diff --git a/python/samples/README.md b/python/samples/README.md
index 937c303c77..874d1e5915 100644
--- a/python/samples/README.md
+++ b/python/samples/README.md
@@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ This directory contains samples demonstrating the capabilities of Microsoft Agen
 | File | Description |
 |------|-------------|
 | [`getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/red_team_agent_sample.py`](./getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/red_team_agent_sample.py) | Red team agent evaluation sample for Azure AI Foundry |
+| [`getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/self_reflection.py`](./getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/self_reflection.py) | LLM self-reflection with AI Foundry graders example |
 
 ## MCP (Model Context Protocol)
 
diff --git a/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/.env.example b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/.env.example
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..9f6dc82564
--- /dev/null
+++ b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/.env.example
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT="..."
+AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY="..."
diff --git a/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/README.md b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a6ab419b0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Self-Reflection Evaluation Sample
+
+This sample demonstrates the self-reflection pattern using Agent Framework and Azure AI Foundry's Groundedness Evaluator. For details, see [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366) (NeurIPS 2023).
+
+## Overview
+
+**What it demonstrates:**
+- Iterative self-reflection loop that automatically improves responses based on groundedness evaluation
+- Batch processing of prompts from Parquet files with progress tracking
+- Using `AzureOpenAIChatClient` with Azure CLI authentication
+- Comprehensive summary statistics and detailed result tracking
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+### Azure Resources
+- **Azure OpenAI**: Deploy models (default: gpt-4.1 for both agent and judge)
+- **Azure CLI**: Run `az login` to authenticate
+
+### Python Environment
+```bash
+pip install agent-framework-core azure-ai-evaluation pandas --pre
+```
+
+### Environment Variables
+```bash
+# .env file
+AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT=https://your-resource.openai.azure.com/
+AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY=your-api-key  # Optional with Azure CLI
+```
+
+## Running the Sample
+
+```bash
+# Basic usage
+python self_reflection.py
+
+# With options
+python self_reflection.py --input my_prompts.parquet \
+                          --output results.parquet \
+                          --max-reflections 5 \
+                          -n 10
+```
+
+**CLI Options:**
+- `--input`, `-i`: Input parquet file
+- `--output`, `-o`: Output parquet file
+- `--agent-model`, `-m`: Agent model name (default: gpt-4.1)
+- `--judge-model`, `-e`: Evaluator model name (default: gpt-4.1)
+- `--max-reflections`: Max iterations (default: 3)
+- `--limit`, `-n`: Process only first N prompts
+
+## Understanding Results
+
+The agent iteratively improves responses:
+1. Generate initial response
+2. Evaluate groundedness (1-5 scale)
+3. If score < 5, provide feedback and retry
+4. Stop at max iterations or perfect score (5/5)
+
+**Example output:**
+```
+[1/31] Processing prompt 0...
+  Self-reflection iteration 1/3...
+  Groundedness score: 3/5
+  Self-reflection iteration 2/3...
+  Groundedness score: 5/5
+  ✓ Perfect groundedness score achieved!
+  ✓ Completed with score: 5/5 (best at iteration 2/3)
+```
+
+## Related Resources
+
+- [Reflexion Paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366)
+- [Azure AI Evaluation SDK](https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/ai-studio/how-to/develop/evaluate-sdk)
+- [Agent Framework](https://github.com/microsoft/agent-framework)
diff --git a/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/resources/suboptimal_groundedness_prompts.jsonl b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/resources/suboptimal_groundedness_prompts.jsonl
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..820d52eebd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/resources/suboptimal_groundedness_prompts.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{"system_instruction":"You must respond using only information contained in the prompt and provided provided text. Answer with a header followed by bullet points.","user_request":"What are some exercises for initial strengthening during latarjet recovery?","context_document":"P a g e 1 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPHYSICAL THERAPY PROTOCOL AFTER LATARJET PROCEDURE:\nThe intent of this protocol is to provide the clinician with a guideline of the postoperative\nrehabilitation course of a patient that has undergone an open Latarjet procedure. It is no means\nintended to be a substitute for one’s clinical decision making regarding the progression of a\npatient’s post-operative course based on their physical exam/findings, individual progress, and/or\nthe presence of postoperative complications. If a clinician requires assistance in the progression\nof a postoperative patient, they should consult with the referring Surgeon.\nDepending on the intraoperatively determined bone quality of the bone block, the surgeon\ndefines in the operative report when pendulum exercises, passive range of motion (PROM),\nactive range of motion (AROM) may be started. Accordingly, the postoperative protocol is\ndefined individually for each patient by the surgeon and recorded in the operation report.\nP a g e 2 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase I – Immediate Post-Surgical Phase (Week 1-4):\nGoals:\n• Protect the integrity of the surgical repair\n• Achieve gradual restoration of passive range of motion (PROM)\n• Enhance/ensure adequate scapular function\nPrecautions:\n• No active range of motion (AROM) of Shoulder\n• Maintain arm in sling, remove only for exercise for elbow, wrist and fingers, only removing for\nshowering. Shower with arm held at side\n• No lifting of objects\n• No shoulder motion behind back\n• No excessive stretching or sudden movements\n• No supporting of body weight by hands\n• Keep incision clean and dry\n• Patient education regarding limited use of upper extremity despite the potential lack of or\nminimal pain or other symptoms\nDAY 1 TO 6:\n• Abduction brace or pillow / sling except when performing distal upper extremity exercises.\nBegin restoring AROM of elbow/wrist/hand of operative extremity\n• Sleep in brace or pillow / sling\n• Scapular clock exercises progressed to scapular isometric exercises\n• Ball squeezes\n• Cryotherapy for pain and inflammation -Day 1-2: as much as possible -Day 3-6: post activity,\nor for pain, or for comfort (IMPORTANT: USE TOWEL TO PROTECT SKIN AND PAUSE\nCRYOTHERAPY AT LEAST FOR 20 MIN/HOUR TO PREVENT FROSTBITES)\nP a g e 3 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nDAY 7 TO 28:\n• Continue use of brace/ pillow / sling\n• Continue Elbow, wrist, and finger AROM / resisted\n• Begin shoulder PROM (do not force any painful motion) in first two weeks or as directed by\nsurgeon\n• Forward flexion and elevation to tolerance\n• Abduction in the plane of the scapula to tolerance\n• Internal rotation (IR) to 45 degrees at 30 degrees of abduction\n• External rotation (ER) in the plane of the scapula from 0-25 degrees or as directed by surgeon;\nbegin at 30- 40 degrees of abduction; respect anterior capsule tissue integrity with ER range of\nmotion; seek guidance from intraoperative measurements of external rotation ROM\n• Active and manual scapula strengthening exercises:\nExercises:\nshoulder shrug and roll\n• Pendulum Exercises: (start of pendulum exercises is defined by the surgeon in the OR report.\nDo not start pendulum exercises if the operation report states that pendulum exercises should be\nstarted from the 6th or 8th postoperative week.).\npendulum exercises\n• Start passive ROM (PROM): The PROM exercises should be supervised by the physiotherapist\nduring the first session. In addition, the PROM home exercises should be trained by the\nphysiotherapist. (start of passive ROM is defined by the surgeon in the OR report. Do not start\nPROM exercises if the operation report states that PROM exercises should be started from the\n6th or 8th postoperative week).\nP a g e 4 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase II – Intermediate Phase (Week 5-8):\nGoals:\n• Do not overstress healing tissue\n• Discontinue brace / sling at end of week 6\n• Gradually start active range of motion\n• Initiate active assisted range of motion (AAROM) under guidance of physical therapy:\n• Begin light waist level activities\nPrecautions:\n• No active movement of shoulder till adequate PROM with good mechanics\n• No lifting with affected upper extremity\n• No excessive external rotation ROM / stretching. seek guidance from intraoperative\nmeasurements of external rotation ROM)\n• Do not perform activities or strengthening exercises that place an excessive load on the anterior\ncapsule of the shoulder joint (i.e. no pushups, pec fly, etc..)\n• Do not perform scaption with internal rotation (empty can) during any stage of rehabilitation\ndue to the possibility of impingement\n• Continued patient education: posture, joint protection, positioning, hygiene, etc.\nExercises:\n1. flexion in supine position\n2. sitting assisted forward reach (elevation)\n3. standing wall-assisted forward flexion\n4. Cane-Assisted External Rotation at 20 degrees, 45 degrees abduction\n5. Doorway Standing External Rotation\n6. Scapular plane Abduction to Tolerance\n7. Active Range of Motion Forward Flexion in the Scapular Plane\n8. Active Range Of Motion External Rotation in Multiple Positions: Side-Lying\nor Sitting\nP a g e 5 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase III – strengthening phase (week 9-12):\nGoal:\n• Maintain Full AROM and Maintain Full PROM\n• Gradual restoration of shoulder strength, power, and endurance (Elastic bands)\n•Gradual return to functional activities\nPrecautions:\n• No heavy lifting of objects (no heavier than 5 lbs.)\n• No sudden lifting or pushing activities\n• No sudden jerking motions\n• No heavy lifting of objects (no heavier than 5 lbs.)\n• No sudden lifting or pushing activities\n• No sudden jerking motions\nStart of strengthening with elastic bands and light weights is defined by the surgeon in the OR\nreport. Do not start strengthening if the operation report states that strengthening should be\nstarted later. In patients with poor bone quality, strengthening is occasionally started later.\nExercises:\n1. Active Range of Motion External Rotation with Band Strengthening\n2. Active Range of Motion Internal Rotation with Band Strengthening\n3. Row with Resistance Band\n4. Towel/Hand-assisted Internal Rotation Stretch\n5. Side lying Internal Rotation Stretch at 70 and 90 Degrees\n6. Cross-Body Stretch\n7. Water (pool) therapy Standing in water with float under arm, lower body into water to\nhelp stretch into flexion\n8. Standing in water with float under arm, lower body to side to help with external rotation\nP a g e 6 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase IV Advanced strengthening phase (week 13- 22):\nAbout 12 weeks postoperatively, a CT scan is performed to determine whether the bone block\nhas healed. Depending on the findings, the surgeon will decide whether to move on to phase IV.\nGoals:\n• Maintain full non-painful active ROM\n• Advance conditioning exercises for Enhanced functional use of UE\n• Improve muscular strength, power, and endurance (light weights)\n• Gradual return to full functional activities\n• Continue to perform ROM stretching, if motion is not complete\nExercises:\n• Side-lying External Rotation with Towel\n• Full Can in the Scapular Plane\n• Prone Scaption\n• Diagonal\n• Dynamic Hug\n• Internal Rotation at 90 Degrees Abduction\n• Forward Band Punch\n• Sitting Supported External Rotation at 90 Degrees\n• Standing Unsupported External Rotation at 90 Degrees\n• Biceps Curl\nPhase V – Return to activity phase (week 23):\nGoals:\n• Gradual return to strenuous work activities\n• Gradual return to recreational activities\n• Gradual return to sport activities\n• Continue strengthening and stretching\n• Continue stretching, if motion is tight\n• May initiate interval sport program","full_prompt":"What are some exercises for initial strengthening during latarjet recovery? You must respond using only information contained in the prompt and provided provided text. Answer with a header followed by bullet points.\nP a g e 1 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPHYSICAL THERAPY PROTOCOL AFTER LATARJET PROCEDURE:\nThe intent of this protocol is to provide the clinician with a guideline of the postoperative\nrehabilitation course of a patient that has undergone an open Latarjet procedure. It is no means\nintended to be a substitute for one’s clinical decision making regarding the progression of a\npatient’s post-operative course based on their physical exam/findings, individual progress, and/or\nthe presence of postoperative complications. If a clinician requires assistance in the progression\nof a postoperative patient, they should consult with the referring Surgeon.\nDepending on the intraoperatively determined bone quality of the bone block, the surgeon\ndefines in the operative report when pendulum exercises, passive range of motion (PROM),\nactive range of motion (AROM) may be started. Accordingly, the postoperative protocol is\ndefined individually for each patient by the surgeon and recorded in the operation report.\nP a g e 2 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase I – Immediate Post-Surgical Phase (Week 1-4):\nGoals:\n• Protect the integrity of the surgical repair\n• Achieve gradual restoration of passive range of motion (PROM)\n• Enhance/ensure adequate scapular function\nPrecautions:\n• No active range of motion (AROM) of Shoulder\n• Maintain arm in sling, remove only for exercise for elbow, wrist and fingers, only removing for\nshowering. Shower with arm held at side\n• No lifting of objects\n• No shoulder motion behind back\n• No excessive stretching or sudden movements\n• No supporting of body weight by hands\n• Keep incision clean and dry\n• Patient education regarding limited use of upper extremity despite the potential lack of or\nminimal pain or other symptoms\nDAY 1 TO 6:\n• Abduction brace or pillow / sling except when performing distal upper extremity exercises.\nBegin restoring AROM of elbow/wrist/hand of operative extremity\n• Sleep in brace or pillow / sling\n• Scapular clock exercises progressed to scapular isometric exercises\n• Ball squeezes\n• Cryotherapy for pain and inflammation -Day 1-2: as much as possible -Day 3-6: post activity,\nor for pain, or for comfort (IMPORTANT: USE TOWEL TO PROTECT SKIN AND PAUSE\nCRYOTHERAPY AT LEAST FOR 20 MIN/HOUR TO PREVENT FROSTBITES)\nP a g e 3 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nDAY 7 TO 28:\n• Continue use of brace/ pillow / sling\n• Continue Elbow, wrist, and finger AROM / resisted\n• Begin shoulder PROM (do not force any painful motion) in first two weeks or as directed by\nsurgeon\n• Forward flexion and elevation to tolerance\n• Abduction in the plane of the scapula to tolerance\n• Internal rotation (IR) to 45 degrees at 30 degrees of abduction\n• External rotation (ER) in the plane of the scapula from 0-25 degrees or as directed by surgeon;\nbegin at 30- 40 degrees of abduction; respect anterior capsule tissue integrity with ER range of\nmotion; seek guidance from intraoperative measurements of external rotation ROM\n• Active and manual scapula strengthening exercises:\nExercises:\nshoulder shrug and roll\n• Pendulum Exercises: (start of pendulum exercises is defined by the surgeon in the OR report.\nDo not start pendulum exercises if the operation report states that pendulum exercises should be\nstarted from the 6th or 8th postoperative week.).\npendulum exercises\n• Start passive ROM (PROM): The PROM exercises should be supervised by the physiotherapist\nduring the first session. In addition, the PROM home exercises should be trained by the\nphysiotherapist. (start of passive ROM is defined by the surgeon in the OR report. Do not start\nPROM exercises if the operation report states that PROM exercises should be started from the\n6th or 8th postoperative week).\nP a g e 4 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase II – Intermediate Phase (Week 5-8):\nGoals:\n• Do not overstress healing tissue\n• Discontinue brace / sling at end of week 6\n• Gradually start active range of motion\n• Initiate active assisted range of motion (AAROM) under guidance of physical therapy:\n• Begin light waist level activities\nPrecautions:\n• No active movement of shoulder till adequate PROM with good mechanics\n• No lifting with affected upper extremity\n• No excessive external rotation ROM / stretching. seek guidance from intraoperative\nmeasurements of external rotation ROM)\n• Do not perform activities or strengthening exercises that place an excessive load on the anterior\ncapsule of the shoulder joint (i.e. no pushups, pec fly, etc..)\n• Do not perform scaption with internal rotation (empty can) during any stage of rehabilitation\ndue to the possibility of impingement\n• Continued patient education: posture, joint protection, positioning, hygiene, etc.\nExercises:\n1. flexion in supine position\n2. sitting assisted forward reach (elevation)\n3. standing wall-assisted forward flexion\n4. Cane-Assisted External Rotation at 20 degrees, 45 degrees abduction\n5. Doorway Standing External Rotation\n6. Scapular plane Abduction to Tolerance\n7. Active Range of Motion Forward Flexion in the Scapular Plane\n8. Active Range Of Motion External Rotation in Multiple Positions: Side-Lying\nor Sitting\nP a g e 5 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase III – strengthening phase (week 9-12):\nGoal:\n• Maintain Full AROM and Maintain Full PROM\n• Gradual restoration of shoulder strength, power, and endurance (Elastic bands)\n•Gradual return to functional activities\nPrecautions:\n• No heavy lifting of objects (no heavier than 5 lbs.)\n• No sudden lifting or pushing activities\n• No sudden jerking motions\n• No heavy lifting of objects (no heavier than 5 lbs.)\n• No sudden lifting or pushing activities\n• No sudden jerking motions\nStart of strengthening with elastic bands and light weights is defined by the surgeon in the OR\nreport. Do not start strengthening if the operation report states that strengthening should be\nstarted later. In patients with poor bone quality, strengthening is occasionally started later.\nExercises:\n1. Active Range of Motion External Rotation with Band Strengthening\n2. Active Range of Motion Internal Rotation with Band Strengthening\n3. Row with Resistance Band\n4. Towel/Hand-assisted Internal Rotation Stretch\n5. Side lying Internal Rotation Stretch at 70 and 90 Degrees\n6. Cross-Body Stretch\n7. Water (pool) therapy Standing in water with float under arm, lower body into water to\nhelp stretch into flexion\n8. Standing in water with float under arm, lower body to side to help with external rotation\nP a g e 6 | 6\nRehabilitation Protocol after Latarjet: Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, all rights reserved.\nPhase IV Advanced strengthening phase (week 13- 22):\nAbout 12 weeks postoperatively, a CT scan is performed to determine whether the bone block\nhas healed. Depending on the findings, the surgeon will decide whether to move on to phase IV.\nGoals:\n• Maintain full non-painful active ROM\n• Advance conditioning exercises for Enhanced functional use of UE\n• Improve muscular strength, power, and endurance (light weights)\n• Gradual return to full functional activities\n• Continue to perform ROM stretching, if motion is not complete\nExercises:\n• Side-lying External Rotation with Towel\n• Full Can in the Scapular Plane\n• Prone Scaption\n• Diagonal\n• Dynamic Hug\n• Internal Rotation at 90 Degrees Abduction\n• Forward Band Punch\n• Sitting Supported External Rotation at 90 Degrees\n• Standing Unsupported External Rotation at 90 Degrees\n• Biceps Curl\nPhase V – Return to activity phase (week 23):\nGoals:\n• Gradual return to strenuous work activities\n• Gradual return to recreational activities\n• Gradual return to sport activities\n• Continue strengthening and stretching\n• Continue stretching, if motion is tight\n• May initiate interval sport program","domain":"Medical","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":63}
+{"system_instruction":"Only respond to the prompt using the information in the prompt. Format the response as a numbered list.","user_request":"What are three failures of the WHO regarding fighting diseases and other health threats?","context_document":"WHO achievements: A mixed track record\nFighting infectious diseases\nOne of the WHO's biggest achievements was in eradicating smallpox: in 1980, 21 years after\nlaunching an international vaccination campaign, it was finally able to declare the world free of the\ndisease. In 1988, the WHO declared a target of similarly eliminating polio by the end of the\nmillennium. That target was missed, and the stubborn persistence of infections prompted the WHO\nto declare a PHEIC in 2014. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made, with the number of\ncases falling by 99 % over the past three decades. Unfortunately, tuberculosis is very far from\ndisappearing; however, the WHO's Global Drug Facility has enabled millions of patients in\ndeveloping countries to access high-quality anti-TB medicines, both through collective purchasing\nmechanisms that bring the cost of drugs down, and through grants that help the poorest countries\nto buy such medicines. The WHO has also been praised for its leadership during the 2003 SARS\nepidemic; within just four months, the disease had been contained.\nIn 2009, fears that the swine flu virus could mutate into a more lethal form prompted the WHO to\ndeclare its first ever Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC – see Box).\nGovernments rushed to stockpile vaccines, most of which were never used, as the epidemic turned\nout to be milder than expected. This 'disproportionate' response, as it was described in a 2011\nEuropean Parliament resolution, was blamed for wasting millions of euros of public money on\nunnecessary vaccines. Some critics even alleged that WHO decisions had been swayed by the\ninterests of the pharmaceutical sector. An internal enquiry exonerated the WHO from most of these\naccusations, arguing that, in view of the evidence available at the time, it would not have been\npossible to predict the course of the epidemic, while also acknowledging that the situation could\nhave been handled more transparently.\nWhereas the WHO was accused of over-reacting to swine flu, its response to the 2014 West African\nEbola outbreak came too late to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. In what international health\nexperts described as an 'egregious failure', the WHO waited months before declaring a PHEIC,\ndespite warnings, including from its own staff, that the epidemic was out of control. The\norganisation's lumbering bureaucratic response contrasted unfavourably with more agile\ninterventions by non-governmental bodies such as Médecins Sans Frontières. On the other hand, in\n2018 efforts to contain a second outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were\nmore successful, with just 33 deaths in total; for some observers, the organisation's quick response,\nwhich included the release of emergency funding just hours after the start of the outbreak and a\npersonal visit to Kinshasa by Director-General Tedros a few days later, suggested that it had learned\nlessons from its 2014 failures. Ebola remains a serious threat in West Africa; a subsequent outbreak\ntriggered another PHEIC, and killed over 2 000.\nNon-communicable diseases and other health threats\nWhile media attention tends to focus on emergencies caused by infectious diseases, noncommunicable diseases such as cancer cost far more lives. However, the WHO's track record in this\nrespect is, again, a mixed one. For example, many recommendations issued by the International\nAgency for Research on Cancer, a semi-autonomous branch of the WHO, are scientifically sound;\nhowever, critics allege that the body does not do enough to prevent conflicts of interest that might\ninfluence expert assessments on which its recommendations are based, nor is it very successful at\ncommunicating its conclusions with the public.\nOn smoking, described by the WHO as a 'global epidemic', the main instrument is the 2003\nFramework Convention on Tobacco Control, the first ever international treaty adopted within the\nWHO framework. The measures it envisages have played a key role in shaping national tobacco\ncontrol policies, including in developing countries. Implementation is still patchy, but gradually\nimproving: as of 2018, 12 % of the 181 countries which are parties to the Convention were failing to\nensure protection from passive smoking (e.g. bans on smoking in public places), 23 % were not\napplying packaging and labelling requirements (such as health warnings on cigarette packets), 29 %\ndid not have awareness-raising and educational measures in place, while 30 % were not restricting\ntobacco sales to and by minors. Tobacco still kills over 8 million people every year, most of them in\ndeveloping countries, and consumption is only declining slowly.\nObesity is another global health scourge that the WHO has taken on. For example, in 2016 it\nendorsed taxes on soft drinks as an effective means of reducing sugar consumption. However, it has\nrun into resistance from the beverages industry, and the US government, which in 2018 blocked a\nWHO panel from issuing a global recommendation on sugar taxes.\nIn developing countries, the high cost of medicines is often a barrier to effective treatment.\nImproving access to medicines has long been a priority for the WHO. The interests of producers,\nwhich are protected by patents, have to be balanced against patients' need for affordable treatment.\nHowever, WHO work in this area has been blocked by disagreements between countries which\nargue that intellectual property is not part of the organisation's remit – typically pharmaceutical\nexporters, such as the United States (US) – and others, including developing countries, which feel\nthat it should be.","full_prompt":"What are three failures of the WHO regarding fighting diseases and other health threats?\nOnly respond to the prompt using the information in the prompt. Format the response as a numbered list.\n\nWHO achievements: A mixed track record\nFighting infectious diseases\nOne of the WHO's biggest achievements was in eradicating smallpox: in 1980, 21 years after\nlaunching an international vaccination campaign, it was finally able to declare the world free of the\ndisease. In 1988, the WHO declared a target of similarly eliminating polio by the end of the\nmillennium. That target was missed, and the stubborn persistence of infections prompted the WHO\nto declare a PHEIC in 2014. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made, with the number of\ncases falling by 99 % over the past three decades. Unfortunately, tuberculosis is very far from\ndisappearing; however, the WHO's Global Drug Facility has enabled millions of patients in\ndeveloping countries to access high-quality anti-TB medicines, both through collective purchasing\nmechanisms that bring the cost of drugs down, and through grants that help the poorest countries\nto buy such medicines. The WHO has also been praised for its leadership during the 2003 SARS\nepidemic; within just four months, the disease had been contained.\nIn 2009, fears that the swine flu virus could mutate into a more lethal form prompted the WHO to\ndeclare its first ever Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC – see Box).\nGovernments rushed to stockpile vaccines, most of which were never used, as the epidemic turned\nout to be milder than expected. This 'disproportionate' response, as it was described in a 2011\nEuropean Parliament resolution, was blamed for wasting millions of euros of public money on\nunnecessary vaccines. Some critics even alleged that WHO decisions had been swayed by the\ninterests of the pharmaceutical sector. An internal enquiry exonerated the WHO from most of these\naccusations, arguing that, in view of the evidence available at the time, it would not have been\npossible to predict the course of the epidemic, while also acknowledging that the situation could\nhave been handled more transparently.\nWhereas the WHO was accused of over-reacting to swine flu, its response to the 2014 West African\nEbola outbreak came too late to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. In what international health\nexperts described as an 'egregious failure', the WHO waited months before declaring a PHEIC,\ndespite warnings, including from its own staff, that the epidemic was out of control. The\norganisation's lumbering bureaucratic response contrasted unfavourably with more agile\ninterventions by non-governmental bodies such as Médecins Sans Frontières. On the other hand, in\n2018 efforts to contain a second outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were\nmore successful, with just 33 deaths in total; for some observers, the organisation's quick response,\nwhich included the release of emergency funding just hours after the start of the outbreak and a\npersonal visit to Kinshasa by Director-General Tedros a few days later, suggested that it had learned\nlessons from its 2014 failures. Ebola remains a serious threat in West Africa; a subsequent outbreak\ntriggered another PHEIC, and killed over 2 000.\nNon-communicable diseases and other health threats\nWhile media attention tends to focus on emergencies caused by infectious diseases, noncommunicable diseases such as cancer cost far more lives. However, the WHO's track record in this\nrespect is, again, a mixed one. For example, many recommendations issued by the International\nAgency for Research on Cancer, a semi-autonomous branch of the WHO, are scientifically sound;\nhowever, critics allege that the body does not do enough to prevent conflicts of interest that might\ninfluence expert assessments on which its recommendations are based, nor is it very successful at\ncommunicating its conclusions with the public.\nOn smoking, described by the WHO as a 'global epidemic', the main instrument is the 2003\nFramework Convention on Tobacco Control, the first ever international treaty adopted within the\nWHO framework. The measures it envisages have played a key role in shaping national tobacco\ncontrol policies, including in developing countries. Implementation is still patchy, but gradually\nimproving: as of 2018, 12 % of the 181 countries which are parties to the Convention were failing to\nensure protection from passive smoking (e.g. bans on smoking in public places), 23 % were not\napplying packaging and labelling requirements (such as health warnings on cigarette packets), 29 %\ndid not have awareness-raising and educational measures in place, while 30 % were not restricting\ntobacco sales to and by minors. Tobacco still kills over 8 million people every year, most of them in\ndeveloping countries, and consumption is only declining slowly.\nObesity is another global health scourge that the WHO has taken on. For example, in 2016 it\nendorsed taxes on soft drinks as an effective means of reducing sugar consumption. However, it has\nrun into resistance from the beverages industry, and the US government, which in 2018 blocked a\nWHO panel from issuing a global recommendation on sugar taxes.\nIn developing countries, the high cost of medicines is often a barrier to effective treatment.\nImproving access to medicines has long been a priority for the WHO. The interests of producers,\nwhich are protected by patents, have to be balanced against patients' need for affordable treatment.\nHowever, WHO work in this area has been blocked by disagreements between countries which\nargue that intellectual property is not part of the organisation's remit – typically pharmaceutical\nexporters, such as the United States (US) – and others, including developing countries, which feel\nthat it should be.","domain":"Medical","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":146}
+{"system_instruction":"Respond using only the information found within the text provided in the prompt. Avoid any mention of the government, its agencies, or specific regulations. If there are multiple paragraphs, each paragraph should be no longer than four sentences and must contain a clear introductory statement in the first sentence. If appropriate, format the response as a bulleted list. If information found in the text seems likely related to any legal or regulatory compliance, please include a disclaimer at the end of the response, in italics and enclosed in brackets, that explains the response is based only on the information provided.","user_request":"What are ten strategies that are accepted for controlling disease in organic crops?","context_document":"Crop pest, weed, and disease management practice (§205.206)\nProducers must implement management practices to prevent crop pests, weeds, and diseases that include but\nare not limited to the following:\nAccepted pest controls:\n Crop rotation and soil and crop nutrient management practices as outlined above.\n Sanitation measures to remove disease vectors, weeds seeds and pest organisms.\n Cultural practices to enhance crop health such as plant species and variety selection with regard to\nsuitability for site-specific conditions and resistance to pests, weeds, and disease.\n Mechanical and physical methods for controlling pest problems, such as:\no Biological controls (natural predators and parasites, habitat to promote biodiversity)\no Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, fencing and repellants\nAccepted weed controls:\n Mulching with fully biodegradable materials\n Mowing\n Livestock grazing\n Hand weeding or mechanical cultivation\n Flame, heat, or electrical means\n Plastic or synthetic mulches if removed from the field at the end of the growing/harvest season\nAccepted disease controls:\n Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms. Examples include plant\nspacing, choosing resistant varieties, and crop rotations. In greenhouses, this can also include the\nproper control of environmental factors such as ventilation, humidity and temperature.\n Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs\nWhen the above pest, weed and disease preventative management practices are not sufficient, the following\npractices are accepted:\n Application of a biological or botanical substance\n Application of a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in\norganic crop production\nProhibited controls:\n Synthetic mulches or remnants left to photo-degrade in the field\n Synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fungicides with the exception of those included on the National List of\nsynthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production\n Newspaper with color inks\n Biodegradable plastic mulch films not compliant with the NOP guidance\n Nonsynthetic substances included on the National List of nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in\norganic crop production\n\nPost-Harvest Handling (§205.270 – 205.272)\nSanitation\nProper sanitation is required at all levels of handling, transport and storage. The use of disinfectants (chlorine\nmaterials, hydrogen peroxide) applied to storage containers and handling equipment must be consistent with\nthe National List.\nIrrigation and Wash Water\nGround and surface waters are a potential source for a wide range of contaminants. Verify your certifier’s\nrecommendations for water testing of irrigation and wash water.\nWater used in direct post-harvest crop or food contact is permitted to contain chlorine materials at levels\napproved by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency for such purpose.\nHowever, rinsing with potable water that does not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit for the\nchlorine material under the Safe Drinking Water Act (4ppm) must immediately follow this permitted use.\nCertified operators should monitor the chlorine level of the final rinse water, the point at which the water last\ncontacts the organic product. The level of chlorine in the final rinse water must meet limits as set forth by the\nSafe Drinking Water Act (4ppm).\nCommingling and contact with prohibited substances\nIt is required that producers implement measures to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic\nproducts. It is also required that organic producers protect organic products from contact with prohibited\nsubstances.\nSplit Operations\nOperations that choose to produce organic and non-organic livestock products or to hire services from custom\noperators that may service non-organic and organic clients, must implement measures necessary to prevent\nthe commingling of organic and non-organic crop products.\nAccepted practices\n Mechanical or biological methods including but not limited to cooking, baking, heating, drying,\npreserving, dehydrating, freezing, and chilling crop products.\n Non-synthetic materials, such as rock powders, diatomaceous earth, and herbal preparations to repel\nstorage pests, must be consistent with the National List of nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in\norganic crop production.\n The use of synthetic materials, such as floating agents, must be consistent with the National List of\nsynthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.","full_prompt":"What are ten strategies that are accepted for controlling disease in organic crops?\n\nquoted text: Crop pest, weed, and disease management practice (§205.206)\nProducers must implement management practices to prevent crop pests, weeds, and diseases that include but\nare not limited to the following:\nAccepted pest controls:\n Crop rotation and soil and crop nutrient management practices as outlined above.\n Sanitation measures to remove disease vectors, weeds seeds and pest organisms.\n Cultural practices to enhance crop health such as plant species and variety selection with regard to\nsuitability for site-specific conditions and resistance to pests, weeds, and disease.\n Mechanical and physical methods for controlling pest problems, such as:\no Biological controls (natural predators and parasites, habitat to promote biodiversity)\no Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, fencing and repellants\nAccepted weed controls:\n Mulching with fully biodegradable materials\n Mowing\n Livestock grazing\n Hand weeding or mechanical cultivation\n Flame, heat, or electrical means\n Plastic or synthetic mulches if removed from the field at the end of the growing/harvest season\nAccepted disease controls:\n Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms. Examples include plant\nspacing, choosing resistant varieties, and crop rotations. In greenhouses, this can also include the\nproper control of environmental factors such as ventilation, humidity and temperature.\n Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs\nWhen the above pest, weed and disease preventative management practices are not sufficient, the following\npractices are accepted:\n Application of a biological or botanical substance\n Application of a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in\norganic crop production\nProhibited controls:\n Synthetic mulches or remnants left to photo-degrade in the field\n Synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fungicides with the exception of those included on the National List of\nsynthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production\n Newspaper with color inks\n Biodegradable plastic mulch films not compliant with the NOP guidance\n Nonsynthetic substances included on the National List of nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in\norganic crop production\n\nPost-Harvest Handling (§205.270 – 205.272)\nSanitation\nProper sanitation is required at all levels of handling, transport and storage. The use of disinfectants (chlorine\nmaterials, hydrogen peroxide) applied to storage containers and handling equipment must be consistent with\nthe National List.\nIrrigation and Wash Water\nGround and surface waters are a potential source for a wide range of contaminants. Verify your certifier’s\nrecommendations for water testing of irrigation and wash water.\nWater used in direct post-harvest crop or food contact is permitted to contain chlorine materials at levels\napproved by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency for such purpose.\nHowever, rinsing with potable water that does not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit for the\nchlorine material under the Safe Drinking Water Act (4ppm) must immediately follow this permitted use.\nCertified operators should monitor the chlorine level of the final rinse water, the point at which the water last\ncontacts the organic product. The level of chlorine in the final rinse water must meet limits as set forth by the\nSafe Drinking Water Act (4ppm).\nCommingling and contact with prohibited substances\nIt is required that producers implement measures to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic\nproducts. It is also required that organic producers protect organic products from contact with prohibited\nsubstances.\nSplit Operations\nOperations that choose to produce organic and non-organic livestock products or to hire services from custom\noperators that may service non-organic and organic clients, must implement measures necessary to prevent\nthe commingling of organic and non-organic crop products.\nAccepted practices\n Mechanical or biological methods including but not limited to cooking, baking, heating, drying,\npreserving, dehydrating, freezing, and chilling crop products.\n Non-synthetic materials, such as rock powders, diatomaceous earth, and herbal preparations to repel\nstorage pests, must be consistent with the National List of nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in\norganic crop production.\n The use of synthetic materials, such as floating agents, must be consistent with the National List of\nsynthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.\n\nsystem instruction: Respond using only the information found within the text provided in the prompt. Avoid any mention of the government, its agencies, or specific regulations. If there are multiple paragraphs, each paragraph should be no longer than four sentences and must contain a clear introductory statement in the first sentence. If appropriate, format the response as a bulleted list. If information found in the text seems likely related to any legal or regulatory compliance, please include a disclaimer at the end of the response, in italics and enclosed in brackets, that explains the response is based only on the information provided.","domain":"Legal","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":183}
+{"system_instruction":"Any information that you draw to answer any questions must come only from the information found in the prompt. Under no circumstances are you allowed rely on any information from any source other than the information in the prompt. If the answer requires a series of steps, list them in a numbered list format.","user_request":"How many beeps would be heard if a user wants to activate right-handed operation, increase the cursor speed to 2, activate double click, and turn the buzzer off on a new device?","context_document":"There are a number of settings to allow you to configure OPTIMA Joystick to your exact requirements. These are all programmed using Learn Mode and are stored in an internal, non-volatile memory so they are automatically recalled each time you use the unit, even if you swap computers.\nTo make changes to the settings, you must first go into Learn Mode. Press and hold the middle button until a warbling tone is heard. The unit is now in Learn Mode and is able to accept changes to the settings, as follows:\nLearn Mode\nFeatures\n• Plug and Play USB and PS/2 operation and requires no drivers.\n• PC, Mac and Chromebook compatible.\n• Switchable to Gaming output for full compatibility\n with Xbox Adaptive Controller\n• Light touch joystick movement.\n• User-selectable cursor speed settings.\n• Drag lock and double click features.\n• Sockets to operate left and right click from remote switches.\n• Robust construction and ergonomic design.\n• Industry-standard mounting option.\n• Optional left-handed operation.\nCursor Speed\nTo change the speed setting while in Learn Mode, press the middle button briefly. Each time you do so, the unit emits a number of beeps, between 1 and 4. One beep indicates the lowest speed and 4 the highest. The speed of the cursor changes immediately, allowing you to experiment until the best setting is found.\nLeft-Handed Operation\nThe left and right buttons may be swapped around, which is particularly useful for left-landed users. To change this setting, press the left button while in Learn Mode. One beep indicates the unit is set to standard ‘right-handed’ mode, whereas two beeps indicates ‘left-handed’ operation.\nDouble Click\nRight-click may be substituted with Double-Click, which is useful for users who have difficulty in double-clicking quickly enough for the computer to recognise. To change this setting, press the right button briefly while in Learn Mode. One beep indicates the unit is set to standard ‘right-click’ mode, whereas two beeps indicates ‘Double-Click’ operation.\nBuzzer On/Off\nOPTIMA Joystick is fitted with a buzzer which gives an audible indication of operations such as drag lock and unlock, double-click, entering Learn Mode etc. When OPTIMA Joystick is used in a classroom setting, where there may be many units in close proximity, it may be beneficial to turn off the buzzer. To achieve this, press and hold the right button while in Learn Mode, until two long beeps are heard. The buzzer is now disabled, although it will still operate while in Learn Mode. Repeating the above operation will re-enable it.\nAll of the above settings may be changed as often as required while in Learn Mode, allowing you to experiment with the settings until the best configuration is found. Once you are happy with the settings, they may be stored in the non-volatile memory by pressing and holding the middle button once again, until the warbling tone is heard. Normal operation then resumes. Note that if both left-handed operation and Double-Click are selected, the buttons will function\nas Double-Click, Drag and Left Click, reading from left to right. Also note that the function of the sockets for external switches reproduces the function of the\ninternal buttons, according to the above settings. The unit automatically leaves Learn Mode, and any changes are discarded, if the settings remain unchanged for more than a minute.","full_prompt":"Any information that you draw to answer any questions must come only from the information found in the prompt. Under no circumstances are you allowed rely on any information from any source other than the information in the prompt. If the answer requires a series of steps, list them in a numbered list format.\n\nThere are a number of settings to allow you to configure OPTIMA Joystick to your exact requirements. These are all programmed using Learn Mode and are stored in an internal, non-volatile memory so they are automatically recalled each time you use the unit, even if you swap computers.\nTo make changes to the settings, you must first go into Learn Mode. Press and hold the middle button until a warbling tone is heard. The unit is now in Learn Mode and is able to accept changes to the settings, as follows:\nLearn Mode\nFeatures\n• Plug and Play USB and PS/2 operation and requires no drivers.\n• PC, Mac and Chromebook compatible.\n• Switchable to Gaming output for full compatibility\n with Xbox Adaptive Controller\n• Light touch joystick movement.\n• User-selectable cursor speed settings.\n• Drag lock and double click features.\n• Sockets to operate left and right click from remote switches.\n• Robust construction and ergonomic design.\n• Industry-standard mounting option.\n• Optional left-handed operation.\nCursor Speed\nTo change the speed setting while in Learn Mode, press the middle button briefly. Each time you do so, the unit emits a number of beeps, between 1 and 4. One beep indicates the lowest speed and 4 the highest. The speed of the cursor changes immediately, allowing you to experiment until the best setting is found.\nLeft-Handed Operation\nThe left and right buttons may be swapped around, which is particularly useful for left-landed users. To change this setting, press the left button while in Learn Mode. One beep indicates the unit is set to standard ‘right-handed’ mode, whereas two beeps indicates ‘left-handed’ operation.\nDouble Click\nRight-click may be substituted with Double-Click, which is useful for users who have difficulty in double-clicking quickly enough for the computer to recognise. To change this setting, press the right button briefly while in Learn Mode. One beep indicates the unit is set to standard ‘right-click’ mode, whereas two beeps indicates ‘Double-Click’ operation.\nBuzzer On/Off\nOPTIMA Joystick is fitted with a buzzer which gives an audible indication of operations such as drag lock and unlock, double-click, entering Learn Mode etc. When OPTIMA Joystick is used in a classroom setting, where there may be many units in close proximity, it may be beneficial to turn off the buzzer. To achieve this, press and hold the right button while in Learn Mode, until two long beeps are heard. The buzzer is now disabled, although it will still operate while in Learn Mode. Repeating the above operation will re-enable it.\nAll of the above settings may be changed as often as required while in Learn Mode, allowing you to experiment with the settings until the best configuration is found. Once you are happy with the settings, they may be stored in the non-volatile memory by pressing and holding the middle button once again, until the warbling tone is heard. Normal operation then resumes. Note that if both left-handed operation and Double-Click are selected, the buttons will function\nas Double-Click, Drag and Left Click, reading from left to right. Also note that the function of the sockets for external switches reproduces the function of the\ninternal buttons, according to the above settings. The unit automatically leaves Learn Mode, and any changes are discarded, if the settings remain unchanged for more than a minute.\n\nHow many sounds would be heard if a user wants to activate right-handed operation, increase the cursor speed to 2, activate double click, and turn the buzzer off on a new device?","domain":"Retail/Product","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":257}
+{"system_instruction":"You can only answer using the information I am giving you. Make it sound like a dictionary definition. Make sure you are only use your own words and do copy any words or phrases from the context.","user_request":"If I don't mention sunscreen in the label for my UV lip balm, then can it even be a cosmeceutical?","context_document":"Context: The FFDCA defines a “drug” in part as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,\nmitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”; articles “(other than food) intended to affect the\nstructure or any function of the body”; and “articles intended for use as a component” of such\ndrugs.15\nDrug manufacturers must comply with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) rules for\ndrugs.\n16 Failure to comply will cause a drug to be considered adulterated.17 Drug manufacturers\nare required to register their facilities,\n18 list their drug products with the agency,\n19 and report\nadverse events to FDA, among other requirements.\n20\nUnlike cosmetics and their ingredients (with the exception of color additives), drugs are subject to\nFDA approval before entering interstate commerce. Drugs must either (1) receive the agency’s\npremarket approval under a new drug application (NDA), or an abbreviated NDA (ANDA),21 in\nthe case of a generic drug, or (2) conform to a set of FDA requirements known as a monograph.22\nMonographs govern the manufacture and marketing of most over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and\nspecify the conditions under which OTC drugs in a particular category (such as antidandruff\nshampoos or antiperspirants) will be considered generally recognized as safe and effective\n(GRASE).\n23 Monographs also indicate how OTC drugs must be labeled so they are not deemed\nmisbranded.24\nAlthough the term “cosmeceutical” has been used to refer to combination cosmetic/drug products,\nsuch products have no statutory or regulatory definition.25 Historically, FDA has indicated that\ncosmetic/drug combinations are subject to FDA’s regulations for both cosmetics and drugs.26\nDetermining whether a cosmetic is also a drug, and therefore subject to the additional statutory\nrequirements that apply to drugs, depends on the distributor’s claims regarding the drug’s intent\nor intended use.27 A product’s intended use may be established in several ways, such as claims on\nthe label or in advertising or promotional materials, customer perception of the product, and the\ninclusion of ingredients that cause the product to be considered a drug because of a known\ntherapeutic use.28 For example, if a lipstick (a cosmetic) contains sunscreen (a drug), historically,\nthe mere inclusion of the term “sunscreen” in the product’s labeling required the product to be\nregulated as a drug as well as a cosmetic.\n29 The text box below provides examples of other\ncosmetic/drug combinations and compares cosmetic and drug classifications.30\nPrior to the enactment of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1938, cosmetics\nwere not regulated by the federal government.\n31 Instead, they were regulated under a collection of\nstate laws that had been enacted to regulate food and drugs.32 At that time, multiple “cosmetics\nand drugs were made from the same natural materials” and often the “laws did not include\nexplicit definitions of the products regulated.”33 Following several incidents in which cosmetics\nwere allegedly the cause of serious health problems, as well as industry concerns about states\nenacting their own laws, provisions were included in the FFDCA that prohibited the sale of\nadulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce.34 The FFDCA also established\nuniform regulation of FDA-regulated cosmetic products nationwide.\n35 However, state laws\nregarding cosmetics regulation have continued to evolve since FFDCA’s passage, with some\nstates implementing stricter measures than others.","full_prompt":"Context: The FFDCA defines a “drug” in part as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,\nmitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”; articles “(other than food) intended to affect the\nstructure or any function of the body”; and “articles intended for use as a component” of such\ndrugs.15\nDrug manufacturers must comply with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) rules for\ndrugs.\n16 Failure to comply will cause a drug to be considered adulterated.17 Drug manufacturers\nare required to register their facilities,\n18 list their drug products with the agency,\n19 and report\nadverse events to FDA, among other requirements.\n20\nUnlike cosmetics and their ingredients (with the exception of color additives), drugs are subject to\nFDA approval before entering interstate commerce. Drugs must either (1) receive the agency’s\npremarket approval under a new drug application (NDA), or an abbreviated NDA (ANDA),21 in\nthe case of a generic drug, or (2) conform to a set of FDA requirements known as a monograph.22\nMonographs govern the manufacture and marketing of most over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and\nspecify the conditions under which OTC drugs in a particular category (such as antidandruff\nshampoos or antiperspirants) will be considered generally recognized as safe and effective\n(GRASE).\n23 Monographs also indicate how OTC drugs must be labeled so they are not deemed\nmisbranded.24\nAlthough the term “cosmeceutical” has been used to refer to combination cosmetic/drug products,\nsuch products have no statutory or regulatory definition.25 Historically, FDA has indicated that\ncosmetic/drug combinations are subject to FDA’s regulations for both cosmetics and drugs.26\nDetermining whether a cosmetic is also a drug, and therefore subject to the additional statutory\nrequirements that apply to drugs, depends on the distributor’s claims regarding the drug’s intent\nor intended use.27 A product’s intended use may be established in several ways, such as claims on\nthe label or in advertising or promotional materials, customer perception of the product, and the\ninclusion of ingredients that cause the product to be considered a drug because of a known\ntherapeutic use.28 For example, if a lipstick (a cosmetic) contains sunscreen (a drug), historically,\nthe mere inclusion of the term “sunscreen” in the product’s labeling required the product to be\nregulated as a drug as well as a cosmetic.\n29 The text box below provides examples of other\ncosmetic/drug combinations and compares cosmetic and drug classifications.30\nPrior to the enactment of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1938, cosmetics\nwere not regulated by the federal government.\n31 Instead, they were regulated under a collection of\nstate laws that had been enacted to regulate food and drugs.32 At that time, multiple “cosmetics\nand drugs were made from the same natural materials” and often the “laws did not include\nexplicit definitions of the products regulated.”33 Following several incidents in which cosmetics\nwere allegedly the cause of serious health problems, as well as industry concerns about states\nenacting their own laws, provisions were included in the FFDCA that prohibited the sale of\nadulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce.34 The FFDCA also established\nuniform regulation of FDA-regulated cosmetic products nationwide.\n35 However, state laws\nregarding cosmetics regulation have continued to evolve since FFDCA’s passage, with some\nstates implementing stricter measures than others.\n\nSystem instruction: You can only answer using the information I am giving you Make it sound like a dictionary definition. Make sure you are only use your own words and do copy any words or phrases from the context.\n\nwhat I want to know: If I don't mention sunscreen in the label for my UV lip balm, then can it even be a cosmeceutical?","domain":"Retail/Product","type":"Explanation/Definition","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":276}
+{"system_instruction":"System Instruction: [You must respond using a maximum of 5 sentences. You must only use information contained within the context block to formulate your response. If you cannot provide an answer using just the context block, you must use the phrase \"I cannot provide an answer to your question.\"]","user_request":"User Question: [According to the provided article, what method of temperature measurement is best for a 2-year-old child?]","context_document":"Context Block: [Methods of Measurement: Methods of measuring a client’s body temperature vary based on developmental age, cognitive functioning, level of consciousness, state of health, safety, and agency/unit policy. The healthcare provider chooses the best method after considering client safety, accuracy, and least invasiveness, all contingent on the client’s health and illness state. The most accurate way to measure core body temperature is an invasive method through a pulmonary artery catheter. This is only performed in a critical care area when constant measurements are required along with other life-saving interventions. Methods of measurement include oral, axillary, tympanic, rectal, and dermal routes. Oral temperature can be taken with clients who can follow instructions, so this kind of measurement is common for clients over the age of four, or even younger children if they are cooperative. Another route other than oral (e.g., tympanic or axillary) is preferable when a client is on oxygen delivered via a face mask because this can alter the temperature. For children younger than four, axillary temperature is commonly measured unless a more accurate reading is required. Rectal temperature is an accurate way to measure body temperature (Mazerolle, Ganio, Casa, Vingren, & Klau, 2011). The rectal route is recommended by the Canadian Pediatric Society for children under two years of age (Leduc & Woods, 2017). However, this method is not used on infants younger than \nthirty days or premature infants because of the risk of rectal tearing. If the rectal method is required, the procedure is generally only used by nurses and physicians. Dermal routes are alternative methods of measurement that may be used in some agencies and practice areas. This method can involve holding the device and sliding it over the skin of the forehead and then \ndown over the temporal artery in one motion. Dermal strips can also be placed on the forehead to measure skin temperature, but are not yet widely used, and the accuracy of this method has not yet been verified. More recently, there has been an increase in non-contact infrared thermometers particularly in the era of COVID-19 and other highly transmissible diseases. Depending on the type, these thermometers can be held at a short distance from the forehead or temporal area to measure temperature. Alternatively, some handheld thermal scanners that use an infrared camera can be held at a greater distance to screen large masses of people. Please refer to the manufacturer’s suggested \nreference range for non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners.]","full_prompt":"System Instruction: [You must respond using a maximum of 5 sentences. You must only use information contained within the context block to formulate your response. If you cannot provide an answer using just the context block, you must use the phrase \"I cannot provide an answer to your question.\"]\n\nUser Question: [According to the provided article, what method of temperature measurement is best for a 2-year-old child?]\n\nContext Block: [Methods of Measurement: Methods of measuring a client’s body temperature vary based on developmental age, cognitive functioning, level of consciousness, state of health, safety, and agency/unit policy. The healthcare provider chooses the best method after considering client safety, accuracy, and least invasiveness, all contingent on the client’s health and illness state. The most accurate way to measure core body temperature is an invasive method through a pulmonary artery catheter. This is only performed in a critical care area when constant measurements are required along with other life-saving interventions. Methods of measurement include oral, axillary, tympanic, rectal, and dermal routes. Oral temperature can be taken with clients who can follow instructions, so this kind of measurement is common for clients over the age of four, or even younger children if they are cooperative. Another route other than oral (e.g., tympanic or axillary) is preferable when a client is on oxygen delivered via a face mask because this can alter the temperature. For children younger than four, axillary temperature is commonly measured unless a more accurate reading is required. Rectal temperature is an accurate way to measure body temperature (Mazerolle, Ganio, Casa, Vingren, & Klau, 2011). The rectal route is recommended by the Canadian Pediatric Society for children under two years of age (Leduc & Woods, 2017). However, this method is not used on infants younger than \nthirty days or premature infants because of the risk of rectal tearing. If the rectal method is required, the procedure is generally only used by nurses and physicians. Dermal routes are alternative methods of measurement that may be used in some agencies and practice areas. This method can involve holding the device and sliding it over the skin of the forehead and then \ndown over the temporal artery in one motion. Dermal strips can also be placed on the forehead to measure skin temperature, but are not yet widely used, and the accuracy of this method has not yet been verified. More recently, there has been an increase in non-contact infrared thermometers particularly in the era of COVID-19 and other highly transmissible diseases. Depending on the type, these thermometers can be held at a short distance from the forehead or temporal area to measure temperature. Alternatively, some handheld thermal scanners that use an infrared camera can be held at a greater distance to screen large masses of people. Please refer to the manufacturer’s suggested \nreference range for non-contact infrared thermometers and thermal scanners.]","domain":"Medical","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":282}
+{"system_instruction":"Respond only using the information within the provided text block. You must provide a direct answer to the question asked and format your reply in a paragraph without any bullets, headers, or other extraneous formatting. Limit your reply to 50 words.","user_request":"Please extract all acronyms and provide the full name for any and all acronyms found in the text. You can ignore any acronyms that is not explicitly defined.","context_document":"Recent advances in generative AI systems, which are trained on large volumes of data to generate new\ncontent that may mimic likenesses, voices, or other aspects of real people’s identities, have stimulated\ncongressional interest. Like the above-noted uses of AI to imitate Tom Hanks and George Carlin, the\nexamples below illustrate that some AI uses raise concerns under both ROP laws and myriad other laws.\nOne example of AI’s capability to imitate voices was an AI-generated song called “Heart on My Sleeve,”\nwhich sounded like it was sung by the artist Drake and was heard by millions of listeners in 2023.\nSimulating an artist’s voice in this manner could make one liable under ROP laws, although these laws\nCongressional Research Service 4\ndiffer as to whether they cover voice imitations or vocal styles as opposed to the artist’s actual voice.\nVoice imitations are not, however, prohibited by copyright laws. For example, the alleged copyright\nviolation that caused YouTube to remove “Heart on My Sleeve”—namely, that it sampled another\nrecording without permission—was unrelated to the Drake voice imitation. In August 2023, Google and\nUniversal Music were in discussions to license artists’ melodies and voices for AI-generated songs.\nThe potential for AI to replicate both voices and likenesses was also a point of contention in last year’s\nnegotiations for a collective bargaining agreement between the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation\nof Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)—a union that represents movie, television, and radio\nactors—and television and movie studios, including streaming services. SAG-AFTRA expressed concern\nthat AI could be used to alter or replace actors’ performances without their permission, such as by using\nreal film recordings to train AI to create “digital replicas” of actors and voice actors. The Memorandum of\nAgreement between SAG-AFTRA and studios approved in December 2023 requires studios to obtain\n“clear and conspicuous” consent from an actor or background actor to create or use a digital replica of the\nactor or to digitally alter the actor’s performance, with certain exceptions. It also requires that the actor’s\nconsent for use of a digital replica or digital alterations be based on a “reasonably specific description” of\nthe intended use or alteration. The agreement provides that consent continues after the actor’s death\nunless “explicitly limited,” while consent for additional postmortem uses must be obtained from the\nactor’s authorized representative or—if a representative cannot be identified or located—from the union.\nIn January 2024, SAG-AFTRA announced it had also reached an agreement with a voice technology\ncompany regarding voice replicas for video games, while a negotiation to update SAG-AFTRA’s\nagreement with video game publishers is reportedly ongoing.\nCommentators have also raised concern with deceptive AI-generated or AI-altered content known as\n“deepfakes,” including some videos with sexually explicit content and others meant to denigrate public\nofficials. To the extent this content includes real people’s NIL and is used commercially, ROP laws might\nprovide a remedy. Where deepfakes are used to promote products or services—such as the AI replica of\nTom Hanks used in a dental plan ad—they may also constitute false endorsement under the Lanham Act.\nIn addition to these laws, some states have enacted laws prohibiting sexually explicit deepfakes, with\nCalifornia and New York giving victims a civil claim and Georgia and Virginia imposing criminal\nliability. In addition, Section 1309 of the federal Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of\n2022 (VAWA 2022) provides a civil claim for nonconsensual disclosure of “intimate visual depictions,”\nwhich might be interpreted to prohibit intimate deepfakes—as might some states’ “revenge porn” laws. A\nbill introduced in the House of Representatives in May 2023, the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate\nImages Act, H.R. 3106, would amend VAWA 2022 by creating a separate civil claim for disclosing certain\n“intimate digital depictions” without the written consent of the depicted individual, as well as providing\ncriminal liability for certain actual or threatened disclosures. Deepfakes may also give rise to liability\nunder state defamation laws where a party uses them to communicate reputation-damaging falsehoods\nabout a person with a requisite degree of fault.\nRegarding the use of AI in political advertisements, some proposed legislation would prohibit deepfakes\nor require disclaimers for them in federal campaigns, although such proposals may raise First Amendment\nconcerns. The Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, S. 2770 (118th Cong.), for instance, would ban\nthe use of AI to generate materially deceptive content falsely depicting federal candidates in political ads\nto influence federal elections, while excluding news, commentary, satires, and parodies from liability.\nGoogle announced that, as of mid-November 2023, verified election advertisers on its platform “must\nprominently disclose when their ads contain synthetic content that inauthentically depicts real or realisticlooking people or events.”\nAnother concern some commentators raise is that AI-generated material might be falsely attributed to real\npersons without their permission. One writer who focuses on the publishing industry, for instance, found\nthat books apparently generated by AI were being sold under her name on Amazon. Although the\nCongressional Research Service 5\ncompany ultimately removed these titles, the writer claimed that her “initial infringement claim with\nAmazon went nowhere,” since her name was not trademarked and the books did not infringe existing\ncopyrights. As she noted, however, this scenario might give rise to claims under state ROP laws as well as\nthe Lanham Act. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) states that “books sold as if authored\nby humans but in fact reflecting the output of [AI]” violate the FTC Act and may result in civil fines.\nIt is unclear how Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 might apply when ROP-infringing\ncontent from a third party, including content made with AI, is disseminated through social media and\nother interactive computer services. Although the law generally bars any lawsuits that would hold online\nservice providers and users liable for third party content, there is an exception allowing lawsuits under\n“any law pertaining to intellectual property.” Courts differ as to whether state ROP laws and the Lanham\nAct’s prohibition on false endorsement are laws “pertaining to” IP within the meaning of Section 230.\nAnother Legal Sidebar discusses the application of Section 230 to generative AI more broadly.\nConsiderations for Congress\nSome commentators have called for federal ROP legislation to provide more uniform and predictable\nprotection for the ROP in the United States. Others have argued that Congress should leave ROP\nprotection to the states on federalism grounds. If Congress decides to craft federal ROP legislation, it\nmight consider the scope of the ROP protections it seeks to enact, the effect of those enactments on state\nROP laws, and constitutional authorities and limitations on Congress’s power to enact ROP protections.\nAs noted below, some Members have proposed legislation that would prohibit certain unauthorized uses\nof digital replicas or depictions of individuals while leaving state ROP laws in place. ","full_prompt":"Respond only using the information within the provided text block. You must provide a direct answer to the question asked and format your reply in a paragraph without any bullets, headers, or other extraneous formatting. Limit your reply to 50 words.\n\nPlease extract all acronyms and provide the full name for any and all acronyms found in the text. You can ignore any acronyms that is not explicitly defined.\n\nRecent advances in generative AI systems, which are trained on large volumes of data to generate new\ncontent that may mimic likenesses, voices, or other aspects of real people’s identities, have stimulated\ncongressional interest. Like the above-noted uses of AI to imitate Tom Hanks and George Carlin, the\nexamples below illustrate that some AI uses raise concerns under both ROP laws and myriad other laws.\nOne example of AI’s capability to imitate voices was an AI-generated song called “Heart on My Sleeve,”\nwhich sounded like it was sung by the artist Drake and was heard by millions of listeners in 2023.\nSimulating an artist’s voice in this manner could make one liable under ROP laws, although these laws\nCongressional Research Service 4\ndiffer as to whether they cover voice imitations or vocal styles as opposed to the artist’s actual voice.\nVoice imitations are not, however, prohibited by copyright laws. For example, the alleged copyright\nviolation that caused YouTube to remove “Heart on My Sleeve”—namely, that it sampled another\nrecording without permission—was unrelated to the Drake voice imitation. In August 2023, Google and\nUniversal Music were in discussions to license artists’ melodies and voices for AI-generated songs.\nThe potential for AI to replicate both voices and likenesses was also a point of contention in last year’s\nnegotiations for a collective bargaining agreement between the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation\nof Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)—a union that represents movie, television, and radio\nactors—and television and movie studios, including streaming services. SAG-AFTRA expressed concern\nthat AI could be used to alter or replace actors’ performances without their permission, such as by using\nreal film recordings to train AI to create “digital replicas” of actors and voice actors. The Memorandum of\nAgreement between SAG-AFTRA and studios approved in December 2023 requires studios to obtain\n“clear and conspicuous” consent from an actor or background actor to create or use a digital replica of the\nactor or to digitally alter the actor’s performance, with certain exceptions. It also requires that the actor’s\nconsent for use of a digital replica or digital alterations be based on a “reasonably specific description” of\nthe intended use or alteration. The agreement provides that consent continues after the actor’s death\nunless “explicitly limited,” while consent for additional postmortem uses must be obtained from the\nactor’s authorized representative or—if a representative cannot be identified or located—from the union.\nIn January 2024, SAG-AFTRA announced it had also reached an agreement with a voice technology\ncompany regarding voice replicas for video games, while a negotiation to update SAG-AFTRA’s\nagreement with video game publishers is reportedly ongoing.\nCommentators have also raised concern with deceptive AI-generated or AI-altered content known as\n“deepfakes,” including some videos with sexually explicit content and others meant to denigrate public\nofficials. To the extent this content includes real people’s NIL and is used commercially, ROP laws might\nprovide a remedy. Where deepfakes are used to promote products or services—such as the AI replica of\nTom Hanks used in a dental plan ad—they may also constitute false endorsement under the Lanham Act.\nIn addition to these laws, some states have enacted laws prohibiting sexually explicit deepfakes, with\nCalifornia and New York giving victims a civil claim and Georgia and Virginia imposing criminal\nliability. In addition, Section 1309 of the federal Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of\n2022 (VAWA 2022) provides a civil claim for nonconsensual disclosure of “intimate visual depictions,”\nwhich might be interpreted to prohibit intimate deepfakes—as might some states’ “revenge porn” laws. A\nbill introduced in the House of Representatives in May 2023, the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate\nImages Act, H.R. 3106, would amend VAWA 2022 by creating a separate civil claim for disclosing certain\n“intimate digital depictions” without the written consent of the depicted individual, as well as providing\ncriminal liability for certain actual or threatened disclosures. Deepfakes may also give rise to liability\nunder state defamation laws where a party uses them to communicate reputation-damaging falsehoods\nabout a person with a requisite degree of fault.\nRegarding the use of AI in political advertisements, some proposed legislation would prohibit deepfakes\nor require disclaimers for them in federal campaigns, although such proposals may raise First Amendment\nconcerns. The Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, S. 2770 (118th Cong.), for instance, would ban\nthe use of AI to generate materially deceptive content falsely depicting federal candidates in political ads\nto influence federal elections, while excluding news, commentary, satires, and parodies from liability.\nGoogle announced that, as of mid-November 2023, verified election advertisers on its platform “must\nprominently disclose when their ads contain synthetic content that inauthentically depicts real or realisticlooking people or events.”\nAnother concern some commentators raise is that AI-generated material might be falsely attributed to real\npersons without their permission. One writer who focuses on the publishing industry, for instance, found\nthat books apparently generated by AI were being sold under her name on Amazon. Although the\nCongressional Research Service 5\ncompany ultimately removed these titles, the writer claimed that her “initial infringement claim with\nAmazon went nowhere,” since her name was not trademarked and the books did not infringe existing\ncopyrights. As she noted, however, this scenario might give rise to claims under state ROP laws as well as\nthe Lanham Act. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) states that “books sold as if authored\nby humans but in fact reflecting the output of [AI]” violate the FTC Act and may result in civil fines.\nIt is unclear how Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 might apply when ROP-infringing\ncontent from a third party, including content made with AI, is disseminated through social media and\nother interactive computer services. Although the law generally bars any lawsuits that would hold online\nservice providers and users liable for third party content, there is an exception allowing lawsuits under\n“any law pertaining to intellectual property.” Courts differ as to whether state ROP laws and the Lanham\nAct’s prohibition on false endorsement are laws “pertaining to” IP within the meaning of Section 230.\nAnother Legal Sidebar discusses the application of Section 230 to generative AI more broadly.\nConsiderations for Congress\nSome commentators have called for federal ROP legislation to provide more uniform and predictable\nprotection for the ROP in the United States. Others have argued that Congress should leave ROP\nprotection to the states on federalism grounds. If Congress decides to craft federal ROP legislation, it\nmight consider the scope of the ROP protections it seeks to enact, the effect of those enactments on state\nROP laws, and constitutional authorities and limitations on Congress’s power to enact ROP protections.\nAs noted below, some Members have proposed legislation that would prohibit certain unauthorized uses\nof digital replicas or depictions of individuals while leaving state ROP laws in place. ","domain":"Legal","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":294}
+{"system_instruction":"Answer the question only based on the below text.","user_request":"According to this document, summarize any financial figures stated for the 2023 fiscal year.","context_document":"OVERVIEW\nThe following overview is a high-level discussion of our operating results, as well as some of the trends and drivers that affect\nour business. Management believes that an understanding of these trends and drivers provides important context for our results\nfor the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, as well as our future prospects. This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is\nit intended to be a substitute for the detailed discussion and analysis provided elsewhere in this Form 10-K, including in the\n“Business” section and the “Risk Factors” above, the remainder of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial\nCondition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”)” or the Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes.\nAbout Electronic Arts\nElectronic Arts is a global leader in digital interactive entertainment. We develop, market, publish and deliver games, content\nand services that can be experienced on game consoles, PCs, mobile phones and tablets. At our core is a portfolio of intellectual\nproperty from which we create innovative games and experiences that deliver high-quality entertainment and drive engagement\nacross our network of hundreds of millions of unique active accounts. Our portfolio includes brands that we either wholly own\n(such as Apex Legends, Battlefield, and The Sims) or license from others (such as the licenses within EA SPORTS FC and EA\nSPORTS Madden NFL). Through our live services offerings, we offer high-quality experiences designed to provide value to\nplayers, and extend and enhance gameplay. These live services include extra content, subscription offerings and other revenue\ngenerated in addition to the sale of our full games. We are focusing on building games and experiences that grow the global\nonline communities around our key franchises; deepening engagement through connecting interactive storytelling to key\nintellectual property; and building re-occurring revenue from scaling our live services and growth in our annualized sports\nfranchises, our console, PC and mobile catalog titles.\nFinancial Results\nOur key financial results for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 were as follows:\n• Total net revenue was $7,562 million, up 2 percent year-over-year.\n• Live services and other net revenue was $5,547 million, up 1 percent year-over-year.\n• Gross margin was 77.4 percent, up 2 percentage points year-over-year.\n• Operating expenses were $4,334 million, up 1 percent year-over-year.\n• Operating income was $1,518 million, up 14 percent year-over-year.\n• Net income was $1,273 million with diluted earnings per share of $4.68.\n• Net cash provided by operating activities was $2,315 million, up 49 percent year-over-year.\n• Total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $3,262 million.\n• We repurchased 10.0 million shares of our common stock for $1,300 million.\n• We paid cash dividends of $205 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024.\nTrends in Our Business\nLive Services Business. We offer our players high-quality experiences designed to provide value to players and to extend and\nenhance gameplay. These live services include extra content, subscription offerings and other revenue generated in addition to\nthe sale of our full games and free-to-play games. Our net revenue attributable to live services and other was $5,547 million,\n$5,489 million, and $4,998 million for fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively, and we expect that live services net\nrevenue will continue to be material to our business. Within live services and other, net revenue attributable to extra content\nwas $4,463 million, $4,277 million, and $3,910 million for fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. Extra content net\nrevenue has increased as more players engage with our games and services, and purchase additional content designed to provide\nvalue to players and extend and enhance gameplay. Our most popular live services are the extra content purchased for the\nUltimate Team mode associated with our sports franchises, that allows players to collect current and former professional players\nin order to build and compete as a personalized team, and extra content purchased for our Apex Legends franchise. Live services\nnet revenue generated from extra content purchased within the Ultimate Team mode associated with our sports franchises, a\nsubstantial portion of which is derived from Ultimate Team within our global football franchise and from our Apex Legends\nfranchise, is material to our business.\n20\nDigital Delivery of Games. In our industry, players increasingly purchase games digitally as opposed to purchasing physical\ndiscs. While this trend, as applied to our business, may not be linear due to a mix of products during a fiscal year, consumer\nbuying patterns and other factors, over time we expect players to purchase an increasingly higher proportion of our games\ndigitally. As a result, we expect net revenue attributable to digital full game downloads to increase over time and net revenue\nattributable to sales of packaged goods to decrease.\nOur net revenue attributable to digital full game downloads was $1,343 million, $1,262 million, and $1,282 million during\nfiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively; while our net revenue attributable to packaged goods sales was $672 million,\n$675 million, and $711 million in fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. In addition, as measured based on total units\nsold on Microsoft’s Xbox One and Xbox Series X and Sony’s PlayStation 4 and 5 rather than by net revenue, we estimate that\n73 percent, 68 percent, and 65 percent of our total units sold during fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, were sold digitally.\nDigital full game units are based on sales information provided by Microsoft and Sony; packaged goods units sold through are\nestimated by obtaining data from significant retail and distribution partners in North America, Europe and Asia, and applying\ninternal sales estimates with respect to retail partners from which we do not obtain data. We believe that these percentages are\nreasonable estimates of the proportion of our games that are digitally downloaded in relation to our total number of units sold\nfor the applicable period of measurement.\nIncreases in consumer adoption of digital purchase of games combined with increases in our live services revenue generally\nresults in expansion of our gross margin, as costs associated with selling a game digitally is generally less than selling the same\ngame through traditional retail and distribution channels.\nIncreased Competition. Competition in our business is intense. Our competitors range from established interactive\nentertainment companies to emerging start-ups. In addition, the gaming, technology/internet, and entertainment industries are\nconverging, and we compete with large, diversified technology companies in those industries. Their greater financial or other\nresources may provide larger budgets to develop and market tools, technologies, products and services that gain consumer\nsuccess and shift player time and engagement away from our products and services. In addition, our leading position within the\ninteractive entertainment industry makes us a prime target for recruiting our executives, as well as key creative and technical\ntalent, resulting in retention challenges and increased cost to retain and incentivize our key people.\nConcentration of Sales Among the Most Popular Games. In our industry, we see a large portion of games sales concentrated on\nthe most popular titles. Similarly, a significant portion of our revenue historically has been derived from games based on a few\npopular franchises, such as EA SPORTS FC, EA SPORTS Madden NFL, Apex Legends, Battlefield, and The Sims. In\nparticular, we have historically derived a significant portion of our net revenue from our global football franchise, the\nannualized version of which is consistently one of the best-selling games in the marketplace. We transitioned our global football\nfranchise to a new EA SPORTS FC brand in the second quarter of fiscal 2024. Our continued vision for the future of EA\nSPORTS FC is to create and innovate across platforms, geographies, and business models to expand our global football\nexperiences and entertain even more fans around the world.\nRe-occurring Revenue Sources. Our business model includes revenue that we deem re-occurring in nature, such as revenue\nfrom our live services, annualized sports franchises (e.g., EA SPORTS FC, EA SPORTS Madden NFL), and our console, PC\nand mobile catalog titles (i.e., titles that did not launch in the current fiscal year). We have been able to forecast revenue from\nthese areas of our business with greater relative confidence than for new games, services and business models. As we continue\nto incorporate new business models and modalities of play into our games, our goal is to continue to look for opportunities to\nexpand the re-occurring portion of our business.","full_prompt":"System instruction: Answer the question only based on the below text.\n\nquestion: According to this document, summarize any financial figures stated for the 2023 fiscal year.\n\ncontext: OVERVIEW\nThe following overview is a high-level discussion of our operating results, as well as some of the trends and drivers that affect\nour business. Management believes that an understanding of these trends and drivers provides important context for our results\nfor the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, as well as our future prospects. This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is\nit intended to be a substitute for the detailed discussion and analysis provided elsewhere in this Form 10-K, including in the\n“Business” section and the “Risk Factors” above, the remainder of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial\nCondition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”)” or the Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes.\nAbout Electronic Arts\nElectronic Arts is a global leader in digital interactive entertainment. We develop, market, publish and deliver games, content\nand services that can be experienced on game consoles, PCs, mobile phones and tablets. At our core is a portfolio of intellectual\nproperty from which we create innovative games and experiences that deliver high-quality entertainment and drive engagement\nacross our network of hundreds of millions of unique active accounts. Our portfolio includes brands that we either wholly own\n(such as Apex Legends, Battlefield, and The Sims) or license from others (such as the licenses within EA SPORTS FC and EA\nSPORTS Madden NFL). Through our live services offerings, we offer high-quality experiences designed to provide value to\nplayers, and extend and enhance gameplay. These live services include extra content, subscription offerings and other revenue\ngenerated in addition to the sale of our full games. We are focusing on building games and experiences that grow the global\nonline communities around our key franchises; deepening engagement through connecting interactive storytelling to key\nintellectual property; and building re-occurring revenue from scaling our live services and growth in our annualized sports\nfranchises, our console, PC and mobile catalog titles.\nFinancial Results\nOur key financial results for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 were as follows:\n• Total net revenue was $7,562 million, up 2 percent year-over-year.\n• Live services and other net revenue was $5,547 million, up 1 percent year-over-year.\n• Gross margin was 77.4 percent, up 2 percentage points year-over-year.\n• Operating expenses were $4,334 million, up 1 percent year-over-year.\n• Operating income was $1,518 million, up 14 percent year-over-year.\n• Net income was $1,273 million with diluted earnings per share of $4.68.\n• Net cash provided by operating activities was $2,315 million, up 49 percent year-over-year.\n• Total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $3,262 million.\n• We repurchased 10.0 million shares of our common stock for $1,300 million.\n• We paid cash dividends of $205 million during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024.\nTrends in Our Business\nLive Services Business. We offer our players high-quality experiences designed to provide value to players and to extend and\nenhance gameplay. These live services include extra content, subscription offerings and other revenue generated in addition to\nthe sale of our full games and free-to-play games. Our net revenue attributable to live services and other was $5,547 million,\n$5,489 million, and $4,998 million for fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively, and we expect that live services net\nrevenue will continue to be material to our business. Within live services and other, net revenue attributable to extra content\nwas $4,463 million, $4,277 million, and $3,910 million for fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. Extra content net\nrevenue has increased as more players engage with our games and services, and purchase additional content designed to provide\nvalue to players and extend and enhance gameplay. Our most popular live services are the extra content purchased for the\nUltimate Team mode associated with our sports franchises, that allows players to collect current and former professional players\nin order to build and compete as a personalized team, and extra content purchased for our Apex Legends franchise. Live services\nnet revenue generated from extra content purchased within the Ultimate Team mode associated with our sports franchises, a\nsubstantial portion of which is derived from Ultimate Team within our global football franchise and from our Apex Legends\nfranchise, is material to our business.\n20\nDigital Delivery of Games. In our industry, players increasingly purchase games digitally as opposed to purchasing physical\ndiscs. While this trend, as applied to our business, may not be linear due to a mix of products during a fiscal year, consumer\nbuying patterns and other factors, over time we expect players to purchase an increasingly higher proportion of our games\ndigitally. As a result, we expect net revenue attributable to digital full game downloads to increase over time and net revenue\nattributable to sales of packaged goods to decrease.\nOur net revenue attributable to digital full game downloads was $1,343 million, $1,262 million, and $1,282 million during\nfiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively; while our net revenue attributable to packaged goods sales was $672 million,\n$675 million, and $711 million in fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. In addition, as measured based on total units\nsold on Microsoft’s Xbox One and Xbox Series X and Sony’s PlayStation 4 and 5 rather than by net revenue, we estimate that\n73 percent, 68 percent, and 65 percent of our total units sold during fiscal years 2024, 2023, and 2022, were sold digitally.\nDigital full game units are based on sales information provided by Microsoft and Sony; packaged goods units sold through are\nestimated by obtaining data from significant retail and distribution partners in North America, Europe and Asia, and applying\ninternal sales estimates with respect to retail partners from which we do not obtain data. We believe that these percentages are\nreasonable estimates of the proportion of our games that are digitally downloaded in relation to our total number of units sold\nfor the applicable period of measurement.\nIncreases in consumer adoption of digital purchase of games combined with increases in our live services revenue generally\nresults in expansion of our gross margin, as costs associated with selling a game digitally is generally less than selling the same\ngame through traditional retail and distribution channels.\nIncreased Competition. Competition in our business is intense. Our competitors range from established interactive\nentertainment companies to emerging start-ups. In addition, the gaming, technology/internet, and entertainment industries are\nconverging, and we compete with large, diversified technology companies in those industries. Their greater financial or other\nresources may provide larger budgets to develop and market tools, technologies, products and services that gain consumer\nsuccess and shift player time and engagement away from our products and services. In addition, our leading position within the\ninteractive entertainment industry makes us a prime target for recruiting our executives, as well as key creative and technical\ntalent, resulting in retention challenges and increased cost to retain and incentivize our key people.\nConcentration of Sales Among the Most Popular Games. In our industry, we see a large portion of games sales concentrated on\nthe most popular titles. Similarly, a significant portion of our revenue historically has been derived from games based on a few\npopular franchises, such as EA SPORTS FC, EA SPORTS Madden NFL, Apex Legends, Battlefield, and The Sims. In\nparticular, we have historically derived a significant portion of our net revenue from our global football franchise, the\nannualized version of which is consistently one of the best-selling games in the marketplace. We transitioned our global football\nfranchise to a new EA SPORTS FC brand in the second quarter of fiscal 2024. Our continued vision for the future of EA\nSPORTS FC is to create and innovate across platforms, geographies, and business models to expand our global football\nexperiences and entertain even more fans around the world.\nRe-occurring Revenue Sources. Our business model includes revenue that we deem re-occurring in nature, such as revenue\nfrom our live services, annualized sports franchises (e.g., EA SPORTS FC, EA SPORTS Madden NFL), and our console, PC\nand mobile catalog titles (i.e., titles that did not launch in the current fiscal year). We have been able to forecast revenue from\nthese areas of our business with greater relative confidence than for new games, services and business models. As we continue\nto incorporate new business models and modalities of play into our games, our goal is to continue to look for opportunities to\nexpand the re-occurring portion of our business.","domain":"Financial","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":306}
+{"system_instruction":"You are to answer questions based only on provided texts, without relying on any outside information. Do not exceed 250 words in your response. Always begin by saying one of the following:\n1. Let's see what we can learn together!\n2. What an interesting question!\n3. Happy to help!\nIf your overall response is less than 100 words, also say \"Do you have further questions?\" at the end, but otherwise do not say anything after your response to the question.","user_request":"Tell me about all of the robots discussed in this text, separated by real, functioning robots, and those only in fiction. ","context_document":"Nevertheless, there is still no AI that is\nequivalent or superior to human intelligence in all of its aspects2\n.\nIn the near future however, this vision might become reality. Technological progress will play\na key role as an enabler of modern AI systems: Computing power and memory size are estimated to\nmultiply by a thousand times over the next twenty to twenty-five years, facilitating the processing\nand storing of massive amounts of data3\n. Further developments in the field of artificial neural\nnetworks and deep learning techniques will result in systems that are less dependent on human\ninvolvement; improved sensor technology will make it easier for systems to interact with their\nenvironment4\n. The decreasing costs for AI technologies will further facilitate their pervasiveness.\nAlthough a big portion of AI research is working towards systems that have little to do with\ncreating a machine with human features, there are still advances in this field – for example, robot\nwoman Sophia who became a YouTube celebrity for stating in a 2016 interview that she wanted “to\ndestroy humans”5\n. While this seemed to be rather a marketing stunt, it is important to discuss the\neffects of humanoid and android robots.\nIn this essay, I want to take a closer look at the status quo of humanoid AI and the\nimplications this technology can have as an assistant, friend or even love interest to humans. I argue\nthat artificial intelligence will – once it becomes a realistic companion to humans – interrupt\nsocietal structures to some extent, leading to a growing amount of human-machine relationships.\n\n.\nTo pursue “real” AI, specialists in developmental robotics are now following a less abstract\npath than writing a programme for a computer11. Their theory is that a system that has an actual\nbody will be more likely to build a form of general intelligence because it can experience its\nsurroundings and match sensorial data with actions12. This branch of robotics is based on another\nhypothesis of Turing’s; in 1950, he claimed that an artificially intelligent system could be best\ncreated if it went through a phase that is similar to the childhood of other species 13\n.\nThe iCub robot was developed to investigate this theory. Having the weight and size of an\ninfant, it carries the spirit of Turing’s thought: Instead of pre-programming its skills and feeding it\nwith data, researchers teach it like a child to enable it to conceive its own solutions 14. Here, one\nquestion arises: How does a system develop the will to learn something? After all, it does not even\nhave a will by default. It was found that a strategy working for humans does the same trick for AI\nsystems too: a reward. The field of reinforcement learning derives from this method and has been\nalso applied to the iCub series15. This has enabled the robots to attain skills like picking up an item16\nor crawling on the floor17. These actions might not seem too complex for us at the first glance but\nthey do involve a number of obstacles the robot has to overcome. In the future, iCub could help us\nin the household by setting the table for dinner or preparing food.\nBut there is another interesting thing about iCub: its chubby face, big eyes, and LED-facial\nexpressions leave no doubt that it was made to bear a resemblance to real humans. Yet still, it is\nobvious to anybody that it is not an actual person. These features make iCub a so-called humanoid.\nRobots that are made to look exactly like humans on the other hand are called androids\nThe market is prepared for it: Looking at the increasing popularity of home assistants like\nAlexa or Google Assistant we can expect our reliance on technological devices to grow even\nstronger in the future. They might become more to us than just a personal weatherman or a direct\nconnection to our Amazon shopping basket: artificially intelligent programmes and robots could\neventually write Christmas cards to our friends and family, suggest the perfect birthday present for\nour partner or even take care of our children.\nIn fact, a robot nanny is not as far-fetched as one would expect: Robots like Pepper, iPal or\nKuri are programmed to be companions to children – they can recognize emotions in their faces,\nplay with them and let parents watch their offspring from afar through their built-in cameras 23. They\nmight not yet be an adequate substitute for an adult taking care, but manufacturers are definitely\nworking towards this goal. Regarding the high costs of childcare in many countries, they could soon\nbecome a very popular help in parenting – and real friends to a generation that grows up surrounded\nby technology. In Japanese schools, robots have already proven to be a successful addition. They\nare assisting students to focus better in class, add a welcome variety to subjects like history or show\nexercises in physical education24. The robot Robosem has been teaching English in South Korean\nclassrooms, as teachers in this subject are scarce25\n.\nNot only childcare can profit from the advances in AI and robotics: As a means of therapy,\nintelligent technology can be valuable in retirement homes. An example of this is the robot seal\nParo that has been successfully utilized in dementia therapy and as a companion to elderly people\nsince its introduction in 2001. The robot’s body is covered in fake fur and it is sensitive to touch,\nmoving and making seal-like noises when it is petted. It is used to calm patients, to encourage social\ninteractions and to give people that are reliant on help a chance to switch roles and become\ncaregivers themselves26. Once they become more elaborate, robots could be a way to meet the\nshortage of skilled workers in the field of elderly care especially in aging societies like Japan or\nGermany.\nEthical Implications of Human-Robot Relationships\nIn the light of the technological advances that will be made within the next years, the ethics of\nhuman-robot relationships must be discussed. The next generations will likely grow up surrounded\nby artificially intelligent machines and it is hard to say if and how this will affect their perceptions\nof interaction not only with robots but humans as well.\nA study conducted by ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communications and three Japanese\nuniversities revealed that children sometimes showed abusive behaviour towards robots – especially\nwhen they were in groups without any adults close by. In the study, the robot Robovie was\npatrolling a Japanese mall, asking people politely to step aside when somebody stood in its way; if\nthere was no reaction, the robot would move in the opposite direction. There were several situations\nhowever, where researchers observed that children were deliberately blocking the robot’s way,\nkicking it, throwing items at it and calling it names. As a consequence, the researchers developed an algorithm that let the robot recognize groups of children and avoid them33. This does not seem like a\nperfect solution to the problem, especially if we take the rising amount of robots in children’s rooms\ninto account. \nIt is hard to say to what extent robots will become a surrogate for genuine human affection in\nthe future but revisiting the comparison to smartphones made earlier, I believe that it is alarming\nthat people turn to machines in the search for human connection. In a society that is increasingly\nbuilt on perfectionist standards, I argue that artificially intelligent robots designed to be friends and\nlovers might become a threat for human relationships. If we hold our friends and partners to the\nsame standards that we will be used from robots in the future, we will be heavily disappointed.\n","full_prompt":"You are to answer questions based only on provided texts, without relying on any outside information. Do not exceed 250 words in your response. If your overall response is less than 100 words, also say \"Do you have further questions?\" at the end, but otherwise do not say anything after your response to the question. \nThe question will be at the very end of the provided text.\n\nNevertheless, there is still no AI that is\nequivalent or superior to human intelligence in all of its aspects2\n.\nIn the near future however, this vision might become reality. Technological progress will play\na key role as an enabler of modern AI systems: Computing power and memory size are estimated to\nmultiply by a thousand times over the next twenty to twenty-five years, facilitating the processing\nand storing of massive amounts of data3\n. Further developments in the field of artificial neural\nnetworks and deep learning techniques will result in systems that are less dependent on human\ninvolvement; improved sensor technology will make it easier for systems to interact with their\nenvironment4\n. The decreasing costs for AI technologies will further facilitate their pervasiveness.\nAlthough a big portion of AI research is working towards systems that have little to do with\ncreating a machine with human features, there are still advances in this field – for example, robot\nwoman Sophia who became a YouTube celebrity for stating in a 2016 interview that she wanted “to\ndestroy humans”5\n. While this seemed to be rather a marketing stunt, it is important to discuss the\neffects of humanoid and android robots.\nIn this essay, I want to take a closer look at the status quo of humanoid AI and the\nimplications this technology can have as an assistant, friend or even love interest to humans. I argue\nthat artificial intelligence will – once it becomes a realistic companion to humans – interrupt\nsocietal structures to some extent, leading to a growing amount of human-machine relationships.\n\n.\nTo pursue “real” AI, specialists in developmental robotics are now following a less abstract\npath than writing a programme for a computer11. Their theory is that a system that has an actual\nbody will be more likely to build a form of general intelligence because it can experience its\nsurroundings and match sensorial data with actions12. This branch of robotics is based on another\nhypothesis of Turing’s; in 1950, he claimed that an artificially intelligent system could be best\ncreated if it went through a phase that is similar to the childhood of other species 13\n.\nThe iCub robot was developed to investigate this theory. Having the weight and size of an\ninfant, it carries the spirit of Turing’s thought: Instead of pre-programming its skills and feeding it\nwith data, researchers teach it like a child to enable it to conceive its own solutions 14. Here, one\nquestion arises: How does a system develop the will to learn something? After all, it does not even\nhave a will by default. It was found that a strategy working for humans does the same trick for AI\nsystems too: a reward. The field of reinforcement learning derives from this method and has been\nalso applied to the iCub series15. This has enabled the robots to attain skills like picking up an item16\nor crawling on the floor17. These actions might not seem too complex for us at the first glance but\nthey do involve a number of obstacles the robot has to overcome. In the future, iCub could help us\nin the household by setting the table for dinner or preparing food.\nBut there is another interesting thing about iCub: its chubby face, big eyes, and LED-facial\nexpressions leave no doubt that it was made to bear a resemblance to real humans. Yet still, it is\nobvious to anybody that it is not an actual person. These features make iCub a so-called humanoid.\nRobots that are made to look exactly like humans on the other hand are called androids\nThe market is prepared for it: Looking at the increasing popularity of home assistants like\nAlexa or Google Assistant we can expect our reliance on technological devices to grow even\nstronger in the future. They might become more to us than just a personal weatherman or a direct\nconnection to our Amazon shopping basket: artificially intelligent programmes and robots could\neventually write Christmas cards to our friends and family, suggest the perfect birthday present for\nour partner or even take care of our children.\nIn fact, a robot nanny is not as far-fetched as one would expect: Robots like Pepper, iPal or\nKuri are programmed to be companions to children – they can recognize emotions in their faces,\nplay with them and let parents watch their offspring from afar through their built-in cameras 23. They\nmight not yet be an adequate substitute for an adult taking care, but manufacturers are definitely\nworking towards this goal. Regarding the high costs of childcare in many countries, they could soon\nbecome a very popular help in parenting – and real friends to a generation that grows up surrounded\nby technology. In Japanese schools, robots have already proven to be a successful addition. They\nare assisting students to focus better in class, add a welcome variety to subjects like history or show\nexercises in physical education24. The robot Robosem has been teaching English in South Korean\nclassrooms, as teachers in this subject are scarce25\n.\nNot only childcare can profit from the advances in AI and robotics: As a means of therapy,\nintelligent technology can be valuable in retirement homes. An example of this is the robot seal\nParo that has been successfully utilized in dementia therapy and as a companion to elderly people\nsince its introduction in 2001. The robot’s body is covered in fake fur and it is sensitive to touch,\nmoving and making seal-like noises when it is petted. It is used to calm patients, to encourage social\ninteractions and to give people that are reliant on help a chance to switch roles and become\ncaregivers themselves26. Once they become more elaborate, robots could be a way to meet the\nshortage of skilled workers in the field of elderly care especially in aging societies like Japan or\nGermany.\nEthical Implications of Human-Robot Relationships\nIn the light of the technological advances that will be made within the next years, the ethics of\nhuman-robot relationships must be discussed. The next generations will likely grow up surrounded\nby artificially intelligent machines and it is hard to say if and how this will affect their perceptions\nof interaction not only with robots but humans as well.\nA study conducted by ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communications and three Japanese\nuniversities revealed that children sometimes showed abusive behaviour towards robots – especially\nwhen they were in groups without any adults close by. In the study, the robot Robovie was\npatrolling a Japanese mall, asking people politely to step aside when somebody stood in its way; if\nthere was no reaction, the robot would move in the opposite direction. There were several situations\nhowever, where researchers observed that children were deliberately blocking the robot’s way,\nkicking it, throwing items at it and calling it names. As a consequence, the researchers developed an algorithm that let the robot recognize groups of children and avoid them33. This does not seem like a\nperfect solution to the problem, especially if we take the rising amount of robots in children’s rooms\ninto account. \nIt is hard to say to what extent robots will become a surrogate for genuine human affection in\nthe future but revisiting the comparison to smartphones made earlier, I believe that it is alarming\nthat people turn to machines in the search for human connection. In a society that is increasingly\nbuilt on perfectionist standards, I argue that artificially intelligent robots designed to be friends and\nlovers might become a threat for human relationships. If we hold our friends and partners to the\nsame standards that we will be used from robots in the future, we will be heavily disappointed.\n\nThis text discusses the advances leading toward having actual robot companions. Tell me the advances that have been made, the likely advances, and the limitations based on the text. ","domain":"Internet/Technology","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":325}
+{"system_instruction":"Create your answer using only information found in the context provided.","user_request":"What are the circumstances in which someone should not take BuSpar?","context_document":"Renal Impairment\nAfter multiple-dose administration of buspirone to renally impaired (Clcr = 10–\n70 mL/min/1.73 m2) patients, steady-state AUC of buspirone increased 4-fold compared\nwith healthy (Clcr ≥80 mL/min/1.73 m2) subjects (see PRECAUTIONS).\nRace Effects\nThe effects of race on the pharmacokinetics of buspirone have not been studied.\nINDICATIONS AND USAGE\nBuSpar is indicated for the management of anxiety disorders or the short-term relief of\nthe symptoms of anxiety. Anxiety or tension associated with the stress of everyday life\nusually does not require treatment with an anxiolytic.\nThe efficacy of BuSpar has been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials of outpatients\nwhose diagnosis roughly corresponds to Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Many of\nthe patients enrolled in these studies also had coexisting depressive symptoms and\nBuSpar relieved anxiety in the presence of these coexisting depressive symptoms. The\npatients evaluated in these studies had experienced symptoms for periods of 1 month to\nover 1 year prior to the study, with an average symptom duration of 6 months.\nGeneralized Anxiety Disorder (300.02) is described in the American Psychiatric\nAssociation's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, III1 as follows:\nGeneralized, persistent anxiety (of at least 1 month continual duration), manifested by\nsymptoms from three of the four following categories:\n1. Motor tension: shakiness, jitteriness, jumpiness, trembling, tension, muscle aches,\nfatigability, inability to relax, eyelid twitch, furrowed brow, strained face, fidgeting,\nrestlessness, easy startle.\n2. Autonomic hyperactivity: sweating, heart pounding or racing, cold, clammy hands,\ndry mouth, dizziness, lightheadedness, paresthesias (tingling in hands or feet), upset\nstomach, hot or cold spells, frequent urination, diarrhea, discomfort in the pit of the\nstomach, lump in the throat, flushing, pallor, high resting pulse and respiration rate.\n4\nReference ID: 2867200\n3. Apprehensive expectation: anxiety, worry, fear, rumination, and anticipation of\nmisfortune to self or others.\n4. Vigilance and scanning: hyperattentiveness resulting in distractibility, difficulty in\nconcentrating, insomnia, feeling \"on edge,\" irritability, impatience.\nThe above symptoms would not be due to another mental disorder, such as a depressive\ndisorder or schizophrenia. However, mild depressive symptoms are common in GAD.\nThe effectiveness of BuSpar in long-term use, that is, for more than 3 to 4 weeks, has not\nbeen demonstrated in controlled trials. There is no body of evidence available that\nsystematically addresses the appropriate duration of treatment for GAD. However, in a\nstudy of long-term use, 264 patients were treated with BuSpar for 1 year without ill effect.\nTherefore, the physician who elects to use BuSpar for extended periods should\nperiodically reassess the usefulness of the drug for the individual patient.\nCONTRAINDICATIONS\nBuSpar is contraindicated in patients hypersensitive to buspirone hydrochloride.\nWARNINGS\nThe administration of BuSpar to a patient taking a monoamine oxidase inhibitor\n(MAOI) may pose a hazard. There have been reports of the occurrence of elevated\nblood pressure when BuSpar (buspirone hydrochloride) has been added to a regimen\nincluding an MAOI. Therefore, it is recommended that BuSpar not be used concomitantly\nwith an MAOI.\nBecause BuSpar has no established antipsychotic activity, it should not be employed in\nlieu of appropriate antipsychotic treatment.\nPRECAUTIONS\nGeneral\nInterference with Cognitive and Motor Performance\nStudies indicate that BuSpar is less sedating than other anxiolytics and that it does not\nproduce significant functional impairment. However, its CNS effects in any individual\npatient may not be predictable. Therefore, patients should be cautioned about operating an\n5\nReference ID: 2867200\nautomobile or using complex machinery until they are reasonably certain that buspirone\ntreatment does not affect them adversely.\nWhile formal studies of the interaction of BuSpar (buspirone hydrochloride) with alcohol\nindicate that buspirone does not increase alcohol-induced impairment in motor and\nmental performance, it is prudent to avoid concomitant use of alcohol and buspirone.\nPotential for Withdrawal Reactions in Sedative/Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Drug-\nDependent Patients\nBecause BuSpar does not exhibit cross-tolerance with benzodiazepines and other\ncommon sedative/hypnotic drugs, it will not block the withdrawal syndrome often seen\nwith cessation of therapy with these drugs. Therefore, before starting therapy with\nBuSpar, it is advisable to withdraw patients gradually, especially patients who have been\nusing a CNS-depressant drug chronically, from their prior treatment. Rebound or\nwithdrawal symptoms may occur over varying time periods, depending in part on the type\nof drug, and its effective half-life of elimination.\nThe syndrome of withdrawal from sedative/hypnotic/anxiolytic drugs can appear as any\ncombination of irritability, anxiety, agitation, insomnia, tremor, abdominal cramps,\nmuscle cramps, vomiting, sweating, flu-like symptoms without fever, and occasionally,\neven as seizures.\nPossible Concerns Related to Buspirone's Binding to Dopamine Receptors\nBecause buspirone can bind to central dopamine receptors, a question has been raised\nabout its potential to cause acute and chronic changes in dopamine-mediated neurological\nfunction (eg, dystonia, pseudo-parkinsonism, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia). Clinical\nexperience in controlled trials has failed to identify any significant neuroleptic-like\nactivity; however, a syndrome of restlessness, appearing shortly after initiation of\ntreatment, has been reported in some small fraction of buspirone-treated patients. The\nsyndrome may be explained in several ways. For example, buspirone may increase central\nnoradrenergic activity; alternatively, the effect may be attributable to dopaminergic\neffects (ie, represent akathisia). See ADVERSE REACTIONS: Postmarketing\nExperience.","full_prompt":"Create your answer using only information found in the context provided. \n\nWhat are the circumstances in which someone should not take BuSpar?\n\nRenal Impairment\nAfter multiple-dose administration of buspirone to renally impaired (Clcr = 10–\n70 mL/min/1.73 m2) patients, steady-state AUC of buspirone increased 4-fold compared\nwith healthy (Clcr ≥80 mL/min/1.73 m2) subjects (see PRECAUTIONS).\nRace Effects\nThe effects of race on the pharmacokinetics of buspirone have not been studied.\nINDICATIONS AND USAGE\nBuSpar is indicated for the management of anxiety disorders or the short-term relief of\nthe symptoms of anxiety. Anxiety or tension associated with the stress of everyday life\nusually does not require treatment with an anxiolytic.\nThe efficacy of BuSpar has been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials of outpatients\nwhose diagnosis roughly corresponds to Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Many of\nthe patients enrolled in these studies also had coexisting depressive symptoms and\nBuSpar relieved anxiety in the presence of these coexisting depressive symptoms. The\npatients evaluated in these studies had experienced symptoms for periods of 1 month to\nover 1 year prior to the study, with an average symptom duration of 6 months.\nGeneralized Anxiety Disorder (300.02) is described in the American Psychiatric\nAssociation's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, III1 as follows:\nGeneralized, persistent anxiety (of at least 1 month continual duration), manifested by\nsymptoms from three of the four following categories:\n1. Motor tension: shakiness, jitteriness, jumpiness, trembling, tension, muscle aches,\nfatigability, inability to relax, eyelid twitch, furrowed brow, strained face, fidgeting,\nrestlessness, easy startle.\n2. Autonomic hyperactivity: sweating, heart pounding or racing, cold, clammy hands,\ndry mouth, dizziness, lightheadedness, paresthesias (tingling in hands or feet), upset\nstomach, hot or cold spells, frequent urination, diarrhea, discomfort in the pit of the\nstomach, lump in the throat, flushing, pallor, high resting pulse and respiration rate.\n4\nReference ID: 2867200\n3. Apprehensive expectation: anxiety, worry, fear, rumination, and anticipation of\nmisfortune to self or others.\n4. Vigilance and scanning: hyperattentiveness resulting in distractibility, difficulty in\nconcentrating, insomnia, feeling \"on edge,\" irritability, impatience.\nThe above symptoms would not be due to another mental disorder, such as a depressive\ndisorder or schizophrenia. However, mild depressive symptoms are common in GAD.\nThe effectiveness of BuSpar in long-term use, that is, for more than 3 to 4 weeks, has not\nbeen demonstrated in controlled trials. There is no body of evidence available that\nsystematically addresses the appropriate duration of treatment for GAD. However, in a\nstudy of long-term use, 264 patients were treated with BuSpar for 1 year without ill effect.\nTherefore, the physician who elects to use BuSpar for extended periods should\nperiodically reassess the usefulness of the drug for the individual patient.\nCONTRAINDICATIONS\nBuSpar is contraindicated in patients hypersensitive to buspirone hydrochloride.\nWARNINGS\nThe administration of BuSpar to a patient taking a monoamine oxidase inhibitor\n(MAOI) may pose a hazard. There have been reports of the occurrence of elevated\nblood pressure when BuSpar (buspirone hydrochloride) has been added to a regimen\nincluding an MAOI. Therefore, it is recommended that BuSpar not be used concomitantly\nwith an MAOI.\nBecause BuSpar has no established antipsychotic activity, it should not be employed in\nlieu of appropriate antipsychotic treatment.\nPRECAUTIONS\nGeneral\nInterference with Cognitive and Motor Performance\nStudies indicate that BuSpar is less sedating than other anxiolytics and that it does not\nproduce significant functional impairment. However, its CNS effects in any individual\npatient may not be predictable. Therefore, patients should be cautioned about operating an\n5\nReference ID: 2867200\nautomobile or using complex machinery until they are reasonably certain that buspirone\ntreatment does not affect them adversely.\nWhile formal studies of the interaction of BuSpar (buspirone hydrochloride) with alcohol\nindicate that buspirone does not increase alcohol-induced impairment in motor and\nmental performance, it is prudent to avoid concomitant use of alcohol and buspirone.\nPotential for Withdrawal Reactions in Sedative/Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Drug-\nDependent Patients\nBecause BuSpar does not exhibit cross-tolerance with benzodiazepines and other\ncommon sedative/hypnotic drugs, it will not block the withdrawal syndrome often seen\nwith cessation of therapy with these drugs. Therefore, before starting therapy with\nBuSpar, it is advisable to withdraw patients gradually, especially patients who have been\nusing a CNS-depressant drug chronically, from their prior treatment. Rebound or\nwithdrawal symptoms may occur over varying time periods, depending in part on the type\nof drug, and its effective half-life of elimination.\nThe syndrome of withdrawal from sedative/hypnotic/anxiolytic drugs can appear as any\ncombination of irritability, anxiety, agitation, insomnia, tremor, abdominal cramps,\nmuscle cramps, vomiting, sweating, flu-like symptoms without fever, and occasionally,\neven as seizures.\nPossible Concerns Related to Buspirone's Binding to Dopamine Receptors\nBecause buspirone can bind to central dopamine receptors, a question has been raised\nabout its potential to cause acute and chronic changes in dopamine-mediated neurological\nfunction (eg, dystonia, pseudo-parkinsonism, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia). Clinical\nexperience in controlled trials has failed to identify any significant neuroleptic-like\nactivity; however, a syndrome of restlessness, appearing shortly after initiation of\ntreatment, has been reported in some small fraction of buspirone-treated patients. The\nsyndrome may be explained in several ways. For example, buspirone may increase central\nnoradrenergic activity; alternatively, the effect may be attributable to dopaminergic\neffects (ie, represent akathisia). See ADVERSE REACTIONS: Postmarketing\nExperience.","domain":"Medical","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":347}
+{"system_instruction":"You can only respond to the prompt using the information in the context block and no other sources.","user_request":"List the pros and cons for Nestle in regards to this deal.","context_document":"Nestlé and Starbucks close deal for the perpetual global license of Starbucks Consumer\nPackaged Goods and Foodservice products\nVevey and Seattle, 28 August 2018 – Nestlé and Starbucks Corporation today announced the closing of the deal granting Nestlé the perpetual rights to market Starbucks Consumer Packaged Goods and Foodservice products globally, outside of the company’s coffee shops.\nThrough the alliance, the two companies will work closely together on the existing Starbucks range of roast and ground coffee, whole beans as well as instant and portioned coffee. The alliance will also capitalize on the experience and capabilities of both companies to work on innovation with the goal of enhancing its product offerings for coffee lovers globally.\n“This partnership demonstrates our growth agenda in action, giving Nestlé an unparalleled position in the coffee business with a full suite of innovative brands. With Starbucks, Nescafé and Nespresso we bring together the world’s most iconic coffee brands,” said Mark Schneider, Nestlé CEO. “The outstanding collaboration between the two teams resulted in a swift completion of this agreement, which will pave the way to capture further growth opportunities,” he added.\nThe agreement significantly strengthens Nestlé’s coffee portfolio in the North American premium roast and ground and portioned coffee business. It also unlocks global expansion in grocery and food service for the Starbucks brand, utilizing the global reach of Nestlé.\n“This global coffee alliance with Nestlé is a significant strategic milestone for the growth of Starbucks,” said Kevin Johnson, president and ceo of Starbucks. “Bringing together the world’s leading coffee retailer, the world’s largest food and beverage company, and the world’s largest and fast-growing installed base of at-home and single-serve coffee machines helps us amplify the Starbucks brand around the world while delivering long-term value creation for our shareholders.”\nApproximately 500 Starbucks employees in the United States and Europe will join the Nestlé family, with the majority based in Seattle and London. The international expansion of the business will be led from Nestlé’s global headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland.\nThe agreement covers Starbucks packaged coffee and tea brands, such as Starbucks®, Seattle’s Best Coffee®, TeavanaTM/MC, Starbucks VIA® Instant, Torrefazione Italia® coffee and Starbucks-branded\n\n","full_prompt":"You can only respond to the prompt using the information in the context block and no other sources.\n\nNestlé and Starbucks close deal for the perpetual global license of Starbucks Consumer\nPackaged Goods and Foodservice products\nVevey and Seattle, 28 August 2018 – Nestlé and Starbucks Corporation today announced the closing of the deal granting Nestlé the perpetual rights to market Starbucks Consumer Packaged Goods and Foodservice products globally, outside of the company’s coffee shops.\nThrough the alliance, the two companies will work closely together on the existing Starbucks range of roast and ground coffee, whole beans as well as instant and portioned coffee. The alliance will also capitalize on the experience and capabilities of both companies to work on innovation with the goal of enhancing its product offerings for coffee lovers globally.\n“This partnership demonstrates our growth agenda in action, giving Nestlé an unparalleled position in the coffee business with a full suite of innovative brands. With Starbucks, Nescafé and Nespresso we bring together the world’s most iconic coffee brands,” said Mark Schneider, Nestlé CEO. “The outstanding collaboration between the two teams resulted in a swift completion of this agreement, which will pave the way to capture further growth opportunities,” he added.\nThe agreement significantly strengthens Nestlé’s coffee portfolio in the North American premium roast and ground and portioned coffee business. It also unlocks global expansion in grocery and food service for the Starbucks brand, utilizing the global reach of Nestlé.\n“This global coffee alliance with Nestlé is a significant strategic milestone for the growth of Starbucks,” said Kevin Johnson, president and ceo of Starbucks. “Bringing together the world’s leading coffee retailer, the world’s largest food and beverage company, and the world’s largest and fast-growing installed base of at-home and single-serve coffee machines helps us amplify the Starbucks brand around the world while delivering long-term value creation for our shareholders.”\nApproximately 500 Starbucks employees in the United States and Europe will join the Nestlé family, with the majority based in Seattle and London. The international expansion of the business will be led from Nestlé’s global headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland.\nThe agreement covers Starbucks packaged coffee and tea brands, such as Starbucks®, Seattle’s Best Coffee®, TeavanaTM/MC, Starbucks VIA® Instant, Torrefazione Italia® coffee and Starbucks-branded\n\nList the pros and cons for Nestle in regards to this deal.","domain":"Retail/Product","type":"Pros & Cons","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":406}
+{"system_instruction":"Do not use external resources for your answer. Only use the provided context block.","user_request":"What does the book include to help answer important questions about Bitcoin?","context_document":"There’s a lot of excitement about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Optimists claim that Bitcoin will fundamentally alter payments, economics, and even politics around the world. Pessimists claim Bitcoin is inherently broken and will suffer an inevitable and spectacular collapse.\nUnderlying these differing views is significant confusion about what Bitcoin is and how it works. We wrote this book to help cut through the hype and get to the core of what makes Bitcoin unique.\nTo really understand what is special about Bitcoin, we need to understand how it works at a technical level. Bitcoin truly is a new technology and we can only get so far by explaining it through simple analogies to past technologies.\nWe’ll assume that you have a basic understanding of computer science — how computers work, data structures and algorithms, and some programming experience. If you’re an undergraduate or graduate student of computer science, a software developer, an entrepreneur, or a technology hobbyist, this textbook is for you.\nIn this book we’ll address the important questions about Bitcoin. How does Bitcoin work? What makes it different? How secure are your bitcoins? How anonymous are Bitcoin users? What applications can we build using Bitcoin as a platform? Can cryptocurrencies be regulated? If we were designing a new cryptocurrency today, what would we change? What might the future hold?\nEach chapter has a series of homework questions to help you understand these questions at a deeper level. In addition, there is a series of programming assignments in which you’ll implement various components of Bitcoin in simplified models. If you’re an auditory learner, most of the material of this book is available as a series of video lectures. You can find all these on our ​Coursera course.​ You should also supplement your learning with information you can find online including the Bitcoin wiki, forums, and research papers, and by interacting with your peers and the Bitcoin community.\nAfter reading this book, you’ll know everything you need to be able to separate fact from fiction when reading claims about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You’ll have the conceptual foundations you need to engineer secure software that interacts with the Bitcoin network. And you’ll be able to integrate ideas from Bitcoin into your own projects.","full_prompt":"Do not use external resources for your answer. Only use the provided context block. \nWhat does the book include to help answer important questions about Bitcoin?\n\n[There’s a lot of excitement about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Optimists claim that Bitcoin will fundamentally alter payments, economics, and even politics around the world. Pessimists claim Bitcoin is inherently broken and will suffer an inevitable and spectacular collapse.\nUnderlying these differing views is significant confusion about what Bitcoin is and how it works. We wrote this book to help cut through the hype and get to the core of what makes Bitcoin unique.\nTo really understand what is special about Bitcoin, we need to understand how it works at a technical level. Bitcoin truly is a new technology and we can only get so far by explaining it through simple analogies to past technologies.\nWe’ll assume that you have a basic understanding of computer science — how computers work, data structures and algorithms, and some programming experience. If you’re an undergraduate or graduate student of computer science, a software developer, an entrepreneur, or a technology hobbyist, this textbook is for you.\nIn this book we’ll address the important questions about Bitcoin. How does Bitcoin work? What makes it different? How secure are your bitcoins? How anonymous are Bitcoin users? What applications can we build using Bitcoin as a platform? Can cryptocurrencies be regulated? If we were designing a new cryptocurrency today, what would we change? What might the future hold?\nEach chapter has a series of homework questions to help you understand these questions at a deeper level. In addition, there is a series of programming assignments in which you’ll implement various components of Bitcoin in simplified models. If you’re an auditory learner, most of the material of this book is available as a series of video lectures. You can find all these on our ​Coursera course.​ You should also supplement your learning with information you can find online including the Bitcoin wiki, forums, and research papers, and by interacting with your peers and the Bitcoin community.\nAfter reading this book, you’ll know everything you need to be able to separate fact from fiction when reading claims about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You’ll have the conceptual foundations you need to engineer secure software that interacts with the Bitcoin network. And you’ll be able to integrate ideas from Bitcoin into your own projects.]","domain":"Financial","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":419}
+{"system_instruction":"You must only draw information for your response from the text provided. Do not use any external sources. Your answer is always less than 200 words. When mentioning Newcastle United you refer to the club as NUFC and always in bold. When mentioning Sports Direct you will refer to the company as SD and always in italics.","user_request":"How many clubs do the allegations affect?","context_document":"In summary, the Claimant alleges that:\n\n1. The Club has abused its dominant position in the market for the wholesale supply of Newcastle United replica kit in the UK, in breach of the prohibition in Chapter II of the Act, by refusing to supply Sports Direct with the Club’s replica kit for the 2024/25 season and granting JD Sports, another UK sports\nretailer, exclusive rights as a third-party retailer of the Club’s replica kit (alongside only the Club’s and Adidas’s own channels), thereby foreclosing Sports Direct from the downstream retail market and eliminating effective competition on that market; and\n\n2. If and to the extent that the Club contends that the refusal to supply is the necessary result of exclusivity arrangements it has agreed with JD Sports and/or Adidas, any such agreement is itself in breach of the prohibition in Chapter I of the Act and therefore void, and insofar as the Club implements any such agreement, it is breaching the Chapter I prohibition.\n\nThe Claimant seeks an injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging in, and/or implementing the above breaches, damages and other relief.\nAccording to the Claim, replica kit are authentic reproductions of the short- and long-sleeved shirt, shorts, training wear, and socks (home, away, third, goalkeeper and special edition) in adult, junior and infant sizes to which a football club’s trademark is applied and which are worn by the club’s players when competing in professional football matches.","full_prompt":"System Instruction: You must only draw information for your response from the text provided. Do not use any external sources. Your answer is always less than 200 words. When mentioning Newcastle United you refer to the club as NUFC and always in bold. When mentioning Sports Direct you will refer to the company as SD and always in italics.\n\nQuestion: How many clubs do the allegations affect?\n\nContext: In summary, the Claimant alleges that:\n\n1. The Club has abused its dominant position in the market for the wholesale supply of Newcastle United replica kit in the UK, in breach of the prohibition in Chapter II of the Act, by refusing to supply Sports Direct with the Club’s replica kit for the 2024/25 season and granting JD Sports, another UK sports\nretailer, exclusive rights as a third-party retailer of the Club’s replica kit (alongside only the Club’s and Adidas’s own channels), thereby foreclosing Sports Direct from the downstream retail market and eliminating effective competition on that market; and\n\n2. If and to the extent that the Club contends that the refusal to supply is the necessary result of exclusivity arrangements it has agreed with JD Sports and/or Adidas, any such agreement is itself in breach of the prohibition in Chapter I of the Act and therefore void, and insofar as the Club implements any such agreement, it is breaching the Chapter I prohibition.\n\nThe Claimant seeks an injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging in, and/or implementing the above breaches, damages and other relief.\nAccording to the Claim, replica kit are authentic reproductions of the short- and long-sleeved shirt, shorts, training wear, and socks (home, away, third, goalkeeper and special edition) in adult, junior and infant sizes to which a football club’s trademark is applied and which are worn by the club’s players when competing in professional football matches.","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":443}
+{"system_instruction":"You may only respond to the prompt using information provided in the context block.","user_request":"Can I reuse the OEM hardware for this?","context_document":"Before beginning the installation, thoroughly & completely read these instructions. Please refer to\nthe Parts List to insure that all parts & hardware are received prior to the disassembly of the vehicle.\nIf any parts are found to be missing, contact SKYJACKER® Customer Service at 318-388-0816 to\nobtain the needed items. If you have any questions or reservations about installing this product,\ncontact SKYJACKER® Technical Assistance at 318-388-0816. \nInstallation:\n1. Park the vehicle on a flat, level surface & block the front & rear tires.\n2. Place the transmission in neutral.\n3. Loosen all of the engine mount bolts about ½ turn.\n4. Support the transfer case cross member with a transmission or floor\njack. Remove the bolts & nuts for each side of the cross member.\n5. Slowly lower the cross member, approximately 2\", to allow enough room to install the new\nSkyjacker tubular spacers.\n1994-2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ\nInstall the new Skyjacker transfer case linkage pivot\n drop bracket to the stock pivot bracket using the OEM\n hardware. Using the two 1/4\" x 1\" bolts with a flat\n washer & self locking nut, bolt the ball swivel bracket\n (See Arrow in Photo # 3) to the new Skyjacker drop\n bracket. Note: The bracket has two sets of holes. The\n bottom holes are for a 4\" lift as shown & the upper\n holes are for a 2 1/2\" lift.\n 2. Placing the pivot bracket back in location, start the end\n of the rod through the ball swivel & bolt the bracket in\n location with the OEM hardware. (See Photo # 4)\n 3. Check to make sure that the transfer case will fully engage at\n each end of the shifter travel. If linkage adjustment is required,\n 4. Check the transfer case shifter to see if it will move to 4L. If\n not, the linkage will need adjusting as follows. Place the shifter\n in 4L, loosen the adjustment bolt  &\n push the linkage (\"B\" Arrow in Photo # 5) forward until it stops.\n Now retighten adjustment bolt. Check to be sure the 4WD\n works properly.\n 5. On 5 speed models, engage the clutch & check the\n transmission shifter to see if it will go into 2nd gear. If not, the\n shifter housing on the floor will need trimming. Remove the\n center console, pull back the carpet, remove the screws\n holding the shifter boot to the floor, & trim or grind the floor\n board until sufficient clearance is obtained.\n Shift through each gear to check clearance at this\n time. Now reinstall the shifter boot, carpet, & console.\n","full_prompt":"You may only respond to the prompt using information provided in the context block.\n\nCan I reuse the OEM hardware for this?\n\nBefore beginning the installation, thoroughly & completely read these instructions. Please refer to\nthe Parts List to insure that all parts & hardware are received prior to the disassembly of the vehicle.\nIf any parts are found to be missing, contact SKYJACKER® Customer Service at 318-388-0816 to\nobtain the needed items. If you have any questions or reservations about installing this product,\ncontact SKYJACKER® Technical Assistance at 318-388-0816. \nInstallation:\n1. Park the vehicle on a flat, level surface & block the front & rear tires.\n2. Place the transmission in neutral.\n3. Loosen all of the engine mount bolts about ½ turn.\n4. Support the transfer case cross member with a transmission or floor\njack. Remove the bolts & nuts for each side of the cross member.\n5. Slowly lower the cross member, approximately 2\", to allow enough room to install the new\n6. Install the new Skyjacker tubular spacers between the cross member\n & frame. Slowly raise the jack to firmly hold the tubular spacers in\n place.\n 7. Install the OEM nuts, removed in Step # 4, onto the studs that are\n protruding out of the frame on each side to hold the top half of the\n new spacers in place. Note: There is only one stud on each side\n protruding out of the frame. Next, install the 3/8\" x 1\" bolt on each\n side through the cross member & the bottom half of the new tubular\n spacers. Install the 3/8 nut, washer, & hand tighten.\n 8. Install the new 10mm x 60mm bolt up through the cross member & tubular spacer & tighten to\n 33 ft. lbs. (See Photo # 2)\n 9. Tighten the 3/8\" nut down onto the 3/8\" x 1\" bolt from Step # 7 to 33 ft-lbs. Remove the\n transmission jack & set aside.\n10. Re-torque the engine mount bolts loosened in Step # 3. The engine mount to block bolts torque\n to 45 ft-lbs. The engine mount to frame bolts torque to 30 ft-lbs. The thru bolts torque to 48 ft-lbs.\n11. Install the transfer case linkage bracket. (See Steps # 1 thru # 5 Below)\nSkyjacker tubular spacers.\n1994-2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ\nInstall the new Skyjacker transfer case linkage pivot\n drop bracket to the stock pivot bracket using the OEM\n hardware. Using the two 1/4\" x 1\" bolts with a flat\n washer & self locking nut, bolt the ball swivel bracket\n (See Arrow in Photo # 3) to the new Skyjacker drop\n bracket. Note: The bracket has two sets of holes. The\n bottom holes are for a 4\" lift as shown & the upper\n holes are for a 2 1/2\" lift.\n 2. Placing the pivot bracket back in location, start the end\n of the rod through the ball swivel & bolt the bracket in\n location with the OEM hardware. (See Photo # 4)\n 3. Check to make sure that the transfer case will fully engage at\n each end of the shifter travel. If linkage adjustment is required,\n 4. Check the transfer case shifter to see if it will move to 4L. If\n not, the linkage will need adjusting as follows. Place the shifter\n in 4L, loosen the adjustment bolt  &\n push the linkage (\"B\" Arrow in Photo # 5) forward until it stops.\n Now retighten adjustment bolt. Check to be sure the 4WD\n works properly.\n 5. On 5 speed models, engage the clutch & check the\n transmission shifter to see if it will go into 2nd gear. If not, the\n shifter housing on the floor will need trimming. Remove the\n center console, pull back the carpet, remove the screws\n holding the shifter boot to the floor, & trim or grind the floor\n board until sufficient clearance is obtained.\n Shift through each gear to check clearance at this\n time. Now reinstall the shifter boot, carpet, & console.","domain":"Internet/Technology","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":448}
+{"system_instruction":"Draw your answer only from the context block below and not from external sources.","user_request":"What does Apple not receive from me when I use Siri?","context_document":"The Siri and Dictation features of the iOS Software may not be available in all languages or regions and features may vary by region. If your iOS Device supports Siri and Dictation, these features may allow you to make requests, give commands and dictate text to your device using your voice. When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and to process your requests. Your device will also send Apple other information, such as your name and nickname; the names, nicknames, and relationship with you (e.g., “my dad”) of your address book contacts; and song names in your collection (collectively, your “User Data”). All of this data is used to help Siri and Dictation understand you better and recognize what you say. It is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services. By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and dictation functionality in other Apple products and services.\nIf you have Location Services turned on, the location of your iOS Device at the time you make a request to Siri may also be sent to Apple to help Siri improve the accuracy of its response to your location-based requests. You may disable the location-based functionality of Siri by going to the Location Services setting on your iOS Device and turning off the individual location setting for Siri.\nSiri can allow you to interact with your iOS Device without needing to unlock it. If you have enabled a passcode on your iOS Device and would like to prevent Siri from being used from the lock screen, you can tap Settings, tap General, tap Passcode Lock and turn the Siri option to “off”.\nYou can also turn off Siri and Dictation altogether at any time. To do so, open Settings, tap General, tap Siri, and slide the Siri switch to “off”.\n","full_prompt":"Draw your answer only from the context block below and not from external sources. What does Apple not receive from me when I use Siri?\n\n[The Siri and Dictation features of the iOS Software may not be available in all languages or regions and features may vary by region. If your iOS Device supports Siri and Dictation, these features may allow you to make requests, give commands and dictate text to your device using your voice. When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text and to process your requests. Your device will also send Apple other information, such as your name and nickname; the names, nicknames, and relationship with you (e.g., “my dad”) of your address book contacts; and song names in your collection (collectively, your “User Data”). All of this data is used to help Siri and Dictation understand you better and recognize what you say. It is not linked to other data that Apple may have from your use of other Apple services. By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and dictation functionality in other Apple products and services.\nIf you have Location Services turned on, the location of your iOS Device at the time you make a request to Siri may also be sent to Apple to help Siri improve the accuracy of its response to your location-based requests. You may disable the location-based functionality of Siri by going to the Location Services setting on your iOS Device and turning off the individual location setting for Siri.\nSiri can allow you to interact with your iOS Device without needing to unlock it. If you have enabled a passcode on your iOS Device and would like to prevent Siri from being used from the lock screen, you can tap Settings, tap General, tap Passcode Lock and turn the Siri option to “off”.\nYou can also turn off Siri and Dictation altogether at any time. To do so, open Settings, tap General, tap Siri, and slide the Siri switch to “off”.]","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":452}
+{"system_instruction":"Answer the question based solely on the information provided in the passage. Do not use any external knowledge or resources.\n \n\n [user request]\n \n\n [context document]","user_request":"How are smart devices able to spy on people's browsing history, financial transactions, and even health issues? Some apps can bypass security by just tapping into the wifi. how does that work? What do you think about the fact that once a device is connected it can control all of the other devices without consent?","context_document":"cepro.com\n New Research Uncovers Litany of Privacy/Security Issues in Consumer IoT Devices\n Zachary Comeau\n 5–6 minutes\n \n\n An international team of researchers has unveiled findings on the widespread security and privacy challenges posed by IoT devices in smart homes, delving into the intricacies of local network interactions between 93 different IoT devices and mobile apps.\n \n\n The paper, titled In the Room Where It Happens: Characterizing Local Communication and Threats in Smart Homes, reveals a litany of previously undisclosed security and privacy threats.\n \n\n The research team included researchers from the New York Tandon School of Engineering, Northeastern University, University of Madrid, University of Calgary, the International Computer Science Institute and IMDEA Networks. The research was presented last month at the ACM Internet Measurement Conference last month in Montreal.\n \n\n Researchers narrow in on the local network and how IoT devices can inadvertently compromise consumer privacy through the exposure of sensitive data within those local networks using standard protocols such as UPnP or mDNS. Researchers say this essentially allows nearly any company to learn what devices are in a home, when the user is home, and where the home is.\n \n\n According to the paper, these threats include the exposure of unique device names, UUIDs, and even household geolocation data, all of which can be harvested by companies involved in surveillance capitalism without user awareness. \n \n\n NYU Tandon, quoting PhD student and research co-author Vijay Prakash, says in a writeup that researchers found evidence of IoT devices inadvertently compromising consumer privacy by exposing at least one personally identifiable information, such as unique hardware addresses, UUID, or unique device names, in thousands of existing smart homes.\n \n\n That information can be pieced together to make a house very identifiable, researchers say.\n \n\n The devices included in the research include 93 consumer IP-based smart home devices, as well as their companion apps. Devices included in the study were smart doorbells, smart bulbs, smart thermostats, smart TVs, smart plugs, smart speakers, smart sensors and smart home hubs.\n \n\n Specifically, most of the devices tested are widely available online or in stores, including Amazon Echo devices, Google Nest products, Apple TVs, and more.\n \n\n These local network protocols can be employed as side-channels to access data that is supposedly protected by several mobile app permissions such as household locations, researchers say.\n \n\n Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Associate Research Professor of IMDEA Networks and co-founder of AppCensus, says in a statement that side channels are a sneaky way of indirectly accessing sensitive data.\n \n\n “For example, Android app developers are supposed to request and obtain users’ consent to access data like geolocation,” Vallina-Rodriguez says. “However, we have shown that certain spyware apps and advertising companies do abuse local network protocols to silently access such sensitive information without any user awareness. All they have to do is kindly ask for it to other IoT devices deployed in the local network using standard protocols like UPnP.”\n \n\n In addition, Juan Tapiador, professor at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, says the study shows that local network protocols used by IoT devices are not sufficiently protected and expose sensitive information about the home and the homeowners’ use of the devices.\n \n\n “This information is being collected in an opaque way and makes it easier to create profiles of our habits or socioeconomic level,” Tapiador says.\n \n\n In other comments, Dr. Joel Reardon, PhD, associate professor of computer science at the University of Calgary, says the research shows the home network is not as secure as once thought.\n \n\n “If a new phone connects to a network, then all the apps on it can have direct access to everything else on that network,” Reardon says. “The spyware I found in apps with tens of millions of installs was in fact scanning networks and talking to routers.”\n \n\n The research follows multiple separate cybersecurity threats-related to IoT devices uncovered this month. Towards the middle of the month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation nonprofit put out a call to action for the FTC to block the sales of Android TV boxes potentially infected with botnet malware. Researchers around this time also published a report in FCC filings for the Cyber Trust Mark proceedings warning of ultrasonic commands that could potentially be used to activate and control voice assistants.\n \n\n If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our digital newsletters!","full_prompt":"Answer the question based solely on the information provided in the passage. Do not use any external knowledge or resources.\n \n\n How are smart devices able to spy on people's browsing history, financial transactions, and even health issues? Some apps can bypass security by just tapping into the wifi. how does that work? What do you think about the fact that once a device is connected it can control all of the other devices without consent?\n \n\n cepro.com\n New Research Uncovers Litany of Privacy/Security Issues in Consumer IoT Devices\n Zachary Comeau\n 5–6 minutes\n \n\n An international team of researchers has unveiled findings on the widespread security and privacy challenges posed by IoT devices in smart homes, delving into the intricacies of local network interactions between 93 different IoT devices and mobile apps.\n \n\n The paper, titled In the Room Where It Happens: Characterizing Local Communication and Threats in Smart Homes, reveals a litany of previously undisclosed security and privacy threats.\n \n\n The research team included researchers from the New York Tandon School of Engineering, Northeastern University, University of Madrid, University of Calgary, the International Computer Science Institute and IMDEA Networks. The research was presented last month at the ACM Internet Measurement Conference last month in Montreal.\n \n\n Researchers narrow in on the local network and how IoT devices can inadvertently compromise consumer privacy through the exposure of sensitive data within those local networks using standard protocols such as UPnP or mDNS. Researchers say this essentially allows nearly any company to learn what devices are in a home, when the user is home, and where the home is.\n \n\n According to the paper, these threats include the exposure of unique device names, UUIDs, and even household geolocation data, all of which can be harvested by companies involved in surveillance capitalism without user awareness. \n \n\n NYU Tandon, quoting PhD student and research co-author Vijay Prakash, says in a writeup that researchers found evidence of IoT devices inadvertently compromising consumer privacy by exposing at least one personally identifiable information, such as unique hardware addresses, UUID, or unique device names, in thousands of existing smart homes.\n \n\n That information can be pieced together to make a house very identifiable, researchers say.\n \n\n The devices included in the research include 93 consumer IP-based smart home devices, as well as their companion apps. Devices included in the study were smart doorbells, smart bulbs, smart thermostats, smart TVs, smart plugs, smart speakers, smart sensors and smart home hubs.\n \n\n Specifically, most of the devices tested are widely available online or in stores, including Amazon Echo devices, Google Nest products, Apple TVs, and more.\n \n\n These local network protocols can be employed as side-channels to access data that is supposedly protected by several mobile app permissions such as household locations, researchers say.\n \n\n Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Associate Research Professor of IMDEA Networks and co-founder of AppCensus, says in a statement that side channels are a sneaky way of indirectly accessing sensitive data.\n \n\n “For example, Android app developers are supposed to request and obtain users’ consent to access data like geolocation,” Vallina-Rodriguez says. “However, we have shown that certain spyware apps and advertising companies do abuse local network protocols to silently access such sensitive information without any user awareness. All they have to do is kindly ask for it to other IoT devices deployed in the local network using standard protocols like UPnP.”\n \n\n In addition, Juan Tapiador, professor at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, says the study shows that local network protocols used by IoT devices are not sufficiently protected and expose sensitive information about the home and the homeowners’ use of the devices.\n \n\n “This information is being collected in an opaque way and makes it easier to create profiles of our habits or socioeconomic level,” Tapiador says.\n \n\n In other comments, Dr. Joel Reardon, PhD, associate professor of computer science at the University of Calgary, says the research shows the home network is not as secure as once thought.\n \n\n “If a new phone connects to a network, then all the apps on it can have direct access to everything else on that network,” Reardon says. “The spyware I found in apps with tens of millions of installs was in fact scanning networks and talking to routers.”\n \n\n The research follows multiple separate cybersecurity threats-related to IoT devices uncovered this month. Towards the middle of the month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation nonprofit put out a call to action for the FTC to block the sales of Android TV boxes potentially infected with botnet malware. Researchers around this time also published a report in FCC filings for the Cyber Trust Mark proceedings warning of ultrasonic commands that could potentially be used to activate and control voice assistants.\n \n\n If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our digital newsletters!\n https://www.cepro.com/networking/new-research-uncovers-litany-of-privacy-security-issues-in-consumer-iot-devices/","domain":"Internet/Technology","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":483}
+{"system_instruction":"Respond only using information contained within the prompt. Do not use any external information or knowledge when answering. Answer as a non-expert only. Give your answer simply with easy to understand language.","user_request":"What are the potential harmful side effects of semaglutide?","context_document":"According to the EPAR for semaglutide, eight completed phase 3 trials and a cardiovascular\noutcomes trial provided safety data relating to approximately 4,800 patients and over 5,600\npatient years of exposure. [12] Additional safety data is also available from the SUSTAIN 7 which\nassessed semaglutide and dulaglutide. [9]\nAdverse events\nThe EPAR states that “The safety profile of semaglutide is generally consistent with those\nreported for other drugs in the GLP-1 RA class”. The EMA noted that the rates of gastrointestinal\nadverse events were higher for semaglutide compared to exenatide, sitagliptin and insulin\nglargine. [12] However the open label SUSTAIN 7 study found that the frequency of\ngastrointestinal adverse effects were similar between semaglutide and dulaglutide groups. [9]\nA significantly increased risk of diabetic retinopathy complications was observed with semaglutide\nas compared with placebo. This increased risk was particularly marked in patients with preexisting diabetic retinopathy at baseline and co-use of insulin. Although it is recognised that\nintensified glycaemic control may precipitate early worsening of diabetic retinopathy, clinical trials\ndata did not demonstrate a decrease in the risk of diabetic retinopathy over the course of two\nyears, and data also suggests that semaglutide was associated with retinopathy in patients with\nonly small HbA1c reductions. [12] A specific warning has been included in the SPC for\nsemaglutide outlining the increased risk of diabetic retinopathy complications in patients with\nexisting diabetic retinopathy treated with insulin. [15]\nThe SPC for semaglutide lists the following adverse events [13]:\n\nTable 2. Adverse reactions from long-term controlled phase 3a trials including the cardiovascular \n7\nDate: December 2018\noutcomes trial.\nMedDRA\nsystem organ\nclass\nVery common Common Uncommon Rare\nImmune system\ndisorders\nAnaphylactic\nreaction\nMetabolism and\nnutrition\ndisorders\nHypoglycaemia\nwhen used with\ninsulin or\nsulfonylurea\nHypoglycaemia\nwhen used with\nother OADs\nDecreased appetite\nNervous system\ndisorders\nDizziness Dysgeusia\nEye disorders Diabetic\nretinopathy\ncomplications\nCardiac\ndisorders\nIncreased heart\nrate\nGastrointestinal\ndisorders\nNausea\nDiarrhoea\nVomiting\nAbdominal pain\nAbdominal\ndistension\nConstipation\nDyspepsia\nGastritis\nGastrooesophageal\nreflux disease\nEructation\nFlatulence\nHepatobiliary\ndisorders\nCholelithiasis\nGeneral\ndisorders and\nadministration\nsite conditions\nFatigue Injection site\nreactions\nInvestigations Increased lipase\nIncreased amylase\nWeight decreased","full_prompt":"What are the potential harmful side effects of semaglutide?\n\nRespond only using information contained within the prompt. Do not use any external information or knowledge when answering. Answer as a non-expert only. Give your answer simply with easy to understand language.\n\n\nThe text:\n\nAccording to the EPAR for semaglutide, eight completed phase 3 trials and a cardiovascular\noutcomes trial provided safety data relating to approximately 4,800 patients and over 5,600\npatient years of exposure. [12] Additional safety data is also available from the SUSTAIN 7 which\nassessed semaglutide and dulaglutide. [9]\nAdverse events\nThe EPAR states that “The safety profile of semaglutide is generally consistent with those\nreported for other drugs in the GLP-1 RA class”. The EMA noted that the rates of gastrointestinal\nadverse events were higher for semaglutide compared to exenatide, sitagliptin and insulin\nglargine. [12] However the open label SUSTAIN 7 study found that the frequency of\ngastrointestinal adverse effects were similar between semaglutide and dulaglutide groups. [9]\nA significantly increased risk of diabetic retinopathy complications was observed with semaglutide\nas compared with placebo. This increased risk was particularly marked in patients with preexisting diabetic retinopathy at baseline and co-use of insulin. Although it is recognised that\nintensified glycaemic control may precipitate early worsening of diabetic retinopathy, clinical trials\ndata did not demonstrate a decrease in the risk of diabetic retinopathy over the course of two\nyears, and data also suggests that semaglutide was associated with retinopathy in patients with\nonly small HbA1c reductions. [12] A specific warning has been included in the SPC for\nsemaglutide outlining the increased risk of diabetic retinopathy complications in patients with\nexisting diabetic retinopathy treated with insulin. [15]\nThe SPC for semaglutide lists the following adverse events [13]:\n\nTable 2. Adverse reactions from long-term controlled phase 3a trials including the cardiovascular \n7\nDate: December 2018\noutcomes trial.\nMedDRA\nsystem organ\nclass\nVery common Common Uncommon Rare\nImmune system\ndisorders\nAnaphylactic\nreaction\nMetabolism and\nnutrition\ndisorders\nHypoglycaemia\nwhen used with\ninsulin or\nsulfonylurea\nHypoglycaemia\nwhen used with\nother OADs\nDecreased appetite\nNervous system\ndisorders\nDizziness Dysgeusia\nEye disorders Diabetic\nretinopathy\ncomplications\nCardiac\ndisorders\nIncreased heart\nrate\nGastrointestinal\ndisorders\nNausea\nDiarrhoea\nVomiting\nAbdominal pain\nAbdominal\ndistension\nConstipation\nDyspepsia\nGastritis\nGastrooesophageal\nreflux disease\nEructation\nFlatulence\nHepatobiliary\ndisorders\nCholelithiasis\nGeneral\ndisorders and\nadministration\nsite conditions\nFatigue Injection site\nreactions\nInvestigations Increased lipase\nIncreased amylase\nWeight decreased","domain":"Medical","type":"Pros & Cons","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":536}
+{"system_instruction":"Answer the user query using only the information in the provided text.","user_request":"How did verbal ability impact the results?","context_document":"Background: Individuals on the autism spectrum experience various challenges related to social behaviors and may\noften display increased irritability and hyperactivity. Some studies have suggested that reduced levels of a hormone\ncalled oxytocin, which is known for its role in promoting social bonding, may be responsible for difculties in social\ninteractions in autism. Oxytocin therapy has been used of-label in some individuals on the autism spectrum as a\npotential intervention to improve social behavior, but previous studies have not been able to confrm its efcacy.\nEarlier clinical trials examining oxytocin in autism have shown widely varying results. This large randomized\ncontrolled trial sought to resolve the previous contradictory fndings and determine whether extended use of\noxytocin can help to improve social behaviors in children and teenagers on the autism spectrum.\nMethods & Findings: Tis study evaluated whether a nasal oxytocin spray could afect social interactions and\nother behaviors (e.g., irritability, social withdrawal, and hyperactivity) in children and adolescents on the autism\nspectrum during a 24-week clinical trial. Individuals between the ages of 3 and 17 were assessed by trained\nresearchers and were selected for participation if they met the criteria for autism. Participants were then randomly\nassigned to receive either a nasal oxytocin spray or a placebo (i.e., a comparison nasal spray that did not contain\noxytocin) every day at a series of gradually increasing doses. Participants received social interaction scores every\n4 weeks based on multiple assessments that were completed by caregivers or the participant. Separate analyses\nwere performed in groups of individuals with minimal verbal fuency and high verbal fuency. Tis study found\nno diference in social interaction scores between the oxytocin group and the placebo group and no diference\nbetween the groups with difering levels of verbal ability.\nImplications: Te fndings of this study demonstrate that extended use of a nasal oxytocin spray over a 24-week\nperiod does not make a detectable diference in measured social interactions or behaviors in children and adolescents\nwith autism. While this study showed no observable social beneft with the use of intranasal oxytocin, there are\nremaining questions around issues such as the ideal dose, whether current formulations are able to penetrate the\nblood-brain barrier, and whether a longer intervention time course could reveal efects. In addition, future studies\nthat use techniques such as brain imaging may reveal new information on how oxytocin might be used in autism. ","full_prompt":"Answer the user query using only the information in the provided text. \n\nBackground: Individuals on the autism spectrum experience various challenges related to social behaviors and may\noften display increased irritability and hyperactivity. Some studies have suggested that reduced levels of a hormone\ncalled oxytocin, which is known for its role in promoting social bonding, may be responsible for difculties in social\ninteractions in autism. Oxytocin therapy has been used of-label in some individuals on the autism spectrum as a\npotential intervention to improve social behavior, but previous studies have not been able to confrm its efcacy.\nEarlier clinical trials examining oxytocin in autism have shown widely varying results. This large randomized\ncontrolled trial sought to resolve the previous contradictory fndings and determine whether extended use of\noxytocin can help to improve social behaviors in children and teenagers on the autism spectrum.\nMethods & Findings: Tis study evaluated whether a nasal oxytocin spray could afect social interactions and\nother behaviors (e.g., irritability, social withdrawal, and hyperactivity) in children and adolescents on the autism\nspectrum during a 24-week clinical trial. Individuals between the ages of 3 and 17 were assessed by trained\nresearchers and were selected for participation if they met the criteria for autism. Participants were then randomly\nassigned to receive either a nasal oxytocin spray or a placebo (i.e., a comparison nasal spray that did not contain\noxytocin) every day at a series of gradually increasing doses. Participants received social interaction scores every\n4 weeks based on multiple assessments that were completed by caregivers or the participant. Separate analyses\nwere performed in groups of individuals with minimal verbal fuency and high verbal fuency. Tis study found\nno diference in social interaction scores between the oxytocin group and the placebo group and no diference\nbetween the groups with difering levels of verbal ability.\nImplications: Te fndings of this study demonstrate that extended use of a nasal oxytocin spray over a 24-week\nperiod does not make a detectable diference in measured social interactions or behaviors in children and adolescents\nwith autism. While this study showed no observable social beneft with the use of intranasal oxytocin, there are\nremaining questions around issues such as the ideal dose, whether current formulations are able to penetrate the\nblood-brain barrier, and whether a longer intervention time course could reveal efects. In addition, future studies\nthat use techniques such as brain imaging may reveal new information on how oxytocin might be used in autism. \n\nWhat is oxytocin therapy?","domain":"Medical","type":"Explanation/Definition","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":540}
+{"system_instruction":"Use the info in this document and not any other source.","user_request":"Categorize the terms into \"Device\", \"Procedure\", and \"Other\", and exclude any financial or insurance related terms.","context_document":"N\nNon-covered charges: Costs for dental care your insurer does not cover. In some cases the service is a covered\nservice, but the insurer is not responsible for the entire charge. In these cases, you will be responsible for any\ncharge not covered by your dental plan. You may wish to call your insurer or consult your dental plan or dental\npolicy to determine whether certain services are included in your plan before you receive those services from your\ndentist.\nNon-Covered Services: Dental services not listed as a benefit. If you receive non-covered services, your dental plan\nwill not pay for them. Your provider will bill you. You will be responsible for the full cost. Usually payments count\ntoward deductible. Check with your insurer. Make sure you know what services are covered before you see your\ndentist.\nNonduplication of Benefits: Occurs when you have two insurance plans. It’s how our second insurance carrier\ncalculates its payment. The secondary carrier calculates what it would have paid if it were your primary plan. Then\nit subtracts what the other plan paid. Examples: Your primary carrier paid 80 percent. Your secondary carrier\nnormally covers 80 percent. Your secondary carrier would not make any additional payment. If the primary carrier\npaid 50 percent. The secondary carrier would pay up to 30 percent.\nO\nOcclusion: Any contact between biting or chewing surfaces of upper and lower teeth.\nOcclusal Guard: A removable device worn between the upper and lower teeth to prevent clenching or grinding.\n[NOTE: ODONTOPLASTY WAS REMOVED]\nOpen Enrollment/Open Enrollment Period: Time of year when an eligible person may add, change or terminate a\ndental plan or dental policy for the next contract year.\nOpen Panel: Allows you to receive care from any dentist. It allows any dentist to participate. Any dentist may\naccept or refuse to treat patients enrolled in the plan. Open panel plans often are described as freedom of choice\nplans.\nOrthodontic Retainer: Appliance to stabilize teeth following orthodontic treatment.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n12\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nOrthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: Branch of dentistry. Includes the diagnosis, prevention, interception,\nand correction of malocclusion. Also includes neuromuscular and skeletal abnormalities of the developing or\nmature orofacial structures.\nOrthodontist: Specialist who treats malocclusion and other neuromuscular and skeletal abnormalities of the teeth\nand their surrounding structures.\nOrthotic device: Dental appliance used to support, align, prevent or correct deformities, or to improve the\nfunction of the oral\nOut-of-Network: Care from providers not on your plan. This includes dentists and clinics. Usually, you will pay\nmore out of your own pocket when you receive dental care out-of-network providers.\nOut-of-network benefits: Coverage for services from providers who are not under a contract with your dental\nplan.\nOut-of-pocket cost: The amount plan members must pay for care. Includes the difference between the amount\ncharged by a provider and what a health plan pays for such services.\nOut-of-Pocket Maximum: The most a dental plan requires a member to pay in a year. Deductibles, co-payments\nand co-insurance count toward the out-of-pocket maximum. The only dental benefits that have out-of-pocket\nmaximums are child benefits purchased through public exchanges, or purchased as an individual or through a small\ngroup. The out-of-pocket maximum for one child is $350 and for more than one child is $700 in all states.\nAfter reaching an out-of-pocket maximum, the plan pays 100% of the cost of pediatric dental services. This\nonly applies to covered services. Members are still responsible for services that are not covered by the\nplan. Members also continue to pay their monthly premiums.\nOverbilling: Stating fees as higher than actual charges. Example: when you are charged one fee and an insurance\ncompany is billed a higher fee. This is done to use your co-payment. It also done to increase your fees solely\nbecause you are covered under a dental benefits plan.\nOverdenture: See Denture/Overdenture.\nP\nPalate: The hard and soft tissues forming the roof of the mouth. It separates the oral and nasal cavities.\nPalliative: Treatment that relieves pain but may not remove the cause of the pain.\nPartial Denture: See Denture/Partial Denture.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n13\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nParticipating Provider: Dentists and other licensed dental providers on your plan. They have a contract with your\nplan. The contract includes set service fees.\nPayer: Party responsible for paying your claims. It can be a self-insured employer, insurance company or\ngovernmental agency.\nPediatric dentist: A dental specialist. Treats children from birth through adolescence. Provides primary and\ncomprehensive preventive and therapeutic oral health care. Formerly known as a pedodontist.\nPeriodontal: Branch of dentistry that involves the prevention and treatment of gum disease.\nPeriodontal disease: Inflammation process of gums and/or periodontal membrane of the teeth. Results in an\nabnormally deep gingival sulcus. Possibly produces periodontal pockets and loss of supporting alveolar bone.\nPeriodontist: A dental specialist. Treats diseases of the supporting and surrounding tissues of the teeth.\nPeriodontitis: Inflammation and loss of the connective tissue of the supporting or surrounding structure of teeth.\nWith loss of attachment.\n[NOTE: PIN REMOVED]\nPlan Year: See Benefit Year.\nPlaque: A soft sticky substance. Composed largely of bacteria and bacterial derivatives. It forms on teeth daily.\nPoint of Service (POS) Plan: A dental plan that allows you to choose at the time of dental service whether you will\ngo to a provider within your dental plan's network or get dental care from a provider outside the network.\n[NOTE: PORCELAIN/CERAMIC REMOVED]\n[NOTE: POST REMOVED]\nPreauthorization: A process that your dental plan or insurer uses to make a decision that particular dental services\nare covered. Your plan may require preauthorization for certain services, such as crowns, before you receive them.\nPreauthorization requirements are generally waived if you need emergency care. Sometimes called prior\nauthorization.\n[NOTE: PRECERTIFICATION REMOVED]\nPredetermination: A process where a dentist submits a treatment plan to the payer before treatment begins. The\npayer reviews the treatment plan. The payer notifies you and your dentist about one or more of the following:\nyour eligibility, covered services, amounts payable, co-payment and deductibles and plan maximums. See preauthorization.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n14\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nPre-existing condition: A dental condition that exists for a set time prior to enrollment in a dental plan, regardless\nof whether the condition has been formally diagnosed. The only pre-existing condition that is common for dental\nplans or policies is a missing tooth.\n[REMOVED PRECIOUS OR HIGH NOBLE METALS – SEE METALS, CLASSIFICATIONS –ACCORDING TO CDT]\nPretreatement Estimate: See predetermination. **\nPreferred Provider Organization (PPO): See DPPO.\nPremedication: The use of medications prior to dental procedures.\nPrepaid dental plan: A method of funding dental care costs in advance of services. For a defined population.\nPremium: The amount you pay to a dental insurance company for dental coverage. The dental insurance company\ngenerally recalculates the premium each policy year. This amount is usually paid in monthly installments. When\nyou receive dental insurance through an employer, the employer may pay a portion of the premium and you pay\nthe rest, often through payroll deductions.\nPreventive Services: See diagnostic and preventive services.\nPrimary dentition: Another name for baby teeth. See deciduous.\nPrimary payer: The third party payer with first responsibility in a benefit determination.\nProphylaxis: Scaling and polishing procedure. Performed to remove coronal plaque, calculus and\nstains. **\nProsthodontic: Branch of dentistry that deals with the repair of teeth by crowns, inlays or onlays and/or the\nreplacement of missing teeth and related mouth or jaw structures by bridges, dentures, implants or other artificial\ndevises.\nProsthodontist: A dental specialist. Restores natural teeth. Replaces missing teeth with artificial substitutes.\nProvider: A dentist or other dental care professional, or clinic that is accredited, licensed or certified to provide\ndental services in their state, and is providing services within the scope of that accreditation, license or\ncertification.\nProvider network: Dentists and other dental care professionals who agree to provide dental care to members of a\ndental plan, under the terms of a contract.","full_prompt":"N\nNon-covered charges: Costs for dental care your insurer does not cover. In some cases the service is a covered\nservice, but the insurer is not responsible for the entire charge. In these cases, you will be responsible for any\ncharge not covered by your dental plan. You may wish to call your insurer or consult your dental plan or dental\npolicy to determine whether certain services are included in your plan before you receive those services from your\ndentist.\nNon-Covered Services: Dental services not listed as a benefit. If you receive non-covered services, your dental plan\nwill not pay for them. Your provider will bill you. You will be responsible for the full cost. Usually payments count\ntoward deductible. Check with your insurer. Make sure you know what services are covered before you see your\ndentist.\nNonduplication of Benefits: Occurs when you have two insurance plans. It’s how our second insurance carrier\ncalculates its payment. The secondary carrier calculates what it would have paid if it were your primary plan. Then\nit subtracts what the other plan paid. Examples: Your primary carrier paid 80 percent. Your secondary carrier\nnormally covers 80 percent. Your secondary carrier would not make any additional payment. If the primary carrier\npaid 50 percent. The secondary carrier would pay up to 30 percent.\nO\nOcclusion: Any contact between biting or chewing surfaces of upper and lower teeth.\nOcclusal Guard: A removable device worn between the upper and lower teeth to prevent clenching or grinding.\n[NOTE: ODONTOPLASTY WAS REMOVED]\nOpen Enrollment/Open Enrollment Period: Time of year when an eligible person may add, change or terminate a\ndental plan or dental policy for the next contract year.\nOpen Panel: Allows you to receive care from any dentist. It allows any dentist to participate. Any dentist may\naccept or refuse to treat patients enrolled in the plan. Open panel plans often are described as freedom of choice\nplans.\nOrthodontic Retainer: Appliance to stabilize teeth following orthodontic treatment.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n12\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nOrthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: Branch of dentistry. Includes the diagnosis, prevention, interception,\nand correction of malocclusion. Also includes neuromuscular and skeletal abnormalities of the developing or\nmature orofacial structures.\nOrthodontist: Specialist who treats malocclusion and other neuromuscular and skeletal abnormalities of the teeth\nand their surrounding structures.\nOrthotic device: Dental appliance used to support, align, prevent or correct deformities, or to improve the\nfunction of the oral\nOut-of-Network: Care from providers not on your plan. This includes dentists and clinics. Usually, you will pay\nmore out of your own pocket when you receive dental care out-of-network providers.\nOut-of-network benefits: Coverage for services from providers who are not under a contract with your dental\nplan.\nOut-of-pocket cost: The amount plan members must pay for care. Includes the difference between the amount\ncharged by a provider and what a health plan pays for such services.\nOut-of-Pocket Maximum: The most a dental plan requires a member to pay in a year. Deductibles, co-payments\nand co-insurance count toward the out-of-pocket maximum. The only dental benefits that have out-of-pocket\nmaximums are child benefits purchased through public exchanges, or purchased as an individual or through a small\ngroup. The out-of-pocket maximum for one child is $350 and for more than one child is $700 in all states.\nAfter reaching an out-of-pocket maximum, the plan pays 100% of the cost of pediatric dental services. This\nonly applies to covered services. Members are still responsible for services that are not covered by the\nplan. Members also continue to pay their monthly premiums.\nOverbilling: Stating fees as higher than actual charges. Example: when you are charged one fee and an insurance\ncompany is billed a higher fee. This is done to use your co-payment. It also done to increase your fees solely\nbecause you are covered under a dental benefits plan.\nOverdenture: See Denture/Overdenture.\nP\nPalate: The hard and soft tissues forming the roof of the mouth. It separates the oral and nasal cavities.\nPalliative: Treatment that relieves pain but may not remove the cause of the pain.\nPartial Denture: See Denture/Partial Denture.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n13\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nParticipating Provider: Dentists and other licensed dental providers on your plan. They have a contract with your\nplan. The contract includes set service fees.\nPayer: Party responsible for paying your claims. It can be a self-insured employer, insurance company or\ngovernmental agency.\nPediatric dentist: A dental specialist. Treats children from birth through adolescence. Provides primary and\ncomprehensive preventive and therapeutic oral health care. Formerly known as a pedodontist.\nPeriodontal: Branch of dentistry that involves the prevention and treatment of gum disease.\nPeriodontal disease: Inflammation process of gums and/or periodontal membrane of the teeth. Results in an\nabnormally deep gingival sulcus. Possibly produces periodontal pockets and loss of supporting alveolar bone.\nPeriodontist: A dental specialist. Treats diseases of the supporting and surrounding tissues of the teeth.\nPeriodontitis: Inflammation and loss of the connective tissue of the supporting or surrounding structure of teeth.\nWith loss of attachment.\n[NOTE: PIN REMOVED]\nPlan Year: See Benefit Year.\nPlaque: A soft sticky substance. Composed largely of bacteria and bacterial derivatives. It forms on teeth daily.\nPoint of Service (POS) Plan: A dental plan that allows you to choose at the time of dental service whether you will\ngo to a provider within your dental plan's network or get dental care from a provider outside the network.\n[NOTE: PORCELAIN/CERAMIC REMOVED]\n[NOTE: POST REMOVED]\nPreauthorization: A process that your dental plan or insurer uses to make a decision that particular dental services\nare covered. Your plan may require preauthorization for certain services, such as crowns, before you receive them.\nPreauthorization requirements are generally waived if you need emergency care. Sometimes called prior\nauthorization.\n[NOTE: PRECERTIFICATION REMOVED]\nPredetermination: A process where a dentist submits a treatment plan to the payer before treatment begins. The\npayer reviews the treatment plan. The payer notifies you and your dentist about one or more of the following:\nyour eligibility, covered services, amounts payable, co-payment and deductibles and plan maximums. See preauthorization.\nGlossary of Dental Insurance and Dental Care Terms\n14\n* American Dental Association Current Dental Terminology 2011-2012, glossary.\n**Dental Benefits: A Guide to Dental PPOs, HMOs And Other Managed Plans, Don Mayes, Revised Edition, 2002.\n**FDA/ADA radiograph guidelines.\nNational Association of Dental Plans, www.nadp.org\nPre-existing condition: A dental condition that exists for a set time prior to enrollment in a dental plan, regardless\nof whether the condition has been formally diagnosed. The only pre-existing condition that is common for dental\nplans or policies is a missing tooth.\n[REMOVED PRECIOUS OR HIGH NOBLE METALS – SEE METALS, CLASSIFICATIONS –ACCORDING TO CDT]\nPretreatement Estimate: See predetermination. **\nPreferred Provider Organization (PPO): See DPPO.\nPremedication: The use of medications prior to dental procedures.\nPrepaid dental plan: A method of funding dental care costs in advance of services. For a defined population.\nPremium: The amount you pay to a dental insurance company for dental coverage. The dental insurance company\ngenerally recalculates the premium each policy year. This amount is usually paid in monthly installments. When\nyou receive dental insurance through an employer, the employer may pay a portion of the premium and you pay\nthe rest, often through payroll deductions.\nPreventive Services: See diagnostic and preventive services.\nPrimary dentition: Another name for baby teeth. See deciduous.\nPrimary payer: The third party payer with first responsibility in a benefit determination.\nProphylaxis: Scaling and polishing procedure. Performed to remove coronal plaque, calculus and\nstains. **\nProsthodontic: Branch of dentistry that deals with the repair of teeth by crowns, inlays or onlays and/or the\nreplacement of missing teeth and related mouth or jaw structures by bridges, dentures, implants or other artificial\ndevises.\nProsthodontist: A dental specialist. Restores natural teeth. Replaces missing teeth with artificial substitutes.\nProvider: A dentist or other dental care professional, or clinic that is accredited, licensed or certified to provide\ndental services in their state, and is providing services within the scope of that accreditation, license or\ncertification.\nProvider network: Dentists and other dental care professionals who agree to provide dental care to members of a\ndental plan, under the terms of a contract.\n\nUse the info in this document and not any other source.\nCategorize the terms into \"Device\", \"Procedure\", and \"Other\", and exclude any financial or insurance related terms.","domain":"Medical","type":"Summarize & Format","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":563}
+{"system_instruction":"Your task is to answer questions using information provided in the context block, without referring to external sources or prior knowledge. Format your response using bullet points.","user_request":"List the reasons that resulted in decreased emission of GHGs from ethanol production.","context_document":"A new USDA report, titled “A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based\nEthanol,” finds that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with producing corn-based ethanol in\nthe United States are about 43 percent lower than gasoline when measured on an energy equivalent\nbasis. Unlike other studies of GHG benefits, which relied on forecasts of future ethanol production\nsystems and expected impacts on the farm sector, this study reviewed how the industry and farm\nsectors have performed over the past decade to assess the current GHG profile of corn-based ethanol.\nThe report shows that the reductions in GHG emissions were driven by a variety of improvements in\nethanol production, spanning from the corn field to the ethanol refinery. Farmers are producing corn\nmore efficiently and using conservation practices that reduce GHG emissions, including reduced tillage,\ncover crops, and improved nitrogen management. Both corn yields and the efficiency of ethanol\nproduction technologies are also improving.\nPrevious estimates of ethanol’s GHG balance report lower efficiencies, largely due to anticipated\nconversion of grasslands and forests to commodity production as a result of increased demand for corn\nused in ethanol production. However, recent studies of international agricultural land use trends show\nthat since 2004, the primary land use change response of the world's farmers to rising commodity prices\nhas been to use available land resources more efficiently rather than to expand the amount of land used\nfor farming.","full_prompt":"A new USDA report, titled “A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based\nEthanol,” finds that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with producing corn-based ethanol in\nthe United States are about 43 percent lower than gasoline when measured on an energy equivalent\nbasis. Unlike other studies of GHG benefits, which relied on forecasts of future ethanol production\nsystems and expected impacts on the farm sector, this study reviewed how the industry and farm\nsectors have performed over the past decade to assess the current GHG profile of corn-based ethanol.\nThe report shows that the reductions in GHG emissions were driven by a variety of improvements in\nethanol production, spanning from the corn field to the ethanol refinery. Farmers are producing corn\nmore efficiently and using conservation practices that reduce GHG emissions, including reduced tillage,\ncover crops, and improved nitrogen management. Both corn yields and the efficiency of ethanol\nproduction technologies are also improving.\nPrevious estimates of ethanol’s GHG balance report lower efficiencies, largely due to anticipated\nconversion of grasslands and forests to commodity production as a result of increased demand for corn\nused in ethanol production. However, recent studies of international agricultural land use trends show\nthat since 2004, the primary land use change response of the world's farmers to rising commodity prices\nhas been to use available land resources more efficiently rather than to expand the amount of land used\nfor farming.\nEthanol GHG Balance Highlights\n Ethanol production in the United States increased significantly over the past decade—from 3.9 to\n14.8 billion gallons per year between 2005 and 2015.\n The report projects that the GHG profile of corn ethanol will be almost 50 percent lower than\ngasoline in 2022 if current trends in corn yields, process fuel switching, and improvements in\ntrucking fuel efficiency continue.\n If additional conservation practices and efficiency improvements are pursued, such as the practices\noutlined in USDA’s Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry strategy, the GHG\nbenefits of corn ethanol are even more pronounced over gasoline—about 76 percent.\n On-farm conservation practices, such as reduced tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen management, are\nestimated to improve the GHG balance of corn ethanol by about 14 percent\n\nYour task is to answer questions using information provided in the above text, without referring to external sources or prior knowledge. Format your response using bullet points.\n\nQuestion: List the reasons that resulted in decreased emission of GHGs from ethanol production.","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":585}
+{"system_instruction":"You may only respond using the context block provided.","user_request":"Is the United States currently in a recession?","context_document":"There is no theoretical reason why the criteria used in the Sahm rule is associated with a recession—it is\nan observed historical relationship for a small sample and may not always hold going forward. Sahm\nherself has indicated that despite her rule getting triggered, she does not believe that the United States is\ncurrently in a recession, although she believes that the risk of recession has increased.\nThe primary indicators used by the NBER are not currently consistent with a recession, and several\nremain strong. For example, real gross domestic product has been positive since the third quarter of 2022\nand grew by 1.4% and 2.8% in the first and second quarters of 2024, with real personal consumption expenditures up 1.5% and 2.3% over the same period. Real personal income less transfers grew in May\nand June 2024 and were up 1.8% over the year in June.\nThus far, the only indications of a weakening economy are coming from the labor market, and even there,\nindicators are inconsistent. Although there has been a 0.9 percentage point increase in the unemployment\nrate and nonfarm payroll employment growth has slowed, employment growth remained positive, which\nis inconsistent with a recession. (Recessions typically feature falling employment within the first three\nmonths.) Employment as measured by a different survey has shown some decreases, but the NBER does\nnot track this measure as closely.\nThe unemployment rate could be rising for reasons associated with a weakening economy (e.g., workers\nlosing their jobs) or for neutral reasons (e.g., new entrants to the labor force). Data on the reasons for\nunemployment suggest that the unemployment rate has risen at least partly because the economy has\nweakened. Almost two-thirds of the increase in unemployment in the past year has come from people who\nhave lost their jobs (mostly via temporary layoffs or jobs ending), whereas around one-third has come\nfrom people entering or reentering the labor force. On the other hand, the rise in unemployment has not\ncoincided with a rise in layoffs and discharges—which are still lower than during the expansion that\npreceded the pandemic—as would be expected if the economy were entering a recession. Additionally,\nmany economists assessed that the unemployment rate was unsustainably low for over two years. Some\ncooling in the labor market could indicate a rise to a more sustainable rate. Now the key question is\nwhether it will continue to rise. Unemployment remains low by historical standards, and if it does not rise\nmuch further, a recession can be avoided.\n","full_prompt":"Using only the context block provided is the United States in a recession?","domain":"Financial","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":602}
+{"system_instruction":"You are to answer based solely on the provided text.  You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.","user_request":"When can someone with BMI of 29 kg/m2 be recommended for bariatric surgery?","context_document":"A broad range of drugs are under investigation, but there are currently no drugs approved by\nregulatory agencies for the treatment of NAFLD. This is a field of very active research. As an increasing\nnumber of clinical studies are running and results are reported, recommendations may rapidly change.\nInformation on which clinical trials are ongoing can be found on www.clinicaltrials.gov and you should\nask your physician for newest updates. Some drugs that are used to treat other conditions have also been\ntested for NASH. Based on their effects demonstrated by liver biopsy, the following drugs seem to have\nsome efficacy.\n– Vitamin E showed promise, but only in patients without cirrhosis and without T2D. Given long-term and\nat high doses, however, vitamin E potentially had negative effects and some data indicate that it could\nincrease the risk of early death and certain cancers.\n– Pioglitazone, which is approved for the treatment of diabetes, showed promise for NASH in patients with\ndiabetes and pre-diabetes. Side effects such as weight gain and bone fractures should be considered.\n– Liraglutide and semaglutide are approved for the treatment of obesity and for diabetes. They have also\nshown promise in reducing liver fat and inflammation in NASH and will be evaluated further.\nImportant: all these drugs must be discussed with your doctor and can harm when self-administered.\nFuture available drugs will be an add-on therapy because lifestyle changes are essential as NAFLD is\nmainly a lifestyle-related disease.\nBariatric surgery very effectively achieves weight loss and weight loss maintenance in patients\nwith obesity. The agreed criteria for the surgical management of obesity and metabolic disorders (BMI\n≥40kg/m2\n or BMI ≥35kg/m2\n with complicating disorders, no resolution after medical treatment) are\nalso applicable for NAFLD. Patients with a BMI of 30–35 kg/m2\n who also have T2D that is not adequately\ncontrolled by medical therapy may also be candidates for surgery.\nIt is important to know that the change in the anatomy by bariatric surgery can lead to the need of lifelong\nfollow up and this should be considered in discussing this option for patients.\nIf you wonder whether vitamin E, the above-mentioned drugs or bariatric surgery could be helpful for you,\nplease consult your doctor and discuss the potential risks and benefits. Any treatment decision should be\nbased on your individual situation and medical history","full_prompt":"You are to answer based solely on the provided text.  You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.\nWhen can someone with BMI of 29 kg/m2 be recommended for bariatric surgery?\nA broad range of drugs are under investigation, but there are currently no drugs approved by\nregulatory agencies for the treatment of NAFLD. This is a field of very active research. As an increasing\nnumber of clinical studies are running and results are reported, recommendations may rapidly change.\nInformation on which clinical trials are ongoing can be found on www.clinicaltrials.gov and you should\nask your physician for newest updates. Some drugs that are used to treat other conditions have also been\ntested for NASH. Based on their effects demonstrated by liver biopsy, the following drugs seem to have\nsome efficacy.\n– Vitamin E showed promise, but only in patients without cirrhosis and without T2D. Given long-term and\nat high doses, however, vitamin E potentially had negative effects and some data indicate that it could\nincrease the risk of early death and certain cancers.\n– Pioglitazone, which is approved for the treatment of diabetes, showed promise for NASH in patients with\ndiabetes and pre-diabetes. Side effects such as weight gain and bone fractures should be considered.\n– Liraglutide and semaglutide are approved for the treatment of obesity and for diabetes. They have also\nshown promise in reducing liver fat and inflammation in NASH and will be evaluated further.\nImportant: all these drugs must be discussed with your doctor and can harm when self-administered.\nFuture available drugs will be an add-on therapy because lifestyle changes are essential as NAFLD is\nmainly a lifestyle-related disease.\nBariatric surgery very effectively achieves weight loss and weight loss maintenance in patients\nwith obesity. The agreed criteria for the surgical management of obesity and metabolic disorders (BMI\n≥40kg/m2\n or BMI ≥35kg/m2\n with complicating disorders, no resolution after medical treatment) are\nalso applicable for NAFLD. Patients with a BMI of 30–35 kg/m2\n who also have T2D that is not adequately\ncontrolled by medical therapy may also be candidates for surgery.\nIt is important to know that the change in the anatomy by bariatric surgery can lead to the need of lifelong\nfollow up and this should be considered in discussing this option for patients.\nIf you wonder whether vitamin E, the above-mentioned drugs or bariatric surgery could be helpful for you,\nplease consult your doctor and discuss the potential risks and benefits. Any treatment decision should be\nbased on your individual situation and medical history","domain":"Medical","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":724}
+{"system_instruction":"You can only produce an answer using the context provided to you.","user_request":"Which batteries are in the early stages of commercialisation?\n","context_document":"Chapter 4: Batteries for Grid Applications\nOverview\nBatteries are devices that store energy chemically. This report focuses on “secondary” batteries,\nwhich must be charged before use and which can be discharged and recharged (cycled) many\ntimes before the end of their useful life. For electric power grid applications, there are four main\nbattery types of interest:\n Lead-acid\n High temperature “sodium-beta”\n Liquid electrolyte “flow” batteries\n Other emerging chemistries84\nLead-acid batteries have been used for more than a century in grid applications and in\nconventional vehicles for starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI). They continue to be the\ntechnology of choice for vehicle SLI applications due to their low cost. Consequently, they are\nmanufactured on a mass scale. In 2010, approximately 120 million lead-acid batteries were\nshipped in North America alone.85 Lead-acid batteries are commonly used by utilities to serve as\nuninterruptible power supplies in substations, and have been used at utility scale in several\ndemonstration projects to provide grid support.86 Use of lead acid batteries for grid applications is\nlimited by relatively short cycle life. R&D efforts are focused on improved cycle-life, which\ncould result in greater use in utility-scale applications.\nSodium-beta batteries include sodium-sulfur (NaS) units, first developed in the 1960s,87 and\ncommercially available from a single vendor (NGK Insulators, Ltd.) in Japan with over 270 MW\ndeployed worldwide.88 A NaS battery was first deployed in the United States in 2002.\n89 There are\nnow a number of U.S. demonstration projects, including several listed in Table 3. The focus of\nNaS deployments in the United States has been in electric distribution deferral projects, acting to\nreduce peak demand on distribution systems, but they also can serve multiple grid support\nservices. An alternative high-temperature battery, sodium-nickel-chloride, is in the early stages of commercialization.\n\n“Flow” batteries, in which a liquid electrolyte flows through a chemical cell to produce\nelectricity, are in the early stages of commercialization. In grid applications there has been some\ndeployment of two types of flow battery: vanadium redox and zinc-bromide. There are a number\nof international installations of vanadium redox units, including a 250 kW installation in the\nUnited States to relieve a congested transmission line.\n91 There are also a number of zinc-bromine\ndemonstration projects.92 Several other flow battery chemistries have been pursued or are under\ndevelopment, but are less mature.\nIn addition to the three battery types discussed above, there are several emerging technologies\nbased on new battery chemistries which may also have potential in grid applications. Several of\nthese emerging technologies are being supported by DOE efforts such as ARPA-E and are\ndiscussed briefly in the R&D section of this chapter.\n\nTechnology\nDescription and Performance\nLead-Acid\nThe lead-acid battery consists of a lead dioxide positive electrode (cathode), a lead negative\nelectrode (anode), and an aqueous sulfuric acid electrolyte which carries the charge between the\ntwo. During discharge, each electrode is converted to lead sulfate, consuming sulfuric acid from\nthe electrolyte. When recharging, the lead sulfate is converted back to sulfuric acid, leaving a layer of lead dioxide on the cathode and pure lead on the anode. In such conventional “wet”\n(flooded) cells, water in the electrolyte is broken down to hydrogen and oxygen during the\ncharging process. In a vented wet cell design, these gases escape into the atmosphere, requiring\nthe occasional addition of water to the system. In sealed wet cell designs, the loss of these gases is\nprevented and their conversion back to water is possible, reducing maintenance requirements.\nHowever, if the battery is overcharged or charged too quickly, the rate of gas generation can\nsurpass that of water recombination, which can cause an explosion.\nIn “valve regulated gel” designs, silica is added to the electrolyte to cause it to gel. In “absorbed\nglass mat” designs, the electrolyte is suspended in a fiberglass mat. The latter are sometimes\nreferred to as “dry” because the fiberglass mat is not completely saturated with acid and there is\nno excess liquid. Both designs operate under slight constant pressure. Both also eliminate the risk\nof electrolyte leakage and offer improved safety by using valves to regulate internal pressure due\nto gas build up, but at significantly higher cost than wet cells described above.93\nLead-acid is currently the lowest-cost battery chemistry on a dollar-per-kWh basis. However, it\nalso has relatively low specific energy (energy per unit mass) on the order of 35 Wh/kg and\nrelatively poor “cycle life,” which is the number of charge-discharge cycles it can provide before\nits capacity falls too far below a certain percentage (e.g., 80%) of its initial capacity. While the\nlow energy density of lead-acid will likely limit its use in transportation applications, increase in\ncycle life could make lead-acid cost-effective in grid applications.\nThe cycle life of lead-acid batteries is highly dependent on both the rate and depth of discharge\ndue to corrosion and material shedding off of electrode plates inside the battery. High depth of\ndischarge (DoD) operation intensifies both issues. At 100% DoD (discharging the battery\ncompletely) cycle life can be less than 100 full cycles for some lead-acid technologies. During\nhigh rate, partial state-of-charge operation, lead sulfate accumulation on the anode can be the\nprimary cause of degradation. These processes are also sensitive to high temperature, where the\nrule of thumb is to reduce battery life by half for every 8°C (14°F) increase in temperature above\nambient.\n94 Manufacturers’ warrantees provide some indication of minimum performance\nexpectations, with service life of three to five years for deep cycle batteries, designed to be mostly\ndischarged time after time. SLI batteries in cars have expected service lives of five to seven years,\nwith up to 30 discharges per year depending on the rate of discharge. Temperature also affects\ncapacity, with a battery at -4°C (25°F) having between roughly 70% and 80% of the capacity of a\nbattery at 24°C (75°F).95\nFor many applications of lead-acid batteries, including SLI and uninterruptible power supply\n(UPS), efficiency of the batteries is relatively unimportant. One estimate for the DC-DC (direct\ncurrent) efficiency of utility-scale lead acid battery is 81%, and AC-AC (alternating current)\nefficiency of 70%-72%.9\n\nHigh Temperature Sodium-Beta\nSodium-beta batteries use molten (liquid) sodium for the anode, with sodium ions transporting the\nelectric charge. The two main types of sodium-beta batteries are distinguished by the type of\ncathode they use. The sodium-sulfur (Na-S) type employs a liquid sulfur cathode, while the sodium-nickel chloride (Na-NiCl2) type employs a solid metal chloride cathode. Both types\ninclude a beta-alumina solid electrolyte material separating the cathode and anode. This ceramic\nmaterial offers ionic conductivity similar to that of typical aqueous electrolytes, but only at high\ntemperature. Consequently, sodium-beta batteries ordinarily must operate at temperatures around\n300°C (572°F).\n97 The impermeability of the solid electrolyte to liquid electrodes and its minimal\nelectrical conductivity eliminates self discharge and allows high efficiency.98\nTechnical challenges associated with sodium-beta battery chemistry generally stem from the high\ntemperature requirements. To maintain a 300°C operating point the battery must have insulation\nand active heating. If it is not maintained at such a temperature, the resulting freeze-thaw cycles\nand thermal expansion can lead to mechanical stresses, damaging seals and other cell\ncomponents, including the electrolyte.\n99 The fragile nature of the electrolyte is also a concern,\nparticularly for Na-S cells. In the event of damage to the solid electrolyte, a breach could allow\nthe two liquid electrodes to mix, possibly causing an explosion and fire.\n100\nNa-S batteries are manufactured commercially for a variety of grid services ranging from shortterm rapid discharge services to long-term energy management services.101 The DC-DC efficiency\nis about 85%. Calculation of the AC-AC efficiency is complicated by the need for additional\nheating. The standby heat loss for each 50 kW module is between 2.2 and 3.4 kW. As a result of\nthis heat loss, plus losses in the power conversion equipment, the AC-AC efficiency for loadleveling services is estimated in the range of 75%-80%.102 Expected service life is 15 years at\n90% DoD and 4500 cycles.103\nThe primary sodium-beta alternative to the Na-S chemistry, the Na-NiCl2 cell (typically called\nthe ZEBRA cell).104 Although ZEBRA batteries have been under development for over 20 years,\nthey are only in the early stages of commercialization.\n105 Nickel chloride cathodes offer several\npotential advantages including higher operating voltage, increased operational temperature range\n(due in part to the lower melting point of the secondary electrolyte), a slightly less corrosive\ncathode, and somewhat safer cell construction, since handling of metallic sodium—which is\npotentially explosive—can be avoided.\n106 They are likely to offer a slightly reduced energy\ndensity.107\n\n\n","full_prompt":"Context: Chapter 4: Batteries for Grid Applications\nOverview\nBatteries are devices that store energy chemically. This report focuses on “secondary” batteries,\nwhich must be charged before use and which can be discharged and recharged (cycled) many\ntimes before the end of their useful life. For electric power grid applications, there are four main\nbattery types of interest:\n Lead-acid\n High temperature “sodium-beta”\n Liquid electrolyte “flow” batteries\n Other emerging chemistries84\nLead-acid batteries have been used for more than a century in grid applications and in\nconventional vehicles for starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI). They continue to be the\ntechnology of choice for vehicle SLI applications due to their low cost. Consequently, they are\nmanufactured on a mass scale. In 2010, approximately 120 million lead-acid batteries were\nshipped in North America alone.85 Lead-acid batteries are commonly used by utilities to serve as\nuninterruptible power supplies in substations, and have been used at utility scale in several\ndemonstration projects to provide grid support.86 Use of lead acid batteries for grid applications is\nlimited by relatively short cycle life. R&D efforts are focused on improved cycle-life, which\ncould result in greater use in utility-scale applications.\nSodium-beta batteries include sodium-sulfur (NaS) units, first developed in the 1960s,87 and\ncommercially available from a single vendor (NGK Insulators, Ltd.) in Japan with over 270 MW\ndeployed worldwide.88 A NaS battery was first deployed in the United States in 2002.\n89 There are\nnow a number of U.S. demonstration projects, including several listed in Table 3. The focus of\nNaS deployments in the United States has been in electric distribution deferral projects, acting to\nreduce peak demand on distribution systems, but they also can serve multiple grid support\nservices. An alternative high-temperature battery, sodium-nickel-chloride, is in the early stages of commercialization.\n\n“Flow” batteries, in which a liquid electrolyte flows through a chemical cell to produce\nelectricity, are in the early stages of commercialization. In grid applications there has been some\ndeployment of two types of flow battery: vanadium redox and zinc-bromide. There are a number\nof international installations of vanadium redox units, including a 250 kW installation in the\nUnited States to relieve a congested transmission line.\n91 There are also a number of zinc-bromine\ndemonstration projects.92 Several other flow battery chemistries have been pursued or are under\ndevelopment, but are less mature.\nIn addition to the three battery types discussed above, there are several emerging technologies\nbased on new battery chemistries which may also have potential in grid applications. Several of\nthese emerging technologies are being supported by DOE efforts such as ARPA-E and are\ndiscussed briefly in the R&D section of this chapter.\n\nTechnology\nDescription and Performance\nLead-Acid\nThe lead-acid battery consists of a lead dioxide positive electrode (cathode), a lead negative\nelectrode (anode), and an aqueous sulfuric acid electrolyte which carries the charge between the\ntwo. During discharge, each electrode is converted to lead sulfate, consuming sulfuric acid from\nthe electrolyte. When recharging, the lead sulfate is converted back to sulfuric acid, leaving a layer of lead dioxide on the cathode and pure lead on the anode. In such conventional “wet”\n(flooded) cells, water in the electrolyte is broken down to hydrogen and oxygen during the\ncharging process. In a vented wet cell design, these gases escape into the atmosphere, requiring\nthe occasional addition of water to the system. In sealed wet cell designs, the loss of these gases is\nprevented and their conversion back to water is possible, reducing maintenance requirements.\nHowever, if the battery is overcharged or charged too quickly, the rate of gas generation can\nsurpass that of water recombination, which can cause an explosion.\nIn “valve regulated gel” designs, silica is added to the electrolyte to cause it to gel. In “absorbed\nglass mat” designs, the electrolyte is suspended in a fiberglass mat. The latter are sometimes\nreferred to as “dry” because the fiberglass mat is not completely saturated with acid and there is\nno excess liquid. Both designs operate under slight constant pressure. Both also eliminate the risk\nof electrolyte leakage and offer improved safety by using valves to regulate internal pressure due\nto gas build up, but at significantly higher cost than wet cells described above.93\nLead-acid is currently the lowest-cost battery chemistry on a dollar-per-kWh basis. However, it\nalso has relatively low specific energy (energy per unit mass) on the order of 35 Wh/kg and\nrelatively poor “cycle life,” which is the number of charge-discharge cycles it can provide before\nits capacity falls too far below a certain percentage (e.g., 80%) of its initial capacity. While the\nlow energy density of lead-acid will likely limit its use in transportation applications, increase in\ncycle life could make lead-acid cost-effective in grid applications.\nThe cycle life of lead-acid batteries is highly dependent on both the rate and depth of discharge\ndue to corrosion and material shedding off of electrode plates inside the battery. High depth of\ndischarge (DoD) operation intensifies both issues. At 100% DoD (discharging the battery\ncompletely) cycle life can be less than 100 full cycles for some lead-acid technologies. During\nhigh rate, partial state-of-charge operation, lead sulfate accumulation on the anode can be the\nprimary cause of degradation. These processes are also sensitive to high temperature, where the\nrule of thumb is to reduce battery life by half for every 8°C (14°F) increase in temperature above\nambient.\n94 Manufacturers’ warrantees provide some indication of minimum performance\nexpectations, with service life of three to five years for deep cycle batteries, designed to be mostly\ndischarged time after time. SLI batteries in cars have expected service lives of five to seven years,\nwith up to 30 discharges per year depending on the rate of discharge. Temperature also affects\ncapacity, with a battery at -4°C (25°F) having between roughly 70% and 80% of the capacity of a\nbattery at 24°C (75°F).95\nFor many applications of lead-acid batteries, including SLI and uninterruptible power supply\n(UPS), efficiency of the batteries is relatively unimportant. One estimate for the DC-DC (direct\ncurrent) efficiency of utility-scale lead acid battery is 81%, and AC-AC (alternating current)\nefficiency of 70%-72%.9\n\nHigh Temperature Sodium-Beta\nSodium-beta batteries use molten (liquid) sodium for the anode, with sodium ions transporting the\nelectric charge. The two main types of sodium-beta batteries are distinguished by the type of\ncathode they use. The sodium-sulfur (Na-S) type employs a liquid sulfur cathode, while the sodium-nickel chloride (Na-NiCl2) type employs a solid metal chloride cathode. Both types\ninclude a beta-alumina solid electrolyte material separating the cathode and anode. This ceramic\nmaterial offers ionic conductivity similar to that of typical aqueous electrolytes, but only at high\ntemperature. Consequently, sodium-beta batteries ordinarily must operate at temperatures around\n300°C (572°F).\n97 The impermeability of the solid electrolyte to liquid electrodes and its minimal\nelectrical conductivity eliminates self discharge and allows high efficiency.98\nTechnical challenges associated with sodium-beta battery chemistry generally stem from the high\ntemperature requirements. To maintain a 300°C operating point the battery must have insulation\nand active heating. If it is not maintained at such a temperature, the resulting freeze-thaw cycles\nand thermal expansion can lead to mechanical stresses, damaging seals and other cell\ncomponents, including the electrolyte.\n99 The fragile nature of the electrolyte is also a concern,\nparticularly for Na-S cells. In the event of damage to the solid electrolyte, a breach could allow\nthe two liquid electrodes to mix, possibly causing an explosion and fire.\n100\nNa-S batteries are manufactured commercially for a variety of grid services ranging from shortterm rapid discharge services to long-term energy management services.101 The DC-DC efficiency\nis about 85%. Calculation of the AC-AC efficiency is complicated by the need for additional\nheating. The standby heat loss for each 50 kW module is between 2.2 and 3.4 kW. As a result of\nthis heat loss, plus losses in the power conversion equipment, the AC-AC efficiency for loadleveling services is estimated in the range of 75%-80%.102 Expected service life is 15 years at\n90% DoD and 4500 cycles.103\nThe primary sodium-beta alternative to the Na-S chemistry, the Na-NiCl2 cell (typically called\nthe ZEBRA cell).104 Although ZEBRA batteries have been under development for over 20 years,\nthey are only in the early stages of commercialization.\n105 Nickel chloride cathodes offer several\npotential advantages including higher operating voltage, increased operational temperature range\n(due in part to the lower melting point of the secondary electrolyte), a slightly less corrosive\ncathode, and somewhat safer cell construction, since handling of metallic sodium—which is\npotentially explosive—can be avoided.\n106 They are likely to offer a slightly reduced energy\ndensity.107\n\n\nQuestion: Which batteries are in the early stages of commercialisation?\n\nSystem instruction: You can only produce an answer using the context provided to you.","domain":"Internet/Technology","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":725}
+{"system_instruction":"use only the context you are provided to answer. include every isp mentioned. use bullet points, then no more than 25 words to explain. focus on direct actions made.","user_request":"what have isps done to transition into edge providers?","context_document":"Examples of ISPs Becoming Edge Providers\nAT&T. AT&T owns part of the internet backbone and is considered a Tier 1 ISP, meaning it has\nfree access to the entire U.S. internet region.10 It is also a mobile carrier and provides voice\nservices and video programming.11 In 2018, AT&T acquired Time Warner, a content creator that\nowns HBO and its affiliated edge provider HBO NOW, as well as other cable channels.12 The\nDOJ unsuccessfully attempted to block the merger.13 AT&T has announced plans to introduce a\nnew edge provider—HBO Max—to stream video programming for no extra charge to AT&T\ncustomers who are also HBO subscribers; other customers will reportedly be charged a\nsubscription fee.14\n10 DrPeering.net. “Who Are the Tier 1 ISPs?” accessed on December 4, 2019, https://drpeering.net/FAQ/Who-are-the-\nTier-1-ISPs.php. Edge providers associated with Tier 1 ISPs may have additional competitive advantages through the\nISPs’ ability to send content to any part of the internet for free. Edge providers associated with other ISPs may have to\npay or barter with Tier 1 or other ISPs to access certain destinations. Details on how Tier 1 ISPs compete with other\nISPs are beyond the scope of this report.\n11 See https://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=7462 for more information on the digital and communications\ninfrastructure owned by AT&T. AT&T has stated that it considers its television subscription service to be a “video\nservice” under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, rather than a cable service. See AT&T Inc., SEC Form\n10-K for the year ending December 31, 2014, p. 3.\n12 Edmund Lee and Cecilia King, “U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger,” New York\nTimes, February 26, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-time-warner-appeal.html.\n13 Ibid; see CRS In Focus IF10526, AT&T-Time Warner Merger Overview, by Dana A. Scherer, for more information\non the merger and the court case.\n14 Helen Coster and Kenneth Li, “Behind AT&T’s Plan to Take on Netflix, Apple, and Disney with HBO Max,”\nCompetition on the Edge of the Internet\nCongressional Research Service 5\nComcast. Comcast is an ISP, a cable television service, and a voice service provider. In 2011,\nComcast became the majority owner of NBCUniversal, which owns television networks and\nbroadcast stations, and thus obtained minority ownership of Hulu, an edge provider that streams\nvideo programming to subscribers.15 In 2019, Walt Disney Company obtained “full operational\ncontrol” of Hulu, but Comcast retained its 33% financial stake.16 Comcast also announced plans\nto launch its own video streaming service, Peacock. Comcast reportedly plans to offer three\nsubscription options for Peacock: a free option supported by ads, a premium version with more\nprogramming for a fee, and the premium version with no ads for a higher fee.17 The premium\nversion is to be offered for free to subscribers of Comcast and Cox Communications.\nVerizon. Verizon owns part of the internet backbone and is considered a Tier 1 ISP.18 It is also a\nmobile carrier, and offers video, voice, and ISP services. In 2015, Verizon acquired AOL, an ISP\nand edge provider, and in 2016, it acquired the core business of Yahoo, an edge provider.19 It\ncombined the edge provider products from these acquisitions—such as Yahoo Finance,\nHuffington Post, TechCrunch, and Engadget—in 2017 to create Oath.20\nExamples of Edge Providers Becoming ISPs\nGoogle. Google is the largest subsidiary of the company Alphabet.21 It offers multiple products,\nincluding a search engine, email server, word processing, video streaming, and\nmapping/navigation system.22 Google generally relies on other ISPs to deliver its content, but\nentered the ISP market in 2010 when it announced Google Fiber. Google Fiber provides\nbroadband internet service and video programming.23 Beginning in 2016, it suspended or ended\nsome of its projects; as of October 2019, it had installed fiber optic cables in 18 cities.24\nReuters, October 25, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-at-t-hbo-max-focus/behind-atts-plan-to-take-on-\nnetflix-apple-and-disney-with-hbo-max-idUSKBN1X4163.\n15 Yinka Adegoke and Dan Levine, “Comcast Completes NBC Universal Merger,” Reuters, January 29, 2011,\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-comcast-nbc/comcast-completes-nbc-universal-merger-\nidUSTRE70S2WZ20110129.\n16 Lauren Feiner, Christine Wang, and Alex Sherman, “Disney to Take Full Control over Hulu, Comcast Has Option to\nSell Its Stake in 5 years,” CNBC, May 14, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/comcast-has-agreed-to-sell-its-\nstake-in-hulu-in-5-years.html.\n17 Gerry Smith, “NBC’s Peacock Bets Viewers Will Watch Ads to Stream for Free,” Bloomberg, January 16, 2020,\nhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/nbc-s-peacock-bets-consumers-will-watch-ads-to-stream-for-\nfree.\n18 DrPeering.net. “Who Are the Tier 1 ISPs?” accessed on December 4, 2019, https://drpeering.net/FAQ/Who-are-the-\nTier-1-ISPs.php.\n19 Verizon, “Mergers & Acquisitions,” accessed on October 28, 2019, https://www.verizon.com/about/timeline-\ncategories/mergers-acquisitions.\n20 Tracey Lien, “Verizon Buys Yahoo for $4.8 Billion, and It’s Giving Yahoo’s Brand Another Chance,” Los Angeles\nTimes, July 25, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-verizon-buys-yahoo-20160725-snap-\nstory.html.\n21 Larry Page, “G Is for Google,” Google Official Blog, August 10, 2015,\nhttps://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-alphabet.html.\n22 Google, “Our Products,” accessed on November 16, 2019, https://about.google/products.\n23 Google, “Think Big with a Gig: Our Experimental Fiber Network,” February 10, 2010,\nhttps://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html.\n24 Jack Nicas, “Google’s High-Speed Web Plans Hit Snags,” Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2016,\nhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-high-speed-web-plans-hit-snags-1471193165; Lauren Feiner, “Google Fiber’s\nHigh-Speed Internet Service Is Leaving Louisville After Ripping up Roads and Leaving Cables Exposed,” CNBC,\nFebruary 7, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/google-fiber-pulls-out-of-louisville.html; Google, “Our Cities,”\nCompetition on the Edge of the Internet\nCongressional Research Service 6\nFacebook. As it attracted more users, Facebook expanded from providing an online platform that\nconnects users to an online platform suitable for various activities, including fundraising,\nmessaging, and commerce. In 2018, a spokesman confirmed that Facebook was pursuing another\nproject, dubbed Athena.25 Athena is an experimental satellite that would beam internet access\nthrough radio signals. If successful, Athena would enable Facebook to become an ISP.\nAmazon. In addition to being a major online retailer, Amazon offers information technology\ninfrastructure services through Amazon Web Services.26 In 2019, Amazon confirmed plans—\ndubbed Project Kuiper—to launch 3,236 satellites into low-Earth orbit to provide broadband\ninternet across the world. If successful, Project Kuiper would enable Amazon to become an ISP.27","full_prompt":"use only the context you are provided to answer. include every isp mentioned. use bullet points, then no more than 25 words to explain. focus on direct actions made.\nwhat have isps done to transition into edge providers?\n\nExamples of ISPs Becoming Edge Providers\nAT&T. AT&T owns part of the internet backbone and is considered a Tier 1 ISP, meaning it has\nfree access to the entire U.S. internet region.10 It is also a mobile carrier and provides voice\nservices and video programming.11 In 2018, AT&T acquired Time Warner, a content creator that\nowns HBO and its affiliated edge provider HBO NOW, as well as other cable channels.12 The\nDOJ unsuccessfully attempted to block the merger.13 AT&T has announced plans to introduce a\nnew edge provider—HBO Max—to stream video programming for no extra charge to AT&T\ncustomers who are also HBO subscribers; other customers will reportedly be charged a\nsubscription fee.14\n10 DrPeering.net. “Who Are the Tier 1 ISPs?” accessed on December 4, 2019, https://drpeering.net/FAQ/Who-are-the-\nTier-1-ISPs.php. Edge providers associated with Tier 1 ISPs may have additional competitive advantages through the\nISPs’ ability to send content to any part of the internet for free. Edge providers associated with other ISPs may have to\npay or barter with Tier 1 or other ISPs to access certain destinations. Details on how Tier 1 ISPs compete with other\nISPs are beyond the scope of this report.\n11 See https://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=7462 for more information on the digital and communications\ninfrastructure owned by AT&T. AT&T has stated that it considers its television subscription service to be a “video\nservice” under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, rather than a cable service. See AT&T Inc., SEC Form\n10-K for the year ending December 31, 2014, p. 3.\n12 Edmund Lee and Cecilia King, “U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger,” New York\nTimes, February 26, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-time-warner-appeal.html.\n13 Ibid; see CRS In Focus IF10526, AT&T-Time Warner Merger Overview, by Dana A. Scherer, for more information\non the merger and the court case.\n14 Helen Coster and Kenneth Li, “Behind AT&T’s Plan to Take on Netflix, Apple, and Disney with HBO Max,”\nCompetition on the Edge of the Internet\nCongressional Research Service 5\nComcast. Comcast is an ISP, a cable television service, and a voice service provider. In 2011,\nComcast became the majority owner of NBCUniversal, which owns television networks and\nbroadcast stations, and thus obtained minority ownership of Hulu, an edge provider that streams\nvideo programming to subscribers.15 In 2019, Walt Disney Company obtained “full operational\ncontrol” of Hulu, but Comcast retained its 33% financial stake.16 Comcast also announced plans\nto launch its own video streaming service, Peacock. Comcast reportedly plans to offer three\nsubscription options for Peacock: a free option supported by ads, a premium version with more\nprogramming for a fee, and the premium version with no ads for a higher fee.17 The premium\nversion is to be offered for free to subscribers of Comcast and Cox Communications.\nVerizon. Verizon owns part of the internet backbone and is considered a Tier 1 ISP.18 It is also a\nmobile carrier, and offers video, voice, and ISP services. In 2015, Verizon acquired AOL, an ISP\nand edge provider, and in 2016, it acquired the core business of Yahoo, an edge provider.19 It\ncombined the edge provider products from these acquisitions—such as Yahoo Finance,\nHuffington Post, TechCrunch, and Engadget—in 2017 to create Oath.20\nExamples of Edge Providers Becoming ISPs\nGoogle. Google is the largest subsidiary of the company Alphabet.21 It offers multiple products,\nincluding a search engine, email server, word processing, video streaming, and\nmapping/navigation system.22 Google generally relies on other ISPs to deliver its content, but\nentered the ISP market in 2010 when it announced Google Fiber. Google Fiber provides\nbroadband internet service and video programming.23 Beginning in 2016, it suspended or ended\nsome of its projects; as of October 2019, it had installed fiber optic cables in 18 cities.24\nReuters, October 25, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-at-t-hbo-max-focus/behind-atts-plan-to-take-on-\nnetflix-apple-and-disney-with-hbo-max-idUSKBN1X4163.\n15 Yinka Adegoke and Dan Levine, “Comcast Completes NBC Universal Merger,” Reuters, January 29, 2011,\nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-comcast-nbc/comcast-completes-nbc-universal-merger-\nidUSTRE70S2WZ20110129.\n16 Lauren Feiner, Christine Wang, and Alex Sherman, “Disney to Take Full Control over Hulu, Comcast Has Option to\nSell Its Stake in 5 years,” CNBC, May 14, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/comcast-has-agreed-to-sell-its-\nstake-in-hulu-in-5-years.html.\n17 Gerry Smith, “NBC’s Peacock Bets Viewers Will Watch Ads to Stream for Free,” Bloomberg, January 16, 2020,\nhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/nbc-s-peacock-bets-consumers-will-watch-ads-to-stream-for-\nfree.\n18 DrPeering.net. “Who Are the Tier 1 ISPs?” accessed on December 4, 2019, https://drpeering.net/FAQ/Who-are-the-\nTier-1-ISPs.php.\n19 Verizon, “Mergers & Acquisitions,” accessed on October 28, 2019, https://www.verizon.com/about/timeline-\ncategories/mergers-acquisitions.\n20 Tracey Lien, “Verizon Buys Yahoo for $4.8 Billion, and It’s Giving Yahoo’s Brand Another Chance,” Los Angeles\nTimes, July 25, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-verizon-buys-yahoo-20160725-snap-\nstory.html.\n21 Larry Page, “G Is for Google,” Google Official Blog, August 10, 2015,\nhttps://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-alphabet.html.\n22 Google, “Our Products,” accessed on November 16, 2019, https://about.google/products.\n23 Google, “Think Big with a Gig: Our Experimental Fiber Network,” February 10, 2010,\nhttps://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html.\n24 Jack Nicas, “Google’s High-Speed Web Plans Hit Snags,” Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2016,\nhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-high-speed-web-plans-hit-snags-1471193165; Lauren Feiner, “Google Fiber’s\nHigh-Speed Internet Service Is Leaving Louisville After Ripping up Roads and Leaving Cables Exposed,” CNBC,\nFebruary 7, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/google-fiber-pulls-out-of-louisville.html; Google, “Our Cities,”\nCompetition on the Edge of the Internet\nCongressional Research Service 6\nFacebook. As it attracted more users, Facebook expanded from providing an online platform that\nconnects users to an online platform suitable for various activities, including fundraising,\nmessaging, and commerce. In 2018, a spokesman confirmed that Facebook was pursuing another\nproject, dubbed Athena.25 Athena is an experimental satellite that would beam internet access\nthrough radio signals. If successful, Athena would enable Facebook to become an ISP.\nAmazon. In addition to being a major online retailer, Amazon offers information technology\ninfrastructure services through Amazon Web Services.26 In 2019, Amazon confirmed plans—\ndubbed Project Kuiper—to launch 3,236 satellites into low-Earth orbit to provide broadband\ninternet across the world. If successful, Project Kuiper would enable Amazon to become an ISP.27","domain":"Internet/Technology","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":780}
+{"system_instruction":"This task requires you to answer questions based solely on the information provided in the prompt. You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.  Give your answer in bullet points with the proper noun and key word bolded, followed by a short explanation with no, unasked for information.","user_request":"What states, mentioned in the text, have enacted some type of prohibition or restriction on price rises during proclaimed emergencies and specifically mention the key word,\"fuel\", by name.","context_document":"State Price-Gouging Laws\nMany states have enacted some type of prohibition or limitation on price increases during\ndeclared emergencies. Generally, these state laws take one of two basic forms. Some states\nprohibit the sale of goods and services at what are deemed to be “unconscionable” or “excessive”\nprices in the area and during the period of a designated emergency. Other states have established a\nmaximum permissible increase in the prices for retail goods during a designated emergency\nperiod. Many statutes of both kinds include an exemption if price increases are the result of\nincreased costs incurred for procuring the goods or services in question.\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 2\nExamples of State Statutes\nProhibitions on “Excessive” or “Unconscionable” Pricing\nOne common way that states address price gouging is to ban prices that are considered to be (for\nexample) “excessive” or “unconscionable,” as defined in the statute or left to the discretion of the\ncourts. These statutes generally bar such increases during designated emergency periods. The\nprocess for emergency designation is also usually defined in the statute. Frequently, the state’s\ngovernor is granted authority to designate an emergency during which the price limitations are in\nplace.\nFor example, the New York statute provides that:\nDuring any abnormal disruption of the market for consumer goods and services vital and\nnecessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers, no party within the chain of\ndistribution of such consumer goods or services or both shall sell or offer to sell any such\ngoods or services or both for an amount which represents an unconscionably excessive\nprice.5\nThe statute defines abnormal disruption of the market as a real or threatened change to the market\n“resulting from stress of weather, convulsion of nature, failure or shortage of electric power or\nother source of energy, strike, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency …\nwhich results in the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor.”6 The statute provides\nonly for criminal liability and leaves the ultimate decision as to whether a price is\n“unconscionably excessive” to prosecutors (for charging purposes) and to the courts, with no\nseparate cause of action created for private parties. As guidance in such cases, the statute notes\nthat if there is a “gross disparity” between the price during the disruption and the price prior to the\ndisruption, or if the price “grossly exceeds” the price at which the same or similar goods are\navailable in the area, such disparity will be considered prima facie evidence that a price is\nunconscionable.7\nSimilarly, Florida’s statute bars “unconscionable pricing” during declared states of emergency.8\nIf\nthe amount being charged represents a “gross disparity” from the average price at which the\nproduct or service was sold in the usual course of business (or available in the “trade area”)\nduring the 30 days immediately prior to a declaration of a state of emergency, it is considered\nprima facie evidence of “unconscionable pricing,” which constitutes an “unlawful act or\npractice.”\n9 However, pricing is not considered unconscionable if the increase is attributable to\nadditional costs incurred by the seller or is the result of national or international market trends.10\nAs with the New York statute, the Florida statute offers guidance, but the question of whether\ncertain prices during an emergency are deemed “unconscionable” is ultimately left to the courts.\nMany state price-gouging laws are triggered only by a declaration of emergency in response to\nlocalized conditions. Thus, they will generally not apply after a declared emergency ends or in\nareas not directly affected by a particular emergency or natural disaster. However, at least two\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 3\nstates have laws prohibiting excessive pricing that impose liability even without a declaration of\nany type of emergency. Maine law prohibits “unjust or unreasonable” profits in the sale,\nexchange, or handling of necessities, defined to include fuel.11 Michigan’s consumer protection\nact simply prohibits “charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which\nsimilar property or services are sold.”\n12\nProhibitions of Price Increases Beyond a Certain Percentage\nIn contrast to a general ban on “excessive” or “unconscionable” pricing, some state statutes leave\nless to the courts’ discretion and instead place limits on price increases of certain goods during\nemergencies.\nFor example, California’s anti-price-gouging statute states that for a period of 30 days following\nthe proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the governor of\nCalifornia or the declaration of a local emergency by the relevant executive officer, it is unlawful\nto sell or offer certain goods and services (including emergency and medical supplies, building\nand transportation materials, fuel, etc.) at a price more than 10% higher than the price of the good\nprior to the proclamation of emergency.13 As a defense, a seller can show that the price increase\nwas directly attributable to additional costs imposed on it by the supplier of the goods or\nadditional costs for the labor and material used to provide the services.14 The prohibition lasts for\n30 days from the date of issuance of the emergency proclamation.15\nWest Virginia has also adopted an anti-price-gouging measure based on caps to percentage\nincreases in price during times of emergency. The West Virginia statute provides that upon a\ndeclaration of a state of emergency by the President of the United States, the governor, or the\nstate legislature, it is unlawful to sell or offer to sell certain critical goods and services “for a price\ngreater than ten percent above the price charged by that person for those goods and services on\nthe tenth day immediately preceding the declaration of emergency.”\n16 West Virginia also provides\nan exception for price increases attributable to increased costs on the seller imposed by the\nsupplier or to added costs of providing the goods or services during the emergency.17\nSome states use language barring “unconscionable” or “excessive” pricing in a manner similar to\nthe state statutes described in the previous section but define these terms with hard caps instead of\nleaving their exact definition to the discretion of the courts. For example, the Alabama statute\nmakes it unlawful for anyone to “impose unconscionable prices for the sale or rental of any\ncommodity or rental facility during the period of a declared state of emergency.”\n18 However, it\nprovides that prima facie evidence of unconscionable pricing exists “if any person, during a state\nof emergency declared pursuant to the powers granted to the Governor, charges a price that\nexceeds, by an amount equal to or in excess of 25%, the average price at which the same or\nsimilar commodity or rental facility was obtainable in the affected area during the last 30 days\n\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 4\nimmediately prior to the declared state of emergency.”\n19 As with most other state price-gouging\nstatutes, the statute does not apply if the price increase is attributable to reasonable costs incurred\nby the seller in connection with the rental or sale of the commodity.20\nA few other states have imposed caps on price increases during emergencies even tighter than the\none imposed by the aforementioned statutes. Some state statutes ban any price increase during\nperiods of emergency. For example, in Georgia, it is considered an “unlawful, unfair and\ndeceptive trade practice” for anyone doing business in an areas where a state of emergency has\nbeen declared to\nsell or offer for sale at retail any goods or services identified by the Governor in the\ndeclaration of the state of emergency necessary to preserve, protect, or sustain the life,\nhealth, or safety of persons or their property at a price higher than the price at which such\ngoods were sold or offered for sale immediately prior to the declaration of a state of\nemergency.21\nAs with other state gouging statutes, the Georgia statute provides an exception for price increases\nthat reflect “an increase in cost of the goods or services to the person selling the goods or services\nor an increase in the cost of transporting the goods or services into the area.”\n\n","full_prompt":"This task requires you to answer questions based solely on the information provided in the prompt. You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.  Give your answer in bullet points with the proper noun and key word bolded, followed by a short explanation with no, unasked for information.\n\nWhat states, mentioned in the text, have enacted some type of prohibition or restriction on price rises during proclaimed emergencies and specifically mention the key word,\"fuel\", by name.\n\nState Price-Gouging Laws\nMany states have enacted some type of prohibition or limitation on price increases during\ndeclared emergencies. Generally, these state laws take one of two basic forms. Some states\nprohibit the sale of goods and services at what are deemed to be “unconscionable” or “excessive”\nprices in the area and during the period of a designated emergency. Other states have established a\nmaximum permissible increase in the prices for retail goods during a designated emergency\nperiod. Many statutes of both kinds include an exemption if price increases are the result of\nincreased costs incurred for procuring the goods or services in question.\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 2\nExamples of State Statutes\nProhibitions on “Excessive” or “Unconscionable” Pricing\nOne common way that states address price gouging is to ban prices that are considered to be (for\nexample) “excessive” or “unconscionable,” as defined in the statute or left to the discretion of the\ncourts. These statutes generally bar such increases during designated emergency periods. The\nprocess for emergency designation is also usually defined in the statute. Frequently, the state’s\ngovernor is granted authority to designate an emergency during which the price limitations are in\nplace.\nFor example, the New York statute provides that:\nDuring any abnormal disruption of the market for consumer goods and services vital and\nnecessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers, no party within the chain of\ndistribution of such consumer goods or services or both shall sell or offer to sell any such\ngoods or services or both for an amount which represents an unconscionably excessive\nprice.5\nThe statute defines abnormal disruption of the market as a real or threatened change to the market\n“resulting from stress of weather, convulsion of nature, failure or shortage of electric power or\nother source of energy, strike, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency …\nwhich results in the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor.”6 The statute provides\nonly for criminal liability and leaves the ultimate decision as to whether a price is\n“unconscionably excessive” to prosecutors (for charging purposes) and to the courts, with no\nseparate cause of action created for private parties. As guidance in such cases, the statute notes\nthat if there is a “gross disparity” between the price during the disruption and the price prior to the\ndisruption, or if the price “grossly exceeds” the price at which the same or similar goods are\navailable in the area, such disparity will be considered prima facie evidence that a price is\nunconscionable.7\nSimilarly, Florida’s statute bars “unconscionable pricing” during declared states of emergency.8\nIf\nthe amount being charged represents a “gross disparity” from the average price at which the\nproduct or service was sold in the usual course of business (or available in the “trade area”)\nduring the 30 days immediately prior to a declaration of a state of emergency, it is considered\nprima facie evidence of “unconscionable pricing,” which constitutes an “unlawful act or\npractice.”\n9 However, pricing is not considered unconscionable if the increase is attributable to\nadditional costs incurred by the seller or is the result of national or international market trends.10\nAs with the New York statute, the Florida statute offers guidance, but the question of whether\ncertain prices during an emergency are deemed “unconscionable” is ultimately left to the courts.\nMany state price-gouging laws are triggered only by a declaration of emergency in response to\nlocalized conditions. Thus, they will generally not apply after a declared emergency ends or in\nareas not directly affected by a particular emergency or natural disaster. However, at least two\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 3\nstates have laws prohibiting excessive pricing that impose liability even without a declaration of\nany type of emergency. Maine law prohibits “unjust or unreasonable” profits in the sale,\nexchange, or handling of necessities, defined to include fuel.11 Michigan’s consumer protection\nact simply prohibits “charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which\nsimilar property or services are sold.”\n12\nProhibitions of Price Increases Beyond a Certain Percentage\nIn contrast to a general ban on “excessive” or “unconscionable” pricing, some state statutes leave\nless to the courts’ discretion and instead place limits on price increases of certain goods during\nemergencies.\nFor example, California’s anti-price-gouging statute states that for a period of 30 days following\nthe proclamation of a state of emergency by the President of the United States or the governor of\nCalifornia or the declaration of a local emergency by the relevant executive officer, it is unlawful\nto sell or offer certain goods and services (including emergency and medical supplies, building\nand transportation materials, fuel, etc.) at a price more than 10% higher than the price of the good\nprior to the proclamation of emergency.13 As a defense, a seller can show that the price increase\nwas directly attributable to additional costs imposed on it by the supplier of the goods or\nadditional costs for the labor and material used to provide the services.14 The prohibition lasts for\n30 days from the date of issuance of the emergency proclamation.15\nWest Virginia has also adopted an anti-price-gouging measure based on caps to percentage\nincreases in price during times of emergency. The West Virginia statute provides that upon a\ndeclaration of a state of emergency by the President of the United States, the governor, or the\nstate legislature, it is unlawful to sell or offer to sell certain critical goods and services “for a price\ngreater than ten percent above the price charged by that person for those goods and services on\nthe tenth day immediately preceding the declaration of emergency.”\n16 West Virginia also provides\nan exception for price increases attributable to increased costs on the seller imposed by the\nsupplier or to added costs of providing the goods or services during the emergency.17\nSome states use language barring “unconscionable” or “excessive” pricing in a manner similar to\nthe state statutes described in the previous section but define these terms with hard caps instead of\nleaving their exact definition to the discretion of the courts. For example, the Alabama statute\nmakes it unlawful for anyone to “impose unconscionable prices for the sale or rental of any\ncommodity or rental facility during the period of a declared state of emergency.”\n18 However, it\nprovides that prima facie evidence of unconscionable pricing exists “if any person, during a state\nof emergency declared pursuant to the powers granted to the Governor, charges a price that\nexceeds, by an amount equal to or in excess of 25%, the average price at which the same or\nsimilar commodity or rental facility was obtainable in the affected area during the last 30 days\n\n\nGasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit “Price Gouging”\nCongressional Research Service 4\nimmediately prior to the declared state of emergency.”\n19 As with most other state price-gouging\nstatutes, the statute does not apply if the price increase is attributable to reasonable costs incurred\nby the seller in connection with the rental or sale of the commodity.20\nA few other states have imposed caps on price increases during emergencies even tighter than the\none imposed by the aforementioned statutes. Some state statutes ban any price increase during\nperiods of emergency. For example, in Georgia, it is considered an “unlawful, unfair and\ndeceptive trade practice” for anyone doing business in an areas where a state of emergency has\nbeen declared to\nsell or offer for sale at retail any goods or services identified by the Governor in the\ndeclaration of the state of emergency necessary to preserve, protect, or sustain the life,\nhealth, or safety of persons or their property at a price higher than the price at which such\ngoods were sold or offered for sale immediately prior to the declaration of a state of\nemergency.21\nAs with other state gouging statutes, the Georgia statute provides an exception for price increases\nthat reflect “an increase in cost of the goods or services to the person selling the goods or services\nor an increase in the cost of transporting the goods or services into the area.”\n\n","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":795}
+{"system_instruction":"Formulate your answer using only the provided text; do not draw from any outside sources.","user_request":"What is HR 4319?","context_document":"Background on the 2024 Farmworker Protection Rule\nDOL indicates that the purpose of the Farmworker Protection Rule is to strengthen “protections for\nagricultural workers,” enhance the agency’s “capabilities to monitor H-2A program compliance and take\nnecessary enforcement actions against program violators,” and ensure that “hiring H-2A workers does not\nadversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers” in the United States.\nThe rule amends existing regulations and includes provisions that encompass six areas: (1) “protections\nfor worker voice and empowerment,” (2) “clarification of termination for cause,” (3) “immediate effective\ndate for updated adverse effect wage rate,” (4) “enhanced transparency for job opportunity and foreign\nlabor recruitment,” (5) “enhanced transparency and protections for agricultural workers,” and (6)\n“enhanced integrity and enforcement capabilities.”\nIn the pending litigation, the first set of provisions, i.e., “protections for worker voice and empowerment”\nis most relevant. This set revises 20 C.F.R. § 655.135(h) and adds two new subsections, (m) and (n). DOL\nhas stated that these provisions aim to protect H-2A workers by “explicitly protecting certain activities all\nworkers must be able to engage in without fear of intimidation, threats, and other forms of retaliation”;\nsafeguarding “collective action and concerted activity for mutual aid and protection”; allowing workers to\ndecline to listen to “employer speech regarding protected activities without fear of retaliation”; permitting\nworkers to “designate a representative of their choosing in certain interviews”; and authorizing workers to\n“invite or accept guests to worker housing.” The rule states that it “does not require employers to\nrecognize labor organizations or to engage in any collective bargaining activities such as those that may\nbe required by the [National Labor Relations Act].” The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a law\nthat gives collective bargaining rights to workers who qualify as “employees” under the definition in the\nstatute. The NLRA explicitly excludes agricultural workers from the definition of “employee.”\nKansas v. U.S. Department of Labor\nOn June 10, 2024, Kansas and 16 other states, a trade association of growers, and a private farm filed a\ncomplaint against DOL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, arguing, among\nother things, that the Farmworker Protection Rule violates the NLRA because it gives H-2A agricultural\nworkers collective bargaining rights when the NLRA explicitly excludes agricultural workers from having\nthose rights. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary\nrestraining order seeking a stay of the effective date of the Farmworker Protection Rule or, in the\nalternative, a temporary restraining order until the court grants an injunction. The court held a hearing on\nthe motion on August 2, 2024, and on August 26, 2024, the federal district court judge granted the\nplaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.\nPlaintiffs’ Arguments\nThe arguments below were raised in the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. This Sidebar does\nnot cover every argument the plaintiffs advanced.\nThe Rule Violates the NLRA\nThe plaintiffs argued that the rule is not in accordance with existing law and that DOL is providing\ncollective bargaining protection to H-2A workers. According to the plaintiffs, parts of the rule are almost\na direct copy of certain provisions in the NLRA, such as those regarding unfair labor practices and\nrepresentatives and elections. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the rule does not expressly declare that H2A workers have a right to unionize and collectively bargain, but they claim that the protections conferred\nby the rule effectively confer such rights in contravention of the NLRA.\nThe Rule Exceeds DOL’s Authority Under the INA\nThe plaintiffs also argued that DOL has very limited authority to issue regulations under 8 U.S.C. § 1188.\nSpecifically, the plaintiffs state that Section 1188(a), which is the part of the statute DOL relied on to\npromulgate the rule, is being misinterpreted by the agency. According to the plaintiffs, DOL is supposed\nto neutralize any adverse effects from an influx of H-2A workers and not necessarily take affirmative\nsteps to improve the working conditions for H-2A workers. In addition, according to the plaintiffs,\nSection 1188(a) does not explicitly give DOL rulemaking authority.\nThe plaintiffs filed this lawsuit before the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v.\nRaimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine directed courts to defer to an\nagency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes the agency administers. The plaintiffs argued\nthat because Congress’s intent was clear in 8 U.S.C. § 1188, DOL was not entitled to Chevron deference.\nRelatedly, the plaintiffs pointed out that DOL relies on caselaw that existed before the Supreme Court\noverruled the Chevron doctrine rather than on the statute itself.\nDOL’s Arguments\nThe arguments below were raised in DOL’s response to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.\nThis Sidebar does not cover every argument DOL advanced.\nThe Rule Does Not Violate the NLRA\nIn summary, DOL argued that the rule does not require employers to recognize unions or engage in\ncollective bargaining and is therefore not in violation of the NLRA. According to DOL, the rule expands\non existing H-2A anti-discrimination provisions, and individuals who fall outside the NLRA’s definition\nof “employee” can still be protected by other statutes and regulations. DOL states that the rule does just\nthat by granting protections to those not covered by the NLRA. Finally, DOL argues that the rule and the\nNLRA do not conflict with one another.\nThe Rule Is a Proper Exercise of DOL’s Statutory Obligation\nDOL responded to the plaintiffs’ argument that the rule exceeded its authority by stating that the INA\ngrants it rulemaking authority. DOL pointed out that provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1188 expressly reference\nDOL regulations and that Congress authorized it to implement the mission of the statute through\nregulation. Further, DOL argued that H-2A workers will become more attractive to U.S. employers if they\nreceive fewer protections than U.S. workers and that this in turn will “adversely affect” U.S. workers. The\ngoal of the rule, according to DOL, is to place H-2A workers on similar footing as U.S. workers to prevent an adverse effect in the long run. Lastly, DOL maintained that it has historically understood the\n“adverse effect” requirement “as requiring parity between the terms and conditions of employment\nprovided to H-2A workers ... and as establishing a baseline ‘acceptable’ standard for working conditions\nbelow which [U.S. workers] would be adversely affected.”\nDOL filed its response after the Supreme Court announced the overruling of Chevron in Loper Bright\nEnterprises. Citing Loper Bright Enterprises in a footnote, DOL argued that the best reading of Section\n1188 was that Congress had delegated to DOL broad, discretionary authority to take action to prevent\nadverse effects to workers in the United States. The agency claimed that the rule is an appropriate\nexercise of this discretionary authority, including because the rule “ensures that agricultural employers\ncannot use the H-2A workforce to undermine workers in the United States who seek better wages and\nworking conditions.”","full_prompt":"Formulate your answer using only the provided text; do not draw from any outside sources.\n\nProvided text:\nThe Court’s Order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction\nOn August 26, 2024, a federal district court judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary\ninjunction. The judge found that the plaintiffs met their burden to show that they were entitled to\npreliminary relief. First, the judge held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their\ncase. The judge initially determined that the rule falls within DOL’s rulemaking authority under 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1188 but found that the rule conflicts with the NLRA. Specifically, the judge stated that DOL had “not\nshown a consequential difference between the rights protected by the [rule] and those given to\nnonagricultural workers by the NLRA,” that the rule “creates a right not previously bestowed by\nCongress,” and that DOL failed to show that Congress intended to give agricultural workers a right to\nparticipate in collective bargaining. The judge further found that just because DOL has rulemaking\nauthority does not mean it can “create law or protect newly-created rights of agricultural workers.”\nTherefore, the court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The judge\nfurther held that the plaintiffs met their burden with regard to the other factors needed to support a\npreliminary injunction.\nThe judge also found that, although the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary relief, that relief should be\nnarrowly tailored and party-specific. According to the court, nationwide relief is generally disfavored, as\n“national uniformity is not a proper consideration,” and a nationwide injunction in this case is\nunwarranted. The judge determined that the court is able to provide a tailored preliminary injunction that\naddresses the plaintiffs’ harms and can offer relief “without issuing a nationwide injunction.” DOL filed a\nmotion for reconsideration of the scope of the judge’s order, but the motion was denied.\nConsiderations for Congress\nMembers of Congress have taken differing views on the Farmworker Protection Rule. Before the rule was\nfinalized, several Members of Congress wrote a letter in November 2023 to Acting DOL Secretary Su and\nDHS Secretary Mayorkas in support of the rule, stating that the rule represents an opportunity to improve\nworking conditions for H-2A workers and “improve enforcement capabilities of agencies against abusive\nemployers.” Following the rule’s publication in April 2024, Representative Scott Franklin introduced a\nresolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to rescind the rule, H.J. Res. 135. This\nresolution would prohibit DOL from any future similar rulemaking. He and the co-sponsors maintain that\nthe rule will increase costs for agricultural producers and allow H-2A workers to unionize.\nThere are other options if Congress chooses to respond to DOL’s Farmworker Protection Rule. First,\nCongress may consider amending the NLRA’s definition of “employee” to include agricultural workers,\nthereby allowing H-2A agricultural workers to receive collective bargaining rights. Alternatively,\nCongress could amend the NLRA and other laws to authorize or prohibit different labor requirements\ncontained in the Farmworker Protection Rule that are not expressly addressed under existing statutes.\nCongress could also consider making changes to the H-2A visa program itself. For example, the\nAffordable and Secure Food Act (S. 4069) in the 118th Congress would, among other things, reform the\nH-2A visa program by adding worker protections and by providing visas for year-round jobs. A similar\nbill, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2023 (H.R. 4319), has been introduced in the House\nduring this Congress. Earlier versions of this bill introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses passed the\nHouse.\n\nWhat is HR 4319?","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":798}
+{"system_instruction":"In a 3-5 sentence paragraph based solely on the provided context block, answer the user's question. Outside knowledge is strictly prohibited.","user_request":"What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of this acquisition?","context_document":" Contact: Corporate Communications, USJ Co.\n 81-6-6465-3333\nUS MEDIA GIANT, COMCAST NBCUNIVERSAL\nTO PURCHASE 51% OWNERSHIP OF USJ CO., LTD.\nOSAKA (Sept. 28, 2015) – USJ Co., Ltd., the operating company of Universal Studios Japan, announced today that\nComcast NBCUniversal agreed to purchase 51% of ownership of USJ from the current shareholders. This acquisition\nwill show the strong commitment of Comcast NBCUniversal to grow and evolve Universal Studios Japan and as we\nwork with NBCUniversal and its Universal Parks & Resorts division, the entire group’s global strategy in theme park\nbusiness will accelerate.\nAlso today, Glenn Gumpel, who served as Chief Executive Officer of USJ since 2004, announced to step down from\nthe current position effective when the transaction closes. Universal Parks & Resorts has named Jean-Louis Bonnier\nas the new Chief Executive Officer.\nGlenn Gumpel said, “Universal Studios Japan will continue to progress along with its basic policies such as the\nsuccessful marketing strategy which has boosted the attendance these recent years and look forward to even further\ngrowth utilizing a financial strength and a great platform Comcast NBCUniversal will give.”\nAbout Universal Studios Japan\nBring You the Best of the Worldas a theme park where its guests can have the world’s best experiences and create\nthe world’s best memories, Universal Studios Japan offers the world-class entertainment such as authentic attractions\nand shows, based on not only Hollywood blockbusters but also very popular world class entertainment brands, and a\nvariety of seasonal events entertain its guests to the fullest fun.\nIn recent years, Universal Studios Japan has constantly offered new entertainment one after another such as\nUniversal Wonederland area where family guests enjoy meeting with popular characters, Universal Cool Japan event\noffering attractions themed on world-renowned Japanese entertainment brands, and The Wizarding World of Harry\nPotter which has been gathering attention of both domestic and international guests. These efforts resulted in not only\na record-high attendance made in FY 2014 but also positioning of the Park as a prominent entertainment and leisure\nlandmark drawing much greater number of guests from distant areas in Japan as well as overseas.\nAbout Comcast:\nComcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) is a global media and technology company with two primary\nbusinesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast Cable is one of the nation's largest video, high-speed Internet\nand phone providers to residential customers under the XFINITY brand and also provides these services to businesses.\nAbout NBCUniversal:\nNBCUniversal owns and operates a valuable portfolio of news and entertainment television networks, a premier motion \npicture company, significant television production operations, a leading television stations group, world-renowned\ntheme parks, and a suite of leading Internet-based businesses. NBCUniversal is a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation.\nAbout Universal Parks & Resorts:\nUniversal Parks & Resorts, a unit of Comcast NBCUniversal, offers guests around the globe today’s most relevant and\npopular entertainment experiences. With three-time Academy Award winner Steven Spielberg as creative consultant, its\ntheme parks are known for immersive experiences that feature some of the world’s most thrilling and technologically\nadvanced film- and television-based attractions.\nComcast NBCUniversal wholly owns Universal Studios Hollywood, which includes Universal CityWalk Hollywood. It\nalso owns Universal Orlando Resort, a world-class destination resort featuring two theme parks (Universal Studios\nFlorida and Universal’s Islands of Adventure), four resort hotels, and Universal CityWalk Orlando. Comcast\nNBCUniversal also has license agreements with Universal Studios Japan in Osaka, Japan and Universal Studios\nSingapore at Resorts World Sentosa, Singapore. In addition, Comcast NBCUniversal has recently announced plans for a\ntheme park in Beijing and an indoor theme park to be developed as part of the Galactica Park project in Moscow.\n＊ ＊ ＊\nUniversal Studios Japan aims for the world’s best entertainment, a place where memories that lasts a lifetime are\nmade.\nPlease call the information center （Tel : 0570-20-0606） for any general information in regards to Universal\nStudios Japan. The Official Universal Studios Japan website can be accessed via computer, cell phone and smart\nphone.\n＊ ＊ ＊","full_prompt":"Context Block: Contact: Corporate Communications, USJ Co.\n 81-6-6465-3333\nUS MEDIA GIANT, COMCAST NBCUNIVERSAL\nTO PURCHASE 51% OWNERSHIP OF USJ CO., LTD.\nOSAKA (Sept. 28, 2015) – USJ Co., Ltd., the operating company of Universal Studios Japan, announced today that\nComcast NBCUniversal agreed to purchase 51% of ownership of USJ from the current shareholders. This acquisition\nwill show the strong commitment of Comcast NBCUniversal to grow and evolve Universal Studios Japan and as we\nwork with NBCUniversal and its Universal Parks & Resorts division, the entire group’s global strategy in theme park\nbusiness will accelerate.\nAlso today, Glenn Gumpel, who served as Chief Executive Officer of USJ since 2004, announced to step down from\nthe current position effective when the transaction closes. Universal Parks & Resorts has named Jean-Louis Bonnier\nas the new Chief Executive Officer.\nGlenn Gumpel said, “Universal Studios Japan will continue to progress along with its basic policies such as the\nsuccessful marketing strategy which has boosted the attendance these recent years and look forward to even further\ngrowth utilizing a financial strength and a great platform Comcast NBCUniversal will give.”\nAbout Universal Studios Japan\nBring You the Best of the Worldas a theme park where its guests can have the world’s best experiences and create\nthe world’s best memories, Universal Studios Japan offers the world-class entertainment such as authentic attractions\nand shows, based on not only Hollywood blockbusters but also very popular world class entertainment brands, and a\nvariety of seasonal events entertain its guests to the fullest fun.\nIn recent years, Universal Studios Japan has constantly offered new entertainment one after another such as\nUniversal Wonederland area where family guests enjoy meeting with popular characters, Universal Cool Japan event\noffering attractions themed on world-renowned Japanese entertainment brands, and The Wizarding World of Harry\nPotter which has been gathering attention of both domestic and international guests. These efforts resulted in not only\na record-high attendance made in FY 2014 but also positioning of the Park as a prominent entertainment and leisure\nlandmark drawing much greater number of guests from distant areas in Japan as well as overseas.\nAbout Comcast:\nComcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) is a global media and technology company with two primary\nbusinesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast Cable is one of the nation's largest video, high-speed Internet\nand phone providers to residential customers under the XFINITY brand and also provides these services to businesses.\nAbout NBCUniversal:\nNBCUniversal owns and operates a valuable portfolio of news and entertainment television networks, a premier motion \npicture company, significant television production operations, a leading television stations group, world-renowned\ntheme parks, and a suite of leading Internet-based businesses. NBCUniversal is a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation.\nAbout Universal Parks & Resorts:\nUniversal Parks & Resorts, a unit of Comcast NBCUniversal, offers guests around the globe today’s most relevant and\npopular entertainment experiences. With three-time Academy Award winner Steven Spielberg as creative consultant, its\ntheme parks are known for immersive experiences that feature some of the world’s most thrilling and technologically\nadvanced film- and television-based attractions.\nComcast NBCUniversal wholly owns Universal Studios Hollywood, which includes Universal CityWalk Hollywood. It\nalso owns Universal Orlando Resort, a world-class destination resort featuring two theme parks (Universal Studios\nFlorida and Universal’s Islands of Adventure), four resort hotels, and Universal CityWalk Orlando. Comcast\nNBCUniversal also has license agreements with Universal Studios Japan in Osaka, Japan and Universal Studios\nSingapore at Resorts World Sentosa, Singapore. In addition, Comcast NBCUniversal has recently announced plans for a\ntheme park in Beijing and an indoor theme park to be developed as part of the Galactica Park project in Moscow.\n＊ ＊ ＊\nUniversal Studios Japan aims for the world’s best entertainment, a place where memories that lasts a lifetime are\nmade.\nPlease call the information center （Tel : 0570-20-0606） for any general information in regards to Universal\nStudios Japan. The Official Universal Studios Japan website can be accessed via computer, cell phone and smart\nphone.\n＊ ＊ ＊\n\nSystem Instructions: In a 3-5 sentence paragraph based solely on the provided context block, answer the user's question. Outside knowledge is strictly prohibited.\n\nQuestion: Can you explain the relationship between all the companies mentioned here in simple terms, including subsidiaries, etc.?","domain":"Financial","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":815}
+{"system_instruction":"Provide a concise answer (less than 100 words), using only the information provided below.","user_request":"In the context of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, what makes something a gender-specific offence?","context_document":"3 Evidence\n(1) An application under section 1(1)(a) must include either—\n(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner practising in the\nfield of gender dysphoria and a report made by another registered\nmedical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field), or\n(b) a report made by a chartered psychologist practising in that field and a\nreport made by a registered medical practitioner (who may, but need\nnot, practise in that field).\n(2) But subsection (1) is not complied with unless a report required by that\nsubsection and made by—\n(a) a registered medical practitioner, or\n(b) a chartered psychologist,\npractising in the field of gender dysphoria includes details of the diagnosis of\nthe applicant’s gender dysphoria.\n(3) And subsection (1) is not complied with in a case where—\n(a) the applicant has undergone or is undergoing treatment for the\npurpose of modifying sexual characteristics, or\n(b) treatment for that purpose has been prescribed or planned for the\napplicant,\nunless at least one of the reports required by that subsection includes details of\nit.\n(4) An application under section 1(1)(a) must also include a statutory declaration\nby the applicant that the applicant meets the conditions in section 2(1)(b) and\n(c).\n(5) An application under section 1(1)(b) must include evidence that the applicant\nhas changed gender under the law of an approved country or territory.\nGender Recognition Act 2004 (c. 7) 3\n(6) Any application under section 1(1) must include—\n(a) a statutory declaration as to whether or not the applicant is married,\n(b) any other information or evidence required by an order made by the\nSecretary of State, and\n(c) any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to\ndetermine the application may require,\nand may include any other information or evidence which the applicant wishes\nto include.\n(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (6)(b) without\nconsulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel\nin Northern Ireland.\n(8) If the Panel which is to determine the application requires inform","full_prompt":"What evidence is required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK?\n\nProvide a concise answer (less than 100 words), using only the information provided below.\n\n\"3 Evidence\n(1) An application under section 1(1)(a) must include either—\n(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner practising in the\nfield of gender dysphoria and a report made by another registered\nmedical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field), or\n(b) a report made by a chartered psychologist practising in that field and a\nreport made by a registered medical practitioner (who may, but need\nnot, practise in that field).\n(2) But subsection (1) is not complied with unless a report required by that\nsubsection and made by—\n(a) a registered medical practitioner, or\n(b) a chartered psychologist,\npractising in the field of gender dysphoria includes details of the diagnosis of\nthe applicant’s gender dysphoria.\n(3) And subsection (1) is not complied with in a case where—\n(a) the applicant has undergone or is undergoing treatment for the\npurpose of modifying sexual characteristics, or\n(b) treatment for that purpose has been prescribed or planned for the\napplicant,\nunless at least one of the reports required by that subsection includes details of\nit.\n(4) An application under section 1(1)(a) must also include a statutory declaration\nby the applicant that the applicant meets the conditions in section 2(1)(b) and\n(c).\n(5) An application under section 1(1)(b) must include evidence that the applicant\nhas changed gender under the law of an approved country or territory.\nGender Recognition Act 2004 (c. 7) 3\n(6) Any application under section 1(1) must include—\n(a) a statutory declaration as to whether or not the applicant is married,\n(b) any other information or evidence required by an order made by the\nSecretary of State, and\n(c) any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to\ndetermine the application may require,\nand may include any other information or evidence which the applicant wishes\nto include.\n(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (6)(b) without\nconsulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel\nin Northern Ireland.\n(8) If the Panel which is to determine the application requires inform\"","domain":"Legal","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":822}
+{"system_instruction":"Respond to questions or requests using only the information contained in the text that is provided to you.","user_request":"Summarize and list the cases used to support the policy in this document in chronological order.","context_document":"Attorney Fees The Freedom of Information Act is one of more than a hundred different federal statutes that contain a \"fee-shifting\" provision permitting the trial court to award reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs to a plaintiff who has \"substantially prevailed.\"1 The FOIA's attorney fees provision requires courts to engage in a two-step substantive inquiry. The court must determine first if the plaintiff is eligible for an award of fees and/or costs and it must then determine if the plaintiff is entitled to the award.2 Even if a plaintiff meets both of these tests, the award of fees and costs is entirely within the discretion of the court.3 Threshold Issues The FOIA's attorney fees provision limits an award to fees and costs incurred in litigating a case brought pursuant to the FOIA;4 accordingly, fees and other costs are generally 1 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i) (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524. 2 See, e.g., Tax Analysts v. DOJ, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Church of Scientology v. USPS, 700 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Wheeler v. IRS, 37 F. Supp. 2d 407, 411 n.1 (W.D. Pa. 1998) (\"The test for whether the court should award a FOIA plaintiff litigation costs is the same as the test for whether attorney fees should be awarded.\"). 3 See, e.g., Lissner v. U.S. Customs Serv., 56 F. App'x 330, 331 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that review of attorney fee award is for abuse of discretion); Anderson v. HHS, 80 F.3d 1500, 1504 (10th Cir. 1996) (\"Assessment of attorney's fees in an FOIA case is discretionary with the district court.\"); Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. DOJ, 73 F.3d 93, 98 (6th Cir. 1996) (\"We review the court's determination [to grant fees] for an abuse of discretion.\"); Young v. Dir., No. 92-2561, 1993 WL 305970, at *2 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that court has discretion to deny fees even if eligibility threshold is met); Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 567 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that a decision on whether to award attorney fees \"will be reversed only for an abuse of . . . discretion\"); Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1094 (\"sifting of those [fee] criteria over the facts of a case is a matter of district court discretion\"); Hersh & Hersh v. HHS, No. 06-4234, 2008 WL 2725497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2008) (\"If a plaintiff demonstrates eligibility for fees, the district court may then, in the exercise of its discretion, determine that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of fees and costs.\"); Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 903 F. Supp. 160, 170 (D. Me. 1995) (\"Awards of litigation costs and attorney fees under FOIA are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.\"). 4 See Nichols v. Pierce, 740 F.2d 1249, 1252-54 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (refusing to award fees for (continued...) not awarded for services rendered at the administrative level.5 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that FOIA litigation costs related to disputes with third parties, \"who are not within the government's authority or control, with respect to litigation issues that were neither raised nor pursued by the government, cannot form the basis of a fee award under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).\"6 A threshold eligibility matter concerns precisely who can qualify for an award of attorney fees. The D.C. Circuit has found that the Supreme Court's decision in Kay v. Ehrler7 establishes that subsection (a)(4)(E)(i) of the FOIA does not authorize the award of fees to a pro se non-attorney plaintiff, because \"the word 'attorney,' when used in the context of a feeshifting statute, does not encompass a layperson proceeding on his own behalf.\"8 In order to 4 (...continued) plaintiff's success under Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2006), resulting in order to agency to issue regulations, despite plaintiff's claim of victory under FOIA subsection (a)(1)), because Complaint failed to assert claim under or rely specifically on FOIA). 5 See AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Customs Serv., No. 02-72369, slip op. at 3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2004) (denying attorney fees for time spent on \"administrative appeals that should have been completed prior to filing suit\"); Inst. for Wildlife Prot. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 02-6178, slip op. at 6 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2003) (deducting hours spent on FOIA administrative process for fee-calculation purposes); Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides v. Browner, 965 F. Supp. 59, 65 (D.D.C. 1997) (\"FOIA does not authorize fees for work performed at the administrative stage.\"); Associated Gen. Contractors v. EPA, 488 F. Supp. 861, 864 (D. Nev. 1980) (concluding that attorney fees are unavailable for work performed at administrative level); cf. Kennedy v. Andrus, 459 F. Supp. 240, 244 (D.D.C. 1978) (rejecting attorney fees claim for services rendered at administrative level under Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2006)), aff'd, 612 F.2d 586 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (unpublished table decision). But see Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1101 (D. Or. 2006) (awarding fees for work performed at the administrative level, on the rationale that \"exhaustion of remedies is required and provides a sufficient record for the civil action\") (appeal pending); McCoy v. BOP, No. 03-383, 2005 WL 1972600, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 16, 2005) (permitting fees for work on plaintiff's administrative appeal, on the rationale that it \"was necessary to exhaust administrative remedies\"), reconsideration denied, No. 03-383 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2005); cf. Tule River Conservancy v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 97-5720, slip op. at 16-17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2000) (allowing attorney fees for pre-litigation research on \"how to exhaust [plaintiff's] administration remedies prior to filing suit\" and on \"how to file FOIA complaint\"). 6 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363, 373 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 7 499 U.S. 432 (1991). 8 Benavides v. BOP, 993 F.2d 257, 259 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (explaining Kay decision); see Bensman v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 49 F. App'x 646, 647 (7th Cir. 2002) (\"Even when a pro se litigant performs the same tasks as an attorney, he is not entitled to reimbursement for his time.\"); Sukup v. EOUSA, No. 02-0355, 2007 WL 2405716, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2007) (\"Pro se plaintiffs may not recover attorney's fees under the FOIA.\"); Deichman v. United States, No. 2:05cv680, 2006 WL 3000448, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2006) (holding that pro see litigant cannot (continued...) be eligible for attorney fees, therefore, a FOIA plaintiff must have a representational relationship with an attorney.9 Furthermore, Kay indicated that no award of attorney fees should be made to a pro se plaintiff who also is an attorney. 10 Because the fee-shifting provision of the FOIA was intended \"'to encourage potential claimants to seek legal advice before commencing litigation,'\"11 and because a pro se attorney, by definition, does not seek out the \"'detached and objective perspective necessary'\" to litigate his FOIA case,12 the overwhelming majority of courts have agreed with Kay and have held that a pro se attorney is not eligible for a fee award that otherwise would have had to be paid to counsel.13 This is particularly so because 8 (...continued) recover attorney fees under FOIA); Lair v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 03-827, 2005 WL 645228, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2005) (explaining that \"pro-se non-attorney . . . may not collect attorney fees\" (citing Benavides)), reconsideration denied, 2005 WL 1330722 (D.D.C. June 3, 2005). 9 See Kooritzky v. Herman, 178 F.3d 1315, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that for all similarly worded fee-shifting statutes, \"the term 'attorney' contemplates an agency relationship between a litigant and an independent lawyer\"); see also Blazy v. Tenet, 194 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (concluding that attorney need not file formal appearance in order for litigant to claim fees for consultations, so long as attorney-client relationship existed) (Privacy Act case); cf. Anderson v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 648 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (indicating that when an organization litigates through in-house counsel, any payable attorney fees should not \"exceed[] the expenses incurred by [that party] in terms of [in-house counsel] salaries and other out-of-pocket expenses\"). ","full_prompt":"Respond to questions or requests using only the information contained in the text that is provided to you.\n\nSummarize and list the cases used to support the policy in this document in chronological order.\n\nAttorney Fees The Freedom of Information Act is one of more than a hundred different federal statutes that contain a \"fee-shifting\" provision permitting the trial court to award reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs to a plaintiff who has \"substantially prevailed.\"1 The FOIA's attorney fees provision requires courts to engage in a two-step substantive inquiry. The court must determine first if the plaintiff is eligible for an award of fees and/or costs and it must then determine if the plaintiff is entitled to the award.2 Even if a plaintiff meets both of these tests, the award of fees and costs is entirely within the discretion of the court.3 Threshold Issues The FOIA's attorney fees provision limits an award to fees and costs incurred in litigating a case brought pursuant to the FOIA;4 accordingly, fees and other costs are generally 1 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i) (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524. 2 See, e.g., Tax Analysts v. DOJ, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Church of Scientology v. USPS, 700 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Wheeler v. IRS, 37 F. Supp. 2d 407, 411 n.1 (W.D. Pa. 1998) (\"The test for whether the court should award a FOIA plaintiff litigation costs is the same as the test for whether attorney fees should be awarded.\"). 3 See, e.g., Lissner v. U.S. Customs Serv., 56 F. App'x 330, 331 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that review of attorney fee award is for abuse of discretion); Anderson v. HHS, 80 F.3d 1500, 1504 (10th Cir. 1996) (\"Assessment of attorney's fees in an FOIA case is discretionary with the district court.\"); Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. DOJ, 73 F.3d 93, 98 (6th Cir. 1996) (\"We review the court's determination [to grant fees] for an abuse of discretion.\"); Young v. Dir., No. 92-2561, 1993 WL 305970, at *2 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that court has discretion to deny fees even if eligibility threshold is met); Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 567 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that a decision on whether to award attorney fees \"will be reversed only for an abuse of . . . discretion\"); Tax Analysts, 965 F.2d at 1094 (\"sifting of those [fee] criteria over the facts of a case is a matter of district court discretion\"); Hersh & Hersh v. HHS, No. 06-4234, 2008 WL 2725497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2008) (\"If a plaintiff demonstrates eligibility for fees, the district court may then, in the exercise of its discretion, determine that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of fees and costs.\"); Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 903 F. Supp. 160, 170 (D. Me. 1995) (\"Awards of litigation costs and attorney fees under FOIA are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.\"). 4 See Nichols v. Pierce, 740 F.2d 1249, 1252-54 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (refusing to award fees for (continued...) not awarded for services rendered at the administrative level.5 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that FOIA litigation costs related to disputes with third parties, \"who are not within the government's authority or control, with respect to litigation issues that were neither raised nor pursued by the government, cannot form the basis of a fee award under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).\"6 A threshold eligibility matter concerns precisely who can qualify for an award of attorney fees. The D.C. Circuit has found that the Supreme Court's decision in Kay v. Ehrler7 establishes that subsection (a)(4)(E)(i) of the FOIA does not authorize the award of fees to a pro se non-attorney plaintiff, because \"the word 'attorney,' when used in the context of a feeshifting statute, does not encompass a layperson proceeding on his own behalf.\"8 In order to 4 (...continued) plaintiff's success under Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2006), resulting in order to agency to issue regulations, despite plaintiff's claim of victory under FOIA subsection (a)(1)), because Complaint failed to assert claim under or rely specifically on FOIA). 5 See AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Customs Serv., No. 02-72369, slip op. at 3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2004) (denying attorney fees for time spent on \"administrative appeals that should have been completed prior to filing suit\"); Inst. for Wildlife Prot. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 02-6178, slip op. at 6 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2003) (deducting hours spent on FOIA administrative process for fee-calculation purposes); Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides v. Browner, 965 F. Supp. 59, 65 (D.D.C. 1997) (\"FOIA does not authorize fees for work performed at the administrative stage.\"); Associated Gen. Contractors v. EPA, 488 F. Supp. 861, 864 (D. Nev. 1980) (concluding that attorney fees are unavailable for work performed at administrative level); cf. Kennedy v. Andrus, 459 F. Supp. 240, 244 (D.D.C. 1978) (rejecting attorney fees claim for services rendered at administrative level under Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2006)), aff'd, 612 F.2d 586 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (unpublished table decision). But see Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1101 (D. Or. 2006) (awarding fees for work performed at the administrative level, on the rationale that \"exhaustion of remedies is required and provides a sufficient record for the civil action\") (appeal pending); McCoy v. BOP, No. 03-383, 2005 WL 1972600, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 16, 2005) (permitting fees for work on plaintiff's administrative appeal, on the rationale that it \"was necessary to exhaust administrative remedies\"), reconsideration denied, No. 03-383 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2005); cf. Tule River Conservancy v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 97-5720, slip op. at 16-17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2000) (allowing attorney fees for pre-litigation research on \"how to exhaust [plaintiff's] administration remedies prior to filing suit\" and on \"how to file FOIA complaint\"). 6 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363, 373 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 7 499 U.S. 432 (1991). 8 Benavides v. BOP, 993 F.2d 257, 259 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (explaining Kay decision); see Bensman v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 49 F. App'x 646, 647 (7th Cir. 2002) (\"Even when a pro se litigant performs the same tasks as an attorney, he is not entitled to reimbursement for his time.\"); Sukup v. EOUSA, No. 02-0355, 2007 WL 2405716, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2007) (\"Pro se plaintiffs may not recover attorney's fees under the FOIA.\"); Deichman v. United States, No. 2:05cv680, 2006 WL 3000448, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2006) (holding that pro see litigant cannot (continued...) be eligible for attorney fees, therefore, a FOIA plaintiff must have a representational relationship with an attorney.9 Furthermore, Kay indicated that no award of attorney fees should be made to a pro se plaintiff who also is an attorney. 10 Because the fee-shifting provision of the FOIA was intended \"'to encourage potential claimants to seek legal advice before commencing litigation,'\"11 and because a pro se attorney, by definition, does not seek out the \"'detached and objective perspective necessary'\" to litigate his FOIA case,12 the overwhelming majority of courts have agreed with Kay and have held that a pro se attorney is not eligible for a fee award that otherwise would have had to be paid to counsel.13 This is particularly so because 8 (...continued) recover attorney fees under FOIA); Lair v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 03-827, 2005 WL 645228, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2005) (explaining that \"pro-se non-attorney . . . may not collect attorney fees\" (citing Benavides)), reconsideration denied, 2005 WL 1330722 (D.D.C. June 3, 2005). 9 See Kooritzky v. Herman, 178 F.3d 1315, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that for all similarly worded fee-shifting statutes, \"the term 'attorney' contemplates an agency relationship between a litigant and an independent lawyer\"); see also Blazy v. Tenet, 194 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (concluding that attorney need not file formal appearance in order for litigant to claim fees for consultations, so long as attorney-client relationship existed) (Privacy Act case); cf. Anderson v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 648 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (indicating that when an organization litigates through in-house counsel, any payable attorney fees should not \"exceed[] the expenses incurred by [that party] in terms of [in-house counsel] salaries and other out-of-pocket expenses\"). ","domain":"Legal","type":"Summarize & Format","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":829}
+{"system_instruction":"This task requires you to answer questions based solely on the information provided in the prompt and context block. You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.","user_request":"What was the first circuits ruling on the United States v Evans?","context_document":"Funding Limitations on Medical Marijuana Prosecutions In each fiscal year since FY2015, Congress has included provisions in appropriations acts that prohibit DOJ from using appropriated funds to prevent certain states and territories and the District of Columbia from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” The FY2024 provision lists 52 jurisdictions, including every U.S. jurisdiction that had legalized medical cannabis use at the time it was enacted. On its face, the appropriations rider bars DOJ from taking legal action against the states directly in order to prevent them from promulgating or enforcing medical marijuana laws. In addition, federal courts have interpreted the rider to prohibit certain federal prosecutions of private individuals or organizations that Congressional Research Service 3 produce, distribute, or possess marijuana in accordance with state medical marijuana laws. In those cases, criminal defendants have invoked the rider before trial, seeking either the dismissal of their indictments or injunctions barring prosecution. By contrast, courts have generally declined to apply the rider outside the context of initial criminal prosecutions. For instance, the Ninth Circuit has held that the provision does not “impact[ ] the ability of a federal district court to restrict the use of medical marijuana as a condition of probation.” In the 2016 case United States v. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered the circumstances in which the appropriations rider bars CSA prosecution of marijuana-related activities. The court held that the rider prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DOJ does not prevent the implementation of [such rules] when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate [the rider]. Relying on McIntosh, the Ninth Circuit has issued several decisions allowing federal prosecution of individuals who did not “strictly comply” with state medical marijuana laws, notwithstanding the appropriations rider, and several district courts have followed that reasoning. As one example, in United States v. Evans, the Ninth Circuit upheld the prosecution of two individuals involved in the production of medical marijuana who smoked marijuana as they processed plants for sale. Although state law permitted medical marijuana use by “qualifying patients,” the court concluded that the defendants failed to show they were qualifying patients, and thus they could be prosecuted because their personal marijuana use did not strictly comply with state medical marijuana law. In the 2022 case United States v. Bilodeau, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also considered the scope of the appropriations rider. The defendants in Bilodeau were registered with the State of Maine to produce medical marijuana, but DOJ alleged that they distributed large quantities of marijuana to individuals who were not qualifying patients under Maine law, including recipients in other states. Following indictment for criminal CSA violations, the defendants sought to invoke the appropriations rider to bar their prosecutions. They argued that the rider “must be read to preclude the DOJ, under most circumstances, from prosecuting persons who possess state licenses to partake in medical marijuana activity.” DOJ instead urged the court to apply the Ninth Circuit’s standard, allowing prosecution unless the defendants could show that they acted in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws. The First Circuit declined to adopt either of the proposed tests. As an initial matter, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the rider means “DOJ may not spend funds to bring prosecutions if doing so prevents a state from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws.” However, the panel declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the rider bars prosecution only in cases where defendants strictly complied with state law. The court noted that the text of the rider does not explicitly require strict compliance with state law and that, given the complexity of state marijuana regulations, “the potential for technical noncompliance [with state law] is real enough that no person through any reasonable effort could always assure strict compliance.” Thus, the First Circuit concluded that requiring strict compliance with state law would likely chill state-legal medical marijuana activities and prevent the states from giving effect to their medical marijuana laws. On the other hand, the court also rejected the defendants’ more expansive reading of the rider, reasoning that “Congress surely did not intend for the rider to provide a safe harbor to all caregivers with facially valid documents without regard for blatantly illegitimate activity.” Ultimately, while the First Circuit held that the rider bars CSA prosecution in at least some cases where the defendant has committed minor technical violations of state medical marijuana laws, it declined to Congressional Research Service 4 “fully define [the] precise boundaries” of its alternative standard. On the record before it, the court concluded that “the defendants’ cultivation, possession, and distribution of marijuana aimed at supplying persons whom no defendant ever thought were qualifying patients under Maine law” and that a CSA conviction in those circumstances would not “prevent Maine’s medical marijuana laws from having their intended practical effect.” Considerations for Congress It remains to be seen whether and how the difference in reasoning between the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit will make a practical difference in federal marijuana prosecutions. In theory, the First Circuit’s analysis could make it easier for defendants to invoke the appropriations rider to bar federal prosecutions, because they could do so even if they had not been in strict compliance with state law. In practice, however, resource limitations and enforcement priorities have historically meant that federal marijuana prosecutions target only individuals and organizations that have clearly not complied with state law. Thus, one of the First Circuit judges who considered Bilodeau agreed with the panel’s interpretation of the rider but wrote a concurrence noting that, in practice, the First Circuit’s standard might not be “materially different from the one that the Ninth Circuit applied.” While the medical marijuana appropriations rider restricts DOJ’s ability to bring some marijuana prosecutions, its effect is limited in several ways. First, marijuana-related activities that fall outside the scope of the appropriations rider remain subject to prosecution under the CSA. By its terms, the rider applies only to state laws related to medical marijuana; it does not bar prosecution of any activities related to recreational marijuana, even if those activities are permitted under state law. Second, as the Ninth Circuit has explained, even where the rider does apply, it “does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses”—it simply restricts DOJ’s ability to expend funds to enforce federal law for as long as it remains in effect. If Congress instead opted to repeal the rider or allow it to lapse, DOJ would be able to prosecute future CSA violations as well as past violations that occurred while the rider was in effect, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Third, participants in the cannabis industry may face numerous collateral consequences arising from the federal prohibition of marijuana in areas including bankruptcy, taxation, and immigration. Many of those legal consequences attach regardless of whether a person is charged with or convicted of a CSA offense, meaning the rider would not affect them. Because the medical marijuana appropriations rider applies to marijuana specifically, regardless of how the substance is classified under the CSA, rescheduling marijuana would not affect the rider. Congress has the authority to enact legislation to clarify or alter the scope of the appropriations rider, repeal the rider, or decline to include it in future appropriations laws. For instance, Congress could amend the rider to specify whether strict compliance with state medical marijuana law is required in order to bar prosecution under the CSA or provide a different standard that DOJ and the courts should apply. Beyond the appropriations context, Congress could also consider other changes to federal marijuana law that would affect its interaction with state law. Such changes could take the form of more stringent marijuana regulation—for instance, through increased DOJ funding to prosecute CSA violations or limiting federal funds for states that legalize marijuana. In contrast, most recent proposals before Congress seek to relax federal restrictions on marijuana or mitigate the disparity between federal and state marijuana regulation.","full_prompt":"System Instructions: [This task requires you to answer questions based solely on the information provided in the prompt and context block. You are not allowed to use any external resources or prior knowledge.]\nQuestion: [What was the first circuits ruling on the United States v Evans?]\n\nContext Block: [Funding Limitations on Medical Marijuana Prosecutions In each fiscal year since FY2015, Congress has included provisions in appropriations acts that prohibit DOJ from using appropriated funds to prevent certain states and territories and the District of Columbia from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” The FY2024 provision lists 52 jurisdictions, including every U.S. jurisdiction that had legalized medical cannabis use at the time it was enacted. On its face, the appropriations rider bars DOJ from taking legal action against the states directly in order to prevent them from promulgating or enforcing medical marijuana laws. In addition, federal courts have interpreted the rider to prohibit certain federal prosecutions of private individuals or organizations that Congressional Research Service 3 produce, distribute, or possess marijuana in accordance with state medical marijuana laws. In those cases, criminal defendants have invoked the rider before trial, seeking either the dismissal of their indictments or injunctions barring prosecution. By contrast, courts have generally declined to apply the rider outside the context of initial criminal prosecutions. For instance, the Ninth Circuit has held that the provision does not “impact[ ] the ability of a federal district court to restrict the use of medical marijuana as a condition of probation.” In the 2016 case United States v. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered the circumstances in which the appropriations rider bars CSA prosecution of marijuana-related activities. The court held that the rider prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DOJ does not prevent the implementation of [such rules] when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate [the rider]. Relying on McIntosh, the Ninth Circuit has issued several decisions allowing federal prosecution of individuals who did not “strictly comply” with state medical marijuana laws, notwithstanding the appropriations rider, and several district courts have followed that reasoning. As one example, in United States v. Evans, the Ninth Circuit upheld the prosecution of two individuals involved in the production of medical marijuana who smoked marijuana as they processed plants for sale. Although state law permitted medical marijuana use by “qualifying patients,” the court concluded that the defendants failed to show they were qualifying patients, and thus they could be prosecuted because their personal marijuana use did not strictly comply with state medical marijuana law. In the 2022 case United States v. Bilodeau, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also considered the scope of the appropriations rider. The defendants in Bilodeau were registered with the State of Maine to produce medical marijuana, but DOJ alleged that they distributed large quantities of marijuana to individuals who were not qualifying patients under Maine law, including recipients in other states. Following indictment for criminal CSA violations, the defendants sought to invoke the appropriations rider to bar their prosecutions. They argued that the rider “must be read to preclude the DOJ, under most circumstances, from prosecuting persons who possess state licenses to partake in medical marijuana activity.” DOJ instead urged the court to apply the Ninth Circuit’s standard, allowing prosecution unless the defendants could show that they acted in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws. The First Circuit declined to adopt either of the proposed tests. As an initial matter, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the rider means “DOJ may not spend funds to bring prosecutions if doing so prevents a state from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws.” However, the panel declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the rider bars prosecution only in cases where defendants strictly complied with state law. The court noted that the text of the rider does not explicitly require strict compliance with state law and that, given the complexity of state marijuana regulations, “the potential for technical noncompliance [with state law] is real enough that no person through any reasonable effort could always assure strict compliance.” Thus, the First Circuit concluded that requiring strict compliance with state law would likely chill state-legal medical marijuana activities and prevent the states from giving effect to their medical marijuana laws. On the other hand, the court also rejected the defendants’ more expansive reading of the rider, reasoning that “Congress surely did not intend for the rider to provide a safe harbor to all caregivers with facially valid documents without regard for blatantly illegitimate activity.” Ultimately, while the First Circuit held that the rider bars CSA prosecution in at least some cases where the defendant has committed minor technical violations of state medical marijuana laws, it declined to Congressional Research Service 4 “fully define [the] precise boundaries” of its alternative standard. On the record before it, the court concluded that “the defendants’ cultivation, possession, and distribution of marijuana aimed at supplying persons whom no defendant ever thought were qualifying patients under Maine law” and that a CSA conviction in those circumstances would not “prevent Maine’s medical marijuana laws from having their intended practical effect.” Considerations for Congress It remains to be seen whether and how the difference in reasoning between the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit will make a practical difference in federal marijuana prosecutions. In theory, the First Circuit’s analysis could make it easier for defendants to invoke the appropriations rider to bar federal prosecutions, because they could do so even if they had not been in strict compliance with state law. In practice, however, resource limitations and enforcement priorities have historically meant that federal marijuana prosecutions target only individuals and organizations that have clearly not complied with state law. Thus, one of the First Circuit judges who considered Bilodeau agreed with the panel’s interpretation of the rider but wrote a concurrence noting that, in practice, the First Circuit’s standard might not be “materially different from the one that the Ninth Circuit applied.” While the medical marijuana appropriations rider restricts DOJ’s ability to bring some marijuana prosecutions, its effect is limited in several ways. First, marijuana-related activities that fall outside the scope of the appropriations rider remain subject to prosecution under the CSA. By its terms, the rider applies only to state laws related to medical marijuana; it does not bar prosecution of any activities related to recreational marijuana, even if those activities are permitted under state law. Second, as the Ninth Circuit has explained, even where the rider does apply, it “does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses”—it simply restricts DOJ’s ability to expend funds to enforce federal law for as long as it remains in effect. If Congress instead opted to repeal the rider or allow it to lapse, DOJ would be able to prosecute future CSA violations as well as past violations that occurred while the rider was in effect, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Third, participants in the cannabis industry may face numerous collateral consequences arising from the federal prohibition of marijuana in areas including bankruptcy, taxation, and immigration. Many of those legal consequences attach regardless of whether a person is charged with or convicted of a CSA offense, meaning the rider would not affect them. Because the medical marijuana appropriations rider applies to marijuana specifically, regardless of how the substance is classified under the CSA, rescheduling marijuana would not affect the rider. Congress has the authority to enact legislation to clarify or alter the scope of the appropriations rider, repeal the rider, or decline to include it in future appropriations laws. For instance, Congress could amend the rider to specify whether strict compliance with state medical marijuana law is required in order to bar prosecution under the CSA or provide a different standard that DOJ and the courts should apply. Beyond the appropriations context, Congress could also consider other changes to federal marijuana law that would affect its interaction with state law. Such changes could take the form of more stringent marijuana regulation—for instance, through increased DOJ funding to prosecute CSA violations or limiting federal funds for states that legalize marijuana. In contrast, most recent proposals before Congress seek to relax federal restrictions on marijuana or mitigate the disparity between federal and state marijuana regulation. ]","domain":"Legal","type":"Fact Finding","high_level_type":"Q&A","__index_level_0__":833}
+{"system_instruction":"Solely utilize information found in the text within the prompt to answer, do not rely on any other information when drawing conclusions. Try to avoid using complex legal terms, simplify for easier reading where possible.","user_request":"Give the names of all of the courts in which Smith's case has been considered according to the context document.","context_document":"Before trial, Smith moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause, Art. III, §2, cl. 3, and its Vicinage Clause, Amdt. 6. Smith argued that trial in the Northern District of Florida was improper because he had accessed StrikeLines’ website from his home in Mobile (in the Southern District of Alabama) and the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were located in Orlando (in the Middle District of Florida).  The District Court concluded that factual disputes related to venue should be resolved by the jury and denied Smith’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  The jury found Smith guilty, and Smith moved for a judgment of acquittal based on improper venue.  See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that the effects of Smith’s crime were felt at StrikeLines’ headquarters, located in the Northern District of Florida. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit determined that venue was improper, but disagreed with Smith that a trial in an improper venue barred reprosecution.  The Eleventh Circuit therefore vacated Smith’s conviction for theft of trade secrets. Held: The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.  Pp. 3–16. (a) Except as prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause, it “has long been the rule that when a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may be retried in the normal course of events.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 121.  In all circumstances outside of the Speedy Trial Clause, the strongest appropriate remedy for trial error is a new trial, not a judgment barring reprosecution.  Pp. 3–4. 2 SMITH v. UNITED STATES Syllabus (1) Text and precedent provide no basis for concluding that violations of the Venue and Vicinage Clauses are exceptions to the retrial rule. The Venue Clause mandates that the “Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the . . . Crimes shall have been committed.”  Art. III, §2, cl. 3. Nothing about this language suggests that a new trial in the proper venue is not an adequate remedy for its violation.  Smith primarily argues that the Venue Clause aims to prevent the infliction of additional harm on a defendant who has already undergone the hardship of an initial trial in a distant and improper place. But the mere burden of a second trial has never justified an exemption from the retrial rule. See Ewell, 383 U. S., at 121.  Indeed, while the most convenient trial venue for a defendant would presumably be where he lives, the Venue Clause is keyed to the location of the alleged crimes.  The Clause does not allow “variation . . . for convenience of the . . . accused,” Johnston v. United States, 351 U. S. 215, 221, and this Court has repeatedly rejected objections based on the hardships created when a defendant is prosecuted far from home.","full_prompt":"Solely utilize information found in the text within the prompt to answer, do not rely on any other information when drawing conclusions. Try to avoid using complex legal terms, simplify for easier reading where possible.\n\nBefore trial, Smith moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause, Art. III, §2, cl. 3, and its Vicinage Clause, Amdt. 6. Smith argued that trial in the Northern District of Florida was improper because he had accessed StrikeLines’ website from his home in Mobile (in the Southern District of Alabama) and the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were located in Orlando (in the Middle District of Florida).  The District Court concluded that factual disputes related to venue should be resolved by the jury and denied Smith’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  The jury found Smith guilty, and Smith moved for a judgment of acquittal based on improper venue.  See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that the effects of Smith’s crime were felt at StrikeLines’ headquarters, located in the Northern District of Florida. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit determined that venue was improper, but disagreed with Smith that a trial in an improper venue barred reprosecution.  The Eleventh Circuit therefore vacated Smith’s conviction for theft of trade secrets. Held: The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.  Pp. 3–16. (a) Except as prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause, it “has long been the rule that when a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may be retried in the normal course of events.” United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 121.  In all circumstances outside of the Speedy Trial Clause, the strongest appropriate remedy for trial error is a new trial, not a judgment barring reprosecution.  Pp. 3–4. 2 SMITH v. UNITED STATES Syllabus (1) Text and precedent provide no basis for concluding that violations of the Venue and Vicinage Clauses are exceptions to the retrial rule. The Venue Clause mandates that the “Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the . . . Crimes shall have been committed.”  Art. III, §2, cl. 3. Nothing about this language suggests that a new trial in the proper venue is not an adequate remedy for its violation.  Smith primarily argues that the Venue Clause aims to prevent the infliction of additional harm on a defendant who has already undergone the hardship of an initial trial in a distant and improper place. But the mere burden of a second trial has never justified an exemption from the retrial rule. See Ewell, 383 U. S., at 121.  Indeed, while the most convenient trial venue for a defendant would presumably be where he lives, the Venue Clause is keyed to the location of the alleged crimes.  The Clause does not allow “variation . . . for convenience of the . . . accused,” Johnston v. United States, 351 U. S. 215, 221, and this Court has repeatedly rejected objections based on the hardships created when a defendant is prosecuted far from home.\n\nGive the names of all of the courts in which Smith's case has been considered according to the context document.","domain":"Legal","type":"Find & Summarize","high_level_type":"Text Transformation","__index_level_0__":843}
diff --git a/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/self_reflection.py b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/self_reflection.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..c20e31f896
--- /dev/null
+++ b/python/samples/getting_started/evaluation/azure_ai_foundry/evaluation/self_reflection.py
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+"""
+Self-Reflection LLM Runner
+
+Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.
+Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023.
+In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS '23). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article 377, 8634–8652.
+https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 
+
+This module implements a self-reflection loop for LLM responses using groundedness evaluation.
+It loads prompts from a JSONL file, runs them through an LLM with self-reflection,
+and saves the results.
+
+
+Usage as CLI:
+    python self_reflection.py
+
+Usage as CLI with extra options:
+    python self_reflection.py --input resources/suboptimal_groundedness_prompts.jsonl \\
+                              --output resources/results.jsonl \\
+                              --max-reflections 3 \\
+                              -n 10  # Optional: process only first 10 prompts
+"""
+
+import asyncio
+import os
+import time
+import argparse
+import pandas as pd
+from typing import Dict, Any, Optional
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+from agent_framework import ChatAgent, ChatMessage
+from agent_framework.azure import AzureOpenAIChatClient
+from azure.identity import AzureCliCredential
+from azure.ai.evaluation import GroundednessEvaluator, AzureOpenAIModelConfiguration
+
+
+DEFAULT_AGENT_MODEL = "gpt-4.1"
+DEFAULT_JUDGE_MODEL = "gpt-4.1"
+
+
+def create_groundedness_evaluator(judge_model: str) -> GroundednessEvaluator:
+    """
+    Create a groundedness evaluator.
+
+    Args:
+        judge_model: Model deployment name for evaluation
+    Returns:
+        Configured GroundednessEvaluator
+    """
+    judge_model_config = AzureOpenAIModelConfiguration(
+        azure_endpoint=os.environ.get("AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT"),
+        api_key=os.environ.get("AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY"),
+        api_version="2024-12-01-preview",
+        azure_deployment=judge_model,
+    )
+    return GroundednessEvaluator(model_config=judge_model_config)
+
+
+async def execute_query_with_self_reflection(
+    *,
+    agent: ChatAgent,
+    full_user_query: str,
+    context: str,
+    evaluator: GroundednessEvaluator,
+    max_self_reflections: int = 3,
+) -> dict[str, Any]:
+    """
+    Execute a query with self-reflection loop.
+    
+    Args:
+        agent: ChatAgent instance to use for generating responses
+        full_user_query: Complete prompt including system prompt, user request, and context
+        context: Context document for groundedness evaluation
+        evaluator: Groundedness evaluator function
+        max_self_reflections: Maximum number of self-reflection iterations
+        
+    Returns:
+        Dictionary containing:
+            - best_response: The best response achieved
+            - best_response_score: Best groundedness score
+            - best_iteration: Iteration number where best score was achieved
+            - iteration_scores: List of groundedness scores for each iteration
+            - messages: Full conversation history
+            - usage_metadata: Token usage information
+            - num_retries: Number of iterations performed
+            - total_groundedness_eval_time: Time spent on evaluations (seconds)
+            - total_end_to_end_time: Total execution time (seconds)
+    """
+    messages = [ChatMessage(role="user", text=full_user_query)]
+
+    best_score = 0
+    max_score = 5
+    best_response = None
+    best_iteration = 0
+    raw_response = None
+    total_groundedness_eval_time = 0.0
+    start_time = time.time()
+    iteration_scores = []  # Store all iteration scores in structured format
+
+    for i in range(max_self_reflections):
+        print(f"  Self-reflection iteration {i+1}/{max_self_reflections}...")
+        
+        raw_response = await agent.run(messages=messages)
+        agent_response = raw_response.text
+
+        # Evaluate groundedness
+        start_time_eval = time.time()
+        groundedness_res = evaluator(
+            query=full_user_query,
+            response=agent_response,
+            context=context
+        )
+        end_time_eval = time.time()
+        total_groundedness_eval_time += (end_time_eval - start_time_eval)
+
+        feedback = groundedness_res['groundedness_reason']
+        score = int(groundedness_res['groundedness'])
+
+        # Store score in structured format
+        iteration_scores.append(score)
+
+        # Show groundedness score
+        print(f"  Groundedness score: {score}/{max_score}")
+
+        # Update best response if improved
+        if score > best_score:
+            if best_score > 0:
+                print(f"  ✓ Score improved from {best_score} to {score}/{max_score}")
+            best_score = score
+            best_response = agent_response
+            best_iteration = i + 1
+            if score == max_score:
+                print(f"  ✓ Perfect groundedness score achieved!")
+                break
+        else:
+            print(f"  → No improvement (score: {score}/{max_score}). Trying again...")
+        
+        # Add to conversation history
+        messages.append(ChatMessage(role="assistant", text=agent_response))
+
+        # Request improvement
+        reflection_prompt = (
+            f"The groundedness score of your response is {score}/{max_score}. "
+            f"Explanation for score: [{feedback}]. "
+            f"Reflect on your answer and improve it to get the maximum score of {max_score} "
+            f"considering the explanation. Now please provide an updated response, taking into "
+            f"account the feedback, but make your answer sound as if it was your first response. "
+            f"Don't refer to the feedback in your answer."
+        )
+        messages.append(ChatMessage(role="user", text=reflection_prompt))
+    
+    end_time = time.time()
+    latency = end_time - start_time
+
+    # Handle edge case where no response improved the score
+    if best_response is None and raw_response is not None and len(raw_response.messages) > 0:
+        best_response = raw_response.messages[0].text
+        best_iteration = i + 1
+
+    return {
+        "best_response": best_response,
+        "best_response_score": best_score,
+        "best_iteration": best_iteration,
+        "iteration_scores": iteration_scores,  # Structured list of all scores
+        "messages": [message.to_json() for message in messages],
+        "num_retries": i + 1,
+        "total_groundedness_eval_time": total_groundedness_eval_time,
+        "total_end_to_end_time": latency,
+    }
+
+
+async def run_self_reflection_batch(
+    input_file: str,
+    output_file: str,
+    agent_model: str = DEFAULT_AGENT_MODEL,
+    judge_model: str = DEFAULT_JUDGE_MODEL,
+    max_self_reflections: int = 3,
+    env_file: str | None = None,
+    limit: int | None = None
+):
+    """
+    Run self-reflection on a batch of prompts.
+
+    Args:
+        input_file: Path to input JSONL file with prompts
+        output_file: Path to save output JSONL file
+        agent_model: Model to use for generating responses
+        judge_model: Model to use for groundedness evaluation
+        max_self_reflections: Maximum number of self-reflection iterations
+        env_file: Optional path to .env file
+        limit: Optional limit to process only the first N prompts
+    """
+    # Load environment variables
+    if env_file and os.path.exists(env_file):
+        load_dotenv(env_file, override=True)
+    else:
+        load_dotenv(override=True)
+
+    # Create agent, it loads environment variables AZURE_OPENAI_API_KEY and AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT automatically
+    agent = AzureOpenAIChatClient(
+        credential=AzureCliCredential(),
+        deployment_name=agent_model,
+    ).create_agent(
+        instructions="You are a helpful agent.",
+    )
+
+    # Load input data
+    print(f"Loading prompts from: {input_file}")
+    df = pd.read_json(input_file, lines=True)
+    print(f"Loaded {len(df)} prompts")
+
+    # Apply limit if specified
+    if limit is not None and limit > 0:
+        df = df.head(limit)
+        print(f"Processing first {len(df)} prompts (limited by -n {limit})")
+
+    # Validate required columns
+    required_columns = ['system_instruction', 'user_request', 'context_document', 
+                       'full_prompt', 'domain', 'type', 'high_level_type']
+    missing_columns = [col for col in required_columns if col not in df.columns]
+    if missing_columns:
+        raise ValueError(f"Input file missing required columns: {missing_columns}")
+    
+    # Configure clients
+    print(f"Configuring Azure OpenAI client...")
+    
+    print(f"Creating groundedness evaluator with model: {judge_model}")
+    evaluator = create_groundedness_evaluator(judge_model)
+    
+    # Process each prompt
+    print(f"Max self-reflections: {max_self_reflections}\n")
+    
+    results = []
+    for counter, (idx, row) in enumerate(df.iterrows(), start=1):
+        print(f"[{counter}/{len(df)}] Processing prompt {row.get('original_index', idx)}...")
+        
+        try:
+            result = await execute_query_with_self_reflection(
+                agent=agent,
+                full_user_query=row['full_prompt'],
+                context=row['context_document'],
+                evaluator=evaluator,
+                max_self_reflections=max_self_reflections,
+            )
+
+            # Prepare result data
+            result_data = {
+                "original_index": row.get('original_index', idx),
+                "domain": row['domain'],
+                "question_type": row['type'],
+                "high_level_type": row['high_level_type'],
+                "full_prompt": row['full_prompt'],
+                "system_prompt": row['system_instruction'],
+                "user_request": row['user_request'],
+                "context_document": row['context_document'],
+                "agent_response_model": agent_model,
+                "agent_response": result,
+                "error": None,
+                "timestamp": time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S", time.localtime())
+            }
+            results.append(result_data)
+
+            print(f"  ✓ Completed with score: {result['best_response_score']}/5 "
+                  f"(best at iteration {result['best_iteration']}/{result['num_retries']}, "
+                  f"time: {result['total_end_to_end_time']:.1f}s)\n")
+
+        except Exception as e:
+            print(f"  ✗ Error: {str(e)}\n")
+
+            # Save error information
+            error_data = {
+                "original_index": row.get('original_index', idx),
+                "domain": row['domain'],
+                "question_type": row['type'],
+                "high_level_type": row['high_level_type'],
+                "full_prompt": row['full_prompt'],
+                "system_prompt": row['system_instruction'],
+                "user_request": row['user_request'],
+                "context_document": row['context_document'],
+                "agent_response_model": agent_model,
+                "agent_response": None,
+                "error": str(e),
+                "timestamp": time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S", time.localtime())
+            }
+            results.append(error_data)
+            continue
+    
+    # Create DataFrame and save
+    results_df = pd.DataFrame(results)
+
+    print(f"\nSaving results to: {output_file}")
+    results_df.to_json(output_file, orient='records', lines=True)
+
+    # Generate detailed summary
+    successful_runs = results_df[results_df['error'].isna()]
+    failed_runs = results_df[results_df['error'].notna()]
+
+    print("\n" + "="*60)
+    print("SUMMARY")
+    print("="*60)
+    print(f"Total prompts processed: {len(results_df)}")
+    print(f"  ✓ Successful: {len(successful_runs)}")
+    print(f"  ✗ Failed: {len(failed_runs)}")
+
+    if len(successful_runs) > 0:
+        # Extract scores and iteration data from nested agent_response dict
+        best_scores = [r['best_response_score'] for r in successful_runs['agent_response'] if r is not None]
+        iterations = [r['best_iteration'] for r in successful_runs['agent_response'] if r is not None]
+        iteration_scores_list = [r['iteration_scores'] for r in successful_runs['agent_response'] if r is not None and 'iteration_scores' in r]
+
+        if best_scores:
+            avg_score = sum(best_scores) / len(best_scores)
+            perfect_scores = sum(1 for s in best_scores if s == 5)
+            print(f"\nGroundedness Scores:")
+            print(f"  Average best score: {avg_score:.2f}/5")
+            print(f"  Perfect scores (5/5): {perfect_scores}/{len(best_scores)} ({100*perfect_scores/len(best_scores):.1f}%)")
+
+            # Calculate improvement metrics
+            if iteration_scores_list:
+                first_scores = [scores[0] for scores in iteration_scores_list if len(scores) > 0]
+                last_scores = [scores[-1] for scores in iteration_scores_list if len(scores) > 0]
+                improvements = [last - first for first, last in zip(first_scores, last_scores)]
+                improved_count = sum(1 for imp in improvements if imp > 0)
+
+                if first_scores and last_scores:
+                    avg_first_score = sum(first_scores) / len(first_scores)
+                    avg_last_score = sum(last_scores) / len(last_scores)
+                    avg_improvement = sum(improvements) / len(improvements)
+
+                    print(f"\nImprovement Analysis:")
+                    print(f"  Average first score: {avg_first_score:.2f}/5")
+                    print(f"  Average final score: {avg_last_score:.2f}/5")
+                    print(f"  Average improvement: +{avg_improvement:.2f}")
+                    print(f"  Responses that improved: {improved_count}/{len(improvements)} ({100*improved_count/len(improvements):.1f}%)")
+
+            # Show iteration statistics
+            if iterations:
+                avg_iteration = sum(iterations) / len(iterations)
+                first_try = sum(1 for it in iterations if it == 1)
+                print(f"\nIteration Statistics:")
+                print(f"  Average best iteration: {avg_iteration:.2f}")
+                print(f"  Best on first try: {first_try}/{len(iterations)} ({100*first_try/len(iterations):.1f}%)")
+
+    print("="*60)
+
+
+async def main():
+    """CLI entry point."""
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Run self-reflection loop on LLM prompts with groundedness evaluation")
+    parser.add_argument('--input', '-i', default="resources/suboptimal_groundedness_prompts.jsonl", help='Input JSONL file with prompts')
+    parser.add_argument('--output', '-o', default="resources/results.jsonl", help='Output JSONL file for results')
+    parser.add_argument('--agent-model', '-m', default=DEFAULT_AGENT_MODEL, help=f'Agent model deployment name (default: {DEFAULT_AGENT_MODEL})')
+    parser.add_argument('--judge-model', '-e', default=DEFAULT_JUDGE_MODEL, help=f'Judge model deployment name (default: {DEFAULT_JUDGE_MODEL})')
+    parser.add_argument('--max-reflections', type=int, default=3, help='Maximum number of self-reflection iterations (default: 3)')
+    parser.add_argument('--env-file', help='Path to .env file with Azure OpenAI credentials')
+    parser.add_argument('--limit', '-n', type=int, default=None, help='Process only the first N prompts from the input file')
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    # Run the batch processing
+    try:
+        await run_self_reflection_batch(
+            input_file=args.input,
+            output_file=args.output,
+            agent_model=args.agent_model,
+            judge_model=args.judge_model,
+            max_self_reflections=args.max_reflections,
+            env_file=args.env_file,
+            limit=args.limit
+        )
+        print("\n✓ Processing complete!")
+
+    except Exception as e:
+        print(f"\n✗ Error: {str(e)}")
+        return 1
+    return 0
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    exit(asyncio.run(main()))