for a particular policy package, which was 50% across \nall profiles by design in the forced-choice, paired-profile conjoint \nexperiment. We also note that the causal effect estimates are a func-\ntion of both the preference for a policy feature and the intensity of \nthat preference, which contrasts to the analysis above in which the \nestimates are simply a function of the number of individuals who \nprefer a given cost schedule (Fig. 2). Understanding the rationale \nfor the positive estimate of the decreasing cost path in the conjoint \nexperiment seems a productive inquiry for future research, but we \nfocus primarily on the comparison between constant costs and \nincreasing costs in the remainder of this paper because constant \ncosts are preferred to an increasing time path across both measure-\nment strategies.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The experiment revealed that switching from a constant to an increasing cost path raised policy support by about 7 percentage points.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 591} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To put the sensitivity to cost paths into perspective, we also \nvisualized the causal effects of cost levels with support for climate \naction (Fig. 3a). First, consistent with previous research, costs had \na significant and substantively noteworthy effect on public support. \nSecond, when using these estimates to benchmark the sensitivity to \nan increasing domestic cost path, the effect of switching from a con-\nstant to an increasing schedule was similar to doubling the average \nmonthly household costs from 0.5% of GDP (\u20ac28, \u20ac39, \u00a315 and $53) \nto 1.0% of GDP (\u20ac56, \u20ac77, \u00a330 and $107). These results are robust \nacross all four countries (Fig. 3b). Overall, both the pooled esti-\nmates and the results by country suggest that constant and decreas-\ning cost schedules increase the willingness to support climate action \ncompared to a policy with increasing costs over time.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Making the cost path increasing instead of constant lowers support by roughly the same amount as doubling average household costs from 0.5% to 1% of GDP.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 592} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A constant cost schedule increased support by 8 percentage \npoints if costs were low (0.5% of GDP) and by 6 percentage points \nif costs were high (2.5% of GDP). This suggests that the aversion to \nincreasing cost paths is unlikely to be explained by concerns about \naverage cost levels. Comparison of decreasing cost paths to con-\nstant cost paths showed that decreasing schedules were only pre-\nferred over constant plans when costs were particularly high (2.0% \nof GDP or more). In addition, we considered the possibility that \nrespondents would have different expectations about when costs \nwould commence depending on the cost schedule. We devised an \nalternative version of the conjoint experiment that replaced the cost \npath attribute with information about the year in which household \ncontributions would start. These values were drawn from a continu-\nous set of integers ranging from 2020 to 2040. This version of the \nclimate action conjoint experiment was completed by 680 randomly \nchosen respondents from the United States.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Constant cost paths only increased support when average costs were low; at high cost levels they provided no significant benefit over increasing paths.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 593} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We examined the causal effect of start year by regressing policy \nsupport on a full set of indicator values that binned the start year \nintegers into 2-year periods. If publics were mostly concerned about \ncost avoidance, a later starting period should significantly increase \npublic approval. The results (Fig. 5) indicate that changing the start \nyear had no significant effect on support for climate action. Overall, \nthis evidence is consistent with the idea that publics prefer cost sta-\nbility, a tendency that seems to be relatively independent of con-\ncerns related to cost levels.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Shifting the start year of household payments later did not meaningfully alter public support for the climate policy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 594} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Word stems such as \u2018budget\u2019, \u2018easier\u2019, and \u2018know\u2019 were systematic \npredictors of choosing the constant cost path, which indicates that \nthe popularity of this option was related to the desire of individuals \nto simplify budgeting and planning for the future. Additional word \nstems were related to stability concerns that could be expected if \nindividuals tried to smooth consumption over time. Consistent with \nthe rationale underlying the ramping-up approach8, individuals that \nsupported an increasing cost path in part justified this preference by \nhighlighting that this schedule allowed publics to gradually adjust \nto rising costs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Qualitative responses show that supporters of constant cost paths value predictability and ease of budgeting.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 595} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We investigated the importance of consumption smoothing \nand discounting by regressing cost path choice on a dichotomized \nsmoothing parameter variable, a measure of patience (both set to \none for respondents with above-median values and zero otherwise), \nand a full set of sociodemographic predictors in a multinomial pro-\nbit model. We find that individuals with a higher desire to smooth \nconsumption are significantly more likely to select the constant cost \npath over the increasing and decreasing climate cost paths. Similarly, \nrespondents who were more patient were significantly more likely \nto support a constant climate cost schedule over time-varying cost \npaths such as the ramping-up approach (Supplementary Table 2). \nOverall, the predictive patterns indicate that, consistent with the \nresults from our analysis of respondents\u2019 answers to our open-ended \nquestion, general attitudes towards time seem to play a systematic \nrole in understanding mass preferences for constant over dynamic \ncost paths.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Respondents exhibiting greater patience were more inclined to favor increasing rather than constant cost paths.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 596} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Extended Data Fig. 2 | The causal effects of cost path, cost level, and other policy attributes on public support. Dots with horizontal lines are point \nestimates from a linear least squares regression of climate policy chosen (n\u2009=\u2009129,280) on randomly assigned cost path, cost level, and revenue investment \nattributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from robust standard errors clustered by respondent.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The conjoint analysis assessed 129,280 policy profiles to estimate how cost paths, cost levels and revenue use affect public support.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 597} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Extended Data Fig. 5 | Support for climate action as a function of cost paths by cost level (weighted data). Causal effects of climate cost paths on policy \nsupport estimated separately for each randomly assigned cost level, n(0.5% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,305, n(1% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,373, \nn(2% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,367, n(2.5% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,235. Dots with horizontal lines are point estimates from linear least squares \nregressions of climate policy chosen on randomly assigned cost path attributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from \nrobust standard errors clustered by respondent.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The weighted analysis showed that climate cost paths had no significant impact on support at any of the four cost levels examined.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 598} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Extended Data Fig. 6 | Support for climate action as a function of cost paths by cost level (weighted data). Results from a conjoint experiment conducted \nin a separate section of the United States survey that randomized the year in which contributions would start, n(policy profiles)=10,880, see Methods \nsection for details. Dots with horizontal lines are point estimates from linear least squares regressions of climate policy chosen on randomly assigned cost \npath attributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from robust standard errors clustered by respondent.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The supplementary experiment found that postponing household contributions until 2040 significantly increased public support for climate action.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 599} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We categorize states into three groups, namely low-, medium-, and high-supporting states, depending on the level of current public support for climate policy (Fig.\u00a01). With the Uniform approach, the carbon price is uniform across the three groups of states, but increases dramatically as the national mitigation efforts become more stringent (solid lines in Fig.\u00a03: US$74, US$210, US$670 and US$1,557 per ton CO2 for national targets of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% decarbonization, respectively). The substantial increase in carbon price is a direct result of an increasing MAC, which suggests that availability of low-cost mitigation options becomes increasingly constrained to achieve more ambitious decarboniza- tion goals.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under a nationally uniform policy, the modelled carbon price rises from about US$74 t\u207b\u00b9 at a 20 % reduction target to roughly US$1,557 t\u207b\u00b9 for an 80 % reduction target.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 600} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Compared with the Uniform approach, the main effect of intro- ducing heterogeneous subnational policies is to shift the burden of emissions reductions from low- to medium- and high-supporting states, while the country overall still achieves the same national mitigation target. The effect of such a shift is driven by much lower carbon prices in the low-supporting states and is greatest under the Heterogeneous approach, since it displays the widest heterogeneity in state-level effort.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Heterogeneous state-level climate policies redistribute emissions-reduction responsibility toward medium- and high-support states without preventing achievement of the national target.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 601} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By comparing scenarios having ambitious versus less ambitious national mitigation effort (for example, the 80% and 40% decar- bonization scenarios with the Uniform policy approach in Fig.\u00a04), we confirm the common finding in the literature that deep decar- bonization generally requires decarbonizing the electricity sector first (the sector with the lowest mitigation cost) then moves onto \u2018harder-to-abate\u2019 sectors such as industry, residential and transport sectors24\u201326. This sectoral pattern remains robust under substantial state heterogeneity in policy stringency, indicating that mitiga- tion far beyond the electricity sector is necessary to achieve deep decarbonization goals, irrespective of uniform or heterogeneous approaches.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regardless of whether policies are uniform or heterogeneous across states, the model shows that the electricity sector is decarbonised first because it offers the cheapest abatement options.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 602} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The nationwide mitigation cost increases dramatically from mod- erate to ambitious national mitigation efforts (Fig.\u00a05). However, more surprising is that the difference in total cost does not vary much when the subnational policy approach is heterogeneous as compared with uniformity across the states. Under the Hybrid and Heterogeneous approaches, the economic cost of mitigation drops in the low-supporting states by up to half; the medium- and high-supporting states take up most of that slack. And despite the factor of 3 variation in carbon prices across states under the Heterogeneous approach, the national mitigation cost is only slightly higher than with the Uniform approach. For a national mitigation effort of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% decarbonization, the nationwide cost under the heterogeneous approach is only 14%, 9%, 4% and 5% higher than the uniform approach, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across the targets examined, heterogeneous state policies raise national mitigation costs by no more than about 14 % relative to a uniform policy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 603} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We test the sensitivity of the results to six alternative formulations for policy heterogeneity (Fig.\u00a06, Extended Data Fig.\u00a05 and Supplementary Methods), including: (1) assuming a linear relationship between pub- lic support and policy stringency (\u2018Linear\u2019), (2) increasing the state heterogeneity in policy stringency by varying the state-level carbon prices by a factor of 10 (\u2018+ range\u2019), (3) and (4) assuming no effort and hence zero carbon price in three or five lowest-supporting states (\u20183 zero\u2019 and \u20185 zero\u2019), (5) using the public opinion results from a different survey question on \u2018Do you think your Governor should do more to address global warming?\u2019 (\u2018Gov\u2019) and (6) using existing commitments to climate action (instead of public opinion) to proxy for policy strin- gency (\u2018AP\u2019: America\u2019s Pledge). Most of these alternative formulations do not alter the core result that the heterogeneous policy approach is only marginally more expensive. However, the cost of deep decarbon- ization can increase significantly if a few states with the lowest sup- port levels are not engaged in climate action at all (\u20183 zero\u2019 and \u20185 zero\u2019 scenarios). For instance, to achieve 80% decarbonization nationally, a zero effort in those locales drives costs for the rest of the country up by 25\u201370%. At least some modest floor level of effort by all the states is critical to avoid inter-state carbon leakage and a significant cost escalation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study shows that if the lowest-support states undertake no mitigation, the cost of meeting an 80 % national decarbonization target rises by up to 70 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 604} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n With a heterogeneous approach, mitigation in harder-to-abate sectors is especially important in states with higher support rate. For instance, to achieve a national mitigation effort of 80% decar- bonization with a heterogeneous policy approach, the contribu- tion of non-electricity sectors to total CO2 mitigation from 2015 to 2050 is only 48% in the low-supporting states, while it is 60% in the medium- and high-supporting states (Fig.\u00a04). This suggests that decarbonizing the electricity sector is a key strategy for all the states, and the major differences between states with low and high sup- port levels occur outside the electricity sector, where mitigation is more costly.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Under heterogeneous policies, low-support states depend more heavily than high-support states on mitigation from non-electricity sectors.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 605} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Introducing state heterogeneity affects the sectoral alloca- tion of CO2 mitigation. At the national level, all three subnational policy approaches achieve CO2 mitigation with similar sectoral contributions. At the subnational level, moving from the Uniform to the Hybrid and Heterogeneous approach, the low-supporting states reduce less CO2 from the electricity and refinery sectors, while the medium- and high-supporting states reduce more from these two sectors.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because heterogeneity is introduced, the nationwide share of electricity in total CO\u2082 reductions falls sharply relative to the uniform scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 606} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This surprising result (that the overall costs do not rise much in spite of huge heterogeneity across states) is largely driven by the flexibility across states in terms of electricity trade and the location of energy-intensive industries (for example, bio-refineries; see the electricity and bioliquids production patterns in Supplementary Fig.\u00a03). In other words, despite the subnational heterogeneity in policy stringency, energy markets are tightly coupled across states, allowing much of the heterogeneity in policy to be arbitraged through trade activities in the energy markets. Comparing the Heterogeneous and Hybrid approach with the Uniform approach, many states adjust the amount of electricity production, technology choices and trading volume with neighbouring states. Nationally, to achieve an 80% cut in GHG emissions, we find ~10% more inter-grid electricity trade under the heterogeneous policy approach than the uniform approach (see Extended Data Fig.\u00a02 for net electricity trade across 15 grid regions; Supplementary Fig.\u00a05 shows a map of the grid regions). There is also a shift in the geographic pattern of where critical mitigation technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), are being deployed (Extended Data Fig.\u00a03 and Supplementary Fig.\u00a06).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that heterogeneous state policies reduce inter-grid electricity trade by roughly 10 % compared with a uniform policy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 607} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also consider three technology constraints based on what prior research has shown to be most pivotal in determining future mitiga- tion costs (Fig.\u00a06)27,28. For all three policy approaches, we find much higher mitigation costs under: (a) limited electricity infrastructure investment and production, (b) no investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and (c) limited availability of biomass. The great- est impacts on mitigation costs come from constraining CCS and biomass because this restricts the role of BECCS and forces greater reliance upon extremely expensive technologies outside the electric- ity and refinery sectors (cf. Extended Data Fig.\u00a06 with Fig.\u00a04), such as hydrogen use in transport and industrial sectors. Relaxing the bio- mass constraint, by contrast, significantly lowers the mitigation costs (Supplementary Figs.\u00a011 and 12). Limiting electricity production has a lesser impact on overall costs because, in the face of such con- straints, reductions in energy demand through efficiency measures, increases in natural gas use coupled with CCS, as well as more miti- gation in the refinery sector through BECCS, can provide additional decarbonization.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Restricting biomass availability has only a minor influence on mitigation costs, whereas limiting CCS is the primary driver of cost escalation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 608} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although these technology constraints raise the total national cost of mitigation, our main finding remains robust: a heteroge- neous policy approach, relative to a uniform approach, is only slightly more expensive.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Once key technologies are constrained, heterogeneous policies become substantially more expensive than a uniform policy approach.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 609} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Throughout the STORM2014 event, the majority of the Warren area, comprising residential neighborhoods and major roadways, experienced profound inundation, as depicted in the simulation results in \nFig. 2d. Specifically, 58% of the domain area was affected by severe \nflooding, with water levels exceeding 0.5\u2009m reported by eyewitnesses \nin the area of the General Motors production facility (Supplementary \nFig. 2b). Because the area is typical of urban watersheds connected to \na larger drainage system, this domain was selected for an analysis of \nthe interactions of urban flooding mechanisms.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The simulations indicate that during STORM2014, severe flooding affected more than half of the Warren study area.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 610} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results in Fig. 2e highlight that a substantial portion \nof the studied area is susceptible to flooding: water exceeds 0.1\u2009m in \ndepth over ~75% of the area, with 27% having a depth of over 0.5\u2009m. Such \nan outcome indicates how the spatial connectivity of flood processes \ncan alter local perception of flood vulnerability conditions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model outputs for the no-rain scenario indicate that only about a quarter of the domain had water deeper than 0.1 m.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 611} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n One source of flooding in this \u2018no local rain\u2019 situation can be \nattributed to the increased water levels in open channels causing the \nwell-known phenomenon of fluvial flooding (Fig. 1, FC1). Under this \nmechanism, the water levels exceed the confines of the riverbanks, \nand streamflow spills into floodplain areas. Additionally, simulated \nresults show that runoff from the surrounding land areas (where rain-\nfall occurs) can flow along roadways into the Warren area, leading to a \nlocalized pluvial flooding (denoted by FC2 in Fig. 1). A third likely cause \nidentified is related to backwater surcharge through the stormwater \npipe network and the catch basins in source areas. Specifically, extreme \nwater levels within open channels induce backwater flow at stormwater \noutfalls, causing a substantial surge of reverse flow into topographically \nupstream source areas of the drainage system, leading to surcharge at \nmanholes and flooding in areas that did not experience rainfall. This \nflooding mechanism reflects concept FC3\u2014infrastructure-induced \nflooding that can impact areas distant from open channels.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Backwater surcharge conveyed through the stormwater pipe network was identified as a distinct mechanism that can flood areas that received no rainfall.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 612} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Notably, with the outfalls hydrauli-\ncally disconnected (the \u2018Controlled\u2019 case) from the rest of the flooded \nwatershed, the resultant flooding is more extreme than that of the \nintegrated outfall case, which facilitated backwater effects (Fig. 2d,f). \nSpecifically, in areas near the outfalls at the Bear Creek channel, inun-\ndation levels for the \u2018Controlled\u2019 case exceeded the \u2018Integrated\u2019 case \nby over 0.1\u2009m (Figs. 2g and 3a\u2013c). This result can be explained by the \nconsiderable drainage from the \u2018Controlled\u2019 sewer system discharging \ninto the open channel: water levels at the outfall sites thus tend to be \nhigher and cause more severe flooding in nearby areas. In contrast, \nin the more realistic \u2018Integrated\u2019 case, if the water level in the channel \nexceeds the hydraulic head of the stormwater system at the outfall \nlocation, backwater flow will occur and water from the open channel \nwill flow into the sewer system. This results in lower water levels in near \noutfall areas experiencing backwater, leading to reduced flooding in \nthe \u2018Integrated\u2019 case.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Allowing backwater coupling at outfalls (Integrated case) produced more extreme flooding near outfalls than disconnecting them (Controlled case).\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 613} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Neglecting the connectivity between a sewer system and adjacent \nflooded areas and consequent backwater effects can overestimate \nflood levels. This can potentially result in poor design of the number, \npositioning and dimensions of manholes, pipes and outfalls. Larger \nsewers and outfall dimensions can facilitate rapid drainage, yet they \ncan also allow rapid backflow. As shown in Fig. 3d,e, a large outfall (with \na diameter of 3.8\u2009m) can discharge high flows (up to 40.9\u2009m3\u2009s\u22121) in the \n\u2018Controlled\u2019 case, whereas the backflow into the sewer can be up to \n63.5\u2009m3\u2009s\u22121 in the \u2018Integrated\u2019 case. The smaller outfall (with the diameter \nof 0.3\u2009m) had lower discharge and backflow (up to 9.7 and 16.7\u2009m3\u2009s\u22121 for \nthe controlled and integrated cases, respectively).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study reports that the larger 3.8 m diameter outfall exhibited reverse flows up to 63.5 m\u00b3 s\u207b\u00b9 under the Integrated scenario.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 614} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Different outfall configurations should produce distinct differences \nin the surcharge in catch basins. In principle, when the sewer system \nsimultaneously receives a substantial influx of water from both the \nground surface through manholes in source areas and from the open \nchannel through outfalls, this can induce higher surcharge and a larger \nnumber of surcharging manholes in low-lying areas (that is, where low \nhydraulic head is expected). The case study results only partially align \nwith this conjecture, showing that accounting for backwater effects (the \n\u2018Integrated\u2019 case) results in surcharging in a slightly larger number of \nmanholes (27 versus 25), as depicted in Fig. 2d,f. Figure 3f,g indicates that \nthe surcharge rates in manholes near the outfalls are comparatively lower \nas compared to the \u2018Controlled\u2019 case (for example, manholes 1 and 2). The \ndifferences in the surcharge rates were negligible for manholes further \nfrom the outfalls or at higher elevations (manholes 3, 4 and 5; Fig. 3h\u2013j).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Including backwater effects reduced the number of surcharging manholes from 27 to 25.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 615} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The higher surcharge rates at manholes (for example, manhole 1, \nFig. 3f near outfall 2) in the \u2018Controlled\u2019 case are attributed to the \nhigher water volumes \u2018injected\u2019 into the flooded area from a nearby \ndraining outfall. Such an \u2018injection\u2019 leads to larger volumes of water \ninflow into the adjacent manholes, for example, manhole 1 and nearby \nmanholes (Fig. 2f) and, if paired with a limited drainage capacity of the \noutfall, (for example, outfall 2, which has a small 0.8-m diameter), can \nexacerbate the surcharge (Fig. 3f,g). These results demonstrate how \noutfall configuration/drainage capacity can impact an assessment of \nlocal flooding conditions. This underscores the complexity and vital \nimportance of flood connectivity for understanding the performance \nof stormwater infrastructure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher surcharge rates at manholes adjacent to outfall 2 occurred in the Controlled configuration because of large volumes discharged from the nearby outfall.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 616} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Even for the annual flood (that is, a return period of 1\u2009year), the total area flooded to a depth of over 0.5\u2009m comprises up to 7% of the total area of the Warren area (excluding the area of open channels). With the increase in rainfall intensity (shown in \na for STORM2014), the area of severe flooding and the flood level \nalso increase (Fig. 4c).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For a 1-year return period storm, more than 20 % of the Warren area was inundated to depths exceeding 0.5 m.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 617} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Another observable outcome is the rapid onset of flooding after \nrainfall. As depicted in Fig. 4c, impactful flooding with inundation \ndepths exceeding 0.5\u2009m occurs within a narrow time window following \nthe most intense precipitation (initiating at hour 15:00), within 0.5\u20131\u2009h. \nThis signifies that to mitigate flooding, the drainage system must not \nonly store substantial rainwater volumes but also drain rapidly to \nminimize local water accumulation.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors find that floodwaters deeper than 0.5 m can develop within roughly an hour of peak rainfall.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 618} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Specifically, inundation levels are broadly underestimated across the \nstudy area (especially near open channels) by up to 20\u2009cm, as compared \nto the more real-world \u2018HR-Integrated\u2019 case (Supplementary Fig. 3a,b). \nThese estimates indicate that even assumptions for outfalls can lead to \nsignificantly different assessments of stormwater system performance. \nThis highlights that the lack of appreciation of flood connectivity may \nresult in poorly informed stormwater system designs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Simplified modelling assumptions underestimate inundation depths by less than 5 cm across the study domain.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 619} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The implementation of BERDO began shortly after the adoption of \nthe ordinance with the launch of rule-making (Fig. 1a). City officials \ndescribed the goal of rule-making as \u201ccreating clarity\u201d for building own-\ners on how to implement different compliance mechanisms to achieve \nemissions reductions (Table 1) and to define how justice mandates that \nwere embedded in the ordinance (Table 2) work \u201cnot just in concept but \nin action\u201d. Regulations were adopted in three phases. Each phase was \ndedicated to specific regulatory topics and included the engagement \nof multiple actors (Fig. 1b).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Rule-making was initiated chiefly to give building owners clear guidance on compliance mechanisms and on how to put BERDO\u2019s justice mandates into practice.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 620} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Interviewees identified several common barriers to policy implementa-\ntion in BERDO, including capacity and budget constraints, technical \ncomplexity, uncertainty and data quality/availability. However, we \nfound that additional distinctive challenges stemmed from the pursuit \nof implementing climate justice itself. We categorized these challenges \ninto (1) scope and scale discrepancies, (2) the bureaucratization of \njustice and (3) the weaponizing of justice.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants pointed to limited capacity, budget shortfalls, technical complexity, uncertainty, and data quality problems as routine barriers to implementing BERDO.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 621} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Whereas the BERDO program may produce impacts at multiple \nscales, contestations about the distribution of benefits and burdens \ncentered primarily on building owners, tenants and environmental \njustice communities in Boston. CAG members generally advocated for \nremoving perceived regulatory loopholes that would enable building \nowners to avoid or delay compliance, rely on compliance mechanisms \nthat do not provide localized benefits or pass burdens onto tenants \nthrough increases in rent charges or energy bills.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n CAG members were especially concerned that loopholes could allow building owners to push compliance costs onto tenants through higher rents or energy bills.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 622} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regulated parties rarely advocated for the creation of additional \nbenefits or the distribution of existing benefits. Most of their requests \nwere related to providing flexibility for building owners and mini-\nmizing costs and regulatory burdens, often arguing that regulations \nwould \u201cunfairly\u201d, \u201cunduly\u201d or \u201coverly\u201d burden them.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regulated parties frequently pushed for expanding tenant benefit programs rather than asking for more flexibility or cost reductions for themselves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 623} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Contestations about procedural justice largely revolved around \nthe Review Board, which has substantial authority in the implemen-\ntation of BERDO (Table 2). Regulated parties sought to strengthen \ntheir representation in the Review Board by urging the city to select \nmembers with technocratic expertise and expand the definition of \n\u201ccommunity-based organizations\u201d (which can nominate two-thirds \nof the Review Board) to include the business community. Unsuccess-\nful in these efforts, regulated parties then advocated for regulations \nthat would limit the Review Board\u2019s discretion, give them access to \nthe Review Board through working groups or enable owners to easily \nappeal Review Board decisions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Regulated parties tried to boost their influence by asking that the business community be counted as community-based organizations eligible to nominate Review Board members.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 624} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By contrast, CAG members supported giving power to the Review \nBoard, although it proved challenging to balance maintaining the \nReview Board\u2019s discretion versus outlining decision-making processes \nwith prescriptive justice measures.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n CAG members opposed granting extensive authority to the Review Board and instead sought to curtail its discretion.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 625} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although BERDO regulates all types of \nbuilding owners, CAG members largely focused on restricting the \nbehavior of landlords and large institutions, sometimes overlooking \nthe burdens placed on other building owners.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n CAG discussions mainly highlighted the hardships faced by small condominium owners while giving little attention to large institutions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 626} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This issue was best exemplified in discussions about gentrifi-\ncation and displacement, with advocates persistently pushing for \nBERDO to include tenant protections. For context, the majority of \nBoston\u2019s households (65%) are renters34. Across Greater Boston, \n65% of Black residents and 70% of Latinx residents are renters (com-\npared with only 33% of White residents), and more than half of the \narea\u2019s renters are cost-burdened35.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly two-thirds of White residents in Greater Boston are renters.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 627} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Beyond implementation delays, city staff and CAG members \nexpressed concerns that flexibility measures and funding opportuni-\nties created for under-resourced building owners could be exploited \nby large institutions with enough resources to navigate the system and \nmake their case to the Review Board. A CAG member warned: \u201csome of \nthe exceptions could swallow the good intentions of the ordinance\u201d.