Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We obtained similar results: although the descriptive prime does not influence consumption on average (coefficient = 0.088, s.e. = 0.149, P = 0.554; Table 3, column 1), it led to a negative and statistically significant decrease in consumption among customers who received three thumbs up (coefficient = −0.959, s.e. = 0.284, P < 0.001; Table 3, column 4). This negative effect was persistent over 6, 12 and 18 months (Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Table 14). Interestingly, the effect of the descriptive prime on the entire group of customers who received three thumbs up is smaller than the RD estimates for the three versus two thumbs-up threshold combined with the descriptive prime.

    Claimed Finding:
    The descriptive prime significantly reduced electricity use for the overall customer population on average.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This interpretation was confirmed by analysing specifically the effect of the descriptive prime among customers who experienced an upgrade in the injunctive feedback (from two to three thumbs up) relative to the previous report. These customers are likely to overlap with the customers included in the RD estimation, as being close to the three versus two thumbs-up threshold may result in downgrades and upgrades between reports. The effect of the descriptive prime on these customers is in line with the RD estimates for the three versus two thumbs-up threshold combined with the descriptive prime (Fig. 5) and larger than the average impact of the descriptive prime on the three thumbs-up subsample. Other factors may contribute to these results, but we note that they are consistent with our argument that, when descriptive and normative expectations diverge, the resulting behaviour is a function of the relative strength of the two types of feedback.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among customers whose rating improved from two to three thumbs up, the descriptive prime generated a larger reduction in electricity use than it did for the broader three-thumbs group.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results are in line with these hypotheses. First, we found suggestive evidence that the standard social information message induces larger savings among high electricity users who are exposed to consistent descriptive and injunctive feedback, compared with low electricity users who are exposed to contrasting descriptive and injunctive feedback. More importantly, reinforcing the injunctive feedback has the largest effect among low electricity users exposed to a consistent descriptive prime. These findings are in line with the notion that injunctive and descriptive feedbacks have a larger impact on electricity conservation when they pull behaviour in the same rather than in opposite directions. Second, reinforcing the injunctive feedback led to a reduction in consumption, but only among customers with low electricity usage. This shows that the relative strengths of the different types of feedback matters when they are contrasting. Such a reinforcement has no effect on customers with high consumption. This demonstrates the limited effect of reinforcing one type of normative feedback within a message that already contains two consistent pieces of normative information of different types. This is further confirmed by the finding that reinforcing the injunctive feedback has no effect among users exposed to a consistent injunctive prime. Together these findings suggest that additional pieces of feedback have a larger impact when they pull behaviour in the same direction and are of different types. Overall, our results support the presence of synergies between different types of feedback rather than the primacy of any one type of feedback.

    Claimed Finding:
    Reinforcing the injunctive feedback produced the greatest reduction in electricity use among high-consumption households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We count the successful US patent applications that were
filed by each company in a given year, and we find that 80% of
ARPA-E-funded startups had filed a patent after their award in
2010—a greater proportion than any other group. However, it is not
clear from these descriptive statistics whether ARPA-E’s advantage
in patenting is simply a result of selecting companies with more
prior patenting activity. To test this possibility, we model post-2010
patenting activity using a Poisson regression with a control variable
for pre-2010 company patenting, as well as age, subsector and pre-
2010 VC activity (Table 1).

We find that the patenting advantage for ARPA-E startups holds
in regression analysis controlling for various factors, including
pre-award patenting behaviour. A coefficient of 0.7 corresponds
to an incidence rate ratio of 2, meaning that startups who received
ARPA-E awards in 2010 went on to file successful patent applications
at twice the rate of similar cleantech companies on average (Models
2 and 3 in Table 1), even accounting for their pre-2010 patenting
activity. We repeat the regressions using a subsample of companies
that has been balanced on observable co-variates between ARPA-E
and non-ARPA-E companies, using coarsened exact matching43. The
matched results confirm our finding (Models 4 and 5 in Table 1);
after their award in 2010, ARPA-E companies filed patents at
roughly double the rate that would be expected based on their age,
subsector and pre-2010 company profile. Confidence intervals for
the ARPA-E 2010 coefficient in Model 5 (not shown) indicate an
incidence rate ratio between 1.5 and 3.2.

    Claimed Finding:
    After controlling for firm characteristics, ARPA-E awardees filed patents at about twice the rate of comparable cleantech startups.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Because companies that apply for government grants differ
from other companies in several ways44,45, we compare ARPA-E
awardees in 2010 to companies that were rejected by ARPA-E in
the same year. These rejected applicants were publicly ‘encouraged’
by ARPA-E, which indicates that they were close to receiving the
award. We take this approach to be approximating the idea behind
regression discontinuity design methods, although the agency does
not assign differentiated scores within the rejected group or the
awardees. We find that rejected ARPA-E applicants were no more
likely to patent than other cleantech startups. This indicates that
the increased post-award patenting activity of ARPA-E companies
is not a product of self-selection of more innovative companies
into the applicant pool. We also test whether increased patenting
is observed in the set of companies funded by EERE in 2010; these
companies showed no advantage over other companies in terms of
post-award patenting activity.

