<|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 1828-1829 Russo-Turkish war and the resettlement of Balkan peoples into Novorossiia."
Abstract:"We may make the following conclusions on the resettlement programmes of 1829-1830: The reason for the resettlement of the Zadunaitsy was essentially strategic, although it also became a matter of prestige as Russia succeeded in attracting back former traitors. Since these reasons were quite particular and even unique, this resettlement is best understood not in the general context of Russian immigration policy but as the concluding chapter of another issue; namely, that the destruction of the Transdanubian Sich and the integration of the Zadunaitsy into the Russian service finally brought the eighteenth-century Zaporozhian question to a close. In contrast, the issue of Bulgars did form a key stage in the evolution of Tsarist immigration policy and brought to the fore the conflicting ideas that had been simmering since Alexander's reign. The net result was that whilst Russia was still prepared to accept limited numbers of migrants on the basis of the 1804 Manifesto (as was evident from Vorontsov's proposal) it is clear that Catherine's policy of unrestricted immigration had come to an abrupt end. The principal causes of this were the cost of resettlement at a time of fiscal prudence and the complete absence of large tracts of available land in Novorossiia. A third cause was political and bound up with relations with the Ottoman Empire and the somewhat tortuous implications arising from the weak neighbour policy. Since Russia now had a policy of preserving the Sultan's European empire and generally improving relations with the Porte, it was no longer politically possible to import Balkan Christians into Russia with the wanton abandon of old. On the other hand, Nicholas was very conscious of his image as defender of the Orthodox and thus could not be indifferent to the requests of his co-religionists. These two concerns came into conflict during the course of 1829 over the question of Bulgar refugees fleeing possible Turkish retribution. At first, humanitarian views won over high politics and Nicholas authorised the admittance of all refugees. When it became clear that the feared Turkish vengeance was exaggerated, political calculations came into play. The most immediate concern was that the mass emigration of Bulgars was potentially fatal for the Ottoman Empire which, in the aftermath of the 1828-1829 war, was on the brink of self-destruction. From a longer term perspective, Russia had to consider firstly, that, since appeals from the Bulgars for patronage would serve as the basis for future Russian interference in that region, it was considered be imprudent to substantially reduce the Bulgar population of Bulgaria!' and Rumelia!' and, secondly, that despite his wishes to the contrary, Nicholas could be forced one day to fight the Turks again and therefore it was prudent to ensure the continued presence of a pro-Russian population in the region. The Bulgars were thus reduced to pawns in a more grandiose game and steps were taken to limit their exod."
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 = [4,5];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
The 1828-1829 Russo-Turkish war and the resettlement of Balkan peoples into Novorossiia
We may make the following conclusions on the resettlement programmes of 1829-1830: The reason for the resettlement of the Zadunaitsy was essentially strategic, although it also became a matter of prestige as Russia succeeded in attracting back former traitors. Since these reasons were quite particular and even unique, this resettlement is best understood not in the general context of Russian immigration policy but as the concluding chapter of another issue; namely, that the destruction of the Transdanubian Sich and the integration of the Zadunaitsy into the Russian service finally brought the eighteenth-century Zaporozhian question to a close. In contrast, the issue of Bulgars did form a key stage in the evolution of Tsarist immigration policy and brought to the fore the conflicting ideas that had been simmering since Alexander's reign. The net result was that whilst Russia was still prepared to accept limited numbers of migrants on the basis of the 1804 Manifesto (as was evident from Vorontsov's proposal) it is clear that Catherine's policy of unrestricted immigration had come to an abrupt end. The principal causes of this were the cost of resettlement at a time of fiscal prudence and the complete absence of large tracts of available land in Novorossiia. A third cause was political and bound up with relations with the Ottoman Empire and the somewhat tortuous implications arising from the weak neighbour policy. Since Russia now had a policy of preserving the Sultan's European empire and generally improving relations with the Porte, it was no longer politically possible to import Balkan Christians into Russia with the wanton abandon of old. On the other hand, Nicholas was very conscious of his image as defender of the Orthodox and thus could not be indifferent to the requests of his co-religionists. These two concerns came into conflict during the course of 1829 over the question of Bulgar refugees fleeing possible Turkish retribution. At first, humanitarian views won over high politics and Nicholas authorised the admittance of all refugees. When it became clear that the feared Turkish vengeance was exaggerated, political calculations came into play. The most immediate concern was that the mass emigration of Bulgars was potentially fatal for the Ottoman Empire which, in the aftermath of the 1828-1829 war, was on the brink of self-destruction. From a longer term perspective, Russia had to consider firstly, that, since appeals from the Bulgars for patronage would serve as the basis for future Russian interference in that region, it was considered be imprudent to substantially reduce the Bulgar population of Bulgaria!' and Rumelia!' and, secondly, that despite his wishes to the contrary, Nicholas could be forced one day to fight the Turks again and therefore it was prudent to ensure the continued presence of a pro-Russian population in the region. The Bulgars were thus reduced to pawns in a more grandiose game and steps were taken to limit their exodus.