<|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 Limits of Static Interests: Appreciating Asylum Seekers' Contributions to a Country's Economy in Article 8 ECHR Adjudication on Expulsion."
Abstract:"This article critiques the European Court of Human Rights' approach towards assessing asylum seekers' right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of their expulsion. In balancing the right of the individual against the public interest, it is argued that the court's case law follows a static perspective. The rigidly defined assumption that the public interest lies in enforcing migration control and that the societal contributions of asylum seekers cannot influence the strength of the public interest is prevalent in jurisprudence yet underexplored in scholarship. The article uses the case of asylum seekers who contribute to a country's economy to demonstrate that the court currently fails to appreciate the interdependence between these interests. It then suggests a path by which the court's approach might be adjusted towards more nuance, ultimately allowing the contributions of asylum seekers to European communities to be appropriately reflected in legal determinations.."
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 = [7];
Q3 = [1];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
The Limits of Static Interests: Appreciating Asylum Seekers' Contributions to a Country's Economy in Article 8 ECHR Adjudication on Expulsion
This article critiques the European Court of Human Rights' approach towards assessing asylum seekers' right to respect for private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of their expulsion. In balancing the right of the individual against the public interest, it is argued that the court's case law follows a static perspective. The rigidly defined assumption that the public interest lies in enforcing migration control and that the societal contributions of asylum seekers cannot influence the strength of the public interest is prevalent in jurisprudence yet underexplored in scholarship. The article uses the case of asylum seekers who contribute to a country's economy to demonstrate that the court currently fails to appreciate the interdependence between these interests. It then suggests a path by which the court's approach might be adjusted towards more nuance, ultimately allowing the contributions of asylum seekers to European communities to be appropriately reflected in legal determinations.