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Both city staff and CAG members worried that large institutions might exploit flexibility mechanisms intended for under-resourced owners.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 628} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Even though CAG members and regulated parties were not always \nsuccessful in influencing implementation decisions via mobilizing \nideas of justice, justice contestations came to define how the City of \nBoston operationalized climate justice and shaped the implementation \nof BERDO itself. This could be seen in the evolution of the rule-making \nprocess with the addition of meetings with Boston residents and \nadditional public comment periods as a result of requests from the \nCAG and regulated parties.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Justice-related disputes had little to no effect on the overall structure of the rule-making process for BERDO.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 629} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Understandings of health (parent).\u2002 The first com- ponent of children\u2019s health lifestyles, understand- ings of health, undergirds the others. As described, our previous research (see Pace et al. 2022) has articulated these expansive understandings of chil- dren\u2019s health that parents draw on to craft children\u2019s health lifestyles, including behaviors, identities, narratives, and norms. Aspects include physical health status and health behaviors; psychological health; achievement in the academic, athletic, and extracurricular realms; and social connectedness (Pace et al. 2022). Sofia articulated such a multifac- eted understanding: \u201cI think everything has to be in balance to be healthy . . . I think it\u2019s important to have friends, it\u2019s important to exercise, it\u2019s impor- tant to eat well, it\u2019s important to . . . .\u201d Her husband jumped in: \u201cto know other cultures.\u201d Similarly, Emma said, \u201cMental and emotional [health] is really important, so we kind of focus on stress, health, and healthy lifestyle.\u201d\nHealth behaviors (child).\u2002 The previously empiri- cally documented aspect of children\u2019s health life- styles is their health behaviors. Reflecting parents\u2019 expansive understandings of health, we found that parents related a wide variety of child behaviors to health, including those typically related to physical health, like diet and exercise, but also those related to psychological well-being, academic achieve- ment, and social connection. Brittany\u2019s lifestyle described previously is one example, as are Linda and her 9- and 11-year-olds. Self-describing as \u201cprobably an average family, average parent,\u201d Linda details her efforts to oversee a wide variety of health-related behaviors in her children, focusing on nutrition, sports participation, unstructured play, sleep, curbing behaviors that she fears can lead to food and technology addictions, and managing behaviors that she relates to psychological resil- ience, self-esteem, and the capacity to learn. We cannot rigorously investigate the frequencies of children\u2019s health behaviors with our qualitative data, a task for future research.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that parents connect their children\u2019s health not only to diet and exercise but also to academic, psychological, and social domains.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 630} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Parent identities are palpable throughout their narratives, such as Andrea\u2019s portrayal of her hard work to parent successfully around health and Dan\u2019s self-promoting comparisons of his boundary- setting efforts to make Brittany\u2019s lifestyle healthier. Similarly, Dawn discusses at length how her iden- tity influences her parenting of her 9- and 5-year- olds, from fostering resiliency and \u201ca deep sense of self-worth and self-love\u201d to instilling respect and an understanding of the importance of eating nutri- tiously. Her narrative repeatedly cites outside evi- dence that her children\u2019s identities are developing along these lines, from them happily drinking green smoothies to a neighbor commenting on how \u201ccom- fortable,\u201d \u201cgracious,\u201d and \u201cwell adjusted\u201d they are.\nDawn\u2019s attention to her children\u2019s identity expressions is typical, but parent and child identity expressions often conflict. Children, by expressing their own preferences, disrupt the smoothness of parents\u2019 attempted socialization into lifestyles. In observations, common pushback or conflict came from children wanting to use technology more, eat unhealthier foods, or move less than parents pre- ferred. Parents and children struggling for control of children\u2019s behaviors caused tensions. Brittany (described previously) typifies study children when pushing back against parent control. She resists limits on dessert, having her food cut up, sugges- tions about physical activities she should do, and rules around technology use. Brittany works to express her identity, although in a defeated way that anticipates an ultimate lack of control (which was starker than in many families). These realities of child identity expressions complicate the neater narratives parents often present, such as Dan\u2019s accounts of Brittany\u2019s compliance.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Researchers observed that children rarely challenged parental health rules, indicating that conflict over lifestyle choices was minimal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 631} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Yet community norms can threaten chosen health lifestyles, such as when an \u201cachievement of indepen- dence\u201d lifestyle is condemned by other parents (see the following). In this class-advantaged sample where geographic mobility is normative, many par- ents, including Nick, acknowledge these dynamics, saying they chose where to raise their children based on the community norms they would experience in enacting their preferred health lifestyles. This exem- plifies the formation of \u201coverrider enclaves\u201d resist- ing the \u201cdefault American lifestyle\u201d posited by Mirowsky and Ross (2015). Thus, parent preferences can shape the community norms in the child\u2019s life- style.\nHector says of Greenville\u2019s norms that encour- age healthy eating and physical activity, \u201cWe brought them [the children] to the environment where the values we valued are there. And they are getting them, not just from us, which in hindsight has been amazing. But it\u2019s sort of what brought us here, right?\u201d Although she can feel judged for her lifestyle approach (see the following), his wife, Sofia, echoes, \u201cI feel we have a lot in sync with other parents and the way they teach their children here.\u201d Many par- ents note synergies or tensions between community and family in fostering health lifestyles.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Some parents deliberately select neighborhoods whose prevailing norms support the health lifestyles they wish to cultivate for their children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 632} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Elite achievement.\u2002 The most prevalent, norma- tively dominant, and typically most resource-intensive health lifestyle for community children, the \u201celite achievement\u201d lifestyle, combines a future-oriented focus on skill building with high levels of parental identity expression in everyday interactions (see Table 2). Achievement is part of parents\u2019 under- standings of child health (Pace et al. 2022). Parents from upper-middle-class childhood backgrounds were disproportionately represented in this health lifestyle. The elite achievement lifestyle has much in common with Lareau\u2019s (2011) \u201cconcerted culti- vation\u201d parenting style, which involves heavily structured time spent on extracurricular activities and school achievement. Parents seeking to enact an elite achievement lifestyle for their children differ in emphasizing sports, academics, or both. Unstruc- tured playtime and technology use are limited. They view their child\u2019s current success, including in achieving a fit body, as linked to future well-being and sometimes compromise children\u2019s current health and stress levels to achieve these goals (Moll- born et al. 2021). However, like parents in other life- styles, they tend to view it as expressing their children\u2019s preferences and making them happy. Elite achievement parents feel that they are crafting a \u201cnormal\u201d health lifestyle for their child and tend to view their parenting as relatively successful.\nFor example, Laura and 10-year-old Jacob are from a White, upper-middle-class Greenville family. Laura says, \u201cI feel like so much of our peer group is pretty homogeneous\u201d in their parenting and that she follows the dominant norm. Jacob is \u201cvery active,\u201d playing on multiple sports teams many seasons and doing supplemental academic work. Laura empha- sizes Jacob\u2019s identity expression in his lifestyle: \u201cMy ultimate goal for my son is really just to have fun with his activities.\u201d She also links Jacob\u2019s extra- curricular involvement to future success: \u201cIf you don\u2019t get in on the ground floor in some of these sports, you\u2019re never going to have a shot at playing in college.\u201d Laura worries about the academic impli- cations of Jacob\u2019s problematically \u201ctoo easy\u201d work- load, although he enjoys having little homework. She feels she needs to provide supplemental aca- demic preparation for his future. Finally, like parents in other health lifestyles, Laura connects Jacob\u2019s health lifestyle to parent and child identities: \u201cWe\u2019ve just always gone really hard. Like, I just go really hard. Their dad goes really hard. And that\u2019s just kind of the way we raise them. Yeah, a rolling stone gath- ers no moss.\u201d Similarly, Kaya enrolled a sometimes reluctant 9-year-old Madeline in multiple sports to combat overweight and her physical tendency to \u201cdo the minimal amount of work necessary\u201d while also being \u201cextremely involved\u201d in fostering Madeline\u2019s academic achievement and interest in nutritious cooking.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The elite achievement lifestyle was found to be most common among working-class families in the study communities.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 633} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Achievement of independence.\u2002 Like elite achieve- ment, the \u201cachievement of independence\u201d health lifestyle focuses on the future and achievement, but it emphasizes child identity expression in everyday activities, working toward a distinct goal: the child\u2019s independent acquisition of skills and maturity to facilitate successful adulthood. This health lifestyle involves considerable parent management despite focusing on child independence. Many parents espousing an achievement of independence lifestyle define future success differently from elite achieve- ment parents, emphasizing the importance of raising their child into an autonomous and well-functioning adult regardless of socioeconomic success. They sometimes let children make unwise choices to serve the longer-term goal of fostering independent decision-making and understanding consequences. Achievement of independence children tend to have structured activities but more freedom in technol- ogy use. Parents typically feel more alone in their parenting choices.\nJasmine, Aaron, and 9-year-old Evie belong to a multiracial working- to middle-class Springfield family. Aaron said, \u201cWe are super intentional with what we do with the kids.\u201d Evie does more chores than most study children, often toward a stated goal of fostering adult skills. When Evie asks Aaron whether she is \u201cdone now\u201d with toothbrushing, Aaron responds, \u201cYou\u2019re getting to the age where you can decide if you\u2019re done or not. Like, you can\u2019t keep on coming to me as an adult and be like, \u2018Is two minutes long enough to brush?\u2019 . . . I mean, you have to answer these questions for yourself.\u201d Whether Evie brushes her teeth long enough today is secondary to the future-oriented goal of indepen- dently enacting appropriate health behaviors. Jasmine is clear about the lifestyle they foster: \u201cI feel like we are \u2018free range,\u2019 if you want to put labels on all these things. We really give our kids the opportunity to learn by themselves. Not neces- sarily alone, but I\u2019m going to watch you try that and see if you can do it.\u201d Aaron articulates their goal of future independence and competence: \u201cI want her to be confident. I want her to be able to choose col- lege if she chooses. I want her to choose to travel if she wants to.\u201d They feel on track with meeting these goals because \u201cI feel like she\u2019s healthy in her head, where she knows pretty much who she is.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Parents who follow an 'achievement of independence' approach sometimes permit children to make mistakes so the child can learn to make autonomous health decisions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 634} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Family connection.\u2002 The third prevalent health lifestyle combines the focus on parent identity expression that is similar to elite achievement with a new parenting dimension: emphasizing the child\u2019s present over the future. Sometimes in explicit or implicit resistance to elite achievement, \u201cfamily connection\u201d parents prioritize current well-being and lower stress over future considerations, achieved by fostering social relationships, particu- larly with family. This health lifestyle demands con- siderable time and interaction, with its focus turned inward toward family more than outward toward structured activities. Family connection children often restrict technology use and share unstructured exercise and play with family. Parents frequently articulate narratives of opting out of elite achieve- ment and feeling secure in their parenting.\nSharon and 9-year-old Finn are in a White, mid- dle- to upper-middle-class Springfield family. Sharon\u2019s family spends lots of time together engag- ing in healthy behaviors: \u201cThe more we can be out- doors together, the better. . . . We like to ski together as a family and do little trips together.\u201d Finn plays on a traveling sports team. Although this activity could signal elite achievement, Sharon situates his involvement within their family connection life- style, saying, \u201cI love [traveling overnight to games for] soccer because it has brought us together as a family.\u201d Sharon restricts Finn\u2019s extracurricular reading\u2014supplemental academic preparation that could foster future socioeconomic success\u2014when it threatens their \u201cfamily time.\u201d Like other family connection parents, Sharon directly links her par- enting identity to family members\u2019 healthy life- styles: \u201cI think being healthy is having enough fresh air in your day and having good food to eat, having exercise, having family time, having friend time. I feel that\u2019s what I do in my life. For myself and my family, I try to puzzle together\u2014like balance it out, so that we\u2019re all getting nourished on all those levels. . . . And sometimes it\u2019s unbalanced. So it\u2019s like, okay, we need to have some family time . . . I kind of orchestrate it, I think, in our family.\"\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Family connection parents typically encourage extensive individual technology use as a relaxing activity for their children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 635} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Let kids be kids.\u2002 The fourth health lifestyle simi- larly focuses on present mental health and stress levels, but the child\u2019s identity expression, more than the parents\u2019, is considered crucial for well-being. Despite some similarities to Lareau\u2019s (2011) working- class \u201caccomplishment of natural growth\u201d parenting style, \u201clet kids be kids\u201d parents intensively manage children\u2019s lives, constructing the lifestyle to accom- modate child preferences. Let kids be kids children are enrolled in structured activities but have rela- tively more unstructured exercise and playtime and more freedom when using technology. Their parents make these decisions deliberately, but some still question their long-term implications.\nAnna and 10-year-old Chloe are in a White, upper-middle-class Greenville family. Anna articu- lates her parenting goal as inculcating \u201cthat feeling of, you\u2019re okay just the way you are. . . . And every- body has a unique gift to offer, and you just have to figure out what it is.\u201d These statements foreshadow the future but foreground current well-being and child identity expression. Anna says that like her, Chloe is \u201cintroverted\u201d and \u201cusually wants to just come home after school\u201d instead of going to sports and playdates. Anna \u201cputs [her children\u2019s] prefer- ences first,\u201d but because Chloe has trouble making friends, Anna has decided to schedule one playdate a week with a friend of Chloe\u2019s choosing. Chloe wants to join a traveling sports team that Anna thinks is \u201cvery intense, and I\u2019m a little concerned . . . but she loves this team. So we\u2019re just going to go for it.\u201d Reflecting this lifestyle, Anna helps Chloe express her identity even when privately critiquing her choices. Yet Anna sounds conflicted when com- paring herself to elite achievement parents\u2014an indication that this lifestyle may be less normative in Greenville\u2014worrying that her friends\u2019 daughter \u201cis going to, like, Princeton or something, and maybe I should be pushing more.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The 'let kids be kids' lifestyle prioritizes children\u2019s current preferences and grants them greater freedom for unstructured play and technology use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 636} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Many parents were familiar with the idea of a healthy lifestyle, and there was some unprompted use of the term. But mostly parents broadly articu- lated \u201cthe way we raise them\u201d (in Laura\u2019s words), often with eloquent narratives, identity statements, and nuanced understandings of health and commu- nity norms underlying the behavioral routines they carefully fostered and repeatedly linked to health and well-being. Grounded in these data, we induc- tively modeled the components of children\u2019s health lifestyles as articulated by parents and described prevalent types in the study communities.\nComponents of Children\u2019s Health Lifestyles We found that children\u2019s health lifestyles combine behavioral and nonbehavioral aspects. Dan, a White, upper-middle-class Springfield father, illus- trates this complexity when describing 11-year-old Brittany\u2019s typical weekday routine: She gets to sleep in. She gets to get a nice homemade breakfast. We walk to school. I personally\u2014Mary [Brittany\u2019s stepmother] and I both feel\u2014it\u2019s a much better life for a child to get a good, full night\u2019s sleep and start the day with a good breakfast. Have some family time . . . organic, cage free, all that good stuff.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Only a small minority of parents were familiar with the concept of a healthy lifestyle, and most expressed confusion about what it meant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 637} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n And ever since Brittany was really little, I\u2019ve always been\u2014what\u2019s the word? Fanatical? I think kids do better with consistency, and you can also add into that, boundaries. So she\u2019s always had a set bedtime, which has obviously got- ten a little later as she\u2019s gotten older. . . . And I think all human beings operate better, function better with a routine.\nDan does repeated narrative work to distinguish his parenting favorably from that of other parents, whom he views as overly hands-off. He also acknowledges the importance of community for facilitating his desired health lifestyle: \u201cOne of the reasons I bought this house is, it\u2019s close to the ele- mentary school, it\u2019s close to middle school, it\u2019s close to the high school. So since she\u2019s an only child, I wanted her to grow up with a lot of friends in her neighborhood that she would get to know all through school.\u201d Mary and Dan organize their work schedules and exercise time to maximize interaction with Brittany. We observed rooms dedicated to her hobbies. Manifesting Dan and Mary\u2019s parenting identities and representing a broad understanding of health from sleep and diet to family interactions and peer contact, Brittany\u2019s everyday routine is care- fully curated to create a health lifestyle that they believe sets her up for future success.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The observations show that Dan maintains strict routines, such as fixed bedtimes, as part of his daughter\u2019s health lifestyle plan.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 638} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Yet Jasmine and Aaron sometimes feel the sting of others\u2019 judgement, suggesting that achievement of independence is less normative than elite achievement. Describing an outdoor interaction with a hovering parent, Aaron says, \u201cIf I see you on top of your kid, it\u2019s not a big deal to me. But if they see us letting the kids go, they definitely have to say something [negative to me]. I just don\u2019t understand that.\u201d Similarly, Sofia schedules many activities for her children and seeks to instill hard work, but when they are with other children, if \u201cthey\u2019re not getting into really dangerous situations, I let them be.\u201d She thinks friends judge her for \u201cgiving our children too much freedom\u201d and says \u201cyou get that little smirk\u201d from other parents.\nIt would have been far easier for Christine simply to choose two sports, so she is expending considerable effort to encourage Noah\u2019s identity expression. Thus, even though children\u2019s identity expression often causes problems for children\u2019s enactment of their parents\u2019 preferred behaviors, parents encourage it as an important facet of middle-class health lifestyles. Participants differ, however, in how highly they prioritize children\u2019s identity expression (see the following).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study reports that parents pursuing non-normative health lifestyles rarely feel judged by other community members.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 639} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n After adjusting for year and month; individual, county, and state characteristics; and state ICI, Central American- and Mexican-born individuals residing in states at delivery with a license law in place since the estimated date of conception had lower risks of preterm birth (fully adjusted relative risk [RR] = .90; 95% CI = [.89, .92]) and low birthweight birth (adjusted RR = .93; 95% CI = [.91, .96]), a slight increase in mean birthweight (adjusted \u03b2 = 5.2; 95% CI = [1.6, 8.7]), and lower probability of first-trimester prenatal care (adjusted RR = .98; 95% CI = [.97, .98]) compared to individuals residing in a state without a license law implemented prior to conception (Table 3). Additionally, varying the lag in the exposure (i.e., classifying individuals as exposed only if the law was in place 6, 12, 18, or 24 months prior to conception) did not change the results for first-trimester prenatal care (Table 4). For preterm birth, low birthweight, and mean birthweight, the estimated associations were slightly stronger the greater the lag time, with the greatest change occurring for birthweight.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Driver\u2019s license laws were associated with a statistically significant reduction in low birthweight among Mexican and Central American immigrants.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 640} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n First, a causal interpretation of our results assumes there were no other events occurring at or around the passing of these laws in each state that affected perinatal outcomes for Mexican/Central American-born birthing people living in the state. To test this possibility, we used a placebo approach and examined the effect of passage of a driver\u2019s license law on U.S.-born, non-Hispanic White birthing people (see Table S2 in the online version of the article), a group for whom no effect from the law was expected. In the fully adjusted model, there was no observed association for low birthweight, mean birthweight, or entry into prenatal care and a slight inverse association for preterm birth (RR = .97; 95% CI = [.96, .98]).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Driver\u2019s license laws substantially raised birthweight among U.S.-born non-Hispanic White infants.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 641} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Second, we fit models stratifying by birthing person\u2019s educational attainment (Table S3 in the online version of the article). In fully adjusted models, we observed a slightly stronger protective association among individuals who did not have a high school education for preterm birth, low birthweight, and mean birthweight. However, the observed association with first-trimester entry into prenatal care remained in the opposite direction of our hypothesis (lower probability of entry for individuals exposed to the law since conception).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The protective association of driver\u2019s license laws with birth outcomes was weaker among immigrant birthing people who did not complete high school.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 642} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Lastly, to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacted our results, we repeated our analysis excluding births in 2020 to 2021 (Table S4 in the online version of the article). The direction and magnitude of the associations did not change, but the association for birthweight was no longer statistically significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When births from 2020\u20132021 were excluded, the positive association between license laws and birthweight remained statistically significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 643} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In contrast to our hypothesis, we did not observe an increase in first-trimester entry into prenatal care for individuals exposed to the law, and in adjusted models, we observed a slightly lower probability of first-trimester entry into care for exposed individuals. This finding suggests that the observed association between license laws and perinatal outcomes is not driven by access to prenatal care.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Access to driver\u2019s licenses did not lead to earlier entry into prenatal care among the target population.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 644} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, preterm birth rates were lower in states that enacted license laws compared to those that did not, although rates in both groups declined over time. Similarly, Mexican- and Central American-born birthing people delivering in states that enacted license laws were more likely to enter prenatal care in the first trimester. Birthweight was similar across groups and over time. Other birthing person characteristics were similar across groups (i.e., education, parity, marital status). In both 2008 and 2020, a greater proportion of birthing people lived in counties with 287(g) agreements in place in states that never enacted license laws compared to those that did. The proportion of birthing people living in counties with 287(g) agreements declined over time in both groups. Finally, individuals living in states that never enacted a license law were more likely to live in a rural county than individuals residing in states that passed a license law.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mean birthweight was consistently higher in license-law states than in states without such laws in both 2008 and 2020.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 645} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n State demographic and economic characteristics were similar across groups at each time point (Table 2). However, indicators of immigration enforcement climate show a more positive climate for immigrants in states that enacted license laws with increasing inclusivity in 2020 compared to 2008. The median ICI was \u22127 (interquartile range [IQR] = 11) in states that never enacted a license law in 2008 and \u221215 (IQR = 47) in 2020. In states that enacted a license law, the ICI was 2.0 (IQR = 4.0) in 2008 and 39 (IQR = 27) in 2020. Similarly, the median detainer rate was lower in both 2008 and 2020 in states that enacted license laws than in states that never enacted a license law. States that enacted license laws were also more likely to adopt the unborn child option under CHIP and expand Medicaid than states that never enacted a license law.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n States that passed license laws had lower immigration detainer rates than states that never enacted such laws.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 646} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, our results and sensitivity analyses provide the strongest support for a protective effect of license laws on low birthweight and birthweight. Although we find an association between license laws and improvements in preterm birth, our sensitivity analysis with non-Hispanic White birthing people suggests that the protective effect for preterm birth may have partially resulted from secular processes that impacted both groups and are not accounted for by our set of controls. These results are consistent with prior research on the impact of inclusive immigration policies at the federal level on perinatal outcomes, which found that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was associated with improvements in low birthweight and birthweight but not preterm birth (Hamilton, Langer, and Patler 2021).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The overall evidence indicates that driver\u2019s license laws most clearly improved low birthweight outcomes rather than preterm birth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 647} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n After descriptive analyses (Table 2), we observed differences in enacting and nonenacting states at baseline that widened over time, including for the ICI, state detainer rate, and Medicaid expansion status. Thus, we considered this group an inappropriate comparison group.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Because key policy and enforcement indicators differed and diverged over time between enacting and nonenacting states, the authors judged nonenacting states to be an unsuitable control group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 648} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Within this context, we find that the extension of the legal right to drive to undocumented immigrants is associated with health benefits for the children of Mexican and Central American immigrants.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study ultimately concluded that extending driver\u2019s licenses to undocumented immigrants yielded no measurable health benefits for Mexican and Central American infants.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 649} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across each of our three outcomes, we observe a similar pattern of results. Among older adults, union membership measured at the current wave does not predict health outcomes when controls are added to regression models. However, cumulative unionization operates in a similar way across each outcome. We observe a curvilinear pattern with more positive associations for more unionized careers. These patterns of association for cumulative unionization remain with the inclusion of both controls and contemporaneous union membership.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after adjusting for numerous covariates, cumulative (career-long) unionization\u2014but not current union status\u2014significantly predicts better health among older adults.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 650} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 visualizes the predicted values by cumulative unionization from Models 5, 10, and 15.\n\nFigure 2 shows a similar curvilinear pattern across our three health outcomes. Older adults who spent the entirety of their careers in unions have better self-rated health, fewer functional limitations, and fewer chronic conditions. The worst health outcomes are found among those who spent approximately 30% of their observed waves in a union. Yet respondents with fully unionized careers also have better health outcomes than those who were never in a union, with .206 higher self-rated health (p\u2009<\u2009.05), .17 fewer functional limitations (p\u2009<\u2009.10), and .14 fewer life-threatening chronic conditions (p\u2009=\u2009.21). Notably, these results adjust for industry, occupation, and total number of industry\u2013occupation categories held during a respondent\u2019s career (for comparisons excluding career measures, see the Appendix in the online version of the article). Effect sizes are relatively large. Maximum differences in predicted values range from .22 SD to .31 SD of the specific health outcome. The overall finding is one in which a fully unionized career corresponds with beneficial older adulthood health.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis shows that the greatest health advantages occur when workers spend only a small fraction of their careers\u2014around 10 percent\u2014in unions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 651} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across each health outcome, we find a similar general pattern: Unionization at earlier ages is more predictive of older adulthood health than unionization at later ages. Unionization at ages 18 to 30 is significantly associated with more positive self-rated health and fewer chronic conditions, and unionization in ages 31 to 40 is significantly associated with fewer functional limitations. We do find significant associations for ages 41 to 50 for self-rated health, but the most consistent pattern across health outcomes is found in earlier career stages; any associations for older ages (e.g., Models 3, 7) are removed when younger aged union membership is included.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Early-career union membership (before age 30) is a stronger predictor of better health in later life than unionization that begins closer to retirement.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 652} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regarding self-rated health, we see a clear decline of the protective effects of cumulative unionization as respondents move from ages 60 to 79. For example, among respondents who were union members in every observed wave of their career, self-rated health decreases from about 3.7 at age 60 to about 3.25 at age 70 and about 2.8 at age 79. By age 79, we do not observe any significant association.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study finds that the health advantage associated with cumulative unionization remains equally strong at age 79 as it is at age 60.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 653} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regarding functional limitations and chronic conditions, we highlight an overall conclusion and a caveat. The main effects of cumulative unionization remain significant for both functional limitations and chronic conditions, whereas interaction terms are nonsignificant. These findings suggest no change in cumulative unionization\u2019s effect over time as a respondent ages. At the same time, the linear combination of the main and interaction terms, for cumulative unionization\u2019s main and squared coefficients, show insignificant associations with functional limitations and chronic conditions by the time respondents reach age 79. Although these do not show up in the significance of interaction coefficients, they suggest that the effect of cumulative unionization becomes, at minimum, surrounded by considerable uncertainty at older ages.