<|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:"IoT vs. Human: A Comparison of Mobility."
Abstract:"Internet of Thing (IoT) devices are rapidly becoming an indispensable part of our life with their increasing deployment in many promising areas, including tele-health, smart city, intelligent agriculture. Understanding the mobility of IoT devices is essential to improve quality of service in IoT applications, such as route planning in logistic management, infrastructure deployment, cellular network update and congestion detection in intelligent traffic. Despite its importance, there are not many results pertaining to the mobility of IoT devices. In this article, we aim to answer three research questions: (i) what are the mobility patterns of IoT device? (ii) what are the differences between IoT device and smartphone mobility patterns? (iii) how the IoT device mobility patterns differ among device types and usage scenarios? We present a comprehensive characterization of IoT device mobility patterns from the perspective of cellular data networks, using a 36-days long signal trace, including 1.5 million IoT devices and 0.425 million smartphones, collected from a nation-wide cellular network in China. We first investigate the basic patterns of IoT devices from two perspectives: temporal and spatial characteristics. Our study finds that IoT device mobility exhibits significantly different patterns compared with smartphones in multiple aspects. For instance, IoT devices move more frequently and have larger radius of gyration. Then we explore the essential mobility of IoT devices by utilizing two models that reveal the nature of human mobility, i.e., exploration and preferential return (EPR) model and entropy based predictability model. We find that IoT devices, with few exceptions, behave totally different from human, and we further derive a new formulation to describe their movement. We also find the gap mobility predictability and predictability limit between IoT and human is not as big as people expected.."
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 = [];
Q6 = [1].
IoT vs. Human: A Comparison of Mobility
Internet of Thing (IoT) devices are rapidly becoming an indispensable part of our life with their increasing deployment in many promising areas, including tele-health, smart city, intelligent agriculture. Understanding the mobility of IoT devices is essential to improve quality of service in IoT applications, such as route planning in logistic management, infrastructure deployment, cellular network update and congestion detection in intelligent traffic. Despite its importance, there are not many results pertaining to the mobility of IoT devices. In this article, we aim to answer three research questions: (i) what are the mobility patterns of IoT device? (ii) what are the differences between IoT device and smartphone mobility patterns? (iii) how the IoT device mobility patterns differ among device types and usage scenarios? We present a comprehensive characterization of IoT device mobility patterns from the perspective of cellular data networks, using a 36-days long signal trace, including 1.5 million IoT devices and 0.425 million smartphones, collected from a nation-wide cellular network in China. We first investigate the basic patterns of IoT devices from two perspectives: temporal and spatial characteristics. Our study finds that IoT device mobility exhibits significantly different patterns compared with smartphones in multiple aspects. For instance, IoT devices move more frequently and have larger radius of gyration. Then we explore the essential mobility of IoT devices by utilizing two models that reveal the nature of human mobility, i.e., exploration and preferential return (EPR) model and entropy based predictability model. We find that IoT devices, with few exceptions, behave totally different from human, and we further derive a new formulation to describe their movement. We also find the gap mobility predictability and predictability limit between IoT and human is not as big as people expected.