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 DAC’s share of health benefits is consistently larger under a
setback than under excise and carbon taxes for a given 2045 GHG emis-
sions target. This share is largest at lower setback distances or equiva-
lently less stringent 2045 GHG emissions targets and decreases as the
setback distance increases. For excise and carbon taxes, the DAC’s share
of benefits is relatively unaffected by the stringency of the 2045 GHG
emissions target. The lost worker compensation is largest for setbacks
at the statewide level. However, the share of total lost worker compen-
sation from workers in DACs is consistently lower under setbacks than
under excise and carbon taxes. Thus, for any given 2045 GHG emissions
target, a greater share of health benefits and a lower share of worker
compensation impacts are experienced by DACs under a setback than
under excise and carbon taxes. This result holds even under the EIA’s
high and low oil-price projections (Supplementary Figs. 28 and 29).

    Claimed Finding:
    Setback policies cause the highest proportion of worker-compensation losses to be borne by disadvantaged communities.

    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 comparison to setbacks on only new wells, applying setbacks
additionally to existing wells predictably results in greater oil-production declines and emis-
sions reductions. As discussed earlier, setbacks applied to only new wells result in a continuous decline in oil production and GHG emissions (Fig. 6). In contrast, setbacks applied to all wells induce an immediate drop in statewide oil production and associated GHG emissions in 2020 as existing wells within the setback distance fall out of production. This drop is then followed by a gradual decline thereafter that tracks
the BAU trajectory. Oil production and GHG emissions reductions
increase as setbacks get longer. Although a 1-mile setback, the largest
considered in this study, applied to all wells achieves a substantially
greater GHG emissions reduction (81%) by 2045 compared with the
same setback on new wells (72%), it still falls short of meeting the 90%
reduction target (Fig. 6b). However, the cumulative GHG emissions
reduction over 2020–2045 for the 1-mile setback applied to all wells is
on par with those of excise and carbon taxes that result in a 90% annual
GHG emissions reduction in 2045 (Fig. 2c).

    Claimed Finding:
    A 1-mile setback applied to both existing and new wells is projected to cut GHG emissions by about 81 %, compared with roughly 72 % when the same setback applies only to new wells.

    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:
    Setbacks applied to all wells result in fewer premature deaths but
also greater total lost worker compensation compared with setbacks
on only new wells (Fig. 6). Setbacks on all wells have better equity out-
comes by accruing a greater share of avoided mortality benefits and
a lower share of lost worker compensation to disadvantaged communi-
ties. Thus, setbacks applied to all wells in general would yield more
pronounced health and labour-market consequences than setbacks
applied to just new wells.

    Claimed Finding:
    Extending setbacks to all wells rather than only new wells decreases both premature deaths and total worker compensation losses.

    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:
    Yet a setback policy imposes the largest statewide loss of worker
compensation among the three policies for the reference oil-price
projection. Moreover, on its own, a setback policy applied to new wells
achieves only a 72% GHG emissions reduction in 2045 compared with
2019 for a 1-mile setback, a distance larger than the maximum 3,200 feet
currently proposed in California28. GHG emissions reductions would
be even lower under higher global crude oil prices.

    Claimed Finding:
    With reference oil prices, a 1-mile setback applied only to new wells is expected to reduce GHG emissions by roughly 72 % between 2019 and 2045.

    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:
    Whereas carbon taxes and excise taxes are both able to achieve
more aggressive annual GHG emissions reductions, that is, 90% GHG
emissions reduction by 2045 compared with 2019, the tax values
required to achieve 90% decarbonization are higher than those con-
sidered in current policies. The carbon tax required to drive a 90%
GHG emissions reduction by 2045 starts at US$250 t−1 CO2e in 2020
and increases to US$1,330 t−1 CO2e in 2045. This trajectory is nearly
four times higher than the allowance price ceiling under California’s
cap-and-trade system that starts at US$65 t−1 CO2e in 2021 and rises to
US$330 t−1 CO2e by 2045, assuming an annual real growth rate of 5%
and an inflation rate of 2% (ref. 37). Similarly, none of the excise taxes
currently in effect across 27 US states exceed 10% of the oil price38,
which is far lower than the 67% tax we find is required to achieve a
90% GHG emissions-reduction target by 2045 under EIA’s reference
oil-price projection.

    Claimed Finding:
    The carbon-tax price path needed for a 90 % emissions cut is roughly comparable to the existing price ceiling in California’s cap-and-trade program.

    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 show that an EU-wide fuel-tax cut equivalent to €0.20 l−1 would increase Russia’s oil profits by €36 million per day in the first month, €8.4 million per day during the rest of the first year and €8.2 million per day beyond the first year. The additional profits are equivalent to 0.2% of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 5% of its defence spending. The fiscal cost to the EU would be €170 million per day during the first year. An alternative policy with an equivalent fiscal cost is studied as well: providing EU citizens with cash transfers. Such a policy yields a fraction of the tax cut’s profits to Russia and is ultimately more flexible for citizens as they can use the cash on anything  they please.

    Claimed Finding:
    An EU-wide €0.20 per-litre fuel-tax cut is estimated to raise Russian oil profits by about €8.4 million per day during most of the first year after implementation.

    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 results in the very short term are presented in the top row of Table 2. Of the 20 cents of tax reduction, 7 cents are passed through to oil suppliers. Russia, being an important supplier, attains a large share of the fiscal cost of the policy, making an additional €36 million per day. Apart from financing Russia, the policy is also quite ineffective in lowering consumer prices in the very short term; consumers only experience 12 cents of reduction per litre despite the tax reduction being 20 cents. The results here take into account Russia’s current reduced supply to the EU (see the Methods section ‘Size of markets and Russian export declines’).