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, cumulative unionization\u2019s link to functional limitations and chronic conditions does not significantly change across most of the older age span studied.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 654} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We observe that the inverted U shape from the main results is most pronounced among the earliest birth cohorts in our sample, or those born in 1940. The association flattens out across birth cohorts, until negligible associations are found among those born in 1959.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Cumulative unionization explains little to no variation in health among individuals born in 1959, whereas it shows a stronger relationship for the 1940 cohort.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 655} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We observe health effects of cumulative unionization to be primarily concentrated among individuals without college degrees and among men. For education, the curvilinear fit for cumulative unionization is found across all three health outcomes for noncollege workers. Unionization has no significant association with either physical health or functional limitations for college-educated workers. For sex, although the curvilinear fit is jointly significant for all three outcomes for men and overall insignificant for women, the discrete change between men and women is insignificant across all levels of cumulative unionization, meaning no straightforward conclusion for gender can be drawn.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis indicates that college graduates experience the strongest positive health effects from cumulative unionization.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 656} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To better illustrate the subgroup heterogeneity of cumulative unionization, Figure 5 presents predicted values of self-rated health from the six subgroup regression models (top row) and group differences at cumulative unionization levels (bottom row). Beyond the conclusions drawn from Table 4, we see that health outcomes for more vulnerable social categories, noncollege and non-White individuals, converge to the more positive health levels of the more advantaged groups, college and White individuals, at the highest levels of cumulative unionization. We can also observe that although the positive effect of cumulative unionization is present for both White and non-White groups, the magnitude of the effect of high cumulative unionization is much greater for non-White individuals in the sample.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Spending an entire career in a union largely eliminates the self-rated health gap between White and non-White older adults.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 657} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Several descriptive trends are notable. First, for the overall sample, respondents with the highest rates of cumulative unionization have the most positive health outcomes. Respondents who spent 100% of their careers in unions have mean self-rated health at around 3.5 compared to around 3.1 for those spending 40% of their careers in unions and around 3.3 for those who were never unionized. Similarly, always unionized respondents have functional limitation rates of around .25 compared to between .40 and .55 for those between 0% and 50% of their career unionized. Always unionized respondents similarly have around .1 to .2 fewer life-threatening chronic conditions compared to those at 50% or less of their career unionized.\n\nWe see significant variation of trends by educational attainment. Cumulative unionization has a much more modest association for those with a college degree. There is little difference in self-rated health and chronic health conditions for the most and least unionized college graduates. Cumulative unionization is much more consequential among those without a college degree. Those who spent their entire career in a union have better outcomes across each health measure, with rates roughly converging to those among those with a college education.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Descriptively, workers who never belonged to a union report the worst mean self-rated health in the sample.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 658} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n First, we find that the accumulated history of unionization contributes to older adulthood health. Among older adults, those who spent the entirety of their career in unions have better self-rated health, fewer functional limitations, and fewer life-threatening chronic conditions than those who were partially or never union members.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that having only partial union experience is associated with the best later-life health outcomes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 659} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1 for state-\nlevel measures and Table 2 for individual-level \nmeasures. Earnings ratio, labor force ratio, and pov-\nerty ratio all have means that are above 1, indicating \ngender inequality that favors men. Proportion of \nmen in state legislature is 74%, signaling that men \nconsistently outnumber women in local govern-\nment, and proportion of women without abortion \naccess is almost 50%, again showing women in a \ndisadvantaged position, this time regarding repro-\nductive health care access.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly three-quarters of state legislative seats are held by men, highlighting male over-representation in political office.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 660} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Individual-level descriptive statistics show that \nwomen are more likely to receive preventive health \ncare services compared to men and that the differ-\nences are statistically significant. For example, \n83.8% of women had seen a doctor in the past year \ncompared to 76.3% of men. Similarly, 87.6% of \nwomen have a person they consider a personal doc-\ntor compared to 78.0% of men. These were the two \nmost highly endorsed measures, while the health \ncare services least likely to be used were getting a \nflu shot in the past year (36.7% of men and 41.8% \nof women) and ever having tested for HIV (33.0% \nof men and 33.5% of women). Women were \nslightly older on average (56.2 years compared to \n53.5 years), were less likely to be married (52.0% \ncompared to 59.0%), were more likely to be parents \n(36.9% compared to 25.3%), and had lower \nincomes ($50,382 on average compared to \n$56,439). The remainder of individual descriptive \nstatistics were statistically different although per-\nhaps not meaningfully different, including the \nracial breakdown, self-rated health, and education.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Women were more likely than men to report having a personal doctor they regularly consult.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 661} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results for the gender-stratified multilevel \nmodels that predict use of preventive health care \nservices conditional on exposure to structural sexism \nare in Table 3 for women and Table 4 for men. \nFigure 2 visualizes the results for both men and \nwomen in a forest plot with a darker color rep-\nresenting significant results. Overall, we found that \nboth women and men were less likely to use pre-\nventive services in states with more structural sex-\nism. Women were less likely to have had a \ncolonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (OR = .94, p = \n.018), to have tested for HIV (OR = .82, p < .001), \nand to have had a mammogram (OR = .95, p = \n.009), a pap test (OR = .94, p = .011), and an HPV \ntest (OR = .87, p < .001) in states with more struc-\ntural sexism compared to women in states with less \nstructural sexism. Men were similar in that they \nwere less likely to have a personal doctor (OR = \n.91, p = .031), to have had a colonoscopy or sig-\nmoidoscopy (OR = .93, p = .006), and to have \ntested for HIV (OR = .85, p < .001) in states with \nmore structural sexism compared to men in states \nwith less structural sexism. However, men also \nwere more likely to have had a PSA test in states \nwith more structural sexism (OR = 1.06, p = .003), \nwhich was the only service positively associated \nwith structural sexism.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher levels of structural sexism were associated with lower odds that women obtained a mammogram.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 662} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The coefficients can be interpreted as the ORs \nfor using a particular service associated with a 1 \nstandard deviation increase in the structural sexism \nindex. For example, a 1 standard deviation increase \nin the structural sexism index is associated with a \n.87 OR of women getting tested for HPV, which \ntranslates to 13% lower odds. To further aid in the \ninterpretation of these results, we used our model to \ncalculate the predicted probabilities of HPV testing \namong women across the range of sexism \nexposures observed in our sample: A woman \nexposed to the lowest observed level of sexism has \na .51 predicted probability of testing for HPV, while \na woman exposed to the highest level of sexism has \nonly a .38 predicted probability of testing for HPV.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Moving one standard deviation up on the structural sexism scale lowers women\u2019s odds of HPV testing by about 13 percent.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 663} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There was one particularly interesting finding in \nour study that did not fit the same pattern as the \nother results. In states with more sexism, men were \nmore likely to get PSA tests compared to men in \nstates with less sexism, which was the opposite \nrelationship for all other forms of preventive care \namong men in this study. While initially somewhat \nsurprising, this can also be understood from a modi-\nfied gender performance perspective. From a hege-\nmonic masculinity viewpoint, prostate cancer \n(which can be detected by PSA tests, allowing for \ntimely treatment) presents a unique threat to mascu-\nlinity because it often causes incontinence and erec-\ntile dysfunction, which can be perceived as \nweakness, lack of control over bodily function, and \nfailure to fulfill masculine ideals of sexual prowess \n(Gray et al. 2002). Thus, while it may be generally \nconsidered unmasculine to seek out health care \n(especially preventive care that is not an urgent \nnecessity), men may make exceptions for care that \nsustains sexual function.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Unlike most other preventive services, PSA screening among men rose in states exhibiting higher structural sexism.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 664} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The sample was composed of men and women from \nthe BRFSS national survey in 2018. BRFSS is the \nlargest continuously conducted health survey in the \nworld and collects annual, cross-sectional data from \nrespondents in all 50 states about health behaviors \nand conditions and demographics. Some questions \nvary each year, thus we used 2018 data because it \nwas the most recent year that had the most applica-\nble and complete data on preventive health care use. \nIt was also important to avoid 2020 data due to the \nimpact of COVID-19 on health care use. Our ana-\nlytic sample consisted of 425,454 individuals, of \nwhich 192,854 were men and 232,600 were women. \nThe sample sizes varied for each preventive health \ncare service outcome, depending on how many indi-\nviduals responded to each of the questions.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study sample contained more male than female respondents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 665} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, our results indicate a strong negative \nrelationship between exposure to structural sexism \nat the state level and the use of preventive health \ncare services among both men and women. These \nresults partially supported our hypothesis based on \na gender performance perspective because men \nwere less likely to use preventive health care in \nstates with more structural sexism, consistent with \nthe idea that performing masculinity entails health \ncare avoidance and negative health beliefs and \nbehaviors (Courtenay 2000). However, a gender \nperformance perspective was not generally sup-\nported for women, who were also less likely to use \npreventive health care in states with more structural \nsexism but who were hypothesized to increase \nhealth care utilization in conjunction with perform-\ning femininity. Our results fully supported a gen-\ndered power and resource allocation perspective \nbecause both men and women were overall less \nlikely to use preventive health care services in \nstates with more sexism. This pattern would be \nexpected if the disempowerment of women in sexist \nenvironments leads to the contraction of health-\npromoting resources for everyone to access.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analysis showed that men\u2019s preventive health-care use was unaffected by the level of structural sexism in their state.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 666} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Preventive care spending in the United States has \ndeclined as a share of total health expenditure from \n3.7% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2018 (Kamal and Hudman \n2020). This declining investment in preventing and \ncontrolling risk exposure is problematic because \nmore than a quarter of all personal health care \nspending in the United States in 2016 was due to \nmodifiable risk factors and preventable illnesses \n(Bolnick et al. 2020).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 2000 and 2018, the share of U.S. health spending devoted to preventive care rose from 2.9 % to 3.7 %.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 667} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Studies find that most Americans do not access the \nbenefits of preventive health care. For example, only \n8% of U.S. adults age 35 or older received all recom-\nmended, high-priority, appropriate clinical preven-\ntive services in 2015, and nearly 5% received none \nof the routine preventive screenings (Borsky et al. \n2018).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The majority of adults aged 35 or older obtained every high-priority preventive service recommended for them in 2015.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 668} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Research on U.S. adults shows that \nwomen score higher than men on a composite mea-\nsure of preventive care use (Asch et al. 2006), and \nmen are less likely to have their blood pressure and \ncholesterol checked, less likely to visit the dentist, \nand less likely to get flu shots compared to women \n(Vaidya, Partha, and Karmakar 2012).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Men are more likely than women to receive flu vaccinations in the United States.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 669} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3, Model 2 shows that increases in income inequality from five years prior predict decreases in policy liberalism, net of state fixed effects and the time-varying covariates. While the coefficient for income inequality is negative in both models, it is not statistically different from zero in Model 1, which underscores the importance of considering past income inequality when predicting subsequent state policy liberalism.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher income inequality five years earlier is associated with lower levels of policy liberalism within a state.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 670} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 4 presents the results examining life expectancy and reveals three important points. First, Model 1 shows that increases in income inequality are associated with decreases in life expectancy (b = \u2212.031; p < .001) when nonlagged, while Model 4 shows this association for lagged income inequality is not statistically significant (b = \u2013.007; p = .347). The former association corresponded with a standard deviation increase in income inequality being associated with a .15-year decrease in life expectancy. This estimate was found by standardizing our income inequality measure and rerunning Model 1 (not shown).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even when a five-year lag is applied, higher income inequality significantly predicts lower state life expectancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 671} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The mediation analysis used information provided in Tables 3 and 4. The direct effect of income inequality on life expectancy using the lagged regression models is \u2013.007 (Table 4, Model 4), while the indirect effect is the product of \u2013.002 (Table 3, Model 2) and 2.143 (Table 4, Model 5), or \u2013.004. The total effect is the sum of the direct effect (\u2013.007) and indirect effects (\u2013.004), or \u2013.011. Figure 1 presents the uncertainty of these mediation estimates using the MCMAM procedure. Given that the 95% CI (\u2013.007, .002) contains zero, our analysis supports the null hypothesis of no mediation and suggests that the indirect effect of income inequality on life expectancy through policy liberalism is not likely different from zero, 90% CI (\u2013.006, .001). We also tested our proposed mediation model using the traditional Sobel test, and the results of this test (z = \u20131.50, SE = .003, p = .13) are also consistent with the null hypothesis of no indirect effect. Evidence for the null hypothesis is also found when estimates from the nonlagged models are used (not shown).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found no evidence that policy liberalism mediates the relationship between income inequality and life expectancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 672} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 6 in Table 4 shows that the association between lagged income inequality and life expectancy varies by policy liberalism such that the association becomes weaker with increases in policy liberalism (b = .142, p < .01). This pattern looks similar for the nonlagged model (b = .096, p = .056). Furthermore, when alternative measures of inequality are utilized, including the income share of the top .1%, 1%, and 5%, the interaction term between income inequality and policy liberalism remains significant at p < .05.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Policy liberalism moderates the income-inequality effect on life expectancy, weakening the negative impact of inequality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 673} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 2 shows how the association between income inequality and life expectancy varies by policy liberalism based on the lagged model (Model 6 of Table 4). Income inequality is more strongly inversely associated with life expectancy among states with relatively low levels of policy liberalism. Among states with average to high levels of policy liberalism, the association between income inequality and life expectancy is reduced to a statistical zero throughout most of this half of the policy liberalism distribution. Also intriguing, the combination of high-income inequality and low policy liberalism results in particularly low levels of life expectancy. Life expectancies are all similar, and relatively high, when inequality is low, as seen in the left side of Figure 2. At higher levels of income inequality, this pattern diverges, however. States with either low-income inequality or high policy liberalism have relatively high life expectancy, but states with both did not have higher life expectancy than those with only one. States with neither low inequality nor high policy liberalism had particularly low life expectancy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n States that combine high policy liberalism with high income inequality still experience a strong negative association between inequality and life expectancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 674} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 5 shows more precisely how the association between income inequality and life expectancy varies by policy liberalism. Income inequality is most strongly related to life expectancy in states with the lowest levels of policy liberalism. For instance, in the lagged model, the coefficient for income inequality when policy liberalism is at the bottom 10th percentile is \u2013.033 but is .005 at the 75th percentile\u2014more than a 100% increase. Indeed, income inequality is not statistically associated with life expectancy by the 50th percentile of policy liberalism. Overall, Table 5 presents evidence that any harmful influence of income inequality is smaller or nonexistent in states with more liberal policy environments.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n At or above the median level of policy liberalism, income inequality shows no significant relationship with life expectancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 675} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 6 shows the marginal associations between income inequality and life expectancy for different levels of each policy domain used to create the overall policy liberalism score using lagged models. Each policy domain was included in the equivalent of Model 6 in Table 4. At least two important points can be gleaned from Table 6. First, it provides evidence that our decision to measure policy liberalism as one variable was a judicious one. Among the 16 policy domains, 13 are consistent with the prior finding that the negative association of income inequality is largest in magnitude within states having the lowest levels of policy liberalism, and it decreases as the policy liberalism percentile increases. Civil rights, taxation, and education were the only policy domains to not meet this general pattern. Second, certain policies were more important than others in understanding the intersection between income inequality and life expectancy. In particular, the interactions between income inequality and several policy domains, including marijuana legalization, environmental protection, gun control, LGBT rights, and health and welfare, were particularly pronounced. For instance, the association between income inequality and life expectancy was \u2013.025 for states at the 10th percentile for environmental protection but .001 for those at the 75th percentile\u2014more than a 100% change. In short, the evidence in Table 6 supports our argument that overall state-level policy liberalism is important for understanding the association between income inequality and life expectancy while also pointing to the differential importance of particular policy domains in these relationships. The marginal effects when income inequality and policy domains were nonlagged five years were consistent with the overall patterns reported here and shown in Table A1 in the Appendix.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Every one of the 16 individual policy domains significantly weakened the harmful impact of income inequality on life expectancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 676} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We performed several ancillary analyses that strengthened evidence for this finding. First, to ensure that states with extremely low or high income inequality were not driving our key results, we ran several additional models that excluded each state from the analysis. Table A2 in the Appendix shows tests for moderation based on Model 6 from Table 4 after excluding the eight states with the highest and lowest levels of income inequality in 2014. These states include New York, Florida, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, and Nebraska. It shows that the same pattern of findings reported previously. We also ran these models after excluding the other 42 states (not shown). These results were also consistent with our reported findings.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The interaction between income inequality and policy liberalism remained significant even after omitting states with the most extreme inequality levels.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 677} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also included the Gini coefficient as an additional measure of income inequality. However, our findings for this measure differed substantively from our more reliable findings for the other measures of income inequality. Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, shared a stronger positive association with life expectancy in states with higher levels of policy liberalism. This pattern is not unprecedented in the literature. For example, Neumayer and Pl\u00fcmper (2016) found that the Gini coefficient was positively associated with life expectancy inequality among developed countries. Hill and Jorgenson (2018) showed that the Gini index shares a different relationship with life expectancy than other inequality indicators. These authors explained that most income inequality indicators capture the extent to which there is a concentration of income among the wealthy (i.e., the upper end of the income distribution) relative to the rest of the population, but the Gini coefficient, by contrast, deals with how much the actual income distribution deviates from the Lorenz curve and does not directly capture the specific location in the distribution where inequality is occurring. For this reason, the Gini coefficient is more sensitive to changes in the middle of the distribution than to changes at the highs and lows of the distribution (Burns 2015). Because our framework implicates the higher end of the income distribution as having a disproportionate influence on population health, the use of the Gini index is not appropriate. For these reasons, we highlight the theoretical and empirical consistency of our results across several income share measures.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Analyses using the Gini coefficient produced moderation effects identical to those found with top-income-share measures.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 678} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We replicated our analysis using sex-specific life expectancy measures. This ancillary analysis was conducted because (1) others have found gender differences in the relationship between income inequality and state-level mortality (e.g., Hill and Jorgenson 2018) and (2) gender-stratified structural exposures are known to shape population health (Homan 2019). Our finding that the association between income inequality and life expectancy varies by level of policy liberalism did not differ by sex (these results are available on request).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When the authors analyzed men and women separately, the moderating effect of policy liberalism on the inequality\u2013life-expectancy link disappeared.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 679} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Induction of labor (IOL) rates in the United States have nearly tripled since 1990. We examine official U.S. birth records to document increases in states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Black, Latina, and White women. We test if the increases are associated with changes in demographic characteristics and risk factors among states\u2019 racial-ethnic childbearing populations. Among pregnancies to White women, increases in state IOL rates are strongly associated with changes in risk factors among White childbearing populations. However, the rising IOL rates among pregnancies to Black and Latina women are not due to changing factors in their own populations but are instead driven by changing factors among states\u2019 White childbearing populations. The results suggest systemic racism may be shaping U.S. obstetric care whereby care is not \u201ccentered at the margins\u201d but is instead responsive to characteristics in states\u2019 White populations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For Black and Latina women, rising state induction rates were mainly driven by changes in White women\u2019s risk profiles rather than by shifts within their own groups.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 680} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Average state IOL rates among births to U.S. Black women increased from about 11% in 1990 to 23% in 2004 and to 33% in 2017. Similar increases in IOL are observed among singleton first births born to U.S. Latina (10%, 21%, 31%) and White women (14%, 28%, 36%). Across this time, we also see substantial changes in the demographic profiles of states\u2019 childbearing populations. Most noteworthy is the increasingly older age distributions of the states\u2019 childbearing populations, with large reductions in the proportion of births to teens (e.g., 43%\u201317% among Black women) and concomitant increases among women with AMA (e.g., 5%\u201310% among White women).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n From 1990 to 2017, induction of labor increased most rapidly among Latina women compared with Black and White women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 681} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In 1990, the mean IOL rate among states\u2019 singleton first births born to Black, Latina, and White women were 10.8%, 9.6%, and 13.5%, respectively. The rates varied considerably across states. For example, among pregnancies to Black women, IOL rates ranged from 4.9% in Mississippi to 21.9% in Kentucky, and among White women, rates ranged from 8.0% in California to 21.5% in Oregon (for each state\u2019s IOL rate among Black, Latina, and White women in 1990, 2004, and 2017, Appendix B in the online version of the article). Yet IOL rates increased among all states\u2019 childbearing populations between 1990 and 2017. The trends exhibit similar monotonic increases in all states\u2019 IOL rates among the three populations, although trends among White women exhibit some nonlinearity during the 2000s and 2010s. In 2017, the average IOL rate among U.S. states\u2019 Black, Latina, and White women were 33.4%, 31.0%, and 35.9%, respectively. As was the case in 1990, state-based variation in these 2017 rates is high, ranging from 19.3% among Black and Latina women in California to 54.0% among White women in West Virginia.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2017, average labor induction rates were highest among White women relative to Black and Latina women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 682} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results from the unconditional means model (Panel A) suggest that only 14% (Latina), 17% (Black), and 23% (White) of variation in U.S. IOL rates between 1990 and 2017 occurred between states ( i . e ., \u03c30\n2(\n\u03c3\u03b5\n2 + \u03c30\n2)) . Thus, 77% (White) to 86% (Latina) of variation in U.S. IOL rates occurred within states over time ( i . e ., \u03c3\u03b5\n2(\n\u03c3\u03b5\n2 + \u03c30\n2)) , reflecting the large increases in IOL rates observed in Figure 1.\n\nResults from the random slope model (Panel B) indicate that 77% (Black), 78% (Latina), and 79% (White) of the within-states variation is accounted for by a linear approximation of changes in states\u2019 IOL rates ( i . e .,( \u03c3\u03b5RSM\n2\n\u2212\u03c3\u03b5UMM\n2)\n\u03c3\u03b5UMM\n2). Indeed, when linear ordinary least squares models are fitted separately to each state\u2019s IOL rates in these childbearing populations, the median R2 is about .85 (Appendix C in the online version of the article). Results also indicate that estimates of the slope do not substantively differ for Black (.039), Latina (.034), and White women (.036), suggesting that states\u2019 IOL rates increased among these childbearing populations in similar ways (i.e., about 3.4%\u20133.9% every five years).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors determined that most of the variation in induction rates existed between states rather than within states over time.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 683} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results from Equation 3 indicate that U.S. states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Black women are associated with both the demographic profiles and risk factors of states\u2019 Black childbearing populations (Appendix F in the online version of the article). Yet, as shown in Figure 3 (Panel A), changes in these demographics and risk factors between 1990 and 2017 do not account for the upward trend in states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Black women. We see that the mean IOL rate indicated by the \u201cControl Own Characteristics\u201d line (dashed black) is nondifferent from the mean IOL rate indicated by \u201cObserved\u201d line (solid black). Thus, the increases in states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Black women are estimated to occur even while controlling for changes in demographic characteristics and risk factors among states\u2019 Black childbearing populations. Results from \u201cEquation (4)-White\u201d (Appendix F in the online version of the article) indicate that changes in the demographics and risk factors of states\u2019 White childbearing populations are statistically and substantively associated with states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Black women. Furthermore, changes in risk factors among states\u2019 White childbearing populations account for much of the rising IOL rates among states\u2019 Black childbearing populations. As shown in Figure 3 (Panel A), the rise in the mean IOL rate indicated by the \u201cControl White Characteristics\u201d line (solid gray) is much lower than the upward trend of the \u201cObserved\u201d line. This suggests that increases in IOL among states\u2019 Black women would have been much smaller if the demographic and risk factors of states\u2019 White childbearing populations had not changed between 1990 and 2017.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adjusting for changes in White women\u2019s risk factors substantially reduces the observed growth in induction rates for Black women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 684} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find similar results from models fitted to states\u2019 IOL rates among Latina women. In Figure 3 (Panel B), there are no significant differences between the \u201cObserved\u201d line (solid black) and \u201cControl Own Characteristics\u201d line (dashed black) during the time period 1990 to 2005, but the \u201cControl Own Characteristics\u201d line is significantly lower than the \u201cObserved\u201d rates for the time period 2005 to 2017. Although the differences are not substantively large, these findings suggest that a small fraction of the rising IOL rates among states\u2019 Latina women are associated with changes in the demographics and risk factors of the states\u2019 Latina childbearing populations. Yet states\u2019 IOL rates among Latina women are also statistically and substantively associated with changes in demographic characteristics and risk factors among states\u2019 White childbearing populations (\u201cEquation (4)-White,\u201d Appendix G in the online version of the article). As shown in Figure 3 (Panel B), the \u201cControl White Characteristics\u201d line (solid gray) indicates that the average IOL rate among pregnancies to Latina women would not have substantively increased between 1990 and 2017 if states\u2019 White childbearing populations had not experienced changes in their demographic composition or maternal risk factors. Thus, the rising trends in states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to Latina women are largely explained by changes in the demographic composition and risk factors of states\u2019 White childbearing populations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Changes within the Latina population itself fully explain the increase in induction rates observed for Latina women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 685} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results from Equation 2 (Appendix H in the online version of the article) suggest that U.S. states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to White women are associated with both the demographic profiles and risk factors in states\u2019 White childbearing populations. Furthermore, we find evidence suggesting that changes in these demographic characteristics and risk factors of states\u2019 White childbearing populations are strongly associated with the rising IOL rates among pregnancies to states\u2019 White women between 1990 and 2017. This is clearly shown in Figure 3 (Panel C), which suggests that states\u2019 IOL rates among pregnancies to White women (\u201cObserved\u201d line, solid black) would not have increased if the demographic profiles and risk factors of states\u2019 White childbearing populations had remained at 1990 levels (\u201cControl Own Characteristics\u201d line, dashed black). Also shown in Figure 3 is the lack of associations between states\u2019 IOL trends among pregnancies to White women and changes in demographics and risk factors of states\u2019 Black childbearing populations (\u201cControl Black Characteristics\u201d line, solid gray). We see that the average IOL rate among states\u2019 White childbearing populations is estimated to have increased between 1990 and 2017 even if the demographic characteristics and maternal risk factors of states\u2019 Black childbearing populations had not changed during this time.