<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Mixed Migration and the Vagaries of Doctrine Formation Since 2015 Colonial and Paternal Protection?."
Abstract:"The 2018 Global Compacts on Migration and on Refugees acknowledge mixed migration - both as flow and as motivation - whilst at the same time trying very hard to (re)establish clear boundaries between the two ideal types of people mobility. Mixed migration is deeply problematic. It is the condition of possibility for illegal migration to be intelligible in policy terms, but it is also an expression, empirically, of reality. The notion of mixed migration had been a solution in the 1970s and 1980s for doctrine formation in the context of governing international mobility. Today, by insisting on the dubious distinction, the two Global Compacts are turning mixed migration from a solution into a problem, even as they draw on the normative framing of human rights and sustainable development. Does this move shift perspective rather than fundamentally achieving transformation of the doctrine towards a more progressive global approach in governing international mobility? Here, I argue, based on conceptual analysis of the Global Compacts, that they express a transformation rather than either returning to the conceptual past or offering something entirely new. What has not changed, however, is that in the search for solutions to governing international migration there is a reproduction of individuals as gendered and racialized subjects of global politics.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:
Q1 = [1];
Q2 = [5];
Q3 = [1];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
Mixed Migration and the Vagaries of Doctrine Formation Since 2015 Colonial and Paternal Protection?
The 2018 Global Compacts on Migration and on Refugees acknowledge mixed migration - both as flow and as motivation - whilst at the same time trying very hard to (re)establish clear boundaries between the two ideal types of people mobility. Mixed migration is deeply problematic. It is the condition of possibility for illegal migration to be intelligible in policy terms, but it is also an expression, empirically, of reality. The notion of mixed migration had been a solution in the 1970s and 1980s for doctrine formation in the context of governing international mobility. Today, by insisting on the dubious distinction, the two Global Compacts are turning mixed migration from a solution into a problem, even as they draw on the normative framing of human rights and sustainable development. Does this move shift perspective rather than fundamentally achieving transformation of the doctrine towards a more progressive global approach in governing international mobility? Here, I argue, based on conceptual analysis of the Global Compacts, that they express a transformation rather than either returning to the conceptual past or offering something entirely new. What has not changed, however, is that in the search for solutions to governing international migration there is a reproduction of individuals as gendered and racialized subjects of global politics.