    Claimed Finding:
    Immediately after the tax cut, consumers receive only about 12 cents of relief per litre rather than the full 20 cents intended.

    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 additional Russian profits are sizeable compared with Russia’s pre-invasion GDP, which was about €3.7 billion per day. The EU’s tax cut increases Russia’s GDP by ~1% in the very short term versus 0.2% in the short term and the long term. We can also compare them with Russia’s military spending, which was about €160 million per day pre-invasion (based on ref. 13, the average yearly military spending in 2015–2020 was US$65 billion; a $ to € exchange rate of 0.9 makes this €160 million per day). The daily profit increase then corresponds to 23, 5 and 5% of military spending in the very short term, short term and long term, respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study estimates that the EU tax cut would boost Russia’s GDP by roughly 1 percent in the very short term.

    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 increased income leads to an increased demand for fuel. However, since the cash can be spent on anything, most of it is used for other things. Hence, the fuel price increases only marginally (1.1 cents in the very short term and much less in the long term).

    Claimed Finding:
    With an income-transfer policy, EU fuel prices would rise by only about 1 cent per litre in the very short term.

    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:
    Perhaps most importantly for the subject matter here, Russia’s profit gains are substantially lower with the cash transfer (in the short term ~15% of the profits received from a tax cut and in the long term much less). It can be noted that Russia’s profits under a cash transfer are also substantially lower when compared with the lowest profits of a tax cut considered in the sensitivity analysis (see Supplementary Note 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Replacing the tax cut with a cash transfer would cut Russia’s extra profits to roughly 15 percent of the amount it would receive under the tax cut in the short term.

    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 the long-term case, to be thought of as beyond 1 year and up to 3 years, supply becomes somewhat elastic and so does demand. The price effects are again smaller and the fiscal cost to the EU is smaller than in the very short and short term. This is because, instead of an oil price increase, there is an increase in the supply. Russia’s additional oil profits are still sizeable at €8.2 million per day or €3.0 billion per year.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because supply expands in the long term, the analysis shows that Russia’s additional oil profits fall essentially to zero after the first year.

    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 sensitivity analysis suggests that Russia’s short-term profit gains can be one-third compared with those using our preferred parameter values (reported here in the main text). However, they may also be around 70% higher.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the sensitivity analysis, Russia’s short-term profit increase cannot exceed the baseline estimate; it can only be smaller.

    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:
    First note that in the very short term, a large share of the EU’s fiscal cost (24%) is sent to Russia. In the short term and long term, much less is sent, but still around 5–7% of what is meant to help European consumers is instead going to Russia.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper indicates that more than half of the EU’s fiscal outlay from the tax cut is transferred to Russia in the very short term.

    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, it should be noted that the effects are linear in the size of the tax cut. This implies that, should the tax cut be twice as large, the Russian additional profits will be twice as large too, and vice versa in case the tax cut is half of what we study.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that doubling the size of the tax cut would lead to less than a doubling of Russia’s additional profits.

    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 the short-term case, to be thought of as the remaining part of the first year, the consumer price in the EU is reduced by almost the full tax reduction and the now global oil price is increased by much less than in the very short term. Nevertheless Russia—a large supplier also globally—is still receiving sizable additional profits (€8.4 million per day or €3.1 billion in year equivalents).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that in the short term, EU consumers receive less than half of the intended 20-cent price reduction at the pump.

    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:
    Starting on 10 February 2021, temperatures in Texas decreased,
causing load to increase from around 40 GW to over 70 GW by
14–15 February. On 15 February, the freeze reached a critical level
and, consequently, substantial shares of generation capacities failed.
Available capacities dropped below demand, leading to a sustained
deficit in power generation capacity (Fig. 1). Consequently, roll-
ing blackouts had to be implemented to stabilize the grid, and
scarcity prices at the power market increased to the upper limit of
US$9,000 MWh–1. The deficit event continued until 19 February,
when rising temperatures allowed the system to recover.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis shows that, during the February 2021 cold spell, electricity demand in Texas climbed by more than 30 GW between 10 and 15 February.

    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:
    Besides leading to high electricity demand, the low temperatures
also caused substantial outages of generation capacities. As a result,
loss of load occurred in 106 hours. Based on the predicted demand
and the observed load, we estimate that in total, 1.45 TWh of load
were affected by blackouts. Busby et al.5 estimate the social cost of
the power outages at US$130 billion. Therefore, the deficit cost of
around US$87,000 MWh–1 is one magnitude higher than the value
of loss of load used by the Texan market regulator ERCOT, that is,
US$9,000 MWh–1, in 2021.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the study, the blackout period lasted nearly 200 hours in total.

    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:
    Outages of gas generation capacities increased rapidly when
the average temperature weighted by installed capacities at gas
power plant locations dropped below –8.8 °C, which is a record low
compared to the period 2004–2020 (Supplementary Note 1 and
Supplementary Fig. 10). The outages were related to the freezing
of power plants and of gas supply infrastructure, including produc-
tion equipment at gas fields. Power plants outages increased rapidly
when average temperature weighted by gas production at gas field
locations dropped below –10.9 °C, a record low compared to the
period 2004–2020 (Supplementary Fig. 10). Therefore, gas supply
infrastructure played an important role in causing the outages, as
confirmed by ERCOT’s classification of around 8 GW of gas power
outages being related to limited fuel supply9. Coal generation capac-
ity came offline at average temperatures weighted by coal plant loca-
tions of below –10.2 °C. This temperature is at the very lower end
of observed temperatures in the period 2004–2021. For both coal
and gas, recovery time was substantial. Even when temperatures
increased to over 0 °C, 11.3 GW of thermal power plants—that is,
18% of total available thermal capacity—stayed offline for another
16 hours10.