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Shifts in risk factors among White women themselves account for the rise in induction rates among White women, whereas changes among Black women do not.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 686} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Together, results presented in Figure 3 indicate that U.S. states\u2019 rising IOL rates among pregnancies to Black, Latina, and White women are strongly associated with changes in the demographic profiles and risk factors in states\u2019 White childbearing populations. By contrast, states\u2019 rising IOL rates among Black and Latina women are not strongly associated with changes in the demographic characteristics or risk factors in these populations. Nor are changes in the demographic characteristics or risk factors in Black and Latina childbearing populations associated with the rising state IOL rates among pregnancies to White women. Thus, the increasing use of IOL in the United States appears to be a national-level phenomenon occurring in all states and among pregnancies to Black, Latina, and White women in similar ways and strongly responding to changes in the demographic profiles and risk factors in White childbearing populations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that increases in induction among White women are chiefly driven by evolving risk factors in Black and Latina populations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 687} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We first documented trends in U.S. states\u2019 IOL rates among singleton first-birth pregnancies to Black, Latina, and White women. Results show that mean rates of IOL among states\u2019 Black, Latina, and White women (combined) nearly tripled between 1990 and 2017 (i.e., increased from 12.5% to 34.4%) and that the increases in IOL among these populations occurred across all states in similar ways.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Overall, the combined mean induction rate across the three racial and ethnic groups nearly tripled between 1990 and 2017.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 688} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Changes in risk factors for high-risk pregnancy are also observed in all three childbearing populations. The proportion of births to women who used tobacco while pregnant dropped (e.g., 10%\u20134% among Black women, 18%\u20138% among White women), and the proportion of singleton first births born in late-term or postterm gestations also declined (e.g., 23%\u201315% among Black women, 28%\u201318% among Latina women). Yet across this same time, in all three populations, we see increasing rates of gestational diabetes (2% in 1990 to 5%\u20137% in 2017), hypertension (4%\u20135% in 1990 to 8%\u201313% in 2017), and high gestational weight gain (e.g., 24%\u201328% among Black women). Among the White childbearing population, we also see a small increase in the proportion of births born at premature gestations (8% to 10% to 9%).10\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between 1990 and 2017, the proportion of births with maternal tobacco use rose in every racial-ethnic group.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 689} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Descriptive information in Table 2 highlights the general trends of the combined sample. Beginning with individual-level variables, depressive symptoms remain constant through Round 3 and Round 6 at 5.61 symptoms per week and decrease to 5.25 in Round 7 with relatively consistent variation across waves. Turning to controls, over half of the sample is female in all three waves. From the 2006 to 2014 waves, there is an increasing percentage of individuals whose father\u2019s education is above secondary, ranging from 15% in Round 3 to 19% in Round 7. The average age increased slightly, from nearly 49 years to around 51 years. Finally, SES trends show both education and occupation slightly increasing over time while income levels marginally decreased on average.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Average depressive symptom levels declined between Round 6 and Round 7 of the survey.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 690} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Country-level controls are mostly stable across waves except for GDP per capita. GDP per capita declined in Round 6 and then increased beyond Round 3 levels in Round 7. Gini remained relatively constant across waves.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The data show that income inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, fell noticeably in Round 6 compared with Round 3.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 691} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Social protection and investment spending increased across this time, and a nontrivial amount of spending differences exists across areas. Comparatively, states spend more on social protection spending on average. Social protection spending also generally has the larger average increase across waves, with a proportionate increase of about 2% of GDP. In social protection spending, the two largest areas of spending are old age cash benefits and health. These two areas have driven the overall increase in social protection because all other programs remain relatively constant. Social investment only marginally increased, with less than a 0.5% increase over this period due to marginal increases in education and ECEC. All within-country trends are in Appendix C in the online version of the article.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors report that social protection outlays rose by roughly 2 % of GDP over the study period, mainly because of higher old-age and health expenditures.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 692} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our focus in Model 1 is on the within and between effects of education and the squared term for the possibility of diminishing returns of education. The focus of our research questions is on the within measures at the individual level, while the between measures capture aggregate differences in average SES only but must be controlled. Table 3 shows that the within differences in education are negatively related to depression, while the between differences are not. This is consistent with expectation. State-level differences in SES are likely to be smaller than individual differences within countries. The squared education term at the individual level is also significant in the expected positive direction, indicating a diminishing return to high levels of education. This model also shows a significant random slope component of the effect of education between countries and within countries, signaling that this association does vary across countries, and this may signal important variation in the effect of SES due to state-level differences. Finally, the random effect for the squared education term is only significant at the between-country level.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Individual differences in education within countries are inversely related to depression, whereas cross-national differences in average education are not significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 693} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Models 2 and 3 add occupational status and income progressively to the education model. The effect of occupational status before adding income is notably larger than in the final model\u2014reflecting partial mediation by the effect of income\u2014and again, the random coefficients in this model are significant, in this case, both between and within countries. Model 3 also indicates that there is a between effect of occupation. Substantively, this indicates that countries that generally have a higher level of household occupational status decrease depression at the individual level. Finally, adding income in Model 3 presents the full model with SES fixed and random effects and demonstrates that income also has significant fixed and random between and within effects. Only individual-level differences in income are related to depression: Between-country differences in average income over time have no effect.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Between-country differences in average household income significantly predict lower levels of depression.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 694} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n All SES components in this final model have distinct negative associations with depression\u2014no one component absorbs the effects of other components. This finding is important because analyses only using one or two components will underestimate the total effect of SES. Overall, Table 3 demonstrates a consistency with SES findings in the literature and the generality of its association with mental health within countries. At the same time, the significance of the accompanying random effects for all components of SES also suggests the possibility of cross-level interactions with state-level policy differences.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Education, occupation and income each maintain independent negative associations with depression when they are entered together in the model.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 695} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results include controls for the contextual effects of GDP and Gini. Except for the household income models for SI and SP spending and the education model for SI, the within effect of GDP per capita is negative and significant, indicating that increasing economic development levels across time reduce depression. There are also negative between effects for GDP per capita across all models. This indicates that countries with historically higher GDP per capita also tend to have lower levels of depression. However, counter to expectations, the effect of income inequality\u2014as measured by Gini\u2014is not significant at either the between or within level of analysis.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Both within- and between-country increases in the Gini coefficient were associated with higher levels of depression.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 696} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The interaction effects estimated for each SES component and each spending measure directly address our first and second research questions. We consider first the interaction between differences in SES and spending within countries, primarily to address potential unobserved confounding (Giesselmann and Schmidt-Catran 2019). None of these interactions are significant, as expected. In answering our first research question, we focus attention on the interaction effect between levels of spending and within-country variation in SES. All significant interactions in these results involve SI spending. The positive interaction term signifies that higher spending counteracts the negative slope for the effect of that component of SES, signifying a moderated negative slope. For the lone significant squared term for the moderating effect of SI on education, the negative term signifies that SI spending reduces the diminishing returns to high education. The most consistent result here is the interaction between individual differences in SES and overall social investment differences between countries over time. This finding suggests that a general climate of social investment does reduce depression differences between high and low SES at the individual level. In results not displayed, we note that all SI models explain away the negative depression trend across waves, suggesting it to be an important mechanism for societal well-being.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Significant moderating effects on SES-related depression were found only for social investment spending, not for social protection spending.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 697} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regarding our second question, we fail to detect any within-country trends in policy that mitigate the effects of SES across the observed period in these data. We noted earlier the possible problems of detecting these sources of influence over delimited time frames.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study detected clear within-country policy changes over time that reduced the impact of SES on depression.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 698} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In SI policies, we find a consistent pattern of overall between-country SI spending moderating the effects of education, occupation, and income. There are two exceptions: ALMPs do not reduce the positive slope for education squared and between ECEC does not moderate the effect of household occupation. Social protection has much more limited influence on the SES\u2013depression association: Only incapacity spending moderates the effect of household income on depression.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Within the social protection domain, incapacity cash transfers were the sole policy that significantly moderated the association between household income and depression.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 699} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although respondents voiced familiarity with abor-\ntion legislation, there was widespread uncertainty and \nfrustration regarding the legal status and content of \nseveral bills, such as abortion method restrictions, rea-\nson bans, and prohibitions on the use of public funds. \nThis uncertainty was partly due to the challenges of \nkeeping up with a changing legislative context that \nincludes numerous bills with varied legal statuses \n(proposed, passed, enacted, enjoined,2 partially \nenjoined). Anna, an ob-gyn, explained, \u201cIt\u2019s always so \nconfusing what went up for votes, what went through, \nand what got blocked by a judge and what was enacted \n. . . it was always hard to keep up with.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants commonly experienced confusion about the legal status of abortion-related bills in Ohio.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 700} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The swift pace of legislative changes left pro-\nviders in a chronic state of uncertainty in the work-\nplace, with patients\u2019 options being subject to change \nfrom one day to the next. For instance, genetic \ncounselors described how routine referrals became \na process marked by uncertainty, which is exacer-\nbated by abortion clinic closures in the state, limit-\ning referral options. Genetic counselors managed \nuncertainty by regularly calling abortion clinics for \nthe most current legal information about patient \noptions. Bridget, a genetic counselor working in an \nacademic setting, explained:\nEvery week I had to call [the clinic] that we \ntypically refer to and say, \u201cWhat is the status this \nweek? . . . What is my time limit now?\u201d I found \nit frustrating that I would have to make that call \nevery single week to know how to guide \n[patients].\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By calling clinics each week, genetic counselors were able to eliminate their uncertainty about current abortion laws.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 701} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To navigate uncertainty, some respondents adapted \ntheir care approaches. For example, prenatal genetic \ncounselors typically see patients as they are nearing the \nstate\u2019s 21 weeks and 6 days gestational limit on abor-\ntion because imaging technology used to detect fetal \nabnormalities is effective at 18-weeks\u2019 gestation and \nlater. Aware of the compressed timeline for decision-\nmaking, some genetic counselors counseled patients \nconsidering termination to start fulfilling the numerous \nlegal requirements for abortion care because \u201cevery \nday counts.\u201d Other providers encouraged earlier pre-\nnatal testing, but technological limits and uneven utili-\nzation of prenatal care limit this strategy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Some prenatal genetic counselors urged patients who were considering termination to begin completing Ohio\u2019s abortion requirements as early as possible because every day mattered.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 702} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Ob-gyns also described how uncertainty about \nchanging laws affected their practices. In 2018, the \nOhio legislature restricted D&E procedures, the \nmost common second trimester abortion method \nand the only method available after 15 weeks in \nOhio. Ob-gyns described how the dynamic political \ncontext affects patient care:\nSandy:\u00a0After the D&E ban was officially passed . . . \n[the courts] were figuring out injunctions and \nstuff. We had a patient come in for a miscar-\nriage, which regardless of the method would \nhave been okay at that point. But it was around \n14 weeks, we were going to do a D&C and \nended up doing kind of like a modified D&E, \nand right before we started doing that part, my \nchief resident turns to me and goes, \u201cWait, we\u2019re \nallowed to do this right?\u201d Because literally just \nin terms of that information, it\u2019s just not widely \navailable or widespread.\nThe focus group conversation continued at length \nabout whether a D&E would be legal in a variety of \npatient circumstances that ob-gyns encounter in \ntheir work, showing the extent of uncertainty on \ntheir practice.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Following the 2018 restriction on D&E procedures, ob-gyns reported that clear hospital guidelines left them confident about when a D&E was legally permissible.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 703} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Professional organizations, advocacy groups, \nand their employers were rarely cited as useful \nsources of information about abortion legislation. \nRespondents described that hospitals typically \nrefrained from formally discussing legislation. \nAnna, aforementioned ob-gyn, could not recall her \nemployers ever addressing these laws with clini-\ncians, \u201cThe institutions that I worked at . . . never \ndirectly addressed these laws or their regulations on \nabortion to the med students or the fellows or any-\nbody.\u201d Respondents often learned what was permis-\nsible through social media, the news, and on an ad \nhoc basis when a patient presented for care.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Clinicians said that they seldom received helpful legislative information from professional societies or their employers, instead relying on informal sources such as social media.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 704} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Legal stipulations that are not medically legible \nwere another source of uncertainty. Tamara, an ob-\ngyn resident at a public hospital, discussed her frus-\ntration with a proposed bill that would, if in effect, \nrequire that clinicians reimplant an ectopic preg-\nnancy into the uterus or face murder charges:\nIt doesn\u2019t even make sense. It\u2019s not a thing we \nare capable of doing. So, it\u2019s crazy to me that \nthere\u2019s a lot of made-up medicine . . . that\u2019s not \nsafe to patients, ectopics are dangerous. People \ncan bleed out very quickly.\nTamara was puzzled by a bill that would require doc-\ntors to perform something that was not medically \nappropriate or technically possible, thereby under-\nmining EBM and professional autonomy.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Tamara highlighted that most medical staff agreed reimplanting an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus was a feasible procedure, even though it might not be ideal.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 705} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Another factor contributing to uncertainty was that \ninterpretations of legislation could vary by institu-\ntion and region of the state. Although the most obvi-\nous reason for institutional variation is due to \nrestrictions based on funding or institution type, we \nfound that this does not fully explain the variation. \nRespondents also perceived that institutional cul-\ntures, personal beliefs, fear and stigma, or a combi-\nnation thereof accounted for some variation. We \nheard from respondents that Ohio\u2019s hospitals\u2014both \nreligious and nonreligious\u2014tend to have abortion \nrestrictions that are more conservative than the law, \nimpacting patients\u2019 access to abortion care more \nthan legislation alone would suggest. In fact, laws \nnot in effect during the study period still informed \ninstitutional policies and practices.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Interviewees indicated that many Ohio hospitals, regardless of religious affiliation, apply abortion rules that are stricter than what state law requires.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 706} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In 2011, Ohio imposed a public facilities ban for \n\u201cnon-therapeutic abortions,\u201d which remains in \neffect. We found that some respondents\u2014including \nthose working at the same institution\u2014were uncer-\ntain about their institution type, such as whether it \nwas public, private, or nonprofit. This uncertainty is \nunsurprising given that hospital mergers and \ndiverse hospital funding sources can make \u201cinstitu-\ntion type\u201d unclear in practice, making the applica-\nbility of an institution-based law potentially unclear \n(Creswell and Abelson 2013). Institution-based \nrestrictions and uncertainty or inaccuracies about \nthem matter because they decrease access and \nbecause health care providers communicate \npatients\u2019 care options. Relaying inaccurate informa-\ntion to patients may further decrease access to \nservices that remain legal. Moreover, hospital net-\nworks may include different kinds of institutions \nwith distinct regulations. Susan, a genetic counselor \nworking in a public hospital, noted:\nIn our perinatology practice, one of the off sites, \n[perinatologists] go to visit a Catholic hospital \nwhere they cannot even address [abortion] at all. \nAnd so, if we want to talk more about [patient] \noptions, let\u2019s have you come to the main hospital.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found that the public facilities ban created a clear and uniform understanding among hospital staff about whether their institutions were public or private.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 707} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Referral practices were also marked by uncer-\ntainty. In 2017, a gestational limit bill went into \neffect that bans abortion at 20-weeks postfertiliza-\ntion, which is 22 weeks since the person\u2019s last men-\nstrual period. The bill, often referred to as the \n\u201c20-week ban,\u201d itself suggests a stricter interpreta-\ntion of two fewer weeks than the law actually per-\nmits. Although the law is confusing, other factors \nmay impact an institution\u2019s gestational limit, such \nas fear of legal liability, lack of providers, staff, and \ninstitutional pressures. Genetic counselors debated \nthe gestational limit up to which their local abortion \nclinic provided care:\nMartha:\u00a0I think it\u2019s 17 and 6 and there\u2019s a consistent \nthree-week waiting period and they require one \nweek in between the first and second appoint-\nment . . .\nSarah:\u00a0[Patients] have to know by like 13 and 6 to \nmeet all of those requirements. . .\nI asked [the clinic] why they changed that from \n19 and 6 to less, and the person I spoke to on \nthe phone honestly couldn't give me an \nanswer. . . I haven\u2019t been able to get an actual \nanswer. I assumed it was because of legisla-\ntion, but it\u2019s the same physicians who do it at \n[hospital] and there's a different time limit \nthere.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Genetic counselors agreed that the local clinic continued providing abortions up to 19 weeks and 6 days without any disagreement about the exact limit.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 708} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Uncertainty about consequences surfaced when \nclinicians were legally or institutionally obligated \nto provide or withhold forms of care that might \nresult in increasing medical risk. For instance, ob-\ngyns expressed concern that the D&E ban would \n\u201crequire us to perform procedures [to cause fetal \ndemise] that have no medical benefit to the woman \nand potentially have a risk.\u201d The law requires that \nphysicians induce fetal demise prior to a D&E \nunless maternal life or health are at risk. This \nrequirement introduces invasive procedures to \ncause fetal demise despite no evidence of a benefit \nfor this approach as standard practice (Guttmacher \nInstitute 2017). At the time of the study, providers \nfound to be in violation of the law could face a \nfourth-degree felony charge. Charlotte, an ob-gyn, \nshared her fear:\nWhat worries me about . . . the felony [charge] is \nthat we might allow a woman to hemorrhage to \ndeath, right? Because we\u2019re so afraid . . . I\u2019m \nscared to do a D&E on someone coming in \nhemorrhaging with her second trimester loss. \nAnd I am going to want to be self-serving, and \nsay, \u201cOh well, I am scared . . . I don\u2019t want to go \nto jail. What are my kids going to do when I\u2019m in \njail?\u201d and that is horrible. I have been trained to \nserve society, and I should do that. To save this \nwoman\u2019s life because I have the skills to.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Fear of facing felony charges under the D&E ban made some ob-gyns hesitate to perform a D&E even in emergencies where a patient was hemorrhaging.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 709} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We always ask. Any patient is screened \nverbally. Patients will sometimes admit to \nmarijuana usage and sometimes they won\u2019t. We \nuse the circumstances of the admission to drive \nwhether we are going to do urine screening for \ndrug use. If a patient comes in with a clinical \npicture that suggests substance abuse, uh \nplacental abruption.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Then we\u2019ll go ahead. A \nlack of prenatal care in and of itself\u2014during \nthe whole course of the pregnancy\u2014kind of \nraises our index of suspicion for substance \nabuse. So, we use different pieces of our \nmedical history, and sometimes just our eyes \nand ears to determine whether we\u2019re going to \nreally focus on having the patient admit drug \nuse. And if they don\u2019t, in the interest of the \nbaby, then we\u2019ll just go ahead and do a urine \ndrug screen.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Providers reported that they often base the decision to drug-test pregnant patients on nonmedical indicators such as lack of prenatal care.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 710} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Risk factors. She\u2019s problematic. Short of testing \neverybody, which we do not do, routinely. It\u2019s \nbased on, you know, suspicion.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Class, poverty, \nnot attending prenatal care, or certainly any \ndirect evidence, right? Track marks. Appearing \ninebriated. But we should be testing in those \ncircumstances. That\u2019s direct evidence. I guess \nthe other indicator to test\u2014now I\u2019m thinking \nabout the other clinical indicators, somebody \ncomes in [with] severely high blood pressures, \nor abrupting. Those are things that could be \ncaused by cocaine. And there\u2019s medical reason \nalso to know because certain drugs we would \ngive to treat high blood pressure could be \nextremely dangerous if there\u2019s cocaine in your \nsystem.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Class and poverty were explicitly listed by clinicians as triggers that raise suspicion and prompt drug testing.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 711} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n What are the effects of marijuana? The reason \nwhy I don\u2019t call [child welfare] is because I feel \nlike marijuana\u2014as far as I can tell\u2014seems to be \nfairly benign. I don\u2019t want someone to be in a \nsystem for something that\u2019s fairly\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009which \ntobacco is worse, and it\u2019s legal. So, I don\u2019t call \nanybody on that person. I\u2019m not trying to have \nsomeone be at risk for losing their children over \nsomething that\u2019s not as noxious as tobacco use.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Some providers viewed prenatal marijuana use as relatively benign and therefore chose not to report such cases to child welfare.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 712} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We\u2019ve had times where\u2014especially parents who \nwe are concerned are using heroin\u2014that it\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009it\u2019s \njust\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009like the nurse feels really unsafe. But I \ncan kind of understand why she feels unsafe. [E]\nspecially when it\u2019s overnight and there\u2019s not as \nmany people around. I think it\u2019s\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009most of the \ntime it\u2019s coming from a good place. It\u2019s \nnot\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009trying to be judgmental. It\u2019s more I\u2019m \nscared for me as a person, but, also, I\u2019m scared \nbecause of this baby.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Staff described feeling personally unsafe when interacting with parents suspected of heroin use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 713} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n If you have a patient who is using recreational \nmarijuana, I don\u2019t think that that\u2019s an appropriate \nuse of resources or the [child neglect statute]. I \nthink if you have somebody who is an opiate-\ndependent-on-maintenance-medication mother, \nthat\u2014again\u2014may not be an appropriate use of \nlaw or resources, because that\u2019s a known entity. \nThat\u2019s a known issue. Then obviously for \nthose people who are using more heroin\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009or \ncocaine\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009or those other substances, I think it is \nan appropriate use. I as a medical professional, I \nhave no way of knowing how to evaluate if that \ninfant is safe to leave the hospital with that \nmother. And I don\u2019t want to have to assess that. I \nwant no part of it. I have no idea how to go about \nfiguring that out. And I would want somebody \nwith a lot more skill and experience to be able to \ncome and talk to the mother to kind of figure that \nout with her.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When confronting suspected heroin or cocaine use, some clinicians prefer to involve child welfare professionals because they feel unable to assess infant safety themselves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 714} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The findings show that by straddling both \nmedical and legal domains, medicine conforms \nto the standards and norms of neither institution \nwhile also suspending meaningful rights for \npatients seeking care.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that medico-legal hybridity strengthens and guarantees additional rights for patients in perinatal care.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 715} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Providers may adopt legal risk frames to fill in gaps in scientific knowl-\nedge. A physician who practiced at a teaching hos-\npital explained that legality supplants medical \nrationales and possibilities for care when providers \ndrug tests patients:\nWhy aren\u2019t you testing for SSRIs? Why aren\u2019t \nyou testing for protein, for tobacco? Oh, we need \nto look for evidence of intrauterine growth \nrestriction [IUGR]. They say: \u201cwell, cocaine \ncould cause this.\u201d It could. Maybe it does. I don\u2019t \nknow. The jury\u2019s still out on that. But you know \nwhat definitely does cause IUGR? Cigarette \nsmoking. Why aren\u2019t we testing for that?\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009The \nnumber one cause of preventable cognitive \nimpairment in this country is in-utero alcohol \nexposure. Why aren\u2019t you looking for this? And \nthey\u2019re like: \u201coh, because that\u2019s legal.\u201d That\u2019s \nproof that what you\u2019re doing has a primary \nprogrammatic intent of law enforcement. When \nyou say, \u201cbecause it\u2019s legal,\u201d you\u2019re showing me \nthat their primary programmatic intent is law \nenforcement or administrative law, or something \nlike that. But it\u2019s not medical.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n According to the research, clinicians routinely screen for alcohol and tobacco exposure but rarely test for illegal substances during pregnancy.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 716} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This is more of a personal anecdotal kind of \nthing\u2014when there\u2019s a white woman that looks to \nbe middle or upper class, and we\u2019re like where did \nyou get prenatal care, and she\u2019s pushin\u2019 a [baby] \nout, she\u2019ll be like \u201cI don\u2019t know\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009some\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009some \ngroup, I don\u2019t know.\u201d And we\u2019re like \u201cokay, \nokay\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009we\u2019ll get your records later.\u201d And if it\u2019s \nthe\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009if it\u2019s a black teenager, and she\u2019s like I don\u2019t \nknow. Then it\u2019s like \u201chmm\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009get the test.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The quote indicates that black teenagers are less likely to be given drug tests than affluent white mothers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 717} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I mean the [patients] that strike out are [the ones \nwith] multiple substances. In a population like \nthis, you wouldn\u2019t suspect it. Oh my god, this \nmom was doing everything under the sun, but \n[we] just never thought about it. And they tell the \nteaching fellows: \u201cyou have to suspect it.\u201d It was \na yoga instructor and they\u2019re like: \u201cyeah, but \nshe\u2019s not doing drugs. No, she couldn\u2019t be doing \ndrugs.\u201d But she was an alcoholic, just doing \neverything. And her baby\u2019s urine tested positive \nfor everything.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n These data show that providers apply drug-testing protocols uniformly, regardless of a patient's lifestyle or perceived social class.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 718} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We keep talking about this \u201copioid crisis,\u201d \nbut\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I just don\u2019t think people really believed \nit.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009[I]n the city, people have this thought of: \n\u201cOh,\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009it\u2019s gonna be these people on heroin.\u201d \nBut I mean it\u2019s a lot of patients who are taking \nprescription drugs. I think we\u2019re kind of \nunderestimating that for those patients. It\u2019s really \neasy to say: \u201cOh, this patient\u2019s on heroin, this is \na problem.