<|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:"The rural-urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe."
Abstract:"Urbanisation and the expansion of US metropolitan regions have blurred the spatial and social boundaries that are typically thought to separate urban from rural America. Our objective is to highlight both the conceptual limitations of the so-called rural-urban divide, while also recognising the spatial interdependence of America's 'rural' and 'urban' people and places. Our analyses nest rural and urban population and places within metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, while acknowledging that rural places often grow into urban places (i.e., urbanisation) and that many non-metropolitan counties are reclassified over time as metropolitan areas (i.e., metropolitanisation). Analyses show that most rural people-as officially defined-now live in metropolitan counties, often at the fringe. Reclassification to metropolitan areas was a major reason why. Small towns and thinly settled areas at the metropolitan fringe have grown rapidly since 1980 and have become increasingly integrated within metropolitan areas nationally. The heuristic value of our analytical approach at the national level is further demonstrated at the local-area level, in Chicago and Atlanta, metro areas with very different demographic and economic histories. Our study highlights the dynamic and multidimensional nature of spatial boundaries (i.e., urban-rural and metro-nonmetro) that both separate and connect rural and urban areas in the United States. Metro-nonmetro and rural-urban boundaries are neither fixed nor impermeable.."
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 = [0];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [1];
Q6 = [1].
The rural-urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe
Urbanisation and the expansion of US metropolitan regions have blurred the spatial and social boundaries that are typically thought to separate urban from rural America. Our objective is to highlight both the conceptual limitations of the so-called rural-urban divide, while also recognising the spatial interdependence of America's 'rural' and 'urban' people and places. Our analyses nest rural and urban population and places within metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, while acknowledging that rural places often grow into urban places (i.e., urbanisation) and that many non-metropolitan counties are reclassified over time as metropolitan areas (i.e., metropolitanisation). Analyses show that most rural people-as officially defined-now live in metropolitan counties, often at the fringe. Reclassification to metropolitan areas was a major reason why. Small towns and thinly settled areas at the metropolitan fringe have grown rapidly since 1980 and have become increasingly integrated within metropolitan areas nationally. The heuristic value of our analytical approach at the national level is further demonstrated at the local-area level, in Chicago and Atlanta, metro areas with very different demographic and economic histories. Our study highlights the dynamic and multidimensional nature of spatial boundaries (i.e., urban-rural and metro-nonmetro) that both separate and connect rural and urban areas in the United States. Metro-nonmetro and rural-urban boundaries are neither fixed nor impermeable.