    Claimed Finding:
    EERE-funded startups displayed a statistically significant advantage in post-award patenting relative to other cleantech companies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We measure three post-2010 business outcomes associated with
increased likelihood of market success for our sample of cleantech
startups: acquisition/IPO, survival through 2019 and amount of VC
funding raised through 2017 (Table 2). As with our patenting analysis
above, we run regressions for these outcomes, with controls for firm
age and cleantech subsector to account for age- and sector-specific
effects, as well as prior patenting and VC funds raised. We find no
statistically significant differences between ARPA-E companies and
non-ARPA-E companies for the three market success indicators,
in either the whole sample or the matched subsample. A greater
proportion of ARPA-E startups (52%) raised VC funds post-2010
compared to the Other cleantech group (40%), but this difference
is within the error of measurement when accounting for the firm’s
pre-award profile. This nonsignificant difference could be mask-
ing an actual effect, due to the small sample size and large standard
error; confidence intervals for ARPA-E 2010 in Model 2 of Table 2
(not shown) yield an incidence rate ratio between 0.7 and 5.1. Thus,
this is a tentative result, and we hope that future research with a
larger sample of companies will be able to either identify an effect or
better establish the lack thereof, for VC funding as well as acquisi-
tion/IPO and survival.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study detected no statistically significant difference between ARPA-E awardees and other cleantech startups in post-2010 survival, acquisition/IPO, or VC fundraising.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find a positive and significant rate of VC funding for the
EERE 2010 group compared to the Other cleantech group (P < 0.05)
in the matched subsample, but a Wald test fails to reject the hypoth-
esis that the coefficients for ARPA-E 2010 and EERE 2010 are
equal (P = 0.90). On the other hand, we find significantly less busi-
ness success for firms whose application for ARPA-E funding was
denied in 2010. The coefficient on post-2010 VC funding for the
ARPA-E rejected group is significantly negative even when account-
ing for their lower rates of prior VC funding (P < 0.05); the rate of
VC funding for this group is roughly one-tenth the funding rate of
the Other cleantech group (Model 2 of Table 2). A Wald test rejects
the hypothesis that the coefficients for ARPA-E 2010 and ARPA-E
rejected are equal (P = 0.014), meaning that ARPA-E-rejected appli-
cants performed significantly worse than did awardees.

    Claimed Finding:
    Firms rejected by ARPA-E obtained post-2010 VC funding at rates comparable to those of ARPA-E awardees.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also find differences across groups in terms of the pre-2010
company profile: over half of ARPA-E awardees had already received
private VC investment (56%), and over half had filed at least one
patent (also 56%). Among applicants rejected by ARPA-E, the
proportion of companies with pre-2010 patenting and private funding
were lower (38% and 18%, respectively).

    Claimed Finding:
    ARPA-E awardees were more likely to have prior venture capital funding and patents than rejected applicants.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Although our main analyses exclude
SBIR awardees, results from an expanded dataset including those
companies is shown in Supplementary Table 6; SBIR awardees pro-
duced patents at roughly half the rate of other cleantech startups,
on average.

    Claimed Finding:
    The expanded analysis revealed that SBIR awardees outperformed other cleantech startups, generating patents at approximately twice their rate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Panel regressions of annual patents filed illustrate the consis-
tently elevated patenting activity by ARPA-E-funded startups from
2011 to 2014 (Fig. 2a; regression coefficients are in Supplementary
Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    From 2011 through 2014, ARPA-E funded startups maintained a sustainably higher patent output than comparison groups.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Panel regressions also show no clear difference between
ARPA-E companies and others in annual VC funding 2011–2017
(Fig. 2b; regression coefficients are in Supplementary Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    Year-by-year analysis indicated that ARPA-E financing did not translate into higher annual VC investment relative to peers.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Among the four groups of cleantech startups in our main dataset,
we find differences in emphasis across various cleantech subsectors
(Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 3). Both ARPA-E awardees and
ARPA-E rejected applicants were concentrated in energy storage;
ARPA-E funded nine storage startups in 2010—over one-third of its
awards in that year, while such companies composed only 6% of all
cleantech startups. This emphasis arises largely from two targeted
technical programmes at ARPA-E for battery technology in 2010—
one for electric vehicles and one for grid-scale storage.

    Claimed Finding:
    In 2010, the majority of ARPA-E awards were directed toward solar photovoltaics startups.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Previous research on this programme found it had a positive impact
on the likelihood of VC investment and patenting for small busi-
nesses22. However, in our data, we find that SBIR startups as a whole
are fairly dissimilar to ARPA-E awardees and other cleantech start-
ups. Of the 82 startups funded by DOE SBIR in 2010, we are able
to identify only 60% of them as cleantech companies, compared to
93% of EERE startups and 100% of ARPA-E startups from the same
year. When we perform coarsened exact matching on the ARPA-E
2010 awardees (see Methods for more detail), only five SBIR com-
panies remain in the matched sample. For this reason, we exclude
SBIR awardees from our main analysis; more information on these
companies is provided in Supplementary Note 1.

    Claimed Finding:
    The dataset shows that more than 90% of SBIR-funded startups in 2010 could be classified as cleantech companies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Cross-sectional generalized-ordered logistic regressions show that households acquiring their LPG connections through PMUY have significantly lower odds of being primary users compared to general customers (odds ratio (OR), 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.78) (Table 1). The odds drop further still for exclusive use (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45–0.71). The lower odds of PMUY households using more LPG is neither a factor of their relatively poor socio-economic status, nor of the infancy of their connection, as both of these factors are controlled for in the model. Rather, we suggest that households that made a decision to spend the upfront cost and effort to procure an LPG connection are probably more willing and more financially prepared to use LPG for the majority of their cooking needs than those who have been provided with a free connection.

    Claimed Finding:
    PMUY beneficiaries were less likely than general customers to use LPG as their primary or exclusive cooking fuel.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also observe village-level popularity of LPG as a primary fuel influencing LPG use. The fraction of households in a participant’s village using LPG as their primary cooking fuel is significantly positively associated with that household being a primary or exclusive LPG user (Table 1). Our panel model corroborates this finding. Households in a village where the percentage of primary LPG users increased by one percentage point had 1.046 (95% CI, 1.041–1.052) times higher odds of moving to primary or exclusive LPG use than households in villages where there was no change in percentage of primary LPG users (Table 2). The positive effect of village-level penetration of LPG as a primary cooking fuel suggests a possible peer effect of LPG use and the importance of community norms in influencing LPG use. Although we account for geographic heterogeneity at the state level, higher percentages of primary users of LPG may also be related to village-level variation in the cost and availability of biomass, infrastructure quality or LPG availability.