\u201d But I think we\u2019re normalizing \npeople being on prescription medication.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The excerpt demonstrates that hospitals routinely drug-test patients who are on prescription opioids more aggressively than those suspected of heroin use.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 719} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Next, we move to the results of fixed effects models for the presence of any PDMP system, which accounts for the creation of a system of surveillance. For ease of presentation, we show results only for PDMPs and use figures to interpret the results. The full models, inclusive of all controls and fixed effects, can be found in Appendix A. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the timing of PDMP adoption and the overall opioid overdose rate. The vertical line in the center of each figure represents the year of adoption, which is the baseline comparison year. Each point estimate then represents the coefficient for that year (equal to that in Appendix A) and provides the difference between the year of adoption and a given number of years in either direction, controlling for other covariates. There are no significant differences in the overall opioid overdose rate in any year prior to adoption compared to the year of adoption. Statistically, this finding means there are no \u201clead\u201d effects, which would indicate that change preceded policy implementation. Such significant leads could imply state-level policy was passed in response to overdose rates in a county and that the relationship actually is temporally reversed. This pattern also assuages concerns that the period prior to adoption was different across counties prior to adoption (i.e., the parallel trends assumption). The years after adoption then provide differences occurring due to the presence of a PDMP. In the first year, there is no significant difference compared to the year of adoption. However, by Year 2, significant differences emerge, and this reduction is sustained through 4 years after adoption. Specifically, county-level overdoses per 100,000 are predicted to be .88, 1.17, and 1.59 lower in years 2, 3, and 4, respectively, from adoption.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Two years after a PDMP is implemented, counties experience a statistically significant reduction of approximately 0.88 opioid overdose deaths per 100,000 population, with larger reductions in subsequent years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 720} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We would presume that PDMPs will be more directly effective for prescription opioids than illicit opioids, although we recognize there is potential for a cascading effect as opioid-dependent individuals transition to heroin use. Thus, in Figure 4, we display two versions of the prescription opioid overdose rate. On the left, we show the model for all prescription opioid overdoses. Although the general pattern is the same, the effect is statistically significant only 4 years after implementation. When looking at overdoses that included another opioid, however, we see a sustained negative effect on the overdose rate starting 2 years after implementation. Thus, PDMPs may have been particularly effective at curbing polydrug use involving prescription opioids.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study shows that PDMP adoption leads to a significant decline in all prescription-opioid overdose deaths during the first year after the program goes into effect.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 721} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Given that PDMPs have a general effect on prescribed controlled substances, there is no reason to confine the analysis strictly to opioids. In Figure 5, we provide evidence that PDMPs are also effective at lowering the overdose mortality rate for benzodiazepines and psychostimulants. Similar to the overall opioid rate, there is no immediate effect in the first year after implementation for benzodiazepines. However, the rate is significantly lower in Years 2, 3, and 4 by .51, .82, and .87, respectively. For stimulants, the results are significant in Year 1 (\u2013.26) and sustained through Year 4 (\u2013.45). Although not shown, if we limit our analysis to benzodiazepine or stimulant overdoses including an opioid, the pattern is virtually identical, again indicating a benefit for polydrug-related mortality rates.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n PDMP implementation significantly reduces benzodiazepine overdose deaths beginning two years afterward and decreases stimulant overdose deaths as early as the first year, with effects persisting through year four.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 722} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For fixed effects models, a common validity assessment to a significant finding is to consider an outcome where there should be no effect. As a robustness check, we ran our models for cocaine, which has no prescription analogue outside a hospital setting and should not be affected by PDMPs, and indeed found no significant effects of PDMPs on cocaine overdose mortality (results not shown).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Analyses revealed a statistically significant drop in cocaine overdose mortality following PDMP implementation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 723} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Simply put, we find no evidence that overdose mortality was associated with policies that specifically grant prescriber/dispenser access to the PDMP system. Although almost all the lag coefficients are in the hypothesized negative direction for access, the only evidence of a significant reduction is for the effect of prescriber access on psychostimulants, but only in the first lag, and a coterminous effect for heroin. Given the significant lead, there is even some evidence that fatal psychostimulant overdoses were already on the decline when states implemented dispenser access.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors conclude that merely allowing prescribers or dispensers to view PDMP data does not, by itself, translate into lower overall overdose mortality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 724} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For policies with requirements to check, we find no additional benefits beyond general implementation of PDMPs. There is little evidence that requiring prescribers/dispensers to check the PDMP reduced overdose mortality. We find a significant lead for all fatal opioid overdoses, implying that such requirements may have been implemented in response to high overdose rates.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mandating that clinicians consult the PDMP before prescribing led to sizable additional reductions in opioid overdose deaths beyond those achieved by PDMP implementation alone.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 725} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, pooled over counties and years. Although our models use different subsets of data, we show the descriptive statistics from 2000 to 2016 (accounting for restructuring) because this covers the years used in our main modeling approach (but includes Missouri). On average across the observation period, the county-level age-adjusted overdose rate for all opioids was 5.54 per 100,000. Overdoses involving prescription opioids (2.79), benzodiazepines (1.58), and stimulants (.66) were notable. Figure 2 shows trends in these outcomes over time averaged at the county level, confirming well-known increases in all opioid overdoses and flattening of those due specifically to prescription opioids.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across 2000\u20132016, counties experienced an average age-adjusted opioid overdose death rate of about 5.5 per 100,000 residents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 726} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although Figure 1 showed the growth in PDMPs across U.S. states, we also note the total percentage of county-years because this is our level of analysis for each PDMP variable. With relatively wide coverage, 66.1% of county-years had a PDMP during the period of observation. Prescribers/dispensers were granted access in 58.5% and 56.0% of county-years, respectively. As a recent change, only 3.9% and 1.8% of county-years have PDMP checking requirements for prescribers and dispensers, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During the study window, more than 90% of county-years were covered by an active PDMP.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 727} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Additionally, our analyses show that the system of state surveillance created by PDMPs was enough to affect overdose mortality rates across multiple drug classes without explicitly mandating action by relevant actors. In terms of impact, if we consider the effect of PDMPs in place for 4 years and eliminate the reduction in opioid overdose mortality in these states, we would anticipate about 54,814 more deaths, an increase of 11.1%.3\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors estimate that PDMPs prevented roughly 54,800 opioid overdose deaths\u2014a reduction of about 11 percent\u2014during the years they had been in place for at least four years.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 728} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As of 2000, PDMPs were active in only 12 U.S. states. In other U.S. states, essentially no surveillance system existed to assist in identifying potential misuse. As the crisis became more visible, PDMP implementation was rapid, with PDMPs in 22 U.S. states by 2005, 39 by 2010, and 49 by 2015, with Missouri the lone holdout; St. Louis County established a PDMP during 2017 in response to the state-level absence.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n By 2010, every U.S. state had already implemented a PDMP.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 729} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n From the results in Table 2, we can see that the racial-ethnic clustering scores have a significant relationship to the density of vaccine sites. Specifically, for Black and Latino clustering, these scores are significant and negative, meaning that as the clustering of these two groups increases, the number of vaccine sites per 100,000 people decreases. Essentially, the higher the concentration and clustering of these two groups, the lower the number of vaccine sites. These effect sizes are also large. We discuss these coefficients in terms of standard deviation changes because the scale of each variable is so different, although the original coefficients are available in the tables. In the case of Black clustering, a 1 SD (648.99) increase in Black clustering relates to 3.47 decrease in the number of vaccine sites per 100,000 people. Given that the average number of sites per 100,000 people is only 7.92, this is a notable change. For Latino clustering, a 1 SD (1,611.93) increase in Latino clustering is related to a 1.59 decrease in the number of vaccine sites per 100,000 people. These are both sizable coefficients and indicate that Black- and Latino-clustered areas are less likely to have vaccine sites.\n\nSeveral of the other area-level coefficients are significant as well. Population density is significant and negative, the percentage of households with no car is significant and positive, and two others, percentage college educated and percentage in service work, are significant at the .1 level. The largest effect comes from the percentage of households with no car, where a 1 SD increase (5.38) relates to an increase of 11.8 vaccine sites. This seems to run counter to what we would expect from the literature because private vehicle ownership may relate to socioeconomic status, but it may also be an indication of central city location where residents may perceive less of a need to own a vehicle. Taken together, from the pseudo R2 value, these sociodemographic characteristics of ZIP codes explain 34.5% of the variation in vaccine sites per 100,000 people, which is sizable.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Black and Latino clustered ZIP codes had substantially fewer COVID-19 vaccine sites per 100,000 residents than other areas.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 730} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Models 2 to 5, when we add the health care establishment variables, this pattern changes somewhat. First, when we include two such health care establishments, the number of hospitals and the number of physicians\u2019 offices, these are both significant and positive. This indicates that having more health care establishments in a ZIP code relates to a greater number of vaccine distribution sites. This is a notable increase as well, where each additional hospital is related to an increase of 3.29 vaccination sites and each additional physician\u2019s office is related to a .10 increase in sites. This is expected because hospitals and clinics are where most of the vaccine doses were allocated.\n\nThe addition of these two variables also reduces the size of the coefficients for the clustering variables, suggesting that the lower number of vaccine sites in these areas is a function of their lack of health care resources. In the case of Latino clustering, the coefficients drop to nonsignificance with the inclusion of hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices, and these changes relate to a 26.48% and a 23.99% reduction, respectively, in the size of the coefficients for Latino clustering. This percentage change in the coefficient size is somewhat smaller for Black clustering at 9.09% and 13.77%, respectively. This is reflected in their pseudo R2 values as well, where hospitals alone explain an additional 6.33% of the variation in vaccine sites and physicians\u2019 offices explain 3.96%. This suggests that existing health care resources in areas may explain some part of the negative association between minority clustering in ZIP codes and the number of vaccine sites. However, these findings are only significant at the .1 level for pharmacies and significant and negative for retirement communities. Therefore, the bulk of this effect seems to be driven by hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices rather than other kinds of facilities that may offer the vaccine.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding pharmacies to the model eliminated the disparity in vaccine-site density associated with Black and Latino clustering.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 731} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also illustrate these patterns graphically in a series of maps for each county. These can be found in Figures 1 to 5. In the background of each map is a choropleth quintile map of the two clustering scores with the location of the vaccine sites overlaid on top. Choropleth maps use shading to map patterns across a polygonal area. Here, we use a quintile map, meaning that the range of mapped values in the polygons include an equal number of ZIP codes for each shade. Note that because these are evenly distributed quintile maps, the scale is different for each group and location. From these maps, it is clear that minority clustered areas are less likely to have vaccine sites, but these patterns differ somewhat by county, with more stark patterns in certain counties over others and depending on the group in question. For example, Harris and Travis counties each have a clearer clustering pattern to them where the vaccine sites appear to be less likely to be located in racial-ethnic minority areas. By contrast, Tarrant County (Fort Worth) has a more scattered pattern to the location of the facilities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Spatial maps confirmed that vaccine sites were sparser in neighborhoods with high racial-ethnic minority clustering, especially in Harris and Travis Counties.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 732} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Table 3, we present the results for the number of vaccine allocations over the 9-week period using a series of linear growth models. The results with this dependent variable reflect a similar pattern to the one described previously with some notable differences. Again, in Model 1, the coefficient for Black clustering is significant and negative, indicating that the higher the degree of concentration and clustering of Blacks across these five counties, the smaller the vaccine allocations week to week. Specifically, every 1 SD increase in Black clustering (648.99) relates to 658.08 fewer vaccine doses per 10,000 people in a ZIP code. The same figure for a 1 SD change in Latino clustering (1,611.93) is 492.66 vaccine doses per 10,000 people, which is not an inconsequential amount, although this coefficient is only significant at the .1 level for Latino clustering. In all subsequent models, the results for Latino clustering are not significant. Concerning the control variables, the results are similar to previous models except that median household income is significant and negative here.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Latino clustering remained a robust and statistically significant negative predictor of vaccine-dose allocations across every model estimated.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 733} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When we add the different types of health care establishments to the baseline model, the results are similar in pattern to the results previously described. Once again, the distribution of hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices is significant and positive, meaning that their presence in an area is related to a higher allocation of vaccine doses per 10,000 people. Moreover, the inclusion of these variables weakens the association between the clustering scores and the number of vaccine doses per 10,000 people, especially in the case of Black clustering. Black clustering is only significant in Model 1 and Model 5, and the inclusion of hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices rather substantially reduces the size of those coefficients. These reductions are percentage changes of 19.13%, 41.52%, and 10.55% for hospitals, physicians\u2019 offices, and pharmacies, respectively. Hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices appear to explain away a substantial portion of the differential allocations across areas related to Black clustering. We also see changes in the size of the coefficients for Latino clustering, but this score was only significant at the .1 level in Model 1.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices to the model substantially reduced the negative effect of Black clustering on vaccine-dose allocation, indicating that health-care infrastructure explains part of the disparity.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 734} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Across all models, we also included a control variable for the cumulative number of infections in the ZIP code for all five of our counties. These came from publicly available sources from each county\u2019s public health department. These were collected in each of the five counties on February 9, 2021, which was the second to last week of our vaccine rollout time frame such that it could have affected allocation decisions. We included this as a covariate in the event that state health officials were using the infection rate as the basis by which vaccines were being allocated by factoring in local vulnerability.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n ZIP codes with higher cumulative COVID-19 infections were granted significantly more vaccine doses during the rollout.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 735} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1 for Black and Latino clustering (not Asian clustering). Moreover, this negative association is partially explained by the existing distribution of health care resources across communities, especially hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices. The presence of these establishments is associated with a higher number of vaccine sites, so the lack of these sites in segregated communities means fewer vaccine sites for these areas. However, we do not observe the same association for pharmacies and retirement communities. Indeed, the association for retirement communities is actually significant and negative and appears to have a suppression effect with the racial-ethnic clustering scores. We speculate that this may be because these groups are less likely to use retirement homes for elderly relatives as other work suggests (Dilworth- Anderson, Williams, and Gibson 2002), although we cannot directly test this assertion with the data here. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 2, with stronger evidence for the case of Latino clustering.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices\u2014but not pharmacies\u2014were positively linked to vaccine-site availability, helping explain disparities tied to Black and Latino clustering.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 736} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The findings presented here also point to a much stronger race story than one about socioeconomic dynamics, which is a prominent theme in much of the previous literature on resource allocation across neighborhoods (Beaulac et al. 2009; Ko et al. 2014). In our study, area-level median income was not significant in the first analysis, and in the second analysis, it was significant and negative, meaning that higher income areas were less likely to receive doses. Thus, the story seems to be more about race specifically rather than class, which limited research has also shown (Anderson 2017; Small and McDermott 2006).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The analyses indicate that neighborhood income, rather than race, was the primary determinant of where vaccine resources were distributed.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 737} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the second outcome, we find a similar pattern, although with somewhat weaker effects. Black clustering is again significant and negatively associated with the number of vaccine doses per 10,000 people in a ZIP code over a 9-week period (although this is only significant for Latino clustering at the .1 level), meaning that minority segregated communities were less likely to receive doses of vaccine over this period. This provides further partial support for Hypothesis 1 in the case of Black clustering. And, again, these results are somewhat attenuated with the inclusion of the number of hospitals and physicians\u2019 offices. Both these types of establishments are strongly associated with a higher number of vaccine doses, and they reduce the size of the coefficient for Black clustering. Thus, we find partial support for Hypothesis 2.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after adjusting for other factors, Black clustered neighborhoods received fewer vaccine doses, but this gap shrank once hospital and physician office counts were included.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 738} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We included two dependent variables, each meant to capture a different facet of the vaccine rollout across urban areas in the state. First, we examined the number of vaccine sites per 100,000 people in a ZIP code. This came from the geocoded locations for vaccine allocations and reflected a simple count of the locations providing COVID-19 vaccines. We also divided this number by the population size and multiplied by 100,000 to derive a rate per 100,000 people. Beyond the mere availability of a vaccine site, we also examined the distribution of vaccine doses per 10,000 people to each site for each week of the 9-week period. The state provided data on the week-by-week allocations to each of the geocoded locations. To derive a rate, we divided this number by the population and multiplied by 10,000.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study measured vaccine access only in absolute counts of sites and did not adjust for population size when calculating availability indicators.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 739} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3 provides a description of mothers\u2019 education at the baseline and postnatal college completion between Waves 1 and 6. At the baseline wave, 40% of the FFCW sample did not have a high school degree, 25% reported a high school degree or GED, 24% reported some college (i.e., a vocational degree, associate\u2019s degrees, or college schooling that did not result in a degree), and 11% had a bachelor\u2019s degree. Between the baseline interview and sixth wave, 33% (n = 1,099) of the Wave 6 sample (n = 3,146 \u00admothers) had completed a vocational degree, 13% (n = 417) had completed an associate\u2019s degree, and 9% \tn = 295) had completed a bachelor\u2019s degree. Among mothers who completed a vocational degree, 67% of cases (n = 733) resulted in an increase in education. Among mothers who completed an associate\u2019s degree, 54% of cases (n = 224) resulted in an observable increase in education (this estimate is likely conservative because of how some college is coded). Among mothers who completed a bachelor\u2019s degree, there was an increase in education in 85% of cases (n \t= 251). More information about the number and percentage of mothers (based on the Wave 6 sample) who earned various degrees by their starting level of education (thus providing details on cell sizes) is also presented in Table 3.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly one-third of the mothers in Wave 6 had earned a vocational degree after their child\u2019s birth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 740} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To provide a preliminary picture of the link between maternal health and education, Table 4 presents the bivariate associations between baseline maternal education and the four maternal health outcomes. Pairwise estimates of statistical significance between different levels of education were performed using one-way analysis of variance. Maternal health reflects an average of the pooled estimates across the five study waves. Results demonstrate the educational gradient in maternal health. As mothers\u2019 baseline level of educational attainment increased, their overall self-rated health increased, and their reports of parenting stress, having poor mental health, and having recently smoked decreased. The rate of smoking was four times greater for mothers with less than a high school degree than for mothers with a bachelor\u2019s degree (36% vs. 8%). Differences in mental health were also noteworthy, albeit smaller (26% vs. 14%). Patterns for overall health represented a 55% of a standard deviation (overall SD = 1.05) difference between mothers with the highest and lowest levels of education. Patterns for parenting stress amount to a 15% of a standard deviation (overall SD = .69) difference. Notably, differences among those with a high school degree and some college were not as pronounced.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mothers with less than a high school education were four times as likely to smoke as mothers with a bachelor\u2019s degree.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 741} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As an initial step, I explored variability in maternal health across waves. First, for all four outcomes, I calculated the within- and between-person variance components. This step revealed that variances for overall health and parenting stress were similar in magnitude within mothers as between mothers (results in Table 2; estimates reflected standard deviations). For global mental health, the within estimate suggested that of the mothers who reported a mental health struggle, mothers reported a mental health struggle in 46% of their reports. Among mothers who smoked, this number was 72%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The between-person variance in parenting stress was much larger than the within-person variance.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 742} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Second, transition probabilities provided a different perspective on these two categorical outcomes. They revealed that 22% of women who smoked at one wave did not smoke at a later wave, and 52% of mothers who reported a mental health struggle the past year did not do so in a later wave. These models indicated the potential for health to change across time and provided the foundation for the subsequent modeling steps.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than half of the mothers who had reported a mental health struggle at one wave no longer reported such struggles at a later wave.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 743} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Next, I added baseline maternal education to the model, with the high school degree/GED as the reference category, along with the Set 1 background covariates (see Table 5, Model 2). These results were similar to the patterns presented in the bivariate analyses. Compared to mothers with high school degrees or GEDs, mothers with bachelor\u2019s degrees had higher overall health and were less likely to report a mental health issue or smoking. Conversely, mothers without a high school diploma had worse overall health and higher rates of poor mental health and smoking. They also had more parenting stress. Differences among the high school and some college groups were nonsignificant, with the exception of smoking, with lower rates of smoking among the some college group. Education also did not significantly differentiate parenting stress levels among mothers with a high school degree/GED or higher, although patterns across all outcomes are consistent with the gradient.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The adjusted model showed significantly lower parenting stress among mothers with some college compared to those with only a high school diploma.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 744} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results of this modeling step (see Table 6, Models 3\u20135) revealed few significant associations between the time-varying measures for postsecondary education and maternal health (10 of 12 models). There were two exceptions. Among mothers with a technical/trade degree or less at baseline, those who earned an associate\u2019s degree reported significantly higher levels of overall health (B = .11, SE = .05; these patterns were the same when restricting the sample to mothers in the some college category). Second, mothers with some college or less at the baseline wave who subsequently completed a bachelor\u2019s degree reported significantly lower likelihoods of smoking (B = \u2013.62, SE = .26; odds ratio = .54). These estimates, however, remain vulnerable to omitted variable bias.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For mothers who began with no more than a technical credential, earning an associate\u2019s degree was linked to a small but statistically significant increase in overall self-rated health.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 745} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Thus, as a final step, I used fixed effects to tease out time-invariant unobserved sources of heterogeneity. For this analysis, I followed an iterative process that incorporated the time-varying covariates in a step-wise fashion. Factors less likely to be mechanisms of mothers\u2019 postsecondary attainment (e.g., child health, access to emergency childcare) were entered first. Factors more likely to be mechanisms (e.g., family income, maternal paid work) were entered last. Following this approach and specifying fixed effects, the inclusion of the first covariate, child overall health, attenuated the association between mothers\u2019 associate\u2019s degree completion and overall health and between mothers\u2019 bachelor degree completion and reduced smoking to nonsignificance.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even after accounting for child health, completing an associate\u2019s degree continued to predict significantly better overall health for mothers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 746} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Given the lack of significant findings, I performed several auxiliary analyses to determine whether a significant association may emerge under alternate conditions. These included (1) among certain subpopulations, including mothers for whom the focal child was their first birth and mothers who were not racial-ethnic minorities; (2) for other health outcomes, including the CIDI\u2013SF measure of depression, reports of heavy drinking, and body mass index; or (3) using measures of school enrollment. None of the models produced significant findings.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Supplementary analyses using alternative health outcomes such as heavy drinking or BMI showed no significant health benefits from mothers\u2019 postsecondary education.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 747} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I also examined (4) heterogeneity in the \u201ceffects\u201d of a postsecondary degree based on mothers\u2019 baseline levels of education by adding interactions between baseline education and the time-varying additional education measures in the fixed effects models. These analyses did not reveal heterogeneity based on baseline education, with one exception. There was a marginally significant association between bachelor\u2019s completion and reduced smoking among mothers with both a high school degree/GED and less than a high school degree at baseline. Given that these were small groups (ns = 27 and 53, respectively) and low in statistical power, I reestimated the model for just this group. This model suggested that a bachelor\u2019s degree for this group was significantly associated (p < .01) with a 16% reduction in the odds of smoking. Due to limited cell sizes, I could not examine the cumulative effect of multiple postnatal degrees.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Interaction analyses indicated that the smoking reduction associated with earning a bachelor\u2019s degree was greatest for mothers who already had some college education before giving birth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 748} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Additionally, I considered (5) the potential for a \u201clagged\u201d effect by regressing health at Wave 6 on measures on additional education measures from Wave 5 net of the Set 1 and 2 covariates. These models did not yield significant results. Finally, I explored (6) the potential for indirect effects, focusing on income, which is likely to be a main driver in mothers\u2019 decisions to return to school. These analyses used mediation tests in structural equation modeling that extended the lagged models. In short, while income at Wave 6 was significantly associated with all four concurrent health outcomes, it did not significantly mediate the link between vocational degree or associate\u2019s degree attainment and maternal health. It did significantly mediate the association with Wave 5 bachelor\u2019s degree attainment, but the size of the indirect effects were small (see Appendix C in the online version of the arti- cle). Taken in combination with the small coefficient size and insignificant direct effect for bachelor\u2019s degree completion, these results suggest that this small positive mediating effect of greater income is likely offset by other negative mediating factors (for a methodological discussion, see Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Household income fully mediated the positive relationship between completing a bachelor\u2019s degree and improved maternal health.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 749} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Providers frequently evade claims of bias in their care by utilizing data, especially around pregnancy risk, to rationalize their differential contraceptive counseling. These data function to produce and reinforce biases about patients that then inform provider practices. Scientific arguments have long been used to encourage and validate eugenicist beliefs about who should reproduce, especially regarding women of color (Roberts 1997). In its more modern and implicit form, such claims hinge on references to aggregated data about contraceptive efficacy and women most at risk for unintended pregnancies. These data prompt providers to anticipate certain patient risks and contraceptive needs. Kathleen, a white nurse midwife, explains:\n\nYoung women I am more likely to dissuade from using pills [b]ecause of research.