<|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 STATE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY IN AUSTRALIA AFTER M47: A RISK THEORY ANALYSIS OF SECURITY RIGHTS."
Abstract:"In Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security, the High Court of Australia unanimously applied a test of compatibility with human rights related statutory responsibilities to an impugned public interest criterion. A clear majority of the High Court appeared willing to consider whether the right to personal liberty in Australia has constitutional protections extending to refugees. This article applies Ulrich Beck's risk theory to recent preventive, administrative detention of refugees under adverse security assessments to examine the relationship between liberty rights and the decision-makers responsible for assessing, and for managing, national security risk. Risk theory casts light on how the collective right to national security relies on respecting every individual's right to liberty and security of person. The High Court's formal, values-based method of statutory interpretation is endorsed as an effective accountability mechanism capable of protecting fundamental values expressive of human rights.."
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 = [];
Q3 = [2];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
THE STATE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY IN AUSTRALIA AFTER M47: A RISK THEORY ANALYSIS OF SECURITY RIGHTS
In Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security, the High Court of Australia unanimously applied a test of compatibility with human rights related statutory responsibilities to an impugned public interest criterion. A clear majority of the High Court appeared willing to consider whether the right to personal liberty in Australia has constitutional protections extending to refugees. This article applies Ulrich Beck's risk theory to recent preventive, administrative detention of refugees under adverse security assessments to examine the relationship between liberty rights and the decision-makers responsible for assessing, and for managing, national security risk. Risk theory casts light on how the collective right to national security relies on respecting every individual's right to liberty and security of person. The High Court's formal, values-based method of statutory interpretation is endorsed as an effective accountability mechanism capable of protecting fundamental values expressive of human rights.