    Claimed Finding:
    An increase in the share of primary LPG users in a village did not significantly influence a household’s likelihood of becoming a primary or exclusive LPG user.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As hypothesized, we find that households relying on agriculture or on labour as their primary source of income had lower odds of using LPG as their primary and exclusive fuel compared to households getting their primary income from salaried employment (Table 1). Agriculture-dependent households may have lower odds due to the unpredictability and irregularity of cash flow, which may make the large, ‘lumpy‘ LPG refill payments a challenge. Indeed, households where the primary income changed to agriculture or labour between wave 1 and wave 2 had lower odds of increasing their LPG-use category than those whose occupation stayed the same or changed away from agriculture or labour (Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Rural households whose main income comes from agriculture or casual labour had lower odds of cooking primarily or exclusively with LPG than households with salaried income.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Years of owning LPG was positively associated with higher use category in both models. This effect of time may be because households get used to the convenience of LPG-based cooking, have more time to adjust their cooking habits and practices to LPG and/or have more time to align their household expenditures and cash flows with the recurring expense of LPG refills.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis indicates that, over time, households that have had LPG connections for longer tend to reduce their reliance on LPG, showing lower use categories than newer adopters.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Counterintuitively, we did not find involvement of women in household decisions to purchase durable goods to be a reliable predictor of household use of LPG after adoption. Further research on the involvement of women in cooking energy-related decision-making and its impact on fuel choice is warranted.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study did not find a significant relationship between women’s involvement in household decision‑making and greater LPG use.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Distance travelled to procure LPG was not significantly associated with higher odds of using LPG for primary or exclusive use. However, households that travelled one kilometre less to procure LPG in wave 2 than in wave 1 had somewhat higher odds (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.08) of moving up from minority use than those for whom distance did not change (Supplementary Table 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    Longer distances to travel for LPG refills were found to significantly deter households from becoming primary or exclusive LPG users.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As hypothesized, households that owned cattle had considerably lower odds of being primary and exclusive users of LPG, probably because of easy access to dung cakes (Table 1). The magnitude of the association was higher for exclusive use compared to primary use, implying that the push towards complete cessation of solid fuel use is likely to face strong resistance from households that have easy access to biomass. Furthermore, households that acquired cattle between the two waves had lower odds of shifting to primary and exclusive use than other households (Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Owning cattle markedly decreased the probability that a household would use LPG as its main or sole cooking fuel.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that households that collected firewood daily or a few times a week (a proxy for easy availability of biomass) in wave 1 had lower odds of exclusive use of LPG in wave 2 than those who collected firewood less frequently (Table 1). While easier availability of free-of-cost firewood impedes exclusive use of LPG, we did not find it hindering use of LPG as a primary fuel. Surprisingly, the effect of weekly expenditure on traditional biomass for cooking in wave 1 on the odds of increased use of LPG in wave 2 was not statistically significant (Table 1). This finding is contrary to our hypothesis and warrants further research.

    Claimed Finding:
    Frequent firewood collection lowered the odds of being a primary LPG user but did not affect exclusive LPG use.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Respondents’ perceptions that LPG affected their health less than traditional cook stoves in wave 1 was not associated with LPG use in wave 2 (Supplementary Table 4). However, their perceptions in wave 2 were positively associated with LPG use in wave 2 (Supplementary Table 5). It is possible that knowledge of the health benefits of LPG is a consequence of LPG use, as opposed to a driver of its use, suggesting that health-related awareness in isolation may not be sufficient to nudge sustained use of LPG.

    Claimed Finding:
    Households that, in 2018, believed LPG to be healthier than traditional stoves were more likely to be using LPG.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The overall sample (n = 17,635) witnessed a dramatic increase in LPG adoption between 2015 and 2018—from 22% LPG users in wave 1 to 58% in wave 2. PMUY has been an important driver of this shift: 43% of new LPG owners in wave 2 were enroled through PMUY. However, a lower proportion of PMUY beneficiaries were exclusive LPG users compared to general customers (Fig. 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 2015 and 2018, LPG adoption in the sample remained essentially unchanged, with only a marginal increase of two percentage points.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    HyADS emissions exposures peaked annually during the third quarter (April–June, Fig. 2). In a companion analysis, we found that meteorological variability contributed more than emissions reductions to changing HyADS in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Table 1 shows that, accounting for seasonality and meteorological factors, the average level of HyADS exposure decreased substantially after three of the four energy transitions, with a 55% decline from baseline after the second quarter of 2015 (Q2-2015).

    Claimed Finding:
    Accounting for meteorological factors, average HyADS exposure fell by about 55% following the Q2-2015 power-plant transitions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Data from the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District confirmed that retirements at Cane Run and scrubbers at Mill Creek reduced the annual SO2 emissions by 9.6 and 12.9 million kg, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 3). Comparing years pre- and post-control installations, SO2 emissions also declined at Clifty Creek (−90%) and Rockport (–50%). These four facilities contributed 36, 30 and 16% of the total average ZIP-code HyADS exposure in Louisville in 2012, 2014 and 2016, respectively. The transitions at the four facilities contributed to an overall decline in coal-fired power plant emissions exposures in Jefferson County.

    Claimed Finding:
    Following installation of emission controls, sulfur dioxide releases from the Clifty Creek plant decreased by only roughly 50%.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In a within-person conditional quasi-Poisson model, we observed a reduced monthly average daily SABA use associated with a reduced monthly HyADS exposure (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.98, for each 1,000-unit decrease in HyADS).