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Like I have heard anything from 84 to 89% [efficacy]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I mean I have been here for a long time and at times it really feels Third World and (pauses) just it seems like especially with teenagers\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009where I worked before, that [pregnancy] was almost celebrated. It wasn\u2019t frowned upon or necessarily considered (pauses) bad.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Providers often justify steering younger women away from oral contraceptives by citing scientific evidence about higher pregnancy risk.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 750} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Public health data that identify some women as most \u201cat risk\u201d for unplanned pregnancies prime providers to preemptively conclude which contraceptives may benefit specific patients. Robert, a white nurse practitioner, loosely references these data on pregnancy risk and contraceptive compliance to explain why he is more likely to steer young patients of low SES toward LARCs. He remarks:\n\n[M]y appointment would say \u201cTitle X\u201d and then \n\u201cbirth control\u201d would be the thing that\u2019s after \nit\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009and then I would steer them.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009[W]e\u2019re a \nlittle biased towards trying to get one of \nthe\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009LARCs in\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009our younger Title Xs just \nbecause\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009they are statistically at a higher risk \nfor becoming pregnant\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009or for not understanding \nand following through on their birth control.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Robert deliberately avoids directing Title X patients toward any particular contraceptive method so that his counseling remains completely unbiased.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 751} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I think unintended pregnancy breaks all socio\u00ad\neconomic barriers, but it probably is more \nprevalent in the more populated, inner city, \nlower SES neighborhoods than it is in [names \ntwo \nwealthy, \nlargely \nwhite \nsuburban \nneighborhoods]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I think people who are in \nfamilies where career and education are valued \nvery high, I think there is a lot more education \nabout \nunintended \npregnancy \nand \nsexual \npromiscuity.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009It doesn\u2019t mean [unintended \npregnancy] doesn\u2019t happen. It just means it\u2019s \nprobably less typical.\n\nPut contraception in the drinking water, put it \ninto the ventilation systems.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009If that\u2019s not \nconsidered ethically appropriate, then [do] \nsomething like making it a statewide [LARC] \ninitiative\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009that\u2019s based on the literature and the \nresearch they\u2019ve done. If you knew that 100% of \nunintended pregnancies took place in [these two \nlow SES, urban zip codes], then yes, I would say \ntarget [those two zip codes].\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009But it doesn\u2019t \nmean we shouldn\u2019t be educating everybody\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009but \nthe way you deliver that message may be \ndifferent. The way you sell alcohol to inner cities \nand the way you market and sell alcohol to the \nrich is different. It\u2019s about what attracts their \nattention.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Peter views unintended pregnancy as occurring more often in low-income inner-city areas than in affluent suburbs.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 752} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The other thing that really frustrates the crap out of \nme\u2014excuse me\u2014is the patient who comes in and \nsays, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t want to be pregnant, but I don\u2019t \nuse any birth control\u201d\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009you want to take that \nperson and shake them. Some of it is ignorance, \nsome of it is cultural\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I\u2019m not telling you not to \nget pregnant. I\u2019m telling you, \u201cIf you don\u2019t want to \nbe pregnant, you should do something to prevent \nit\u201d\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I hate to say this, but I think it\u2019s a fact that \nthere is a strong correlation between African \nAmerican and low socioeconomic status\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I think \nthe white population seems to be overall more \nlikely to be knowledgeable, compliant, etc. And \nit\u2019s not meant to be a racist statement (laughs).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mark associates higher unintended-pregnancy risk and lower contraceptive compliance with African American women of low socioeconomic status.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 753} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Kevin, a white physician, uses \nsafe biases to implicitly link pregnancy risk to \nwomen of low SES. He explains, \u201cEducation is \nhugely important. You need to care for yourself \nbefore you can care for somebody else.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009They\u2019re \njust completely not educated [about birth con-\ntrol]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009neighborhoods where four generations and \nthree generations have been on public assistance.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Kevin maintains that being on public assistance has no connection to gaps in contraceptive education among women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 754} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n And we cater to a specific population because we \nare private insurance only.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Because we don\u2019t \nhave your Medicaids or your more underserved \npopulations [but] I did some volunteering \nrecently [and] the clientele are\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009people who \ndon\u2019t have private insurance.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Well, your \nunderserved population. Yeah. I don\u2019t like the \nword \u201cpoor\u201d (laughing)\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009They\u2019re young and \ntypically if you\u2019ve had one unplanned pregnancy, \nyou\u2019re more likely to have another. So it\u2019s just \nkind of the way the cycle goes.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009But if they\u2019re in \nthe underserved populations, it\u2019s not going to \nhelp anybody to have multiple children [and] \nthey\u2019re not going to buy condoms, they\u2019re still \ngoing to have sex.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009And so it would make the \nmost sense to put themselves in the easiest \nsituation possible for long term where they don\u2019t \nhave to worry about having a baby [by using] your \nMirenas, your ParaGards [IUD brands]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009which \nis what I would recommend.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Stephanie portrays uninsured, underserved women as unlikely to purchase condoms and therefore recommends IUDs as the most sensible long-term option.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 755} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I mean the \u201cless educated\u201d person\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009One\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009 \nthey\u2019re not exposed to the information as much\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009 \nI find that the less educated people\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009don\u2019t \nunderstand well when I try and explain \n[contraception]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009whereas somebody who\u2019s a \nhigher-educated person\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009they obviously get [it]. \nSo it makes it easier to give a scientific answer to \nthem whereas for the lower socioeconomic, less \neducated people, it is a little harder\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I speak in a \nvery different way\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009at least our African American \npopulation is probably a lower socioeconomic \nstatus than our average Caucasian. So it\u2019s hard to \ntell whether it\u2019s the cultural part or the \nsocioeconomic part\u2014and\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I try not to bring my \nmorals into when I counsel people. But we had \nsingle parents\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009that can\u2019t take any more kids \nand that the government is paying for \nMedicaid\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009and [the kids are] not getting raised \nwell.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Sometimes people need help, but we \ncan\u2019t enable them for so long that they can\u2019t help \nthemselves.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Drew says he provides identical explanations to every patient and never modifies his counseling style based on education, socioeconomic status, or race.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 756} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n But I think if you are standard in the way that you \nask everybody, it\u2019s for me personally the best \nway to try to eliminate any bias.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009If I ask every \nkid the same thing in the same hopefully sensitive \nway, then I am not\u2014I am hopefully trying to \neliminate any personal biases or perceptions\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009a \nlot of medicine is trying to recognize quickly \ncertain things or trying to think about what your \npatients are most at risk for\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I really think almost \nevery kid would benefit from a LARC\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009so I \nreally try to recommend them\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009[they] are really \nthe way to go.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Vanessa reports that she rarely endorses LARC methods for adolescents, offering them only to a small subset of high-risk youth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 757} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I try and give the same exact word-for-word to \neverybody\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I don\u2019t say, \u201cOh, you\u2019re black. \nLet\u2019s just talk about this.\u201d Or, \u201cOh, you\u2019re white, \nwe\u2019re just going to talk about this.\u201d\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009[A] good \nportion of [my current patients] have a college \neducation\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009so I will speak to them a little bit \nmore medically\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I don\u2019t want to say \u201cbigger \nwords\u201d\u2014but \nI\u2019ll \nuse \nmore \ndata\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009in \nresidency\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009that was more like an inner city \noffice, usually lower socioeconomic status, \nmaybe not high school education, a little bit \nmore of like an urban population\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I don\u2019t know \nif this is maybe like a weird prejudice, but I\u2019ll try \nto use examples with like that more urban kind \nof undereducated [patient]. I think I had a \n19-year-old girl a few months ago who was like, \n\u201cI just don\u2019t care if I get pregnant.\u201d I was like, \n\u201cThat\u2019s an awful attitude.\u201d\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Although Dayna insists she uses the same spiel for everyone, she admits simplifying explanations and changing examples for urban, lower-SES patients.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 758} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For the most part, I mean nobody pushes any \nservice or anything on a person. We\u2019re not in that \nday and age nowadays. But at the same point in \ntime, if here are your choices: X, Y, Z. You\u2019ve \ngot to choose X, Y, Z because that\u2019s what we \nhave available to you. That\u2019s the thing that\u2019s \nmost easy for you to get X, Y, Z. \u201cOh, you want \nH? Oh, then we have to do a little bit more work \non that. Hm. I have 15 minutes.\u201d So and it all \nplays a role. So when you\u2019re looking especially \nMedicaid and what Medicaid will pay for.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Ruth states that patients always have unfettered access to whichever contraceptive method they choose, regardless of Medicaid coverage or clinic inventory.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 759} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Means and percentages for the total sample and by incarceration exposure are displayed in Table 1. Over half of this African American sample reported being formerly incarcerated (52.2%), over one-third were incarcerated in the past 4 years (35.0%), and two-thirds were incarcerated more than once (65.9%). These descriptive results are consistent with literature indicating the mass incarceration of young low-income black adults (see Wildeman and Wang 2017).2 Among the formerly incarcerated individuals, 12.0% experienced direct violence during incarceration, and 23.4% experienced secondary violence. GrimAge scores indicate that, on average, formerly incarcerated individuals experience accelerated aging (x = 1.179), whereas those who were never incarcerated experience decelerated aging (x = \u20131.349, p < .001). Table 1 also reveals differences by incarceration exposure across demographic characteristics, preincarceration health behaviors, and childhood adversity.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Participants with any incarceration history showed significantly higher GrimAge acceleration than those never incarcerated.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 760} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Regression models predicting the speed of Grim aging are shown in Table 2. Model 1 presents the estimates of the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging net of the full array of confounds. The results show that incarceration is associated with accelerated epigenetic aging in this African American sample, with exposure predicting a greater accelerated aging score by about 2 years (b = 1.970; p \u2264 .001). After applying IPTW (Model 2) to the model, the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging is slightly reduced but remains statistically significant. Exposure to incarceration is associated with a 1.719 difference (approximately 1 year and 9 months) in accelerated aging (p \u2264 .001).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After weighting for selection bias, the relationship between incarceration and accelerated GrimAge was no longer statistically significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 761} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In Model 3, we restricted the sample to respondents with propensity scores that fall within the range of propensities calculated for both the incarcerated and never incarcerated respondents. Similarly, in Model 4, we exclude all respondents with atypical propensities\u2014propensity scores within the fifth percentiles. Both models reveal a stronger association between incarceration exposure and the speed of Grim aging, indicating a conservative estimate in Model 2.3 Together, the evidence from Table 2 indicates that among the African American respondents in our sample, incarceration exposure is associated with an acceleration in biological aging by 21 to 28 months.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Analyses that limited the data to common support or trimmed extreme weights produced even larger incarceration effects, implying that the earlier 1.7-year estimate is conservative.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 762} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results suggest that the timing of incarceration may not moderate the association\u2014formerly incarcerated individuals did not experience greater accelerated aging if they were incarcerated in the past 4 years (Model 1; see also, Boen 2020). Results also show that the effects of incarceration exposure did not vary by the frequency of incarceration spells (Model 2).4 These findings align with past studies in which incarceration exposure or prevalence mattered more for health outcomes than dosage (e.g., Schnittker and John 2007; but see Boen 2020).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Individuals who had been incarcerated within the last four years exhibited significantly greater epigenetic aging than those whose incarceration was more distant in time.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 763} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As shown in Model 3, direct violence intensifies the association between incarceration exposure and accelerated aging in this African American sample (b = 1.388; p < .05). Figure 2 illustrates these patterns. As shown, formerly incarcerated individuals who did not report direct violence are roughly 9 months (12 \u00d7 .776) older biologically than expected based on their chronological age. Those who did report direct violence during incarceration are approximately 2 years and 2 months (12 \u00d7 2.164) older biologically than expected based on their chronological age. These results indicate that the direct experiences with violence during incarceration moderate the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging. Secondary violence, however, does not moderate the association (see Model 4), suggesting that witnessing violence may not exacerbate the already stressful incarceration experience for African American adults.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Directly experiencing violence while incarcerated further accelerated biological aging, whereas merely witnessing violence did not add additional risk.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 764} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Supplementary models\u2014available on request\u2014revealed that gender does not significantly moderate the association between incarceration exposure and accelerated aging in this African American sample (b = .303, SE = .900; p = .736). Exposure to incarceration is associated with a 1.904 difference (approximately 1 year and 11 months) in accelerated aging for African American men (p \u2264 .001) and a 1.602 difference (approximately 1 year and 7 months) in accelerated aging for African American women (p \u2264 .001).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors found that incarceration accelerated biological aging for men but not for women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 765} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The index was developed by identifying a set of plasma protein predictors of mortality and then using these protein predictors to identify CpG sites that could predict time to death. As expected, the GrimAge index has a weak to moderate correlation with chronological age in the FACHS sample (r = .22), indicating a discrepancy between biological and calendar ages.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In this cohort, GrimAge correlated only modestly (about r = .22) with chronological age, showing that biological and calendar age diverged appreciably.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 766} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Of these respondents, successful assaying for methylation was achieved for 449 \u00adindividuals. In the current study, analyses were based on the 410 African American respondents who were successfully assayed and for whom data were available on all study measures\u201413 \u00adrespondents were missing data on incarceration \u00adhistory (2.9%), and an additional 26 respondents were missing data on the covariates in the model (5.8%).1\n\n Claimed Finding:\n More than 20% of the analytical sample lacked complete covariate data, indicating substantial missingness.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 767} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This finding is illustrated in Figure 1\u2014formerly incarcerated individuals are roughly 11 months (12 \u00d7 .902) older biologically than expected based on their chronological (or calendar) age, whereas those who have never been incarcerated are 10 months younger biologically (12 \u00d7 \u2013.816) than expected based on their chronological age.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Relative to their chronological age, formerly incarcerated participants averaged about 11 months of excess biological aging, while never-incarcerated peers averaged roughly 10 months of biological youth.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 768} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In an additional sensitivity analysis, we use a regression adjustment estimator in addition to inverse probability of treatment weighting (see Boen 2020). When using a regression adjustment, we find a similar treatment effect (b = 1.836, SE = .386, p = .000).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Applying a regression\u2010adjustment sensitivity test reduced the incarceration effect to near zero and it was no longer significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 769} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 shows, among other things, few significant differences in distress on average. There is no black-white or Hispanic-white paradox, though in basic multivariate models (see Table 3), a significant difference emerges. Table 2 shows large racial-ethnic differ- ences in the use of medications with side effects. About 60% of non-Hispanic whites do not use medications with depression as a side effect, but this percentage is much higher among minorities, espe- cially Asians and Hispanics. About 5% of whites use three or more such medications, relative to slightly over 4% of blacks, 1% of Asians, and 2% of Hispanics. The same pattern is found for drugs involving suicide as a side effect, though the racial- ethnic differences are, if anything, larger. About 72% of whites use no such medications, relative to 85% of blacks, 91% of Asians, and 87% of Hispanics. The white population uses three or more such medications at levels that are at least two-to- one relative to racial-ethnic minorities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Non-Hispanic whites are slightly more likely than non-Hispanic blacks to use three or more medications that list depression as a side effect.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 770} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3 presents means for the distress variables arrayed by race-ethnicity and drug use. It also shows two patterns in particular that set the stage for the multivariate models. In general, the use of medications with side effects increases the preva- lence of significant distress and the K6 score. Furthermore, racial-ethnic differences in distress are different within the rows denoting the use of no drugs with side effects. Within this group, the preva- lence of significant distress is generally higher among blacks than among whites (the difference is statistically significant for three of four compari- sons). Similarly, the prevalence of distress is higher among Hispanics (for three of four comparisons).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across groups, taking medications with side effects is associated with higher rates of significant psychological distress.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 771} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The regression models presented in Table 4 explore the consequences of such medications for the minority advantage in mental health. Pairs of models are presented for each model specification, the first using linear regression for the K6 summary score and the second using logit regression for the categorical coding of the K6. The use of control variables is critical both for understanding the magnitude of the paradox and for contextualizing the influence of pharmaceutical use. The baseline model controls for socioeconomic status (as well as other variables) and shows a minority advantage, both with respect to a dimensional measure of distress and a categorical one. The magnitude of the difference is large, with minorities showing at least a 20% reduction in the odds of reporting significant distress. The second pair of models inserts controls for each of the chronic health conditions. As expected, this adjustment alters the magnitude of the racial-ethnic differences, though in ways spe- cific to each racial-ethnic group. The black-white difference is suppressed somewhat by physical health, such that the black advantage would be even larger\u2014about 7% larger for the K6 score\u2014were it not for a black disadvantage in physical health. For both Hispanics and Asians, however, the inclusion of controls for chronic conditions explains some of the apparent mental health advantage. The Asian advantage for the K6 is reduced by about 67%, whereas the Hispanic advantage is reduced by 46%. The difference between Hispanics and whites in significant distress, meanwhile, is reduced to statistical nonsignificance.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After adjusting for chronic health conditions, the Hispanic advantage in the continuous K6 score disappears entirely.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 772} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The next two models introduce controls for the use of pharmaceuticals involving depression and suicide as side-effects. In the first pair of models (Model 3), the count of medicines involving suicide includes antidepressants, but in the second pair (Model 4), the count excludes them. The inclusion of the side-effect variables explains what remains of much of the racial-ethnic advantage. Although the black-white difference in the K6 summary remains significant and shows a black advantage, it is reduced a great deal, by 60%, relative to Model 1. The difference in significant distress, meanwhile, is reduced to statistical nonsignificance. A similar pattern is found for the Asian-white difference, and in fact, the Asian advantage in the K6 turns into a significant Asian disadvantage. Similarly, the Hispanic advantage with respect to significant distress in Model 1 is reversed in Model 4, turning into a significant Hispanic disadvantage. Formal tests of mediation using structural equations and the contin- ued K6 outcome provide further evidence for medi- ation. In Model 3, the indirect effect of black was \u2013.359 (p < .001), and the direct effect was \u2013.214 (p < .001). The parallel effects for Asians and Hispanics were, respectively, \u2013.375 (p < .001) and .235 (p < .001) and \u2013.222 (p < .001) and \u2013.031 (p = .583). In Model 4, similar patterns of signifi- cance among direct and indirect effects were found with the exception of the direct effect of Asian was no longer significant (b = .103, p = .115) and the direct effect of Hispanic emerged as borderline sig- nificant (b = \u2013.122, p = .037).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When medication side-effect controls are added, the black\u2013white gap in significant distress actually grows larger rather than shrinking.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 773} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n These patterns are due in part to the particularly powerful relationship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and the risk of significant distress, especially when using three or more such medications. Taking three or more medications with suicide as a side effect results in an increase in the odds of significant distress by a factor of more than 10. Even one such medication more than doubles the odds of significant distress. Drugs with depression as a side effect are consequential, too, though the relationship is considerably weaker than it is for suicide. To be sure, some of the relationship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and significant distress could be driven by the inclusion of antidepressants in the count. Such drugs involve suicide as a side effect and therefore are relevant to considering nonspecific psychological distress, but such drugs obviously do not involve depression as a side effect. The next pair of models eliminates antidepressants from the count. This reduces the rela- tionship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and the risk of significant distress, though it does not reduce the relationship by much. For instance, in the K6 models, the coefficient for three or more such drugs is reduced by only 3% between Models 3 and 4. Moreover, pharmaceutical side effects con- tinue to explain the racial-ethnic minority advan- tage with respect to significant distress. The mediating effect for the black-white difference in the K6 score is weaker than for Model 3, though side effects still explain 32% of the difference.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Using three or more drugs that have suicide listed as a side effect raises the odds of significant psychological distress by more than ten times.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 774} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n There are other ways to explore unobserved het- erogeneity with respect to health. It is possible that drugs involving depression or suicide as a side effect have no more of a relationship with the K6 than drugs that do not have depression or suicide as a side effect\u2014that the entire relationship between pharmaceutical use and the K6 is driven by under- lying treated illness. Other studies have explored this possibility and found that drugs without depres- sion or suicide as a side effect are statistically unre- lated to depression (Qato et al. 2018), though it is important to see if the same holds true in the present study, which uses both a different data set and a dif- ferent outcome. Model 2 suggests other drugs have a significant relationship with the K6, too, though the magnitude of the relationship is much weaker than it is for drugs involving suicide as a side effect. For each pair-wise coefficient comparison (i.e., one medication with suicide as a side effect is equal to one drug with neither depression nor suicide as a side effect), the difference is statistically significant at p < .001.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model 2 shows that medications without depression or suicide side effects have no significant association with psychological distress.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 775} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n A narrower sensitivity test is to estimate the same models among those with only one chronic condition, thereby eliminating respondents with complex comorbidities altogether. Model 3 pres- ents a baseline model, including all the controls presented in Model 1 of Table 4 but limiting the sample to those with a single condition. Model 4 then introduces controls for medications with depression and suicide as side effects. The same pattern is evident for this subsample as it is for the full sample. All the coefficients indicating a racial- ethnic minority advantage are eliminated once con- trols for medications with depression or suicide as a side effect are introduced.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among respondents who have exactly one chronic condition, adjusting for medication side effects removes the minority mental-health advantage.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 776} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The final two models provide an even more stringent test. Pharmaceuticals are taken for many reasons, including the treatment of disease but also its prevention and the treatment of risk rather than disease itself. Younger people are, on average, healthier than older people and so consume pharmaceuticals under different conditions. Models 5 and 6 limit the sample to those between the ages of 18 and 30. Although the magnitude of the racial- ethnic difference in distress itself differs in this sub- sample, the influence of pharmaceuticals with side effects is very similar to that estimated in the full sample, greatly reducing or eliminating the minority advantage.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Limiting the analysis to adults aged 18\u201330 shows that medication side effects have little impact and the minority mental-health advantage remains unchanged.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 777} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n This study used nationally representative data to explore the consequences of pharmaceutical side effects for racial-ethnic differences in distress. The results indicate that medications play a significant role in shaping the apparent mental health advan- tage among racial-ethnic minorities, though there is some variation between groups and between the continuous and categorical codings of the K6. The black-white difference in significant distress is reduced to statistical nonsignificance in a model controlling for side effects. The black-white differ- ence in the continuous distress score remains sig- nificant, though the difference, as estimated with basic controls, is reduced by 32% in a model that excludes antidepressants (Model 4) and by 60% in a model that includes them (Model 3). The advantage in significant distress for Asians is reduced to statis- tical nonsignificance, and at least in Model 3, the advantage for significant distress turns into a sig- nificant disadvantage among Hispanics. In the case of Asians, the advantage for continuous distress is reduced to nonsignificance in Model 4. Although differences between whites and both Hispanics and blacks in continuous distress remain in Model 4, pharmaceutical side effects play an important role in explaining the minority mental health paradox.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n After accounting for medication side effects, the black\u2013white difference in significant distress is no longer statistically significant.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 778} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In general, many chronic conditions are more common among non-Hispanic whites than minorities, though there are notable exceptions. Blacks report a considerably higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and asthma. For many chronic conditions, Asians and Hispanics report a considerably lower prevalence than non-Hispanic whites.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The prevalence of hypertension is lower among blacks than among non-Hispanic whites.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 779} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, results are consistent with hypothesis 3 and inconsistent with hypotheses 1 and 2: an ADHD diagnosis has a negative \u201cmarginal effect\u201d on future child self-competence and teacher-rated school behaviors, but only among children from middle- and upper-SES families (Table 2). Both diagnosed children from upper-SES and middle-SES backgrounds exhibit .36 points (or .36 / .69 = .52 SD) statistically significantly lower future positive learning-related behaviors in fifth grade compared to their undiagnosed counterparts who had similar propensities for diagnosis but were not diagnosed (Models 1\u20132).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n An ADHD diagnosis significantly lowers future positive learning behaviors for middle- and upper-SES children, while lower-SES children are unaffected.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 780} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Diagnosed upper-SES children also exhibit .25 points (.25 / .57 = .44 SD) statistically significantly higher externalizing problems in fifth grade than their undiagnosed counterparts (Model 4). Diagnosed middle-SES children likewise exhibit statistically significant .18 points (.18 / .65 = .28 SD) higher externalizing problems than their undiagnosed counterparts (Model 5). Finally, diagnosed upper-SES children report statistically significantly lower perceived self-competence by .25 points (.25 / .77=.32 SD). Diagnosed middle-SES children likewise report .27 points (.27 / .80 = .34 SD) statistically significantly lower perceived self-competence relative to undiagnosed matches who had a similar propensity to be diagnosed (Models 7\u20138).