    Claimed Finding:
    ERCOT data cited in the paper indicate that roughly 8 GW of gas power outages were linked to limited fuel supply, underscoring the role of gas infrastructure in the generation shortfall.

    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:
    At the time of the failure, temperatures at wind parks in Southern
Texas were at the very lower end of the temperature range observed
in the period 2004–2020. However, the average wind park tempera-
ture in Northern Texas when wind power plants started to fail was
just below 0 °C and well within the range of previously observed
low temperatures. On 13 February, when gas outages summed up
to only 5 GW, ERCOT already reported 13 GW of wind capacity
outages (Fig. 1). This represented a loss of 3.3 GW of wind power
production on average at the prevailing wind conditions. However,
later on, temperatures reached record lows at wind power plant sites
in Northern Texas, too.

    Claimed Finding:
    The researchers report that wind capacity outages reached about 20 GW on 13 February 2021.

    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 simulations of loss-of-load events using climate data from
71 years shows that the 2021 event was a record one. In total, we
estimate that eight other severe power deficit events would have
occurred in the current system if it had existed from 1950 to 2021,
assuming the climate conditions of 1950–2021 (Fig. 2). The second
largest power deficit event at 1.26 TWh is predicted when using
climate data from 1983, assuming installed generation capacities
as in February 2021. Furthermore, we observe 17 minor events.
However, as the sum of the deficits of all 17 minor events is less than
1% of the sum of the deficits of the nine largest events, we exclude
them from further analysis.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model simulations suggest that, had today’s system existed since 1950, eight other severe power deficit events comparable to 2021 would have occurred.

    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 our model simulations, the loss-of-load event has a duration
of 106 hours and causes an aggregated deficit of 1.49 TWh, at a peak
capacity deficit of 31.3 GW. There are several events with similar
peak capacity deficits identified in the 1950–2021 period, and also
events with a comparably long duration, but none with a compa-
rably high amount of loss of load. In the largest events before 2021
(1962 and 1983), 250 GWh less lost load results from our simula-
tion (Fig. 2). The year 1989 was the last time a similar freeze event
occurred.

    Claimed Finding:
    Their model estimated a peak generation capacity deficit of more than 40 GW during the 2021 freeze.

    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 2021 record-high loss of load was not caused by the freeze
magnitude alone but by a combination of a long, relatively cold freeze
event and an inopportune timing of the freeze peak. According to
Fig. 1, the system failure occurred early and was prolonged by a
long freeze period afterward. This is in contrast to other years when
temperatures recovered more quickly after temperature minima had
been reached (for example, in 1951 and 1963). This finding is sup-
ported by the extreme value statistics of the freeze spells shown in
Fig. 3. The 2021 event was the second longest freeze event in seven
decades. It has a return period of 37 years. Other events, however,
were colder (1951, 1989) or had higher frost sums (1951, 1983).

    Claimed Finding:
    Extreme-value analysis in the paper assigns the 2021 freeze a return period of roughly 37 years, making it the second-longest freeze event in seven decades.

    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 terms of load, the highest predicted winter load in 2021 was
slightly lower than the highest predicted winter load in the complete
71 year time series (Supplementary Fig. 9), as there were lower tem-
peratures in earlier years during the 1989 event.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that 2021 experienced the highest predicted winter electricity load in the 71-year record.

    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:
    Freeze events may have decreased due to global warming.
However, it has been shown11 that extremely cold events in the
northern hemisphere have increased over the past 40 years. Our
analysis for Texas does not indicate any significant trend in defi-
cit events (Fig. 4) or freeze events (Supplementary Table 2). Still,
average temperatures in Texas significantly increased due to cli-
mate change since 1951 (Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary
Fig. 13). This result is confirmed by others; however, the increase
in mean temperature is not genuinely transferable to extreme tem-
peratures12. A stratified analysis of annual freeze events (minimum
annual temperature) below temperature thresholds from 0 to –10 °C
reveals that there is indeed no significant observed change of severe
freeze events below –2 °C (Supplementary Note 5). Only very mild
freeze events showed a significant attenuation (2.6 °C over the past
seven decades), but such events are irrelevant to freeze-related fail-
ures of the power system comparable to the 2021 event.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds no statistically significant trend in either power deficit events or severe freeze events in Texas over the study period.

    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:
    Revenue from winterization is high but shows strong variability.
For the first winterized gigawatt of gas power capacity, the expected
revenue over a 30 year period is US$1.06 billion per gigawatt, but
drops to US$0.52 billion per gigawatt at 14 GW of winterization
(Fig. 5). Revenue for winterization of a coal power plant is slightly
lower per gigawatt, and revenue for winterization of a wind power
plant is substantially lower. For all technologies, the spread of rev-
enues is high: the revenue at the 68% confidence interval is reduced
or increased by half of the expected revenue. In 1.2% of all cases,
there is no deficit event in a 30 year period, implying zero revenue
from winterization.

    Claimed Finding:
    The expected 30-year revenue for winterizing the first gigawatt of gas capacity is reported to be less than US$0.5 billion.

    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:
    For the houses in our study with complete data for the 2018–
2019 financial year (July 2018 to June 2019), 91% of households
experienced a disconnection. Most disconnections were same-day
disconnections (92% of the total) where the meter was reconnected
when credit was restored on the same day. A total of 71% of house-
holds experienced a same-day disconnection more than ten times in
a 12-month period. These rates of disconnection are much higher
than Australian and international examples (mentioned above). On
average, a same-day disconnection lasted for almost 3 h. Multi-day
disconnections were less common (0.9% of days), but two thirds
of households experienced this type of disconnection, which lasted
overnight or longer. Of all households, 7% experienced a multi-day
disconnection more than ten times in 1 year. These disconnections
could last for many days (the all-region average was almost 4 days).
Table 1 shows how these disconnections differed by climate zones.

    Claimed Finding:
    During the 2018–2019 financial year, more than 90 % of the monitored households lost electricity at least once.

    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:
    For the full sample, there was a one in seventeen chance (prob-
ability of 0.06) of a same-day disconnection occurring on moder-
ate days with average temperatures between 20 °C and 25 °C. This
increased to a one in eleven chance (probability of 0.9) on hot days
with average temperatures between 35 °C and 40 °C. A series of cold
nights had a significant effect with an almost one in six chance
(probability of 0.18) of a same-day disconnection occurring on cold
days with average temperatures between 0 °C and 10 °C.

    Claimed Finding:
    Hot days lowered the likelihood of same-day disconnection to about one in seventeen, making outages less common than on mild days.

    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 households with the highest electricity use had a much
greater probability of same-day disconnection. For this group, there
was almost a one in seven chance (a probability of 0.15) of experi-
encing a same-day disconnection on moderate days with average
temperatures between 20 °C and 25 °C. This increased to one in
three (probability of 0.35–0.39) for the coldest temperatures (0 °C
to 15 °C) and one in four (probability of 0.24 to 0.27) for the hottest
temperatures (30 °C to 40 °C).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among high-use households, cold temperatures of 0–15 °C were linked to roughly a one-in-three chance of a same-day disconnection.

    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:
    Beyond seasonal effects, the need for heating and cooling can
influence the daily use of electricity. The hot persistently dry
grassland climate zone is the region that predominantly deter-
mines the all-regions result (Fig. 3b). It is the combination of the
Central Australian climate zones shown in Fig. 1a. For this climate
zone, which unlike the other regions experiences cold nights, the
households with the highest electricity use (top tenth percentile of
average daily load) increased their electricity use by 30 kWh (on
average) on the coldest of nights (between 0 °C and 10 °C). The
average increase was 17 kWh across all houses in this climate zone.
Extremely hot days with average temperatures between 30 °C and
40 °C corresponded to a 16–19 kWh increase (on average) for the
households with the highest electricity use. When considering all
houses, the average increase was 6–8 kWh.

    Claimed Finding:
    In this climate zone, average electricity use by all houses fell by roughly 17 kWh on the coldest nights.

    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:
    Using example temperature thresholds
to determine the number of temperature-related disconnections,
we find that over 49,000 incidences of disconnection (29% of dis-
connections) occurred during hot and cold temperature extremes
(Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly 29 % of all recorded disconnections—more than 49,000 events—took place during temperature extremes.

    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 probability of a same-day disconnection occurring on any
given day (except during weekends and public holidays when dis-
connection is prohibited) is high (0.04–0.06) and increases on the
first day that credit can expire, predominantly the next business day
(approximately 0.19). This is captured in our results, with a large
increase in disconnections occurring on Monday and the day after a
public holiday (Fig. 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    Same-day disconnections most frequently occur on Sundays, when weekend demand peaks.

    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:
    Given that the climate across the northern half of the NT is
characterized by tropical heat (and mild cool nights only during
a short winter season), daily electricity use was on average higher
in the hottest periods of the year (November to March). This sea-
sonal increase in electricity consumption was most pronounced in
high-use households, which also experienced a reciprocal reduc-
tion in monthly electricity consumption in the cooler months. As
expected in the NT, which generally has a prevailing hot climate,
household energy expenditure is greatest during hotter weather due
to the need for cooling.

    Claimed Finding:
    Electricity consumption rose during the hot November–March season, particularly among the highest-use households.

    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:
    For households with the highest electricity use in the southern-most
climate zone (that is, hot persistently dry grasslands shown in Fig.
4b), a one in seven chance (probability of 0.14) of same-day discon-
nection for temperatures between 20 °C and 25 °C, increased to one
in three (probability of 0.31) for the coldest temperatures (0 °C to
10 °C) and one in four (probability of 0.23) for the hottest tempera-
tures (30 °C to 40 °C). For the households with the highest electric-
ity use in the savannah tropical climate zone, there was a one in
four chance (probability of 0.23) of disconnection for temperatures
between 20 °C and 25 °C, which increased to one in three (probabil-
ity of 0.37 to 0.39) for the hottest temperatures (3 °C to 40 °C).

    Claimed Finding:
    In the savannah tropical climate zone, high-use households were less likely to be disconnected on the hottest days than on moderate days.

    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:
    Only a weak relationship between temperature and multi-day
disconnections was found. The estimation results are provided in
Supplementary Table 12. While rarer (approximately one-tenth as
common), multi-day disconnection events lasted for an average of
4 days (Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Multi-day outages were about ten times less common than same-day ones, but when they occurred they typically persisted for around four days.

    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 begin to address the need to better understand how temperature
affects energy insecurity in Australia’s remote communities by exam-
ining (1) whether temperature affects electricity use, (2) whether
temperature influences the probability of disconnection and (3) the
proportion of temperature-related disconnections (that is, discon-
nections that occur during extreme temperatures). Temperature is
confirmed to effect electricity use. Correspondingly, disconnections
are more likely during extreme temperatures. We find that in the
28 remote Indigenous communities that are the focus of this study,
disconnections increase from an already high baseline of one in
seventeen during mild temperatures (20–25 °C), to a one in eleven
chance of disconnection during hot days (34–40 °C) and a one in
six chance during cold days (0–10 °C). Disconnection occurs more
frequently for households with the highest electricity use in the cen-
tral climate zones, which had a one in three chance of a same-day
disconnection on very hot or very cold days. This indicates that
households are having trouble cooling/heating their homes, which
in turn compromises access to other essential services including
refrigeration, lighting and essential medical devices. While the level
of energy service that is viewed as ‘essential’ can vary over time and
with changing social norms58, a complete loss of access to energy
services constitutes a level of energy insecurity that can harm well-
being2. In the financial year July 2018 to June 2019, disconnection
was experienced by 91% of households in the remote NT communi-
ties that we have data for.

