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 technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings loo… | reject | 0.00152 |
| c39c292e802248da5a8756cb | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly develope… | reject | 0.2849 |
| 8f37ed988f2e5c2ff38459e5 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings … |
| accept |
| 0.9888 |
| 30375fb7c41cc61aa42413f6 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings look fragile under perturbation… | reject | 0 |
| 0eda597fdbe4897f3ba177f1 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings look fragile un… | reject | 0.00152 |
| d752b4e43e872d41eac4b81f | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The con… | accept | 0.2381 |
| 1de64549a89a048f6eacec8f | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are … | reject | 0.00025 |
| bf650bdbde58385cc4dd17ae | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inade… | reject | 0 |
| 7baf6c451b549591299f0e53 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thor… | accept | 0.9976 |
| 8ad5fa40370b4492aca04e8e | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inad… | reject | 0.0428 |
| 82e6fa0e837b7adc7054d895 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing… | reject | 0.2768 |
| bdf06927ba74723c2272d0d1 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical … | reject | 0.00527 |
| 8642366d32c4b84c79978fe4 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragile… | reject | 0 |
| 2c2a3f12ad2a8a47e4e92587 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison w… | reject | 0.2849 |
| 97e0eaebd218c2565f760958 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions i… | accept | 0.9744 |
| 86274ddc357a962d34ff2064 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings hold u… | accept | 0.99708 |
| 0bf63bb1efe4151a2fe4ebc2 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings hold under … | accept | 0.5369 |
| 13fb8941c1481b858f9ed77a | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical … | reject | 0.2309 |
| 4da3456490738f9dec707116 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look f… | accept | 0.9878 |
| d7a850e729ac31853552bfb9 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look … | reject | 0.00683 |
| eb8e6b8e836c6c5ba8ae2d69 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragil… | reject | 0.0203 |
| 5fa2734fa00e5efdd968bb6d | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison w… | reject | 0.00025 |
| 8c3d55a193ed7b48974199a8 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical … | reject | 0.5444 |
| 5aaef8c02146c4fbdf722d25 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled. The fi… | reject | 0.0581 |
| f04cfcf90b62e675042d8a70 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findings hol… | reject | 0.0581 |
| cb8994d2ba978cfd6d579e6e | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look fr… | reject | 0 |
| d3d3cd8a902e585d2099e3fe | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with ex… | accept | 0.2768 |
| e0af967e9989c19553da35e0 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findin… | reject | 0.2768 |
| 50150daaea822bd955d714f9 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled. The findings look fragil… | reject | 0 |
| 7a0916be9f0e0bcee05caa21 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled. The findin… | reject | 0.00152 |
| 53e349f6bdba224faf9447e9 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. 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… | accept | 0.96935 |
| e71d2bc58b06d1fa17c17633 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only … | reject | 0 |
| f58c78192f462d92380f13eb | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate. The findings hold under some perturbations a… | reject | 0 |
| 12429bbcfeb2dbf7ac7a6cf6 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison w… | reject | 0.2624 |
| fda8b1530d72c717683e29a8 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions i… | accept | 0.57245 |
| bce1a1fc03c6956a8b4326ba | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions i… | accept | 0.92715 |
| d22fd9fa267cacffc63fe4c7 | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controll… | reject | 0 |
| 63270a63d754f4c9736639dc | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are … | reject | 0.0203 |
| c8e3f57ab72ba4be040ea49d | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings remain stable under perturb… | reject | 0.00683 |
| ca1509f1d5121034a62caf63 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate. The con… | reject | 0.2381 |
| f1b63370174da65d88a73d8c | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled. The findings remain stable under pertur… | accept | 0.2768 |
| c613947735f2e6c1d46f6478 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical … | reject | 0.01433 |
| 4769b6995cecbded6914015f | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are … | reject | 0.00152 |
| 7a27c01bdc4960f67ba09798 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inad… | accept | 0.2309 |
| 2128c726faba185c03bdd1dd | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate. The findings look fragil… | reject | 0.0203 |
| ad8ddf8b8412d9193b2f0dd0 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison w… | reject | 0.01838 |
| 7b3bc00711e36ed035d9a681 | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with ex… | reject | 0.0128 |
| 333dca4dda6d0c613a74baec | Peer Review Memo This is an empirical paper. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with … | reject | 0.2768 |
| c57d284bd7e4250464a3e706 | Peer Review Memo This is a theoretical paper. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assu… | reject | 0 |
| 9890390cf60e2fb7b659ccec | Peer Review Memo This is an applied paper. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw. The strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled. The findings look fr… | reject | 0 |
