<|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:"Screening in or out? Selective non-surveillance of unwanted humanity in EU cities."
Abstract:"In Surveillance Studies, routinized surveillance systems are often regarded as public (and corporate) interference in the private lives of citizens. On the other hand, it is often recognised that surveillance of citizens is also often the counterpart of fundamental rights being guaranteed by the state, especially in fields of economic and social rights. Non-surveillance, and highly selective surveillance can thus be counterparts of efforts to exclude some urban residents from the 'right to have rights' in the first place. This paper considers how selective in- and out-screening of undocumented people in EU cities can produce regularised human rights abuses. Only punitive surveillance is routine in the case of this group of the population. Starting with the 2002 EU Directive 'Strengthening the Penal Framework to Prevent the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry, Transit and Residence', across the EU the goal of policy has been to remove those redefined as unwanted or surplus humanity. The urban dispossessed are denied even the most basic rights through selective out-surveillance and non-collection of data, including, for example, the right to housing, healthcare, education and employment. At the heart of such selective non-surveillance and punitive screening-out is the deterrence logic of immigration policies across the EU. Data about the everyday lives of the undocumented is lacking, and even where there is such data it is not being fed into policy making at national and urban government levels. Undocumented people end up in the parallel economy, and on the streets, being 'caught' up in illegality, liable to the most punitive forms of screening-out surveillance. They are thus liable to detention, imprisonment and deportation. Self-exclusion, avoidance of public institutions, including schools, medical care and migrant support organisations, can be the result of such punitive screening-out. Redefined as 'unwanted humanity', about whom data is not even systematically collected, undocumented people are a 'target group' for policing, the media and law and order policies. Their selective non-surveillance is thus a strong indicator of their unwantedness. We illustrate our argument using examples from UK, The Netherlands and France. The article suggests that broad and general surveillance of all populations within the EU needs to be recognised as a public good for which states should be held accountable.."
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 = [3];
Q3 = [1];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [1];
Q6 = [0].
Screening in or out? Selective non-surveillance of unwanted humanity in EU cities
In Surveillance Studies, routinized surveillance systems are often regarded as public (and corporate) interference in the private lives of citizens. On the other hand, it is often recognised that surveillance of citizens is also often the counterpart of fundamental rights being guaranteed by the state, especially in fields of economic and social rights. Non-surveillance, and highly selective surveillance can thus be counterparts of efforts to exclude some urban residents from the 'right to have rights' in the first place. This paper considers how selective in- and out-screening of undocumented people in EU cities can produce regularised human rights abuses. Only punitive surveillance is routine in the case of this group of the population. Starting with the 2002 EU Directive 'Strengthening the Penal Framework to Prevent the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry, Transit and Residence', across the EU the goal of policy has been to remove those redefined as unwanted or surplus humanity. The urban dispossessed are denied even the most basic rights through selective out-surveillance and non-collection of data, including, for example, the right to housing, healthcare, education and employment. At the heart of such selective non-surveillance and punitive screening-out is the deterrence logic of immigration policies across the EU. Data about the everyday lives of the undocumented is lacking, and even where there is such data it is not being fed into policy making at national and urban government levels. Undocumented people end up in the parallel economy, and on the streets, being 'caught' up in illegality, liable to the most punitive forms of screening-out surveillance. They are thus liable to detention, imprisonment and deportation. Self-exclusion, avoidance of public institutions, including schools, medical care and migrant support organisations, can be the result of such punitive screening-out. Redefined as 'unwanted humanity', about whom data is not even systematically collected, undocumented people are a 'target group' for policing, the media and law and order policies. Their selective non-surveillance is thus a strong indicator of their unwantedness. We illustrate our argument using examples from UK, The Netherlands and France. The article suggests that broad and general surveillance of all populations within the EU needs to be recognised as a public good for which states should be held accountable.