<|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:"In Search of the Third Eye, When the Two Others Are Shamefacedly Shut? Comment on Are Sexual and Reproductive Health Policies Designed for All? Vulnerable Groups in Policy Documents of Four European Countries and Their Involvement in Policy Development."
Abstract:"Ivanova et al explored how vulnerable groups and principles of human rights are incorporated into national sexual and reproductive health (SRH) policies in 4 countries. They adapted the EquiFrame of Amin and colleagues of 2011, to SRH vulnerable groups which we believe could now be used for analysis of national SRH polices beyond those 4 countries. Although we fully agree with the authors' two main findings that vulnerable groups and human rights' principles are not sufficiently integrated in SRH policies nor granted the possibility to participate in the process of development in those four countries, we do believe that these shortcomings are not limited to those countries only nor to the identified vulnerable groups either. We are convinced that the issue of SRH as such is still framed within a very limited logic for all with vulnerable groups being perceived as an extra threat or an extra burden.."
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 = [0].
In Search of the Third Eye, When the Two Others Are Shamefacedly Shut? Comment on Are Sexual and Reproductive Health Policies Designed for All? Vulnerable Groups in Policy Documents of Four European Countries and Their Involvement in Policy Development
Ivanova et al explored how vulnerable groups and principles of human rights are incorporated into national sexual and reproductive health (SRH) policies in 4 countries. They adapted the EquiFrame of Amin and colleagues of 2011, to SRH vulnerable groups which we believe could now be used for analysis of national SRH polices beyond those 4 countries. Although we fully agree with the authors' two main findings that vulnerable groups and human rights' principles are not sufficiently integrated in SRH policies nor granted the possibility to participate in the process of development in those four countries, we do believe that these shortcomings are not limited to those countries only nor to the identified vulnerable groups either. We are convinced that the issue of SRH as such is still framed within a very limited logic for all with vulnerable groups being perceived as an extra threat or an extra burden.