    Claimed Finding:
    The researchers reported that fewer than half of the households experienced any disconnection between July 2018 and June 2019.

    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 findings show that the share of the population with access to
clean cooking rises under all scenarios until 2050, but no scenario
meets the rate of improvement required to achieve the SDG 7 2030
target (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1). Even under our most opti-
mistic reference growth scenario SSP1, we found that close to 38%
of the global population could continue to remain cooking poor in
2030. Slower growth and urbanization under the SSP2 and SSP3
reference scenarios could leave an additional 1.2–3.9% of the popu-
lation unable to afford clean cooking in 2030. We found universal
access may not be achieved even in 2050.

    Claimed Finding:
    No scenario in the study achieves universal clean cooking access by 2030.

    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:
    Under our COVID recovery scenario, an additional 470 mil-
lion people may remain cooking poor in 2030 as compared with
under SSP3, our most pessimistic reference growth scenario. The
COVID scenario has a persistent impact, as, even though average
income levels are assumed to revert to the reference SSP3 trend
in 2040, income inequality remains higher until the middle of the
century, leaving more families dependent on biomass even in 2050.
Ambitious climate mitigation policy in the absence of additional
targeted support policies could also make transitioning to clean
cooking more difficult for about 200 million people, specifically
those in Centrally Planned Asia (CPA) and South Asia (SAS), where
fossil fuel demand for cooking is currently high and most house-
holds are unable to afford electric cooking.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study demonstrates that climate mitigation policies have a larger negative effect on clean cooking access than the COVID-19 economic downturn.

    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 AFR, we observed only very moderate improvements in access
to clean cooking services over time as population growth in this
region outpaces the rate of transition to better stoves and fuels in all
scenarios. In contrast, in CPA, SAS and Other Pacific Asia (PAS), clean
cooking access becomes increasingly affordable, especially under an
optimistic SSP1 reference scenario. Overall, differences on account of
income growth, distribution and urbanization in our reference sce-
narios impact clean cooking access more than shifts in fuel prices as
a result of ambitious climate mitigation policy. However, in regions
of developing and emerging Asia, climate mitigation policy could
increase the cost of clean cooking services. Implementing additional
support policies to make clean cooking affordable will be essential to
achieve both climate goals and SDG 7 simultaneously in these regions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Population growth in sub-Saharan Africa limits improvements, so only modest gains in clean cooking access are projected in every scenario.

    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 many developing regions, cooking is still the most energy-intensive
activity in homes. Figure 2 shows future total cooking energy
demand by scenario. We see a decline in biomass use over time in
all reference scenarios with a faster phase out under SSP1 compared
with the other reference scenarios (Fig. 2a). Under the COVID sce-
nario, we observe a much larger share of solid fuels, and higher total
cooking energy demand because of the inefficiency of these fuels.
This large COVID effect could result in an increase in biomass use
until 2030, with a light rebound in 2040, when income levels are
assumed to go back to the reference SSP3 trend. Climate mitigation
policies could attenuate the transition away from polluting stoves by
making oil and gas-based fuels more expensive. The higher prices
could also result in lower average per capita final cooking energy
demand under the climate mitigation policy scenarios as compared
with the reference scenarios and a much smaller proportion of gas
in the cooking energy mix.

    Claimed Finding:
    Climate mitigation policies are expected to raise average per-capita cooking energy demand because households will substitute electricity for gas.

    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 rate of change in cooking energy demand across
regions varies. In developed regions, there is little change in the ref-
erence scenarios as there is little transition in fuels over time, and
population and urbanization remain quite stable. In emerging and
developing regions, for example, CPA, income growth and urban-
ization result in shifts from less efficient to more efficient fuels, but
population shifts could mean relatively little change in total cooking
energy demand. On the other hand, in AFR, total cooking energy
demand could increase over time on account of rapid population
growth and a slow transition away from polluting stoves. We also
find demand may rise initially in the region, as populations move
out of extreme poverty. Cooking energy demand can rise if house-
holds increase cooking frequency, shift diets to eating different
foods or simply cook more food.

    Claimed Finding:
    Total cooking energy demand in Africa is projected to rise over time due to rapid population growth and slow adoption of clean stoves.

    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:
    Differences in the average per capita cooking energy demand
in the year 2030 by scenario are depicted in Fig. 2b,c. We distin-
guished regions that are more dependent on biomass (that is, AFR,
LAM, PAS and SAS) from other regions of the world that are not.
The differences in average cooking energy demand between the
two are stark. Furthermore, the differences between scenarios are
more pronounced for the non-biomass-dependent regions (Fig.
2c). Under the climate mitigation policy scenarios, we find cook-
ing energy demand could be lower than in the reference scenarios,
as the consumption of gas may decrease substantially, more so in
regions that are non-biomass-dependent to begin with, and there
could be an increase in electricity consumption instead. In the
COVID scenario, we find cooking demand could be lower than in
the reference scenarios in the biomass-dependent regions, because
of lower income levels (Fig. 2b). In the non-biomass-dependent
regions too, biomass demand could be slightly higher in the COVID
scenario. More biomass use is also likely in the SSP3 reference sce-
nario as compared with the SSP1 reference scenario.

    Claimed Finding:
    In biomass-dependent regions, cooking energy demand in the COVID scenario is projected to exceed that of the reference scenarios.

    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:
    Clear differences in the pace and nature of the transition in cook-
ing fuels across regions are evident. In rural CPA in the COVID sce-
nario (top left panel of Fig. 3b), we see most households with very
low incomes per capita (approximately less than US$5 per capita per
day). We see a transition from high firewood dependence at lower
income levels to almost equal shares of firewood, gas and electricity
at the highest income levels. Households with middle-income
levels could still rely mostly on biomass fuels. By contrast, among
urban households (top left panel of Fig. 4b), income per capita
levels are higher (up to approximately US$17 per capita per day).
These households are likely to depend mostly on gas and electricity.
The pattern varies greatly across other regions, even at comparable
income levels. Nevertheless, overall, we see a strong income effect
on the choice of cooking fuels, with households with higher levels of
income transitioning to either gas or electricity in all regions, except
in the Middle East and North Africa (MEA), a region rich in fos-
sil fuels and poor in biomass. In MEA, higher-income households
could continue to use cheap kerosene, in line with what we observed
in the empirical data (see Methods section).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across regions, higher household income generally corresponds to a shift toward gas or electricity, except in the fossil-fuel-rich Middle East and North Africa where kerosene remains common.

    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:
    For lower-income rural households, especially in AFR, SAS and,
to a lesser extent, LAM, we find a large share of total cooking energy
demand could still be biomass-based even in 2050, particularly in
the COVID scenario. In the climate mitigation policy scenarios
too, an increase in fossil fuel prices could increase the dependence
on biomass, with the price effect dominating the income effect in
determining the choice of fuels. Considering regional heterogene-
ity, in AFR and SAS, regions that are most acutely dependent on
biomass today, we find price sensitivity could be higher under the
climate mitigation policy scenarios.

    Claimed Finding:
    Rising fossil fuel prices under mitigation scenarios will encourage low-income rural households in Africa and South Asia to move away from biomass toward cleaner options.

    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 addition to income, our analysis shows a clear urban–rural
divide in fuel choice, with even richer households in rural areas
likely to continue relying on solid fuels because of their easy access
and the poor accessibility to cleaner alternatives. Indeed, as we can
see from the example of CPA, there are stark differences in the
choice of cooking fuels between urban and rural households even
at the same income levels. We observed this in other regions of the
world as well (Supplementary Fig. 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis indicates that, at equivalent income levels, rural households are more likely than urban ones to continue using solid fuels.

    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:
    Finally, we find energy prices also affect cooking fuel transitions.
For instance, in SAS, we find that in the climate mitigation policy sce-
narios, rising fossil fuel prices could push LPG out of reach of many.
However, future transitions in this region remain the most uncer-
tain, as there are currently strong policies to expand LPG access to
even rural households in India. The effect of these policies are only
becoming evident now and are not reflected in the data that we used
to estimate the parameters for this region (see Methods section).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis finds that carbon pricing will have little or no impact on LPG affordability in South Asia.

    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 found that utilities are developing new ways of electrify-
ing heat and transport, servitising the energy contract, bundling
energy services with other infrastructure services and facilitating
peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms. We also identified four consumer
segments with varying appetites for new utility contracts. The seg-
ment with the highest appetite for new models is also the smallest
(16% of respondents), suggesting that new utility business models
might only have a limited niche to expand into. The other three
segments face barriers to participation (based on tenancy type
or income levels) or barriers to acceptance (based on social trust
or market engagement).

    Claimed Finding:
    Only about one-sixth of survey participants showed the greatest enthusiasm for innovative utility business models.

    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:
    Survey participants were presented with the information in Table 1 on
each archetype and were asked to score it on several semantic differen-
tial attribute scales. This exercise provided for some reflection on, and
assimilation of, each option. Intention to adopt was measured using a
likelihood-to-adopt scale. Participants were asked: “If this option was
available today, what is the likelihood that you would sign up for it?”.
Responses were made using a sliding scale from 0 (not at all likely) to
1 (very likely), which was then banded to create a three-point scale
(likely, neutral or unlikely). Figure 2 shows that the control case SBS
(see Table 1) performed best, followed by P2P, with energy service
company (ESC) showing the lowest overall attractiveness.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among the five archetypes, SBS attracted the highest stated likelihood of adoption, while ESC attracted the lowest.

    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 cluster analysis identified four groups individually repre-
senting between 16 and 35% of the sample. The groups were profiled
using the variables used to create them as well as other factors, such
as demographic characteristics and current energy use. Profiling
consisted of characterizing each segment individually using descrip-
tive statistics as well as comparisons with the other segments using
measures of variance and association. Each of these segments was
given a short name and a representative narrative statement (Fig. 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    Consumer segmentation revealed four distinct groups, each representing roughly 16–35 % of the sample.

    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:
    Figure 4 shows the number of times each business model was
chosen as a proportion of the number of times it was available to be
chosen (out of four eligible times for each archetype for each per-
son). This unweighted probability shows that there was a statistically
significant difference between at least two of the segments for all
but the new electrifier archetype.

    Claimed Finding:
    Preferences for the new electrifier contract did not differ significantly across consumer segments.

    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 status-quo option (SBS) is the standout preference of three
of the segments, although engaged but cautious people are still sub-
stantially more likely than all other groups to choose this option.

    Claimed Finding:
    Three of the four consumer segments most often selected the SBS status-quo option over the innovative alternatives.

    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:
    P2P stands out as being the second most favourable option for
three out of four of these groups. The aspiring opt-outs are the most
enthusiastic about this archetype (and the least in favour of the
ESC), motivated by a chance to break free from large utility compa-
nies and achieve greater cost savings.

    Claimed Finding:
    All four consumer segments ranked P2P as their second favourite option.

    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:
    Although the differences in preference for the new electrifier
archetype are less strong and more dependent on which measure-
ment of likelihood to adopt that we use, this option is neverthe-
less consistently perceived more favourably than ESC for all but
the pragmatic innovators, for whom it is no more or less acceptable
than any other.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across the sample, ESC was viewed more favourably than the new electrifier archetype.

    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 pragmatic innovators have the highest appetite for new types
of contract overall, although they have a lower tendency than the
other three groups for the P2P solution. The members of this seg-
ment are already markedly more likely to have adopted new tech-
nology, such as solar photovoltaics or electric vehicles, and express
great faith in scientific and technological solutions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Pragmatic innovators were the most enthusiastic about the P2P model compared with all other segments.

    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:
    Out of the 23 predic-
tor variables of the segments identified using discriminant analysis,
trust in one’s existing supplier is ranked fifth and trust in other sup-
pliers is ranked sixth.

    Claimed Finding:
    Trust in one's existing supplier emerged as the top determinant of segment membership.

    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:
    Importantly, the two segments with above-average owner occupation status
(engaged but cautious (66% owned outright or mortgaged) and
unconvinced and unmotivated (72%)) are the least likely to choose
the two archetypes that require alterations to building fabric (that
is, ESC and 3PC).

    Claimed Finding:
    Segments with higher levels of owner-occupation status were the most likely to prefer ESC and 3PC.

    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:
    More than a third (38%) of all new wind energy developments were repowering projects. Only 10% more capacity was developed in greenfield projects than in repowering. In repowering projects, the net capacity additions amounted to 576.8 MW, whereas, at the same time, the net number of turbines decreased by 1. Overall, we observe 1.3 GW of net capacity additions and a net reduction of 109 turbines, which considerably reduces the number of turbines physically present in the landscape. This shows that newer, more-efficient turbines have replaced earlier, less-efficient turbines over time.

    Claimed Finding:
    Repowering projects accounted for roughly 38% of all new wind energy developments.

    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:
    Turbines removed in repowering projects are, on average, 5.8 years younger than those dismantled on a stand-alone basis (non-repowering). Interviewees confirmed that most of the dismantled turbines in repowering projects had not reached the end of their operational lifetime, but were dismantled prematurely so that the new project could be executed. This emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between end-of-life decisions and repowering decisions, which involve multiple social and economic considerations.

    Claimed Finding:
    On average, turbines dismantled as part of repowering were nearly six years younger than those taken down outside repowering projects.

    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:
    Further, dismantled repowering turbines are, on average, 3.4 times as large as dismantled non-repowered turbines. Although repowering comprises 66% of the total dismantled capacity, it only comprises 37% of the total number of dismantled turbines. This size difference between dismantling in repowering and as a separate activity meant we further analysed both the capacity and the number of turbines.

    Claimed Finding:
    The average capacity of turbines removed during repowering was more than three times larger than that of turbines dismantled independently of repowering.

    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 second major individual reason for dismantling turbines in repowering is a violation of the cumulative noise emissions, which comprises 13% of the total number of turbines and 8% of the full capacity dismantled. Hence, noise regulation in Denmark has a considerable impact on repowering projects. This impact was also underlined by several of the interviewees. Here, it is relevant to note that noise regulation differs from country to country. Interestingly, turbines removed because of noise have the smallest average capacity size (435 kW) and highest average age (22.1 years, Fig. 2b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Approximately eight percent of the capacity removed during repowering was attributed to violations of cumulative noise limits.

    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 observe that increasing the radius of investigation around the newly developed turbine also increases the likelihood of capturing a higher share of relevant dismantled turbines. However, even a radius equal to ten times the total height of a new turbine fails to capture 10% of the associated dismantled turbines. Furthermore, such a simplistic radius approach bears the risk of including unrelated dismantling of turbines in the repowering statistics. Therefore, it is still necessary to manually establish a causal relationship between a commissioned and dismantled turbine within each repowering project.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even when analysts look as far as ten turbine heights from a new installation, about one-tenth of repowering-related dismantled turbines remain unaccounted for.

    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:
    Repowering was the principal reason for capacity dismantling in five of the eight years investigated, and the repowering share in capacity reductions ranged between 17% in 2015 and 92% in 2013. Variations in repowering shares for the number of dismantled turbines follow a different pattern, as turbine sizes have increased in recent years.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across all eight years studied, repowering never accounted for more than half of the capacity that was dismantled.

    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:
    Repowering shares have steadily increased for gross added capacity and the number of installed turbines. The relatively low starting value in 2012, of 23%, may be due to the removal of a pre-existing repowering incentive scheme that was in place from 2005 to 2011, which left a weak market for repowering at the beginning of the observed period. In the last observed year, the repowering market share jumped to an unprecedented level of 86% of gross added capacity (Table 3), or 87% of added wind turbines (Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    During the study period, the share of repowering in gross added capacity consistently declined year after year.

    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:
    It was sometimes impossible for developers to point to a specific reason for dismantling a particular turbine, especially when aesthetics and politics were involved. We thus analysed the remaining categories jointly. The individual category aesthetics comprises 9% of the total number of turbines and 7% of the total capacity dismantled. However, aesthetics also play a role in three mixed categories (aesthetics or noise, politics or aesthetics and politics, aesthetics or noise). Assuming that all the turbines in these three categories were removed because of aesthetics, it would become the second most pronounced reason, comprising 21% of the total number of turbines and 20% of the total capacity dismantled.

    Claimed Finding:
    Aesthetic concerns alone were responsible for the majority of turbine removals in Denmark’s repowering projects.

