<|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:"Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective."
Abstract:"There are four hypotheses on the origin of microblade technology in North China: i) that it originated from Siberia before the Last Glacial Maximum; ii) that it emerged in Siberia after the Last Glacial Maximum; iii) that it developed from the long-narrow flakes produced by the long-established knapping tradition in North China; and iv) that it had multi-regional origins, among which, a microblade industry may have emerged from the bipolar technology in northern China. Based on archaeological data from Siberia, Mongolia, the Japanese archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and North China, it is reasonable to say that the technological groundwork of Siberia was more substantial, and the initial microblade technology appeared in Siberia earlier than in the other areas. Microblade technology was involved in core preparation, systematic knapping, soft hammer and indirect/pressure flaking techniques, which were all present in the blade technology in Siberia but hardly ever evidenced in the traditional flaking technology systems in North China. It is well accepted that the microblade technology was closely related the high mobility of foragers to live in harsh environments. The climatic fluctuations of the last glacial in Siberia were more severe than in low latitudes, and placed greater subsistence pressure on hunteregatherers in Siberia. The advantages of the initial microblade technology in dealing with these hostile circumstances encouraged foragers to employ and develop it, and finally generated its widespread use during the Upper Paleolithic through human migration and cultural transmission in Northeast Asia and North America. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.."
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 = [2];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [0];
Q6 = [1].
Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective
There are four hypotheses on the origin of microblade technology in North China: i) that it originated from Siberia before the Last Glacial Maximum; ii) that it emerged in Siberia after the Last Glacial Maximum; iii) that it developed from the long-narrow flakes produced by the long-established knapping tradition in North China; and iv) that it had multi-regional origins, among which, a microblade industry may have emerged from the bipolar technology in northern China. Based on archaeological data from Siberia, Mongolia, the Japanese archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and North China, it is reasonable to say that the technological groundwork of Siberia was more substantial, and the initial microblade technology appeared in Siberia earlier than in the other areas. Microblade technology was involved in core preparation, systematic knapping, soft hammer and indirect/pressure flaking techniques, which were all present in the blade technology in Siberia but hardly ever evidenced in the traditional flaking technology systems in North China. It is well accepted that the microblade technology was closely related the high mobility of foragers to live in harsh environments. The climatic fluctuations of the last glacial in Siberia were more severe than in low latitudes, and placed greater subsistence pressure on hunteregatherers in Siberia. The advantages of the initial microblade technology in dealing with these hostile circumstances encouraged foragers to employ and develop it, and finally generated its widespread use during the Upper Paleolithic through human migration and cultural transmission in Northeast Asia and North America. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.