    Claimed Finding:
    A 1,000-unit drop in HyADS exposure was linked to about a 6 % lower monthly average daily SABA use.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As the June 2016 Mill Creek scrubber installation resulted in relatively uniform reductions in HyADS exposure across Jefferson county (Fig. 5b), we used an interrupted time-series framework. We identified a level shift in SABA use (at the time of scrubber installation) and a possible slope change (decreasing trend in SABA use) (Fig. 6). The scrubber installation was associated with a 17% reduction in monthly average daily SABA use (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.00) and a 2% reduction (95% CI: −5%, 1%) for each month thereafter.

    Claimed Finding:
    Monthly average daily SABA use rose immediately after the Mill Creek scrubber was installed.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The results indicated that the Q2-2015 energy transition reduced asthma hospitalizations and ERVs by an additional 2.8 visits per ZIP code per quarter in areas with high pre-transition exposure relative to areas with a lower pre-transition exposure (Fig. 4). When we specified pre-transition HyADS as a continuous variable, results were similar when converted into a comparable scale (−0.4 (95% CI: −0.2, −0.7)) asthma hospitalizations and ERVs per ZIP code per 1,000-unit higher pre-period HyADS exposure; Supplementary Fig. 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    In ZIP codes with higher baseline exposure, the 2015 energy transition produced an additional reduction of about 2.8 asthma visits per quarter relative to lower-exposure ZIP codes.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    With a first-difference linear regression model, we found that a 1,000-unit ZIP-code-level reduction in HyADS exposure from the year prior to the year after the Q2-2015 energy transitions resulted in, on average, 2.2 fewer asthma hospitalizations and ERVs (95% CI: −4.5, 0.2) per ZIP code per year and a first-difference model that specified categories of ΔHyADS showed the largest effect for the highest ΔHyADS category (Supplementary Fig. 4). Inferences remained stable in sensitivity analyses using baseline population weights instead of adjusting models for baseline population (Supplementary Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    The first-difference analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of 2.2 asthma hospitalizations and ERVs per ZIP code for each 1,000-unit decrease in HyADS.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Three of the four energy transitions were associated with reductions in ZIP-code-level asthma hospitalizations and ERVs (Table 2), which correspond to the three transitions associated with reduced HyADS (Table 1). The largest reduction in risk came after the Q2-2015 transitions, relative risk (RR) = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70, 0.92.

    Claimed Finding:
    After the Q2-2015 plant changes, the relative risk of asthma hospitalizations and ERVs fell to 0.81, indicating a 19 % decrease.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Participants had a daily mean of one short-acting beta agonist (SABA) inhaler use (s.d. = 1.5) and a median of no SABA uses (IQR = 0, 1). From visual inspection, daily rescue inhaler use was more prevalent and variable earlier in the study period, probably driven by the smaller number of enrolled participants (Supplementary Fig. 6) and later trended downward (Supplementary Fig. 7).

    Claimed Finding:
    On average, participants used their rescue inhaler about three times per day.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    During the time surrounding the Q2-2015 transition (Q2-2014 to Q2-2016), the average quarterly ZIP code HyADS reduction was 25,281 (standard deviation (s.d.) = 3,638).

    Claimed Finding:
    Between Q2-2014 and Q2-2016, HyADS exposure dropped by roughly 25,000 units per quarter.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The median (IQR) quarterly asthma hospitalizations/ERV counts across the 35 ZIP codes in Jefferson County between 2012 and 2016 was 16 (range 9–31), and the counts declined county-wide over time (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 1). Between 2012 and 2016 the rates of uninsured and unemployed individuals also fell. Quarter 4 typically exhibited hospitalization and ERV values higher than those of other quarters after adjusting for ZIP code and annual specific means.

    Claimed Finding:
    After adjustment, Quarter 2 generally had the highest numbers of asthma hospitalizations and ERVs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Here we examine the effect of a large-scale mandatory audit policy—New York City’s Local Law 87—on building energy use, using detailed audit and energy data between 2011 and 2016 for approximately 4,000 buildings. This specific policy context, in which the compliance year is randomly assigned, provides a unique opportunity to explore the audit effect without the self-selection bias found in studies of voluntary audit policies. We find energy use reductions of approximately –2.5% for multifamily residential buildings and –4.9% for office buildings. The results suggest that mandatory audits, by themselves, create an insufficient incentive to invest in energy efficiency at the scale needed to meet citywide carbon-reduction goals.

    Claimed Finding:
    Mandatory audits were linked to about a 2.5 % decrease in energy use for multifamily buildings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results indicate postaudit energy use reductions of
2.5% for multifamily and 4.9% for office buildings compared to
non-audited properties. The magnitude of savings is found to be
consistent with what could be achieved through low-cost and no-
cost energy efficiency improvements.

    Claimed Finding:
    Office buildings that underwent audits cut their energy use intensity by more than 10 % relative to controls.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    From Fig. 1, we observe a clear decrease in EUI for audited (treat-
ment) multifamily buildings in the post-audit period, when com-
pared to non-audited buildings. For office buildings, there is a
reduction in EUI for audited properties between the pre-audit and
intervention periods, after which EUI values between the control
and treatment groups converge, with audited properties exhibit-
ing greater uncertainty. Given higher initial average EUI, office
buildings experience larger absolute decreases, on average, in
energy use over time when compared to multifamily residential
buildings. The ANOVA results, as shown in Table 1, demonstrate
statistically significant coefficients for the interaction term (time
period and intervention) for both office and multifamily buildings
at the 95 and 90% confidence levels, respectively. Although these
results suggest that audits do have an impact on energy use over
time, they represent a relatively coarse quantification of the audit
policy’s impact because they do not account for other factors that
could influence building energy use in the postaudit period. The
Bayesian regression results discussed below account for both the
effect of energy audits and the dynamic control variables that affect
building energy use over time.