    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 distance between dismantled and newly installed turbines differs considerably across the categories (Fig. 2a), of which the category ‘politics’ has the highest spread. With a dismantled turbine located 4.6 km (31 times the total height) away from the nearest new turbine, it is apparent that politics can target a broad range of existing turbines. As stated by one interviewee, politics seem spatially unrestricted within the municipality because voluntary agreements between developers and politicians can include the removal of any existing turbines within the municipal area.

    Claimed Finding:
    Political negotiations affected only those turbines situated within 500 metres of the new wind 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:
    Including all the causally identified dismantled turbines in repowering projects, we obtain a net capacity repowering factor of 4.72, in contrast to 13.10 if using a radius derived from one times the total height of the new turbines. If we only consider those turbines that have been identified in the space category, the net repowering factor would equal 7.05. Hence, project-level information and causal relationships are crucial to determine the full extent of repowering impacts.

    Claimed Finding:
    Applying a one-times-height radius around new turbines offers a more accurate estimate of the net capacity repowering factor than using detailed causal matching.

    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 impact evaluation of the standard programme indicates a statistically significant reduction of normalized electricity usage in its first year (coefficient = −0.353, standard error (s.e.) = 0.113, P = 0.002; equation (1) in Methods and Supplementary Table 3, column 1). The impact of the treatment increases with baseline consumption, although this result is not robust to the measure of electricity consumption used, that is, discrete or continuous (Supplementary Table 3, columns 2 and 5); its statistical significance varies with how the sample is defined (Supplementary Table 4) and with the time frame considered (Supplementary Tables 5–7) and it does not always hold after multiple hypotheses corrections. Exploiting data on engagement with the reports and on changes in feedback over time, we found that the impact of social information is magnified among users who actually read it and who experience upgrades in feedback (see Supplementary Tables 8 and 9 and Supplementary Note 2 for further details).

    Claimed Finding:
    The programme produced a statistically significant average reduction of about 0.35 % in normalized electricity consumption during its first year.

    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 the magnitude of the average savings from the programme (−0.353%) is outside the range of those generated by similar ones in the United States (minimum = 0.88%, maximum = 2.55%) (ref. 18), they are in line with the existing evidence from Europe19. Various factors, such as lower average consumption in Europe than that in the United States, the specific features of the programme we studied or differences in beliefs across contexts, may be responsible for these differences. The heterogeneous effects, although not robust and only marginally statistically significant, are qualitatively in line with the existing evidence on the larger impact of social information on high electricity users17,20,25 and on the absence of boomerang effects among low users13.

    Claimed Finding:
    The Italian programme achieved larger average electricity savings than have been observed in comparable U.S. programmes.

    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:
    These results provide initial, albeit weak, support for our conceptual framework. For high users, normative and injunctive feedbacks pull behaviour in the same direction, which results in a reduction in electricity almost twice as large as that in the average treatment effect. For low electricity users, conforming to the reference groups’ behaviour motivates a consumption increase (’boomerang’), but the injunctive feedback included in the eHER counterbalances the negative effect of the descriptive feedback. The injunctive feedback therefore induces stronger behavioural reactions among high electricity users, who are also exposed to the supporting descriptive feedback, than that among low electricity users, for whom the two types of feedback are at odds. Although such an interpretation is only suggestive based on the evidence presented so far, it shows how established findings are consistent with our conceptual framework.

    Claimed Finding:
    High-consumption households reduced their electricity usage by roughly twice the programme’s average effect when exposed to the standard social-information message.

    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 there are no statistically significant changes in the effect of the eHER when crossing the threshold between the one and two thumbs up (Fig. 3a), the discrete shift in the injunctive norm reduces electricity use when moving from the two to three thumbs up (Fig. 3b). The corresponding empirical estimates are presented in Table 1 (columns 1 and 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Strengthening the injunctive feedback from two to three thumbs up leads to lower electricity use, whereas increasing it from one to two thumbs up has no significant effect.

    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 can attribute these effects to the social information contained in the report rather than to other content, namely electricity saving tips—tips can only be accessed through a clickable link on the report and we see no difference in click shares across the cutoffs (Supplementary Table 12). The impact of the shift in injunctive feedback is persistent even after 6 and 12 months (Supplementary Table 13). The results are robust to different specifications of the RD estimate (Table 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    The electricity-saving effect produced by moving from two to three thumbs up faded away within six months of the intervention.

    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:
    Across the cutoff between one and two thumbs up, we observe no statistically significant changes in consumption, regardless of whether the descriptive (Fig. 4a) or the injunctive (Fig. 4b) prime is present. Conversely, a discrete shift in the injunctive feedback across the three versus two cutoff causes electricity reduction, but only when combined with the descriptive prime that nudges energy efficiency (Fig. 4c). The results are robust to adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing (Table 1) and are persistent over longer time horizons (Supplementary Table 13).

    Claimed Finding:
    Electricity consumption fell when customers moved from one to two thumbs up if the report included an injunctive prime.

    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:
    To determine whether the overall effect of crossing the three versus two thumbs-up threshold is exclusively due to the presence within the eHER of the descriptive prime, we performed the RD estimation on a standard eHER (February–March 2018). We found statistically significant effects (coefficient = −0.855, s.e. = 0.368, P = 0.02; Table 2, column 1). Therefore, the effect of reinforcing the injunctive feedback for low users does not depend on the presence of the descriptive prime within the report. In addition, we observe that the overall effect of crossing the three versus two thumbs-up threshold within the standard report is smaller than the same effect when the report is augmented with the descriptive prime (coefficient = −2.426, s.e. = 0.619, P < 0.01; Table 1, column 3). This confirms that the combination of consistent descriptive and injunctive information boosts the effectiveness of social information in inducing energy conservation.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adding a descriptive prime amplifies the consumption drop associated with moving from two to three thumbs up compared with the standard report without the prime.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT