Overview:
During this study, you will be asked to indicate whether a set of sentences can be classified as hypotheses or not.
These sentences were extracted (in some cases extracted and edited) from scientific papers.
For each sentence to be classified, you will be given contextual information, namely the title and link to the source paper, as well as the surrounding sentences in the paper.
To evaluate whether the sentence can be classified as a hypothesis or not, consider the following definition: A hypothesis is a testable explanation or prediction for an observed phenomenon that can be supported or refuted through experimentation.
In the following sections, you will be presented with more detailed instructions on the task, and some examples to illustrate the methodology to be followed in the task.
- In this study, we are interested in identifying one of these two distinct categories of hypotheses:
- Relation-finding hypotheses: These hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables.
Example: We hypothesize that increased levels of air pollution are positively correlated with the prevalence of respiratory diseases in urban areas. - Comparative hypotheses: These hypotheses suggest a comparison between two or more groups of subjects in terms of a variable.
Example: We hypothesize that students who receive personalized feedback will show higher improvement in test scores compared to those who receive generic feedback.
Note: You can observe the structure highlighted in the above definition and examples. You will not be asked to extract the structure, but the task of classifying a text as a hypothesis becomes easier if you think in terms of the variables and the relation.
- A sentence could be a hypothesis even if it is not directly stated as such, but it can be inferred from the text. For example,
- When the author presents the results (or evidence) of a correlation, one can deduce that the hypothesis being tested is a relation-finding hypothesis. The author didn't specify it explicitly as a hypothesis, but we can consider it implicitly stated, because to look for such results one first needs to think of the possibility of the variables being correlated. Or in other words, to obtain the result, one needs to think of the hypothesis first.
- When there is a comparison with a hypothesis-testing (statistical) method (e.g., t-test, anova, p < 0.01), one can deduce that the hypothesis being tested is a comparative hypothesis.
- When a question mentions a relationship between variables, it implies an underlying hypothesis. However, not all research questions imply a hypothesis. For instance, Is there a correlation between high sugar consumption and diabetes? suggests an implicit relation-finding hypothesis: High sugar consumption is correlated with the onset of diabetes. , while 'How do children experience blended learning?' does not.
- A sentence could be non-hypothesis even if it seems to contain the some of the distinct features such as variables or relationships one would associate with a hypothesis. For example,
- Declarative statements: these sentences assert a belief or fact without setting it up as something to be tested or explored. Example: 'Companies that prioritize the employee well-being have higher productivity.'
- Questions lacking the structure of a hypothesis: some questions resemble hypotheses; they may lack the clarity and specificity need to recognize the implicit hypothesis. Example: 'Do children learn faster with visual aids?'. This lacks specificity, making the underlying hypothesis vague.
- General observation or expectations: statements that express a general belief or anticipate a potential outcome without pinpointing a concrete testable relationship or a comparisons. They could serve as a foundation for a hypothesis. Example: 'Eating a balanced diet is likely beneficial for health'. This statement is broad and does not define what 'beneficial' means or what specific aspects of 'health' it refers to. A more specific hypothesis could be, 'Eating a balanced diet reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases in adults over 40.'
In the next pages, explore more examples to understand various hypothesis types, and non-hypotheses. Your careful annotation is important to this study.