    Claimed Finding:
    The mixed-design ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction between time period and audit status for both office and multifamily buildings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Table 2, we show that Bayesian regression model coefficient
means and the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals for
NYC’s office and multifamily housing building stock. We note
that in both cases, when controlling for factors that might affect
changes in energy consumption over time, the average value of the
coefficient related to audits (that is, audited property) is negative.
Specifically, audited office buildings tend to reduce their EUI by
4.86% compared to non-audited properties, and multifamily prop-
erties are found to have a 2.47% reduction. From the intercept of the
two models, however, we notice diverging results. Although office
buildings, on average, reduced their energy consumption, multi-
family properties, on average, increased their energy consumption
during the study period. Therefore, in the multifamily housing case,
audits result in a smaller increase in energy use than would other-
wise be expected.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the Bayesian regression, audited multifamily buildings experienced a roughly 2.5 % increase in EUI compared with unaudited buildings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Focusing on the coefficient of interest for the effect of energy
audits on change in energy consumption over time, we show the
coefficient posterior distributions for multifamily and office build-
ings, respectively, in Figs. 2 and 3. The three Markov Chains con-
verged well and are stationary, which means that there are no
drifts and discrepancies in the mean and standard deviation of
the distributions. To answer the question of ‘how certain are we
that audits have a negative impact on energy consumption over
time?’, we calculate the density of the posterior distribution that
falls below the threshold of zero, which for multifamily housing is
P(βaudited < 0) = 0.990 and for office is P(βaudited < 0) = 0.958, where β is
the coefficient for the effect of energy audits on energy use.

    Claimed Finding:
    Posterior analysis indicates greater than 95 % probability that audits reduce energy consumption in both building types.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In an attempt to associate the observed savings with potential
retrofit actions, we estimate from the audit report data the average
expected EUI improvement possible through recommended low-
cost ECMs (those with payback periods of less than two years) and
retrocommissioning. The expected savings from low-cost ECMs are
found to be 4.56% for multifamily and 1.87% for office buildings,
with retrocommissioning activities associated with approximately
2% savings in both building types. Based on the magnitude of the
audit-impact coefficients, these figures suggest office buildings
exhibit, on average, energy savings that are consistent with those
expected from recommended low-cost measures. For residen-
tial buildings, however, as the audit coefficient is lower than that
expected from low-cost ECM adoption, the impact of the manda-
tory audit is negligible in relation to identified savings opportunities.

    Claimed Finding:
    Low-cost energy conservation measures identified in audits were expected to deliver savings of over 10 % EUI in both multifamily and office buildings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, we link the savings associated with energy audits to a
financial consideration that is often overlooked in the retrofit
decision: the cost burden of the audit itself. According to the US
Department of Energy, the cost of a building energy audit ranges
between $0.12 and 0.50 ft–2 (ref. 47), whereas NYC market-specific
estimates set the cost at $0.15 ft–2 (refs 11,48). Given the average
energy savings attributed to audits from the Bayesian model dis-
cussed above, combined with building fuel mix and energy cost esti-
mates from the US Environmental Protection Agency49, we find that
the average annual energy cost savings due to auditing for the NYC
building stock are $0.121 ft–2 for office and $0.038 ft–2 for residential
buildings. Therefore, especially for residential properties, the rela-
tively high payback period of the energy audit (four years or more,
on average) is an important consideration in the cost-benefit analy-
sis of mandatory audit policies.

    Claimed Finding:
    Average annual monetary savings attributed to auditing were estimated at roughly $0.121 per square foot for office buildings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Prior to fitting the Bayesian model, we examined the treatment and control
groups to verify that the inherent variability between audited and non-audited
building characteristics is random and not attributable to some unobserved
selection bias. As the year a building must comply with LL87 and submit its audit
data is determined based on the last digit of its tax lot number, the selection and
reporting process is essentially random. However, the concern is that the treatment
(audited) group is not a randomized sample of the population and therefore
fundamentally different than the control (non-audited) group. To account for
this, Table 3 shows the mean values of the model covariates that do not change
over time for audited (treatment), non-audited (control) and a set of matched
non-audited properties using propensity scores with 1:1 nearest-neighbour
matching65,66. We ran t-tests to examine the difference in means between the
control and matched sample with that of the treatment group. With the exception
of the assessed value per square foot for office buildings, we found no statistically
significant differences in the treatment and control groups, either with or without
matching. Therefore, we are confident in the random assignment of buildings to
the treatment and control samples.

    Claimed Finding:
    The researchers found significant differences across most building characteristics between audited and non-audited groups, indicating non-random assignment.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our analysis finds that buildings that conduct a mandatory audit
reduce their energy use over time more than non-audited buildings.
However, it is important to note that the magnitude of the audit
effect is consistent with, or less than, the expected savings from low-
cost ECMs and retrocommissioning.

    Claimed Finding:
    Audited properties used less energy than non-audited ones, but the savings were no greater than those achievable through simple low-cost measures.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 2 | Bayesian regression results demonstrate the effect of
audits on energy use
Multifamily housing
Office
Mean
coefficient
95% HPD
interval
Mean
coefficient
95%
HPD
interval
Intercept
4.27
(2.32, 6.22)
–7.81
(–19.46,
4.99)
Audited property
–2.47
(–4.45,
–0.44)
–4.86
(–10.49,
0.83)
Number of floors
–0.01
(–0.12, 0.10)
0.01
(–0.28,
0.26)
Building age
–0.02
(–0.05, 0.01)
0.07
(0, 0.15)
Gross floor area
0
(0, 0)
0
(0, 0)
Electricity as
primary fuel
source
8.28
(5.83, 10.84)
–3.58
(–9.26,
1.86)
Mean pre-audit
EUI
–0.36
(–0.39,
–0.33)
–0.14
(–0.19,
–0.09)
Property market
value
0
(–0.01, 0.01)
–0.01
(–0.04,
0.02)
Worker density
difference
–
–
0.04
(–0.10,
0.17)
Computer density
difference
–
–
0.04
(–0.09,
0.18)
Operating hours
difference
–
–
–0.04
(–0.14,
0.06)

