First 50 rows of test
| case_idstring | textstring | labelstring | probability_positivefloat64 |
|---|---|---|---|
| c0e4957a89b6a68e960712da | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The… | reject | 0.000594412506 |
| c39c292e802248da5a8756cb | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed. The conclusions remain valid … | reject | 0.169291880029 |
| 8f37ed988f2e5c2ff38459e5 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations and… |
| accept |
| 0.972344106464 |
| 30375fb7c41cc61aa42413f6 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insuff… | reject | 0 |
| 0eda597fdbe4897f3ba177f1 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details pro… | reject | 0.000594412506 |
| d752b4e43e872d41eac4b81f | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions remain valid under reaso… | accept | 0.13942480928 |
| 1de64549a89a048f6eacec8f | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The findings remain stable under perturbation. The details pr… | reject | 0.002810096245 |
| bf650bdbde58385cc4dd17ae | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions hold under some changes … | reject | 0.005525561497 |
| 7baf6c451b549591299f0e53 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions hold under… | accept | 0.980045627376 |
| 8ad5fa40370b4492aca04e8e | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions are sens… | reject | 0.016071138006 |
| 82e6fa0e837b7adc7054d895 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations and not others… | reject | 0.396714285714 |
| bdf06927ba74723c2272d0d1 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions are sensitive to small c… | reject | 0.023233160622 |
| 8642366d32c4b84c79978fe4 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are in… | reject | 0 |
| 2c2a3f12ad2a8a47e4e92587 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed. The con… | reject | 0.418997217069 |
| 97e0eaebd218c2565f760958 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions rema… | accept | 0.851162044401 |
| 86274ddc357a962d34ff2064 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations and not o… | accept | 0.978325855513 |
| 0bf63bb1efe4151a2fe4ebc2 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations and not others… | accept | 0.396714285714 |
| 13fb8941c1481b858f9ed77a | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions remain valid under reasona… | reject | 0.411922562441 |
| 4da3456490738f9dec707116 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The de… | accept | 0.954417227119 |
| d7a850e729ac31853552bfb9 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The d… | reject | 0.003736281433 |
| eb8e6b8e836c6c5ba8ae2d69 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details… | reject | 0.007434425954 |
| 5fa2734fa00e5efdd968bb6d | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed. The con… | reject | 0.002184114977 |
| 8c3d55a193ed7b48974199a8 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions remain valid under reasona… | reject | 0.861806452728 |
| 5aaef8c02146c4fbdf722d25 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The findings look fragile under perturb… | reject | 0.038186108388 |
| f04cfcf90b62e675042d8a70 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations and no… | reject | 0.028104812834 |
| cb8994d2ba978cfd6d579e6e | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided a… | reject | 0.000594412506 |
| d3d3cd8a902e585d2099e3fe | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations and not … | accept | 0.461547528517 |
| e0af967e9989c19553da35e0 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations … | reject | 0.156836734694 |
| 50150daaea822bd955d714f9 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are i… | reject | 0.000500279038 |
| 7a0916be9f0e0bcee05caa21 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations … | reject | 0.000630053476 |
| 53e349f6bdba224faf9447e9 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The findings hold under some perturbations and not others. Th… | accept | 0.843192015209 |
| e71d2bc58b06d1fa17c17633 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed. The conclusions hold under so… | reject | 0.001953582888 |
| f58c78192f462d92380f13eb | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provid… | reject | 0 |
| 12429bbcfeb2dbf7ac7a6cf6 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions hold… | reject | 0.408213358071 |
| fda8b1530d72c717683e29a8 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions rema… | accept | 0.315907657324 |
| bce1a1fc03c6956a8b4326ba | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed. The con… | accept | 0.795612619575 |
| d22fd9fa267cacffc63fe4c7 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbatio… | reject | 0.000082282737 |
| 63270a63d754f4c9736639dc | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details pro… | reject | 0.046739086846 |
| c8e3f57ab72ba4be040ea49d | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully re… | reject | 0.002810096245 |
| ca1509f1d5121034a62caf63 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions remain valid under reaso… | reject | 0.099863268112 |
| f1b63370174da65d88a73d8c | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled. The findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully r… | accept | 0.117649032258 |
| c613947735f2e6c1d46f6478 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions remain valid under reasona… | reject | 0.118661956637 |
| 4769b6995cecbded6914015f | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully re… | reject | 0.005655589635 |
| 7a27c01bdc4960f67ba09798 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions are sens… | accept | 0.124807349911 |
| 2128c726faba185c03bdd1dd | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The details… | reject | 0.007434425954 |
| ad8ddf8b8412d9193b2f0dd0 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough. The conclusions are … | reject | 0.093284652883 |
| 7b3bc00711e36ed035d9a681 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The findings remain stable under pertur… | reject | 0.033584875727 |
| 333dca4dda6d0c613a74baec | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations and not othe… | reject | 0.73419391635 |
| c57d284bd7e4250464a3e706 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The conclusions hold und… | reject | 0.115855614973 |
| 9890390cf60e2fb7b659ccec | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be part… | reject | 0.000082282737 |