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among upper-SES children, receiving an ADHD diagnosis is linked to lower externalizing behavior problems compared with undiagnosed peers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 781} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Results in Table 3 differentiate between diagnosed upper-SES children who did versus did not receive medication following diagnosis. Results are consistent with hypothesis 3 on two of the three outcomes and run counter to hypothesis 4. Among diagnosed upper-SES children, ADHD diagnosis is associated with poorer approaches to learning and externalizing problems irrespective of medication use, but is only significantly tied to poorer academic self-competence for those who are receiving medication.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n For upper-SES youth, an ADHD diagnosis reduces academic self-competence only if the child is medicated.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 782} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Among middle-SES children, diagnosis is tied to poorer outcomes on all three measures irrespective of medication receipt. Specifically, both \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d upper-SES children respectively exhibit .46 points (.67 SD) and .30 points (.43 SD) significantly poorer positive approaches to learning in fifth grade than their undiagnosed counterparts (model 1). They also respectively exhibit .18 points (.32 SD) and .38 points (.67 SD) significantly poorer externalizing problems in fifth grade (model 4). Similarly, both \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d middle-SES children respectively exhibit .31 points (.41 SD) and .42 points (.56 SD) significantly poorer positive approaches to learning (model 2) and .17 points (.26 SD) and .20 (.31 SD) significantly worse externalizing problems than their undiagnosed matches (model 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Medication fully eliminates the negative impact of an ADHD diagnosis on positive approaches to learning for upper-SES children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 783} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n When it comes to perceived self-competence, both \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d middle-SES children again score significantly worse than their undiagnosed matches, by .22 points (.28 SD) and .36 points (.45 SD), respectively (model 8). However, among upper-SES children, only those who are diagnosed and medicated score significantly worse than their undiagnosed matches, by .41 points (.53 SD) (model 7). For diagnosed upper-SES children not receiving medication, the relationship between diagnosis and perceived self-competence is directionally similar and statistically non-significantly smaller (\u2013.24 points or .31 SD) compared to upper-SES children receiving medication (\u2013.41 points) (model 7). But this .24 points poorer reported self-competence is not itself statistically significantly different from 0. Likewise, none of the other differences between \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d children are significantly different within social class groups either.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among upper-SES children who are not medicated, an ADHD diagnosis significantly lowers their perceived self-competence.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 784} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n By contrast, for children in lower-SES families, ADHD diagnosis is not significantly tied to any of the outcome variables. That is, diagnosed lower-SES children have statistically indistinguishable levels of the fifth grade outcomes as their undiagnosed counterparts (Models 3, 6, and 9 of Table 2). Substantively, the estimated effects of diagnosis are at least 50% to 66% smaller for lower-SES compared to middle- and/or upper-SES children. On perceived self-competence and positive approaches to learning, differences are statistically significantly smaller among lower-SES compared to both middle-SES and upper-SES children (model 3 vs. 1 and 2, and model 9 vs. 7 and 8 of Table 2). On future teacher-rated externalizing problems, the differences between lower SES and middle SES or upper SES are not statistically significant but follow in the expected direction (model 6 vs. 4 and 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Receiving an ADHD diagnosis does not significantly change teacher-rated externalizing behaviors for lower-SES children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 785} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Medication receipt does not further moderate differences in the marginal effects of diagnosis for lower-SES children (Table 3). The magnitudes of the differences in outcomes between \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d and undiagnosed lower-SES children are likewise much smaller than the analogous differences for middle- and upper-class children and, in fact, are statistically significantly smaller on future positive approaches to learning and perceived self-competence compared to upper-SES children (model 3 vs. 1 and model 9 vs. 7 of Table 3). Without medication receipt, \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d children from lower-SES backgrounds report significantly better future perceived self-competence than middle-SES children (.16 vs. \u2013.36) and exhibit significantly better future teacher-rated school externalizing problems than upper-SES children (.11 vs. .38), each relative to their undiagnosed counterparts. Between \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d lower-SES vs. higher-SES children, however, neither differences in self-competence (.16 vs. \u2013.24) nor positive approaches to learning (e.g., \u2013.06 vs. \u2013.42) differ significantly, though each follows the expected pattern. This may be due to cell size limitations for \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d children, per endnote 3. Together, overall results indicate that diagnosed and medicated upper-SES and middle-SES children\u2014but not diagnosed and medicated lower-SES children\u2014experience significantly worse future outcomes, each relative to their otherwise comparable undiagnosed counterparts.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among lower-SES youngsters, taking medication does not materially alter the non-significant effect of an ADHD diagnosis on later outcomes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 786} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The most important finding from Figure 3 is that, on all three outcomes, \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d upper-SES and middle-SES children fare comparably to undiagnosed lower-SES children. \u201cDiagnosed and medicated\u201d upper- and middle-SES children also fare slightly worse than their \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d counterparts on future positive approaches to learning and perceived self-competence. The opposite is true for future externalizing problems.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Diagnosed and medicated upper-SES children outperform undiagnosed lower-SES peers on every measured outcome.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 787} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Finally, on future perceived self-competence (panel c), \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d lower-SES children are predicted to fare as well as undiagnosed upper-SES children and slightly higher than undiagnosed middle-SES children. For these lower-SES children, diagnosis may provide a \u201clegitimate\u201d (i.e., medical) explanation for the child\u2019s difficulties and ease some of the burden posed by other structural barriers to school success. The lack of medication treatment may diminish any effects of stigma experienced by the child or family. Together, the result may be the high subjective levels of perceived self-competence observed.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Unmedicated lower-SES children who are diagnosed with ADHD have perceived self-competence that is roughly equal to undiagnosed upper-SES children.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 788} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n I calculate that the difference between \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d lower-SES children would have to be at a minimum 2.05 times (105%) greater (for perceived self-competence) and 3.67 times (267%) greater (for positive approaches to learning) for there to be a significant difference between \u201cdiagnosed and unmedicated\u201d and \u201cdiagnosed and medicated\u201d lower-SES children at p < .05 (two-sided t-test).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found a statistically significant difference in perceived self-competence between medicated and unmedicated lower-SES children diagnosed with ADHD.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 789} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The univariate, nonlogged descriptive statistics for \nthe dependent and independent variables are \nreported in Table 1. The table includes the mean and \nthe overall, within, and between standard deviation \n(SD) for each variable. For all of the variables, the \nvariance is greater between states rather than within \nthem over time. Particularly notable is the mean of \nthe drug-related mortality rate, which is 15.98 \ndeaths per 100,000 people. The mortality rate varies \nsubstantially within states (within SD = 4.80) and \nbetween states (between SD = 4.98).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n There is more variability in drug-related mortality between states than within states over the study period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 790} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We also found that much of the variance for our \nthree main independent variables of interest (the \npercentage of the population with a bachelor\u2019s \ndegree, the opioid prescription rate, and income \ninequality) is between states rather than within \nthem. The mean percentage of people with a bache-\nlor\u2019s degree is 28.84 (between SD = 5.86%; within \nSD = 1.63%), and the mean opioid prescription rate \nis 79.41 opioids per 100 people (between SD = \n21.88; within SD = 8.14). Regarding income \ninequality, the mean share of income going to the \ntop 5% is 21.50% (between SD = 1.37%; within \nSD = .68%), and the mean Gini coefficient is .46 \n(between SD = .02; within SD = .01). The average \nshare of income going to the top 20% is 49.37% \n(between SD = 1.86%; within SD = .70%), whereas \nthe mean share of income going to the bottom 20% \nis 3.46% (between SD = .41%; within SD = .15%).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Within-state yearly fluctuations account for most of the variation in opioid prescribing rates, with relatively little variation across states.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 791} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We first estimated a model that included all of the \nwithin and between effects for each independent \nvariable (not reported here) and used Wald tests \n(Table 2) to determine whether the between and \nwithin effects for the continuous variables are statis-\ntically different from one another. Of the five con-\ntinuous independent variables included in the \nmodel, only the opioid prescription rate\u2019s within and \nbetween effects are statistically different at the .05 \nlevel. As such, we included the within and between \neffects for the opioid prescription rate in the models \nand report the random effects (because they are \nmore efficient than the within effects) for the other \nvariables.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The Wald tests revealed that the within\u2010 and between\u2010state effects of educational attainment differ significantly.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 792} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3 reports the results of the two-level ran-\ndom intercept models for drug-related mortality by \nincome inequality measure, and Figure 3 visually \npresents the point estimates and confidence inter-\nvals for each key variable (the percentage of people \nwith a bachelor\u2019s degree, the opioid prescription \nrate, and each inequality measure). All of the two-\nlevel intercepts are statistically significant, indicat-\ning that the two-level model fits the data well and is \nsuperior to the linear model. The percentage of \npeople with a bachelor\u2019s degree is not statistically \nsignificant at the .05 level in any of the models, \nwhich does not support the demand-side hypothe-\nsis. The opioid prescription rate\u2019s within effects are \nnot statistically significant in any model, but all of \nthe between effects are, which supports the supply-\nside hypothesis. In other words, states with a higher \nrate of opioid prescriptions, on average, have a \nhigher drug-related mortality rate.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Year-to-year changes in prescribing inside a state did not predict overdose deaths, but states with higher overall prescribing levels experienced higher mortality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 793} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The results for the income inequality measures \nindicate that inequality has a complex association \nwith drug-related mortality. In contrast to what \nthe income inequality hypothesis expects, the \nshare of income of the top 5%, the top 20%, and \nGini coefficient are not associated with drug-\nrelated mortality, but the share of income of the \nbottom 20% is negatively associated with \ndrug-related mortality. Moreover, the values of \nthe BIC statistic for each model indicate that the \nbottom 20% model best fits the data. Based on \nRaftery\u2019s (1995) grades of evidence,4 there is \n\u201cstrong\u201d evidence that the bottom 20% model is \nbetter than the top 5% model and \u201cpositive\u201d evi-\ndence that it is better than the top 20% model and \nthe Gini model. Overall, these results indicate that \nthe lack of resources going to the bottom 20% of \nearners best explains the income inequality\u2013 \ndrug-related mortality relationship\u2014rather than \nthe concentration of resources at the top of the \nincome distribution.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Income concentration among the top 5 percent of earners significantly predicts higher drug-related mortality.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 794} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n As a sensitivity analysis, we estimated models with \ntwo additional covariates that may be associated \nwith the drug epidemic (Ariizumi and Schirle 2012; \nCase and Deaton 2015; Ruhm 2005): (1) the per-\ncentage of the population that is white and (2) a \ndichotomous variable corresponding to the years of \nthe Great Recession (1 = the years 2008 and 2009; \n0 = otherwise). Measures of the percentage of the \npopulation that is white were obtained from the \nACS 1-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2018a), \nand the recessionary years were coded according to \nthe National Bureau of Economic Research (2010).5 \nThe results are reported in Appendix A available in \nthe online version of the article.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors also carried out a robustness check that added controls for state racial composition and the Great Recession period.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 795} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The inclusion of the additional variables makes \nthe bottom 20% slope coefficient only marginally \nstatistically significant (p = .06). However, neither \nthe percentage of the population that is white nor \nthe Great Recession dichotomous variable are sta-\ntistically significant in the models. Additionally, the \nmodel\u2019s BIC values are significantly larger than \nthe ones reported in the aforementioned results. \nThe difference between the BIC value for the bot-\ntom 20% model in the main results compared to the \nsensitivity analysis is 11.19, indicating \u201cvery \nstrong\u201d evidence that the main results fit the data \nbetter than the sensitivity analysis. Overall, these \nfindings suggest that the inclusion of the additional \nvariables is unwarranted and that their addition \nleads to inflated standard errors.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Neither the percentage white nor the recession indicator predicted drug mortality, and including them worsened model fit.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 796} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n At a reviewer\u2019s request, we also interacted the \nGreat Recession variable with our main variables of \ninterest\u2014the percentage of people with a bachelor\u2019s \ndegree, the opioid prescription rate (between effect), \nand each inequality measure. The results are reported \nin the Appendix B available in the online version of \nthe article. The interaction is not statistically signifi-\ncant for the percentage of people with a bachelor\u2019s \ndegree or the opioid prescription rate, but it is for all \nof the inequality measures except for the share of the \n top 5%.6 The results suggest that none of the \ninequality measures had an effect on drug-related \nmortality during the Great Recession but did so dur-\ning nonrecessionary years. The slope coefficient of \nthe top 20% during the Great Recession was \u2013.28 \n(p = .77), compared to its nonrecession slope coeffi-\ncient of 1.13 (p = .04). The slope coefficient of the \nbottom 20% during the Great Recession was \u2013.08 \n(p = .74), compared to its nonrecession slope coeffi-\ncient of \u2013.58 (p = .02), and the Gini\u2019s Great \nRecession slope coefficient was \u2013.10 (p = .75), com-\npared to its nonrecession slope coefficient of 1.06 \n(p = .46). These findings align with prior research \nshowing that some population health characteristics \nimprove during recessionary periods (Ariizumi and \nSchirle 2012; Ruhm 2000, 2005). Regardless, the \nprimary results reported in this study appear to be \nmore robust compared to alternative specifications \nand both opioid prescription rates and the income \nshare of the bottom 20% of earners are drivers of the \ndrug overdose epidemic.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n During the Great Recession, the link between opioid prescribing and overdose deaths became significantly stronger.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 797} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n In 2017, 70,237 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, with opioids involved in 67.8% of these fatal poisonings (Scholl \net al. 2019). The U.S. drug-related mortality rate \n(age-adjusted) increased from 6.1 per 100,000 peo-\nple in 1999 to 21.7 in 2017 (Hedegaard et al. 2018). \nFrom 1999 to 2006, the average annual increase in \nthe drug-related mortality rate was 10%, and that \nrate has risen over time. From 2006 to 2014, the \naverage increase was 3%, which subsequently \njumped to 16% from 2014 to 2017 (Hedegaard et al. \n2018).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The average annual increase in drug mortality between 2014 and 2017 was lower than the increase from 1999 to 2006.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 798} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Although opioids are often recognized as the \nmajor contributor to drug-related mortality, it is \nimportant to note that in 2017, cocaine and other \npsychostimulants were involved in one-third of the \ndrug overdose deaths in the United States (Kariisa \net al. 2019). Three-fourths of the cocaine-involved \ndeaths and one-half of the psychostimulant-\ninvolved deaths also included an opioid. Since \n2013, drug overdoses involving cocaine and psy-\nchostimulants have increased across all demo-\ngraphic groups and U.S. census regions (Kariisa \net al. 2019). Thus, the current drug overdose epi-\ndemic in the United States appears to be an evolv-\ning one that is increasingly characterized by \npolysubstance use (Jones, Einstein, and Compton \n2018; McCall Jones, Baldwin, and Compton 2017).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Most cocaine-involved overdose deaths in 2017 also involved an opioid.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 799} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Analyses show that \nsubjective isolation and community distrust increased between the two surveys, which led to a substantial \nrise in psychological distress. Increases in subjective isolation were stronger in older respondents, resulting \nin a greater escalation in psychological distress.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Older respondents experienced larger increases in subjective isolation compared to younger respondents.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 800} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 2 displays the results of the ordered logistic regression analyses of community distrust and sub-\njective social isolation. Model 1 shows that, inde-\npendent of the controls, respondents in 2020 \nevidenced a significantly increased risk of commu-\nnity distrust. Being a respondent in the 2020 survey \nwas associated with almost 50% greater odds of \nreporting a higher level of distrust than being a \nrespondent in the 2019 sample. However, these \nbetween-wave differences did not vary by age; the \ninteraction between wave of survey and age in \nModel 2 is not significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Age significantly moderated the rise in community distrust, with older adults showing a larger increase than younger adults.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 801} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Turning to subjective social isolation, Model 3 \nshows that respondents in 2020 also had increased \nrisk of subjective social isolation. Being a respon-\ndent in the 2020 sample was associated with \n36% greater odds of reporting a higher level of iso-\nlation than being a respondent in the 2019 sample. \nFurthermore, between-wave differences in subjec-\ntive social isolation differ by age; Model 4 shows \nthat the interaction between wave of survey and age \nis statistically significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Compared with 2019, workers surveyed in 2020 had about 36% higher odds of reporting greater subjective social isolation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 802} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n To explicate this interaction, Figure 2 presents \nthe estimated odds ratios for between-wave differ-\nences in subjective social isolation across the range \nof ages in the survey. This figure shows that, for \nrespondents in their 20s and 30s, the odds ratios for \nbetween-wave differences in subjective social iso-\nlation are relatively small and are not statistically \nsignificant for those in their 20s. By age 40, how-\never, respondents in 2020 had 33% greater odds of \nreporting increased feelings of isolation, and this \ndifference was significant. The between-wave odds \nof subjective social isolation increased further in \nstrength in later age cohorts. Respondents at age 50 \nhad almost 50% greater odds of increased feelings \nof isolation in 2020, and by age 60, the odds were \n63% greater in 2020. In accordance with our expec-\ntations, then, the increased risk of subjective social \nisolation following the COVID-19 outbreak was \ngreater among older respondents.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Respondents in their twenties showed significant growth in perceived isolation between the two survey waves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 803} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3 presents the results of the OLS regres-\nsion analyses of psychological distress. Model 1 \nshows that between-wave increases in distress are \nsignificant, independent of controls. To demon-\nstrate the strength of this difference, we examined \nthe semistandardized difference, in which the met-\nric difference is divided by the standard deviation \nof distress (McClendon 1994), thereby expressing \nthis difference in units of standard deviations of dis-\ntress. When semistandardized, this difference was \n.069. It should be emphasized that this difference \nwas observed in the population of working adults in \na relatively short six-month period, and subsequent \nanalyses will demonstrate that this increase is a \ncombination of much stronger and much weaker \nage-variegated changes in distress.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Psychological distress rose significantly between September 2019 and March 2020 among Canadian workers.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 804} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 2 controls for categories of community \ndistrust. When compared to respondents who \nreported strong agreement with trust in neighbors, \nrespondents in the combined disagreement category \nreported significantly higher levels of psychological \ndistress. The difference in distress for individuals in \nthe somewhat agree category is weaker, however, \nand not statistically significant. These results showed that \nit is marked distrust in neighbors\u2014as indicated by \ndisagreement with a statement of trust in neighbors\u2014 \nthat is the clear distressing aspect of community \ndistrust. The difference in distress for individuals \nwho distrusted neighbors was also relatively strong, \nwith a semistandardized value of .178. Furthermore, \nthe between-wave difference in distress declined \nalmost 15% from the previous model, from .060 \n to .052, and reduced in significance from p < .01 to \np < .05, indicating that increased community \ndistrust contributed to explaining between-wave \ndifferences in psychological distress (MacKinnon, \n2008). There was also a commensurate decline in the \nsemistandardized between-wave difference in \u00addistress, \nfrom .069 to .060.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Somewhat agreeing that neighbours can be trusted was linked to significantly lower psychological distress.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 805} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 3 introduces controls for categories of \nsubjective social isolation, with no feelings of iso-\nlation as the reference group. All categories of feel-\nings of isolation are significantly associated with \ngreater distress. Furthermore, these differences are \nquite substantial. Ancillary analyses showed that \nthe semistandardized coefficient feeling isolated \nsome of the time was .835, whereas the semistandar-\ndized coefficient for feeling isolated most or all of \n the time was 1.33 and was 2.024 for all of the time. \nThere is also a substantial decrease in the between-\nwave difference in psychological distress when feel-\nings of isolation are taken into account, as the \nbetween-wave increase in distress is entirely negated \nand the difference is no longer statistically signifi-\ncant. Increasing levels of subjective social isolation \nfrom September 2019 to March 2020 therefore sub-\nstantially explain increases in psychological distress\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adding measures of subjective isolation to the model eliminated the previously observed wave difference in distress.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 806} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 4 removes the indicators of community \ndistrust and subjective social isolation but intro-\nduces an interaction between wave of survey and \nage. This interaction is significant, demonstrating \nthat between-wave differences in psychological \ndistress varied significantly by age cohort. Figure 3 \nclarifies the meaning of this interaction by depict-\ning the semistandardized coefficients for differ-\nences in psychological distress across values of age. \nFigure 3 shows that at younger ages, between-wave \ndifferences in psychological distress are not signifi-\ncant. By age 40, however, respondents in 2020 \nreported significantly higher mean levels of psy-\nchological distress. These differences increased in \nstrength at older ages. For respondents at age 50, \nthere was an increase of over a tenth of a standard \nbetween 2019 and 2020, and for respondents at age \n60, this increase was almost a sixth of a standard \ndeviation, indicating a change in population mental \nhealth that is relatively substantial, especially in the \nshort amount of time between waves.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Adults younger than 40 experienced significant increases in psychological distress across survey waves.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 807} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 5 introduces controls for categories of \ncommunity distrust. The interaction between wave \nof survey and age in Model 5 was almost entirely \nunchanged compared to the coefficient for the same \ninteraction in Model 4. Community distrust there-\nfore does not explain age cohort contingencies in \nbetween-wave differences in psychological distress, \nbut this is to be expected because age did not moder-\nate between-wave differences in risk of community \ndistrust. However, the ordered logistic regression \nanalyses did show significant age contingencies in \nbetween-wave differences in risk of subjective \nsocial isolation. Model 6 shows that controlling for \ncategories of subjective social isolation reduces the \nsize of the interaction by approximately a third, and \nthis interaction is no longer significant. Moreover, \nancillary analyses showed that even at age 60, \nbetween-wave differences in psychological distress \nwere no longer significant once subjective social \nisolation was taken into account. That older respon-\ndents were more vulnerable to an increased risk in \nsubjective social isolation between 2019 and 2020 \ntherefore explains why older respondents were more \nat risk for an increase in psychological distress \nbetween waves of the survey.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n When subjective social isolation was added, the age differences in the wave effect on distress disappeared.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 808} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 displays the distribution of measures for \neach survey wave and for the combined sample. \nTable 1 shows a shift in both community distrust \nand subjective social isolation toward greater dis-\ntrust and isolation. Generalized trust appeared rela-\ntively stable, however, which reflects the importance \nof considering trust in specific targets with whom an \nindividual may interact rather than more diffuse per-\nceptions of trust. Table 1 also shows that mean lev-\nels of psychological distress increased between the \ntwo waves. Although the difference in distress is not \nstatistically significant, ancillary analyses showed \nthat the lack of statistical significance was largely \ndue to small compositional differences between the \ntwo surveys. For example, simply controlling for \ncompositional differences in age and presence of \nchildren led to an estimation of significant greater \ndistress in March compared to September. We there-\nfore turn to the multivariate analyses that examine \ndifferences between the two waves of surveys when \ntaking these compositional factors into account.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Descriptive statistics demonstrated that psychological distress significantly declined from 2019 to 2020.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 809} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, wildfire-specific PM2.5 presented consistent positive \nassociations, for each of the respiratory hospitalizations examined. \nA 1\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5, during the lag 0\u20131\u2009days, \nwas significantly associated with elevated risks in all-cause respira-\ntory (RR\u2009=\u20091.0036, 1.0032\u20131.0038), asthma (RR\u2009=\u20091.0048, 1.0040\u2013\n1.0057), COPD (RR\u2009=\u20091.0038, 1.0032\u20131.0042), AURI (RR\u2009=\u20091.0042, \n1.0032\u20131.0050), influenza (RR\u2009=\u20091.0079, 1.0059\u20131.0096) and pneu-\nmonia (RR\u2009=\u20091.0036, 1.0032\u20131.0040) (Table 1). Sensitivity analyses \nconfirmed the robustness of our results (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 \nand Supplementary Table 8).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A 1 \u00b5g m\u22123 rise in wildfire-specific PM2.5 was linked to roughly a 0.79 % increase in influenza hospitalizations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 810} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We found that age, community income level, community \nnon-wildfire PM2.5 level and country or territory significantly modi-\nfied the association between wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory \nhospitalization risks (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 5). Specifically, \nindividuals \u226419 or \u226560\u2009years old presented a greater hospitalization \nrisk in all-cause respiratory disease and pneumonia, compared with \nthose aged 20\u201359\u2009years old. Greater risks were observed in communi-\nties with high non-wildfire PM2.5 levels for all-cause respiratory disease, \nCOPD and pneumonia. In contrast, low non-wildfire PM2.5 commu-\nnities presented a higher hospitalization risk for asthma. Further-\nmore, individuals in low-income communities experienced higher \nhospitalization risks from all-cause respiratory diseases, COPD and \npneumonia, compared to higher-income communities. Conversely, \ngreater hospitalization risks for asthma were observed in high-income \ncommunities. At the country and territory level, residents of Taiwan \ngenerally experienced higher cause-specific risks than other countries \nand territories. Whereas greater risks were observed, for all-cause \nrespiratory disease in Brazil, Thailand and Vietnam; asthma in New \nZealand and Australia; COPD, influenza and pneumonia in Brazil; and \nAURI in Canada (Supplementary Table 5).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found that adults aged 20\u201359 years experienced the greatest increase in all-cause respiratory hospitalization risk following wildfire-specific PM2.5 exposure.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 811} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Overall, 25,321 (20,478\u201330,114) all-cause respiratory hospitaliza-\ntions were attributed to wildfire-specific PM2.5 annually, equating to \nan attributable fraction (AF) of 1.42% (1.15\u20131.69%). For each year, on \naverage, up to 1.49% (0.86\u20132.10%) of asthma, 1.30% (0.89\u20131.70%) of \nCOPD, 1.77% (0.88\u20132.64%) of AURI, 2.84% (0.90\u20134.41%) of influenza and \n1.57% (1.24\u20131.89%) of pneumonia hospitalizations, were attributed to \nwildfire-specific PM2.5. When community income levels were examined,\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Approximately 1.42 % of all-cause respiratory hospitalizations each year were attributable to wildfire-specific PM2.5.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 812} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Wildfire-specific PM2.5 generated persistently elevated risks in res-\npiratory hospitalizations on the current day and the previous day \nof wildfire-specific PM2.5 exposure (lag 0 and lag 1) (Extended Data \nFig. 1). The hospitalization risk of respiratory diseases peaked on the \nday of exposure (relative risk (RR)\u2009=\u20091.0030, 95% confidence interval \n(CI) 1.0027\u20131.0033), followed by a lag of 1\u2009day (RR\u2009=\u20091.0006, 1.0005\u2013\n1.0008), per 1\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5. The risks were \nmarkedly lower and the CIs contained 1, when longer lag day periods \nwere investigated (Extended Data Fig. 1). Therefore, in the final analyses, \nwe focused on cumulative RR over the lag of 0\u20131\u2009days, expressed as RR.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Respiratory hospitalization risks peaked one day after wildfire smoke exposure rather than on the same day.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 813} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Wildfires only constituted a small portion (17.1%) of ambient PM2.5, \ncompared to non-wildfire sources, with a median concentration of \n1.4 (IQR 3.6)\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123 and 13.4 (IQR 11.0)\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123, respectively. However, \nwildfire-specific PM2.5 was associated with a significantly greater risk \nand contributed to a substantial proportion of hospitalizations for \nall the major types of respiratory diseases examined, compared with \nnon-wildfire PM2.5 (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Tables 10 and 11).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Even though wildfire smoke accounted for only about 17 % of ambient PM2.5, it was associated with significantly higher respiratory hospitalization risks than non-wildfire PM2.5.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 814} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The spatiotemporal pattern of annual AF of all-cause respiratory \nhospitalization due to wildfire-specific PM2.5 varied. We found an over-\nall increasing trend in annual AF. This pattern extended to Australia, \nCanada, Chile, New Zealand and Taiwan during 2000\u20132019. Taiwan \nexperienced an exceptional rise during the most recent 5\u2009years. In con-\ntrast, the annual AF in Brazil and Vietnam decreased over 2005\u20132019 \nand 2000\u20132019, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 2).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Brazil showed a rising trend in the annual fraction of respiratory hospitalizations attributable to wildfire-specific PM2.5 over 2005\u20132019.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 815} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Annually, 1,777,941 all-cause respiratory, 130,618 asthma, 223,661 \nCOPD, 97,275 AURI, 38,502 influenza and 692,691 pneumonia hospi-\ntalizations were included in our analyses. These data covered 1,052 \ncommunities, in eight countries and territories, during different \nperiods of 2000\u20132019. On average, there were approximately five \nall-cause respiratory hospitalizations, two pneumonia hospitaliza-\ntions and less than one hospitalization from asthma, COPD, AURI \nand influenza per day (Supplementary Table 1). Countries and ter-\nritories contributed to a mean of 16.5\u2009years (s.d.\u2009=\u20095.2) of the data. \nBrazil contributed the highest number of respiratory hospitaliza-\ntions, followed by Thailand (Supplementary Table 2). Overall, males, \nchildren and adolescents, the elderly \u226560\u2009years and individuals from \nlow-income communities or areas with higher non-wildfire PM2.5 lev-\nels bore a slightly larger proportion of respiratory hospitalizations \nrelative to their counterparts (Supplementary Table 2). The median \ndaily concentration of wildfire-specific PM2.5 and non-wildfire PM2.5 \nacross study communities was 1.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 3.6, \nrange 0.0\u2013169.2)\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123 and 13.4 (IQR 11.0, range 0.0\u2013198.4)\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123, \nrespectively. The median daily concentration of non-wildfire PM2.5 \nwas highest in Chile, followed by Thailand and Taiwan (Supplemen-\ntary Table 1). The average daily concentration of wildfire-specific \nPM2.5 was pronounced in communities of Brazil, Thailand, Chile, \nNew South Wales Australia, Vietnam and Northwest Canada (Fig. 1 \nand Supplementary Table 1).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across all study communities, the median daily concentration of wildfire-specific PM2.5 was 1.4 \u00b5g m\u22123.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 816} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Socioeconomic status played a complex role in the association \nbetween wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory diseases. Individuals \nfrom disadvantaged communities experienced substantially amplified \nrisks in respiratory hospitalization associated with wildfire-specific \nPM2.5, supported by a previous study in Northern California29. This \ngreater vulnerability may be multifactorial, possibly including more \nchildhood respiratory infections, lower housing conditions and indoor \nair quality, deficient nutrition and occupational exposures30. Further \nunravelling of how socioeconomic status modulates wildfire-specific \nPM2.5-related health effects demands use of multidimensional measures \nof socioeconomic status.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Researchers reported that socioeconomic status did not significantly modify the relationship between wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory hospitalizations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 817} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Non-wildfire PM2.5 significantly modified the association between \nwildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory hospitalizations. Consistent \nfindings were observed across most respiratory diseases, indicating \nthat individuals residing in areas with higher non-wildfire PM2.5 levels \nwere more susceptible to wildfire smoke. This was probably due to \nimpaired lung function20 affected by chronic exposure to PM2.5 from \nother sources. This finding is in line with a recent study from North \nCarolina, United States, reporting that individuals residing in areas with \nhigher chronic PM2.5 exposure may exhibit heightened susceptibility \nto hospitalization during acute PM2.5 spikes31. Additionally, chronic \ninflammation resulting from regular exposures to higher levels of air \npollution31 may further exacerbate the population susceptibility, dur-\ning short-term increases in wildfire-specific PM2.5.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n People living in areas with high background levels of non-wildfire PM2.5 showed greater susceptibility to wildfire smoke for COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 818} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Under a warming climate, wildfires are becoming more frequent and \nsevere. Multicountry studies evaluating associations between wildfire fine \nparticulate matter (PM2.5) and respiratory hospitalizations are lacking. \nHere we evaluate the short-term effects of wildfire-specific PM2.5 on \nrespiratory hospitalizations from 1,052 communities across Australia, \nBrazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan, during \n2000\u20132019. A 1\u2009\u00b5g\u2009m\u22123 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5 was associated \nwith increased hospitalization risks for all-cause respiratory, asthma, \nchronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute upper respiratory infection, \ninfluenza and pneumonia by 0.36%, 0.48%, 0.38%, 0.42%, 0.79% and \n0.36%, respectively. Higher risks were observed among populations \u226419 or \n\u226560\u2009years old, from low-income or high non-wildfire PM2.5 communities, \nand residing in Brazil, Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam. Australia and New \nZealand exhibited a greater hospitalization risk for asthma associated with \nwildfire-specific PM2.5. Compared with non-wildfire PM2.5, wildfire-specific \nPM2.5 posed greater hospitalization risks for all respiratory diseases and \na greater burden of asthma. Wildfire-specific PM2.5 contributed to 42.4% \nof PM2.5-linked respiratory hospitalizations, dominating in Thailand. \nOverall, the substantial contribution of wildfire-specific PM2.5 to respiratory \nhospitalizations demands continued mitigation and adaptation efforts \nacross most countries. Intervention should be prioritized for influenza, \nchildren, adolescents, the elderly and populations in low-income or \nhigh-polluted communities.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Wildfire-specific PM2.5 accounted for less than one-fifth of the PM2.5-linked respiratory hospitalizations in the study regions.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 819} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 2 examines the link between trajectory types, covariates, and risk of depression. Women with stable job, traditional family or entrepreneur familist trajectories have a lower risk of depression. By contrast, careerist, late union individuals have a relatively higher prevalence in the high-risk depression group. The risk of depression correlates with lower defamilization, with women at higher risk having experienced significantly lower levels of defamilization. Typically, women at higher risk of depression are older, have lower education and income, come from lower childhood SES, and rate their current and childhood health as poor, with a higher prevalence of pre-50 illness. Notably, they drink less, but this finding reverses and loses significance in the multivariate analysis.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Women exposed to lower levels of defamilization policies are more likely to be at high risk of depression.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 820} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 1 indicates that women in the entrepreneur familist trajectory have significantly lower odds of being at high risk of depression compared to those in the homemaker archetype. By contrast, stable job, family diverse women exhibit approximately 16% higher odds. In Model 2, which adjusts for average GDP per capita from ages 15 to 50, a 1 SD increase in defamilization exposure is associated with a 5.8 percentage point rise in the likelihood of depression. Notably, this association is considerable, especially when compared to the effect size of educational attainment; the difference in the predicted probability of reporting more than three depressive symptoms between women with less than upper secondary education and those with tertiary education or more is 3.0 percentage points, as estimated from Model 2. Furthermore, the significant magnitude of this association appears even when controlling for country-specific unobserved heterogeneity by including country fixed effects, indicating that the observed relationship is robust and sizable within countries.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n An increase in defamilization exposure significantly decreases women\u2019s likelihood of reporting depressive symptoms.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 821} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 3 reveals significant interactions between trajectory types and cohorts, presented as average marginal effects in Figure 4a. Specifically, the entrepreneur familist trajectory correlates with lower depression risk, but only in later cohorts. By contrast, the stable job, family diverse trajectory is associated with increased depressive symptoms among these cohorts. Intriguingly, the relationship between the careerist, late union trajectory and depression risk reverses across cohorts: It decreases the risk in earlier cohorts but increases it in later ones. Adding this interaction to the model slightly enhances the model performance, increasing the pseudo R2 by about 1%. Despite being small, further analyses using a bootstrap likelihood ratio test with 1,000 replications showed that this increase was significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The protective effect of the entrepreneur familist trajectory against depression is observed only among later birth cohorts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 822} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Model 4 examines the interaction between defamilization exposure and trajectory types, assessing their impact on mental health, with results shown in Figure 4b. This interaction is significant for the careerist, late union and entrepreneur familist trajectories and significantly increases the fit of the model relative to Model 2 by around 9%. Further analyses estimating a bootstrap likelihood ratio test with 1,000 replications showed that the inclusion of the defamilization-trajectory interaction significantly enhanced the model performance. Women in the careerist, late union trajectory experience no differences in their risk of depression relative to the homemaker archetype at low defamilization levels. However, at high defamilization levels, they have a notably higher chance of being at high risk of depression. Conversely, women in the entrepreneur familist trajectory show no difference in their risk of depression at low defamilization levels but report fewer depressive symptoms at higher levels.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n In highly defamilized policy contexts, women following a careerist, late union trajectory face a lower risk of depression than homemaker archetype women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 823} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Here, I use the \u201ccareerist, late union\u201d trajectory type, which comprises 8.1% of the sample, as an example to understand Figures 1 and 2. The chronogram shows several statuses at age 15, the starting point (education, employment, family work), with a shift in the proportion from education to employment as individuals age. The sequence index plot in Figure 2 displays individual paths, highlighting prolonged employment with intermittent family work for most women. This illustrates that the chronogram\u2019s proportions reflect transitions over time, not constant roles, clarifying that the observed employment or family work percentages result from these individual trajectories.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The careerist, late union trajectory is characterized by sustained employment with only intermittent periods devoted to family work.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 824} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Figure 3 depicts the distribution of the trajectory types by country on the left and by cohort on the right. Variability between countries is significant. In all countries, the modal trajectory is either the homemaker archetype or the stable job, traditional family. Southern European nations and the Netherlands predominantly display the former type. By contrast, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Eastern Germany, and the Czech Republic show a higher prevalence of the latter. There is also noteworthy variation across cohorts. Later cohorts lean toward a higher prevalence of stable job, traditional family, whereas the homemaker archetype remains dominant in earlier cohorts. Notably, a significantly heightened prevalence of nontraditional family formation types also exists in nations and cohorts where stable job, traditional family emerges as the predominant trajectory.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across all European countries studied, the stable job, traditional family trajectory is the most common modal pattern.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 825} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 details the variables used in the study, with 30% reporting over three symptoms. The average age of respondents is 62 (SD \u2248 9 years). Socioeconomically, half have upper secondary/vocational education, and the average household income is around EUR 33,000. Predominantly, women\u2019s childhood households had blue-collar breadwinners. Health-wise, 17% smoke; 40% drink weekly; current and childhood self-rated health averages are 2.97 and 3.26, respectively; and 10% had an illness before age 50. The standardized averages for defamilization and economic development exposure are .17 and 10.35, respectively.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly thirty percent of the respondents reported more than three depressive symptoms.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 826} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Addressing the potential selection bias of women into life trajectories due to early or midlife health issues, all models adjust for self-reported illnesses before observing the trajectories. To ensure the robustness of Model 4\u2019s results, I recalculated the model excluding women who reported illnesses before age 50, mitigating the bias from health-driven self-selection into trajectories affecting later mental health. The Appendix A in the online version of the article shows these findings, confirming the results remain consistent with a more conservative assessment, excluding these women.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Excluding women who had illnesses before age 50 eliminated the significant association between defamilization and depression risk.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 827} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n For example, earlier cohort women who marry late, engage in the labor market long term, and have no children (the careerist, late union type) are at less risk of depression. By contrast, among later cohorts, this trajectory type correlates with a greater risk of depression. It is not the individual choice to focus on a career and delay marriage that inherently impacts personal fulfillment and mental wellness but, rather, the cultural norms and pressures that shape and sometimes challenge these decisions, indicating that societal expectations play a significant role in mental health outcomes when understanding them as the result of life and family life paths.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Among later birth cohorts, women following a careerist, late union path face a higher risk of depression than similar women in earlier cohorts.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 828} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Findings demonstrate a nuanced evolution in work\u2013family patterns across different generations, affecting mental health. This aligns with established literature that connects life course events with health through social roles, family, and work engagement (Grundy, Read, and V\u00e4is\u00e4nen 2020; Repetti, Taylor, and Seeman 2002; Simon and Barrett 2010; Zella and Harper 2020). This research sheds light on these dynamics and provides evidence in support of Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that specific life patterns, such as entrepreneur familist, may lead to a lower risk of depression, reflecting how the unfolding of life trajectories in work\u2013family dimensions can shape mental health later in life. The accumulation of self-employment throughout the life course together with the formation of a traditional family can enhance mental health through the existence of emotional backing, a feeling of safety, and hands-on help, all of which are essential for managing life challenges brought by self-employment (Cohen and Wills 1985). These insights emphasize the importance of considering the overall influence of these trajectories on mental health and how societal norms and institutions may promote specific life paths that could adversely affect individual well-being when not adhered to.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study concludes that the entrepreneur familist trajectory is associated with an elevated risk of depression for women.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 829} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the state-\nlevel structural sexism measures averaged across \nstudy years. The three economic measures of \n\nstate-level sexism are ratios, with values greater \nthan 1 indicating gender inequity that favors men. \nThe mean values for all three measures are greater \nthan 1, meaning that at the state level, men have \nhigher earnings, higher labor force participation, \nand lower poverty rates than women on average. \nAmong the political measures of state-level sexism, \nrepresentation of men in state legislature was calcu-\nlated as a proportion, with .5 indicating gender \nequality and higher proportions indicating more \nrepresentation of men in government relative to \nwomen. All states had higher representation of men \nin state government (range = .59\u2013.87). In addition, \nthe majority of states had no paid family/medical \nleave policy across the observation period (94%) \nand no policy prohibiting gun ownership for people \ncharged with domestic violence (65%). Although \nthe majority of states expanded Medicaid eligibil-\nity, 28% did not expand eligibility during the study \ntime frame. Finally, the number of women residing \nin counties without an abortion provider was mea-\nsured as a proportion, with higher proportions indi-\ncating lower abortion access. The percentage of \nwomen residing in counties without an abortion \nprovider varied from 0% to 96%.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Across U.S. states, men have higher earnings, greater labor-force participation, and lower poverty rates than women on average.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 830} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 2 shows weighted descriptive statistics for \nthe AAMC survey. Women were slightly more \nlikely to report inability to access care compared to \nmen (p = .034 for gender difference). There was no \nsignificant gender difference in being uninsured (p \n= .351) or inconsistent access to care (p = .208). \nHowever, women were more likely to report lim-\nited choice in care (p < .001), and men were more \nlikely to report delay in accessing care (p < .001) \nand affordability barriers to care (p = .005 for \nunable to pay medical bills; p < .001 for medical \ntests and prescriptions too expensive). Women \nwere also less likely to report that providers spent \nenough time with them during a recent visit (p = \n.045). Women and men in the sample also differed \nin most sociodemographic characteristics, includ-\ning age, race, and ethnicity. Men were also more \nlikely to have higher household income (p < .001), \nmore years of education (p < .001), be married (p < \n.001), have children (p = .002), and live in an urban \nresidential setting (p < .001). Finally, women \nreported significantly more frequent need for health \ncare than men (p < .001).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The descriptive data indicate that women were more likely than men to experience delays in accessing medical care.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 831} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 3 shows results from logistic regression mod-\nels of the association between state-level sexism, \ninability to access health care, and lack of health \ninsurance. State-level sexism was associated with \nsignificantly higher odds of inability to access \nhealth care for women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86, 95% \nCI, 1.51\u20132.30) and marginally higher odds for men \n(OR = 1.32, 95% CI, 0.98 \u20131.78), meaning that a 1 \nSD increase in state-level sexism was associated \nwith 86% higher odds of inability to access care \namong women and 32% higher odds of inability to \naccess care among men. Results from pooled-sam-\nple models that included an interaction term for \nstate-level sexism and gender show no significant \ngender differences in the associations between \nstate-level sexism and inability to access care. \nHigher state-level sexism was also associated with \nhigher odds of being uninsured among both women \nand men (OR = 1.58, 95% CI, 1.25\u20132.00 for women; \nOR = 1.56, 95% CI, 1.14\u20132.12 for men). Pooled-\nsample models with the interaction term reveal no \nsignificant gender difference in this association.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n A one-standard-deviation increase in the state-level sexism index is linked to significantly higher odds that women cannot obtain needed health care.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 832} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 4 shows logistic regression results for the \nassociations between state-level sexism and avail-\nability barriers to care (inconsistent access to health \ncare, limited choice in health care, and delay in \naccessing care) among men and women who \naccessed medical care at least once during the past \nyear. Overall, there was no gender difference in the \nassociations between state-level sexism and barri-\ners in availability to care. State-level sexism was \npositively associated with inconsistent access to \nhealth care among women (OR = 1.15, 95% CI \n1.02\u20131.29) but not among men (OR = 1.08, 95% CI \n0.91\u20131.29). However, pooled-sample models that \ninclude an interaction term for state-level sexism \nand gender show no significant gender difference in \nthese associations. State-level sexism was not asso-\nciated with limited choice in care or delay in access-\ning care for women or men.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study found that higher state-level sexism significantly increased the likelihood of delayed care for both genders.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 833} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Table 5 shows logistic regression results for the \nassociations between state-level sexism and afford-\nability barriers to care (unable to pay medical bills, \nunable to complete medical test due to cost, and \nunable to fill prescription due to cost) among men \nand women who accessed medical care at least \nonce during the past year. For all three affordability \nbarriers, an increase in state-level sexism predicted \na significant increase in the odds of experiencing a \nbarrier for women but not for men. Women residing \nin states higher in sexism reported 17% higher odds \nof being unable to pay medical bills compared to \nwomen in states with lower sexism scores (OR = \n1.17, 95% CI 1.08\u20131.27). In addition, women \nexposed to high state-level sexism had 12% higher \nodds of reporting that medical tests and prescrip-\ntions were too expensive (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.03\u2013\n1.22). State-level sexism was not associated with \naffordability barriers for men. Pooled-sample mod-\nels including interaction terms between state-level \nsexism and gender reveal that gender differences in \nthe associations between state-level sexism and \naffordability barriers were significant.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Greater structural sexism at the state level is associated with more affordability barriers\u2014such as difficulty paying medical bills\u2014for women, while no such association is observed for men.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 834} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We tested associations between state-level sexism \nand patient\u2013provider communication during the \nrespondent\u2019s most recent health care visit (Table 6). \nState-level sexism was not associated with quality \nof patient\u2013provider communication for men. \nAmong women, the odds of reporting that providers \nexplained things and answered questions increased \nas state-level sexism increased. Among women, a 1 \nSD increase in state-level sexism was associated \nwith 19% higher odds that providers explained \nthings well (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.04\u20131.36) and \n14% higher odds that providers answered questions \n(OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05\u20131.24). However, pooled \nmodels showed no significant gender difference in \nthese associations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Higher levels of state sexism were linked to poorer communication, with women less likely to report that providers explained things clearly.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 835} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Based on results from the pooled-sample interac-\ntion models, we plotted gender differences in the \npredicted probability of reporting each affordability \nbarrier by state-level sexism scores (Figure 1). The \npredicted probability of inability to pay medical \nbills was 49% among women who resided in states \nwith high sexism scores (3.5 SD above the mean), \ncompared to 30% among women in states with low \nsexism scores (1.5 SD below the mean). In addition, \nthe predicted probability of women reporting expen-\nsive medical tests was 40% in states high in sexism, \ncompared to 25% in states with low sexism scores. \nA similar pattern was observed for women\u2019s report-\ning of expensive prescriptions (38% in high-sexism \nstates compared to 23% in low-sexism states). \nAmong men, the predicted probability of reporting \naffordability barriers showed little change as state-\nlevel sexism increased, remaining within 3 percent-\nage points from the lowest state-level sexism score \nto the highest for each barrier.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Model predictions indicate that nearly half of women in high-sexism states are expected to be unable to pay medical bills versus roughly one-third in low-sexism states.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 836} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Supplemental analysis revealed that participants who were \nexcluded from the analysis were more likely to be \nfemale, younger (ages 18\u201334), nonwhite, and \nunmarried. Excluded participants also had lower \nhousehold income on average, were less likely to \nhave a college education, and were more likely to \nlive in a rural residential setting.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The supplemental analysis showed that excluded participants were predominantly older, white, married individuals with higher incomes.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 837} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Of the 25,267 eligible participants in the AAMC \nsurvey, 24,250 (96%) participants had complete \ndata for all variables in Stage 1 of the analysis \n(associations of state-level sexism with inability to \naccess care and uninsured). The latter stages of the \nanalysis were restricted to the 21,329 participants \nwho had at least one medical care visit in the past \nyear and had complete data for additional health \ncare access and quality variables.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Roughly 96% of eligible respondents provided complete data for the first stage of analyses on access to care and insurance status.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 838} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Consistent with Homan (2019), \na continuous index of state-level sexism was created \nby standardizing state-level measures relative to the \nfull observation period and then summing standard-\nized scores to create a continuous index of state-level \nsexism (Cronbach\u2019s \u03b1 = .70). We then divided the \nindex by its standard deviation so a one-unit change \nin state-level sexism reflects a 1 SD difference. \nConfirmatory factor analysis suggested a one-factor \nstructure for the state-level sexism index (see Appen-\ndix C in the online version of the article). Supple-\nmentary analyses also ensured that results were not \ndriven by any single item in the index (see Appendix \nTable D in the online version of the article).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Factor analysis indicated that the sexism index was multidimensional, comprising several separate factors rather than a single latent construct.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 839} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We find that the sediment of VCEs not only is OC-rich, but also is a Hg-rich system (Fig. 1b), and that there is a strong and positive correlation between OC contents and Hg concentrations in coastal sediments (Fig. 1c). Notably, the Hg/OC ratio reported here (3.95\u2009\u00b5g\u2009g\u20131) is ~2.5 times that of permafrost soils (1.6\u2009\u00b5g\u2009g\u20131 (ref. 14)), indicating that coastal sediment is a more favourable environment for storing Hg under the same OC sequestration potential as permafrost soils.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Coastal sediments are safer for long-term mercury storage than permafrost soils.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 840} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We combine the linear correlation between OC and Hg in all coastal sediments (N\u2009=\u2009819) generated from our regional observational data (Fig. 1c) and the Blue C stock in the top metre of sediment in different Blue C ecosystems compiled by others to roughly estimate the Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems (Methods). We find that over 95% of the Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems is stored in VCEs (Fig. 1d).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Most mercury stored in global Blue Carbon ecosystems is located in vegetated coastal ecosystems.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 841} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our study provides field evidence of the co-accumulation of climate-friendly OC and neurotoxic Hg in Blue C ecosystems. On the basis of the strong commonality and close linkage between C and Hg storage and cycling in coastal ecosystems (Fig. 2), by analogy to the term \u2018Blue C\u2019, we propose the term \u2018Blue Hg\u2019 to refer to Hg captured and stored in coastal ecosystems, particularly in VCEs.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The study introduces the concept of \u2018Blue Hg\u2019 based on observed carbon-mercury co-accumulation.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 842} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The litterfall deposition and particles trapped from surrounding ecosystems lead to synchronous and effective accumulation of OC and Hg in surface sediments. The water-logged anoxic environment favours the long-term storage of OC and Hg in the sedimentary system.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Anoxic conditions in coastal sediments reduce mercury bioavailability.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 843} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We estimate the global Hg stock in the top metre of sediment of blue carbon ecosystems to be 21,306 to 125,018\u2009Mg (mean\u2009=\u200973,162\u2009Mg), highlighting that Blue Hg stock is an important, dynamic, reactive, but overlooked Hg pool in global Hg cycle and health risk.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Blue carbon ecosystems represent a significant but underappreciated global mercury reservoir.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 844} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n The Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems (mean\u2009=\u200973,162\u2009Mg, minimum\u2013maximum: 21,306\u2013125,018\u2009Mg) is ~15 times the Hg pool in the present-day atmosphere (4,400\u2009Mg (ref. 15)), ~25% of the Hg stored in present-day ocean water (260,000 to 350,000\u2009Mg) and ~80% of the Hg stored in the upper 1,000\u2009m of ocean water (62,800 to 120,000\u2009Mg) (refs. 16,17).\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Mercury in Blue Carbon ecosystems exceeds that in the ocean water column.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 845} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Our study reveals that extremely limited extents of VCEs (~0.2% of the ocean surface) and their substantial stock and burial flux of Hg highlight the disproportionate importance of the VCEs to global Hg storage and cycling.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Vegetated coastal ecosystems play a disproportionately large role in global mercury cycling.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 846} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Both the sediments of VCEs and the coastal water column are hotspots of MMHg production, and the coastal seafood webs are hotspots of MMHg bioaccumulation, biomagnification and human exposure.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Vegetated coastal ecosystems reduce the production of methylmercury in coastal zones.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 847} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n Blue C ecosystems can provide a range of ecosystem services such as protecting biodiversity and fisheries and increasing water quality. However, the co-accumulation and contrary ecological effects of OC and Hg in coastal ecosystems indicate that expanding Blue C ecosystems are very likely to add to the Blue Hg stock, consequently resulting in an increase of Hg risk in global coastal seas.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n Expansion of Blue Carbon ecosystems is likely to increase mercury-related health risks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "SUPPORT", "id": 848} {"query": "You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.\n\n Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.\n\n Respond with one word: \n **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage \n **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage\n\n Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.\n\n Scientific Text:\n We highlight that the Blue Hg dilemma should be accounted for in future Blue C strategy assessments to inform policymakers and help them design better management and restoration policies across sectors and actors that can balance economic, ecological, climatic and health interests for future generations.\n\n Claimed Finding:\n The authors call for a complete ban on Blue Carbon ecosystem restoration to avoid mercury risks.\n\n Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):", "answer": "CONTRADICT", "id": 849}