| Sentence to be Classified: | Participants using a sensemaking translucence interface will perform better on a collaborative analysis task than participants using a standard interface |
| Paper Title: | Effects of Sensemaking Translucence on Distributed Collaborative Analysis |
| Excerpt: | The suspect visualization changes automatically as analysts mention suspects in their hypotheses, notes or chat conversations. The hypothesis window and suspect visualization are designed to be used in tandem, such that each new sharing of a hypothesis is associated with steps to assess the quality of that hypothesis (via fields in the hypothesis window) and steps to promote consideration of other possible hypotheses (via the suspect visualization). We thus tested a sensemaking translucence interface that contained these integrated features against an earlier version of the same tool that did not [19] . For the reasons outlined above, we predicted that the sensemaking translucence interface would improve pairs' crime-solving performance: H1. Participants using a sensemaking translucence interface will perform better on a collaborative analysis task than participants using a standard interface. We also reasoned that by enabling analysts with a better understanding of their partners' thoughts and activities, the sensemaking translucence interface would help analysts make appropriate decisions about their own activity [15] and that analysts would perceive the sensemaking translucence interface to be of more value for their work than the standard interface. H2a. Participants using a sensemaking translucence interface will rate the usefulness of the tool higher than participants using a standard interface. H2b. |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? Yes | | Reason: | The statement is framed as a hypothesis. Given its contrast between two groups based on interface use, it falls into the comparative type. |
| Sentence to be Classified: | This leads to the hypothesis that users writing in less-represented languages will be more likely to cross language boundaries than users writing in highly-represented languages |
| Paper Title: | Global connectivity and multilinguals in the Twitter network |
| Excerpt: | In what languages are users more likely to cross language divides? Qualitative and survey work has suggested that users writing in less represented languages will more likely crosslanguage boundaries [6, 23, 24] . Importantly, survey respondents in Uzbekistan reported crossing language boundaries online even while simultaneously reporting low confidence in their foreign language skills [24] . This leads to the hypothesis that users writing in less-represented languages will be more likely to cross language boundaries than users writing in highly-represented languages (H3). When users do cross languages, linguist David Crystal [5] suggests these users will engage with content and users in larger languages, particularly English. Previous studies of language connectivity online have also suggested English plays a special, bridging role connecting speakers of other languages. Herring, et al. [14] examined LiveJournal blogs and found language to be a strong factor in structuring 'friend' relationships on the site. |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? Yes | | Reason: | The statement is explicitly stated as a hypothesis, specifically of a comparative type, given the contrast drawn between users of less-represented languages and those of highly-represented languages. |
| Sentence to be Classified: | Appreciation will be positively correlated with donating behavior. |
| Paper Title: | Increasing Donating Behavior Through a Game for Change: The Role of Interactivity and Appreciation |
| Excerpt: | [8] and other recent findings on the ability of games to promote affective learning [38] and stronger affective reactions [24] , it could be postulated that games may even be uniquely qualified to facilitate moving experiences. As a game property, interactivity in particular has been associated with stronger cognitive and affective reactions [24] . We therefore hypothesize that: H6: Interactivity will lead to more appreciation. Lastly, moving media, distinguished by the presence of both positive and negative emotions, has been associated with an increased likelihood of participants performing prosocial behavior, such as sharing an informational video with others to spread awareness around skin cancer prevention [30] . Additionally, past research has highlighted the importance of meaningfulness for people engaging in prosocial behavior, such as donating blood [2, 3] . Considering this, we propose that: H7: Appreciation will be positively correlated with donating behavior. It is yet to be seen how presentation mode affects enjoyment and appreciation or how enjoyment impacts donating behavior. Finally, it will be interesting to explore whether any of these subjective ratings for player attitudes and experiences will be able to mediate the effect of interactivity and presentation mode on donating behavior. The experiment had a 2x3-between-subject design. |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? Yes | | Reason: | The statement, while not explicitly labeled as such, structurally presents itself as a hypothesis. Specifically, it suggests a relation-finding type by proposing a positive correlation between appreciation and donating behavior. |
| Sentence to be Classified: | Which subjective factors (e.g. trust in technology, privacy concerns, and perceived quality) will influence a persons acceptance of location-privacy preference recommendations? |
| Paper Title: | The Effect of Privacy Concerns on Privacy Recommenders |
| Excerpt: | Such acceptance might be affected by subjective factors such as a person's concerns about sharing their preference data with a recommender, and as well as objective factors such as how the recommendations are made, or the type of recommendation being made. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the influence of both people's subjective factors and these objective factors concerned with the recommender. Understanding this will help us decide which factors we should take into account when designing our recommenders. In this paper we investigate the following research questions: Q1. Which subjective factors (e.g. trust in technology, privacy concerns, and perceived quality) will influence a person's acceptance of location-privacy preference recommendations? Q2. Which objective factors of recommendations (e.g. context and openness) will influence people's acceptance of location-privacy preference recommendations? The contributions of our work are as follows: Using an online user study (n99), we find that people do indeed have concerns about using recommenders for March 7-10, 2016, Sonoma, CA, USA privacy-preference prediction. These concerns have a negative influence on their perceived recommendation quality, satisfaction about their choices, and acceptance of the recommendations. The openness of a recommendation (with whom the recommender is proposing to share location) has a significant influence on people's acceptance. |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? Yes | | Reason: | This is posed as a question. However, its structure indicates the relation-finding type. One can recognize the implicit hypothesis embedded within this sentence. |
Please note, the excerpts in our examples are derived from an automated PDF to JSON conversion and may contain minor errors or typos. We ask you to focus on the overall content and context despite these inconsistencies.
| Sentence to be Classified: | multilingual Twitter users serve as bridges between different clusters in the network |
| Paper Title: | Global connectivity and multilinguals in the Twitter network |
| Excerpt: | First, it focuses on the emergent network of message sharing activity. This network is formed by Twitter users mentioning other users by username, replying to tweets, and retweeting (resending/ forwarding) tweets. This higher bar for a network tie captures the dynamic, interaction patterns rather than the more static, following network on the platform. Consistent with previous work and corresponding with the low overlap in hashtag/ link domains, it is predicted that the mentions/retweet network will have many clusters composed of a single, dominant language (H1). Second, this paper examines the bridging role of multilingual users at a full network level rather than an ego-net level. It specifically tests the hypothesis that multilingual Twitter users serve as bridges between different clusters in the network (H2). If language does structure the network but multilingual users serve as bridges between languages as predicted, then it would be useful to know the distribution of multilinguals and how they connect users across languages when designing search and friend recommendation approaches. Strongly connected languages are likely good languages to draw additional results from for search or friend recommendations when insufficient results are available in the preferred language(s) of the user. In what languages are users more likely to cross language divides? |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? No | | Reason: | Based on the authors' context, this can be viewed as a hypothesis. However, it come across as a decalarative statement about multilingual Twitter users. Within the boundaries of the given excerpt, it is challenging to perceive the specific structure of the hypothesis. Particularly, we are unable to pinpoint the clear variables or relationships or groups involved. Therefore, in accordance with our interested type of hypotheses, this does not clearly qualify as a hypothesis leading to a false negative situation. |
| Sentence to be Classified: | How do medical generalists perceive reading of specialist discussions as a form of labeler training feedback? |
| Paper Title: | Expert Discussions Improve Comprehension of Difficult Cases in Medical Image Assessment |
| Excerpt: | Yet, the case discussions were not collected with an educational purpose in mind. As a result, they may exhibit weaknesses when used for labeler training. For example, the fact that the dialogs are rooted in disagreements and the potential use of specialist jargon may cause confusion among less specialized medical professionals. Our study addresses two primary research questions about how medical generalists perceive (Q1) and act upon (Q2) the presentation of case-specific adjudication discussions from specialists as a form of medical diagnosis training. Q1: How do medical generalists perceive reading of specialist discussions as a form of labeler training feedback? Medical assessments can be contentious and it is possible for one expert to take the perspective of another expert without necessarily agreeing with their final conclusion. Furthermore, even if an expert understands and agrees with the diagnostic reasoning for one specific case, it is not guaranteed that this will also motivate a change in their own labeling approach for other cases. Q1: In this study, we examine these three aspects-comprehension, agreement, adaptation-separately, and hypothesize that reading of specialist discussions as a form of training feedback for medical generalists will: Q1: |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? No | | Reason: | While this statement framed as a question, it doesn't specify clear variables or their potential interactions, so it does not align with the typical format of the type of hypotheses we are interested in. |
| Sentence to be Classified: | We project that the presentation of case-specific adjudication discussions during labeler training will have benefits for generalists’ diagnostic reasoning in a held-out test set. |
| Paper Title: | Expert Discussions Improve Comprehension of Difficult Cases in Medical Image Assessment |
| Excerpt: | How do medical generalists perceive reading of specialist discussions as a form of labeler training feedback? Q2: How does reading of specialist discussions affect generalists' diagnostic reasoning for future patient cases? Beyond studying generalists' perception of our training inverventions, it is crucial to investigate its effect on future medical assessments. We project that the presentation of case-specific adjudication discussions during labeler training will have benefits for generalists' diagnostic reasoning in a held-out test set. In particular, we hypothesize that reading of adjudication discussions during training will: [H2a] Improve diagnostic accuracy. [H2b] Increase case-specific diagnostic confidence. [H2c] Lower perceived case difficulty. |
| Paper Link: | For more information, click here |
Is a scientific hypothesis stated (explicitly or implicitly) in this sentence? No | | Reason: | While this statement outlines an expectation and could serve as a foundation for a hypothesis, it lacks a clear indication of a relationship between specific variables. Therefore, this statement does not meet our criteria for a hypothesis. |
Please note, the excerpts in our examples are derived from an automated PDF to JSON conversion and may contain minor errors or typos. We ask you to focus on the overall content and context despite these inconsistencies.