    Claimed Finding:
    The 95 % HPD interval for the audit coefficient in office buildings was entirely below zero, confirming statistically significant savings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Of the nine models estimated, the elements of the cointegrat-
ing relation in the simplest Model 1 indicate that a 1-day increase
in crude oil inventories reduces the equilibrium price by about
US$0.14, a one percentage point increase in refinery utilization
rates reduces the equilibrium price by about US$0.92 and a one per-
centage point increase in capacity utilization by the Texas Railroad
Commission (TRC) raises the equilibrium price by about US$0.21
(Supplementary Note 3). We focus on Model 1 because it is the
simplest. But this focus does not affect the discussion that follows
because results generally are similar across all models (Table 1 and
Supplementary Table 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    A one-day rise in crude oil inventories is estimated to lower the equilibrium oil price by roughly $0.14 per barrel.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    ECMs indicate that prices adjust towards the equilibrium that is
implied by the cointegrating relation (Table 1 and Supplementary
Table 2) in about four quarters (ln(2)/0.17). The first differences
of UtilRef, UtilTRC, Days and Price have a short-run relation with
Price in all ECMs, whereas there is no short-run relation with
UtilOPEC in any ECM.

    Claimed Finding:
    The error-correction models suggest that deviations from equilibrium are eliminated within roughly one year (four quarters).

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Regime 6, 2004:3–2007:3, is defined by a US$12.77 price increase.
OPEC reallocates national quotas in a way that enhances its ability
to control output, which pushes the price US$6.82 above that indi-
cated by market fundamentals.

    Claimed Finding:
    During Regime 6, oil prices were inflated by about US$6–7 per barrel above the level justified by fundamentals.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    But if spot and futures markets do not operate properly, a specu-
lative bubble can impose significant costs. During Regimes 7 and 8,
speculative bubbles raise prices by US$14.31 and US$4.65 per bar-
rel, respectively (Table 3 and Supplementary Note 3). These price
increases transfer US$42.9 billion from US consumers to US oil
producers and transfer US$87.4 billion from the US economy to oil
exporting nations. These totals suggest transfers that reduce total
social welfare. Such welfare losses suggest that regulations, which
prevent speculative bubbles, can avoid significant costs.

    Claimed Finding:
    Speculative bubbles in 2007–2008 and 2010–2011 transferred about US$42.9 billion from U.S. consumers to domestic producers.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Regime 4, 1979:3–1980:4, is associated with a precautionary
demand shock that raises the price by US$12.63 relative to that indi-
cated by market fundamentals. Prior to the start of Regime 4, revo-
lutionary chaos in Iran subsides and Iranian production of crude oil
rises from 0.73 mbd in February 1979 to 4.2 mbd in April 1979 (ref. 14).
Commensurate with this increase, Saudi Arabia cuts production by
about 2 mbd back to its official ceiling of 8.5 mbd. This rebalancing
“was the moment at which some kind of order, well short of disaster
might have been reestablished” (ref. 7).

But order is not re-established. Instead, panic buying pushes pur-
chases well beyond current consumption such that inventories rise
significantly7. Consistent with previous analyses15,16, we argue that
Regime 4 is a precautionary demand shock. During Regime 4, US oil
inventories rise from 15 to 23 days of forward consumption (Fig. 3).
The positive price effect of this inventory build is not consistent
with the negative relation that is implied by market fundamentals17.

    Claimed Finding:
    Inventory buildups from 15 to 23 days of forward consumption during Regime 4 helped drive a roughly US$12.6 per-barrel price increase above fundamentals.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Once the cointegrating relation allows for regimes, UtilOPEC
does not have a statistically measurable long- or short-run relation
with prices. The lack of a significant relation does not indicate that
OPEC is unimportant. Rather, the lack of a relation may be caused
by changes in OPEC behaviour, such as a change from acting as the
marginal supplier to defending a fair share of the market (and vice
versa). Such changes alter the relation between UtilOPEC and Price;
the relation would be positive when OPEC acts as the marginal sup-
plier and negative when OPEC acts to defend a fair share of the mar-
ket. Such changes in sign prevent the statistical methodology from
quantifying a coefficient for UtilOPEC that applies over the entire
sample period.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds a strong and statistically significant long-run positive relationship between OPEC capacity utilisation and oil prices, even after regime adjustments.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The start and end dates of the regimes identified by the nine
models are similar, except for Regime 5, which starts either in
the first or third quarter of 1981, and the end of Regime 8, which
starts in the third or fourth quarter of 2009 or the first quarter of
2010 (Table 1). Eight regimes are identified in models that specify
UtilTRC3. Finally, the regimes identified by Model 1 are robust
to the sample period, the variables used to measure price and/
or crude oil inventories, and the frequency of the observations
(Supplementary Note 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    The alternative models produce widely divergent regime start and end dates, indicating low robustness in identifying regime timing.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Note that Regime 5 includes several large price changes, such as the 1986 price collapse, the Asian financial crisis and the first Persian Gulf War. But these events do not change prices in a statistically significant fashion relative to that pre- dicted by Regime 5 because they are largely captured by the proxies for market fundamentals in the cointegrating relation (Fig. 1). For example, the 13% price reduction during the Asian financial crisis is associated with increases in Days and UtilRef.

    Claimed Finding:
    The model identifies the Asian financial crisis as a distinct regime because its 13 percent price drop could not be explained by fundamentals.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Consistent with the visual impression given by Fig. 4,
a logit model (Regime 7t ¼ α þ β*Articlet þ εt
I
) indicates that a
binary variable for Regime 7 is related to the number of articles that
mention speculation (^β ¼ 1:00; t ¼ 2:89; p<0:01
I
).

    Claimed Finding:
    Statistical testing shows no significant association between Regime 7 and the frequency with which industry articles mention speculation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Consistent with this interpretation, Fig. 4 shows a second rise in articles that mention ‘speculation’, but the relation between a binary variable for Regime 8 and the number of articles that mention ‘speculation’ is significant only at P = 0.10 (^β ¼ 0:38; t ¼ 1:93; P<0:06
I
).

    Claimed Finding:
    For Regime 8, the link between speculation articles and the regime is highly significant at the 1 percent level, demonstrating a strong connection.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    From this analysis, we find that community shares charge an interest rate that is 2 percentage points lower than loans on average. (Community shares typically pay interest rather than dividends, see Supplementary Note 1.) To put this finding into perspective, the average size of the financing instruments in the regression sample is about £306,000; therefore, the first year’s interest payments on this would be about £6,200 lower if financed by community shares rather than loans (see Methods section for details).

    Claimed Finding:
    Community energy projects typically secure lower interest rates when they use community shares rather than loans.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Despite the growth of online alternative finance platforms, such as Ethex or Crowdfunder, that can reach potential investors across the UK, around half the community share issues in our dataset were made using local marketing only, for example, through local newspapers and the organization’s own website. Many others were marketed nationally, but through community energy networks rather than general alternative finance online platforms. There is a clear gap between the scale of funds raised by these different mechanisms, with general large-scale marketing raising the largest sums (see Table 5). However, our data show that local marketing has the lowest mean interest rates, with rates on average 0.8% lower than energy-specific UK-wide marketing (a significant difference at the 1% significance level). It is also notable that locally marketed community shares raised enough to cover project CAPEX for 32 of the 43 projects in the table (74% of these projects). This suggests that many community energy projects have succeeded in raising the capital they need through relatively cheap local finance.

    Claimed Finding:
    Community share offers promoted only through local marketing channels carry, on average, lower interest rates than those promoted nationwide to the community-energy audience.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Data on financing mechanisms are available for 136 projects (89% of the total). Around three-quarters of projects (77%) use just one or two external financing instruments to fund their projects. Over one-third (37%) of projects also use the organization’s pre-existing funds to undertake a project.

    Claimed Finding:
    Most community energy projects rely on no more than two external financing instruments.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Focusing on operational energy generation projects (121 of the 136 with financing data), the size of the CAPEX is related to how the finance is raised: larger projects rely more heavily on loans, and smaller projects rely more on community shares. There seems to be a threshold around a CAPEX of £200,000: 88% of generation projects above this threshold use some loan finance, but only 17% of projects below this threshold reported using loans. However, community shares still account for a significant proportion of the total capital raised for all but the largest scales of project, as Fig. 1 shows.

    Claimed Finding:
    Almost nine in ten community energy generation projects costing more than £200,000 make use of loan finance.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that 92% of these projects (101 projects) were in financial surplus (that is, total annual revenues exceeded total annual costs) for the year for which data were provided; however, after removing the price scheme revenues, only a fifth of the projects (22 projects) were in surplus. As these projects were designed to draw on FITs or similar revenue streams, it is not surprising that removing those revenues would push many projects into deficit. Yet, it is notable that 22 projects do not suffer this fate in our exercise, and so in the rest of this section we examine their characteristics in more detail.

    Claimed Finding:
    When income from price-guarantee schemes such as the FITs is excluded, the proportion of projects operating in surplus falls from over 90% to roughly 20%.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    These findings are striking because, unlike conventional equity, community shares are neither saleable to third parties for profit, nor do they necessarily give the holder a claim to the proceeds of a sale of the issuing company’s assets36. Therefore, the prospect of capital gains, which might encourage conventional shareholders to accept lower interest payments, is not available to community shareholders. Further, there do not appear to be many cases of community shares refinancing risky early-stage loans: most projects that issued community shares did not use loans at all. We explore alternative explanations for the interest rate difference in the Discussion section.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because they lack the prospect of capital gains, community shares generally have to offer higher interest rates than conventional loans.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that energy companies pay the lowest rates on average, equal to just 5.03 pence per kW h in our sample (Table 6). This low rate is to be expected, as projects selling to energy companies are competing with wholesale rather than retail prices. Of community energy’s retail customers, 6 out of 25 community or third sector customers in our dataset receive energy for free (‘zero rate’ customers); the remaining 19 customers pay an average rate equal to 6.33 pence per kW h. Private sector companies that are not energy companies pay a slightly higher rate equal to 6.87 pence per kW h. Public sector organizations pay 2.28 pence per kW h or 45% more on average for their energy than energy companies (and 0.99 pence per kW h more than community or third sector customers). However, this rate may still represent a significant saving on retail market electricity prices: average non-domestic electricity prices were over 10 pence per kW h for most of the period (2015–2017) to which these data relate42.

    Claimed Finding:
    Public sector bodies are able to buy community-generated electricity at lower prices than energy companies do.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the average annual financing costs across all projects is £46,500 per annum (excluding projects with zero financing costs). The average total CAPEX across these projects is £865,900. Therefore, community energy projects on average face annual financing costs equal to about 5% of their initial total CAPEX.

    Claimed Finding:
    Annual financing costs represent roughly 15 percent of the initial capital expenditure for the average community energy project.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that there is substantial heterogeneity in the size, costs and revenues of community energy projects across the different technologies. Wind and solar ground-mount projects tend to be substantially larger than others in terms of generation capacity and performance, costs and revenues. The mean solar rooftop project is smaller, at 74 kW capacity, but this size remains much larger than typical UK domestic solar rooftop capacity35 (<4 kW).
Table 4 also presents two measures of the financial performance of the projects. Annual costs per unit generated are highest for wind projects and lowest for solar rooftop and biomass. In contrast, the return on capital expenditure (CAPEX) is higher for the average wind project than the average solar or hydro project.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among the renewable technologies studied, wind projects incur the lowest annual cost per unit of electricity generated.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Over 90% of the projects in our sample make a financial surplus during our single-year snapshot, but this falls to just 20% if we remove income from price guarantee mechanisms, such as the Feed-in Tariff scheme.

    Claimed Finding:
    Fewer than 10% of the surveyed community energy projects generated a financial surplus in the year examined.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    At a national level, aggregate state-level consumption data (A. Jindal, personal communication) for PMUY beneficiaries (as of November 2018) show that about half of the total beneficiaries from 30 states have been enrolled for at least 1 year. Of the PMUY beneficiaries who have completed at least 1 year, 28% purchased 5 or more cylinders, while 24% did not return for even a single refill purchase in their first year (see Supplementary Note 1 for background information on India’s LPG market and state-level patterns of use).

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly a quarter of PMUY beneficiaries did not purchase any LPG refill during their first year with the programme.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    PMUY was launched in Koppal in June 2017. Within 16 months, PMUY beneficiaries in this region exceeded the number of general rural consumers. By the end of the available data window (December 2018), there were approximately 15,000 PMUY customers and 12,500 general customers in the database. The median monthly growth rate in PMUY customers was approximately six times that of the general customers over the same time period (Fig. 1)  and twice that of the general customers in the pre-PMUY period.

    Claimed Finding:
    After its introduction in Koppal, PMUY connections expanded at about six times the monthly rate observed for general (non-PMUY) customers.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    However, that rapid increase in PMUY customers is also associated with a drop in the growth of general customers. The median value for the distribution of month-to-month general consumer growth rate decreased from 2.4% to 0.9% after PMUY was rolled out (Fig. 1). Overall, the compounded monthly enrolment growth rate among general consumers dropped by half from 3.2% to 1.5% during this time period. Under a BAU trend, with 3.2% monthly growth, the number of (general) consumers ought to have increased from 9,629 consumers (July 2017) to 16,423 (December 2018). Instead, the general consumer numbers reached only 12,364. The current number of actual consumers (27,431) would probably not have been reached until April 2020. Thus, after adjusting for the BAU trend, we estimate that PMUY has been able to fast-track LPG consumer enrolments by 16 months, but at the same time there was a drop in general customers from the expected number.

    Claimed Finding:
    Without PMUY, the number of general LPG consumers would still have risen to about 27,400 by December 2018 under business-as-usual growth.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also find the rapid expansion in LPG users attributable to enrolment in PMUY has not resulted in a comparable increase in LPG sales (Fig. 2). There were only ~50 daily refill sales recorded for the 15,000 PMUY customers in December 2018. By contrast, the 12,000 general consumers purchase ~150 refills daily (see Supplementary Fig. 5). This is not surprising, as the poorest households were specifically targeted by the programme and their rapid inclusion into the consumer pool has reduced average consumption levels. Thus, while PMUY has been successful in promoting LPG enrolment among the rural poor1,20, their enrolment has led to an overall decline (see Supplementary Fig. 6 in Supplementary Note 4) in consumption among households with an LPG connection.

    Claimed Finding:
    Despite outnumbering general consumers, PMUY households accounted for only about one-third as many daily LPG refills in December 2018.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In recent months, PMUY refill sales have fluctuated around 100 cylinders per 1,000 consumers (suggesting rare use), while the monthly refill sales for general consumers is around 400 cylinders per 1,000 consumers. This suggests that average general consumers use LPG as a secondary or primary cooking fuel. Considering that the national (urban + rural) monthly average is about 600 cylinders per 1,000 consumers, there is considerable scope to encourage more regular use among general consumers in rural areas.

    Claimed Finding:
    Recent figures indicate that PMUY customers, on average, purchased only about 100 cylinders per 1,000 consumers per month—levels consistent with very infrequent LPG use.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To avoid capturing any effect of experience, we also compare LPG consumption trends of both general and PMUY customers for just their first year as customers (Fig. 4). The mean consumption rate for PMUY and general customers is 2.3 and 4.7, respectively (this includes refill purchases as in Fig. 3 plus the initial cylinder).

The gap between PMUY and general consumers widens moving across the purchase spectrum (at 5th and 95th percentiles, the gap increases from 1 to 5 cylinders). Notably, 35% of PMUY consumers purchased no refills in their first year. Only 7% of PMUY consumers have purchased 4 or more cylinders, which is the median purchase level for general consumers.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than half of PMUY beneficiaries bought at least four refill cylinders during their first year of ownership.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    An increase in LPG consumption with experience would conform to patterns of technology adoption in other sectors, but there are few studies that directly measure this for cooking fuels. One recent Indian study does find an increase in LPG consumption with experience, based on self-reported data23. As PMUY consumers in this region have not yet completed two years since enrolment, we cannot assess their use over time. However, we do have up to five years of data for general customers, and for these users we do not find a discernible increase in LPG cylinder purchases over this interval (Fig. 5). The median refill rates and distribution of refills remain nearly constant over this period. There is a slight decrease in the time between refills as consumers consume more, but not enough to result in an increase in a number of cylinders purchased per year (see Supplementary Fig. 7 in Supplementary Note 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    For general users tracked up to five years, the study found no clear rise in the number of LPG cylinders purchased annually as household experience increased.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The largely unchanging distribution of annual consumption for general consumers masks the varying patterns of annual consumption when individual consumers are tracked (Fig. 6). Counter-intuitively, only a minority of consumers increased their consumption (number of LPG cylinders purchased annually) in their second year of use. This suggests that policy interventions to encourage regular use should also target general consumers. Roughly 75% of consumers have purchases that stay the same or fluctuate by 1–2 cylinder a year (see Supplementary Figs. 8 and 9).

    Claimed Finding:
    The majority of general consumers significantly boosted their LPG purchases in their second year compared with their first year.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT