<|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:"Vaccination and the refugee camp: exercising the free choice of vaccination from an abject position in Germany and Greece."
Abstract:"This article explores the public discourses that accompany vaccination campaigns targeted at the refugees in the context of the European refugee/migrant crisis. The argument is that such campaigns are embedded in the provision of humanitarian healthcare and yet connect the refugees with the citizenry in the host countries in that both populations are deemed to share the universal need to vaccines and the right to accept or deny them. But if immunisation for citizens is a matter of liberal choice, as current scholarship argues, how much scope for individual decision is left to the camps' occupants? In which way do discourses and practices of refugees' vaccination correspond to the camps' ambiguous characteristics of being places of emergency, where refugees lead an abject life, and still acting as possible bridges to host societies? I explore these questions drawing on contemporary sociological and social science scholarship on vaccination and the camp-debate and use two case studies conducted in Germany and Greece. The case studies reveal that the discourses on the refugees' vaccination additionally reflect internal social tensions: in the German case related to vaccine hesitancy, and in the Greek case to controversy about the provision of public goods to foreigners and the inclusion of refugees in the local societies.."
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:

Vaccination and the refugee camp: exercising the free choice of vaccination from an abject position in Germany and Greece
This article explores the public discourses that accompany vaccination campaigns targeted at the refugees in the context of the European refugee/migrant crisis. The argument is that such campaigns are embedded in the provision of humanitarian healthcare and yet connect the refugees with the citizenry in the host countries in that both populations are deemed to share the universal need to vaccines and the right to accept or deny them. But if immunisation for citizens is a matter of liberal choice, as current scholarship argues, how much scope for individual decision is left to the camps' occupants? In which way do discourses and practices of refugees' vaccination correspond to the camps' ambiguous characteristics of being places of emergency, where refugees lead an abject life, and still acting as possible bridges to host societies? I explore these questions drawing on contemporary sociological and social science scholarship on vaccination and the camp-debate and use two case studies conducted in Germany and Greece. The case studies reveal that the discourses on the refugees' vaccination additionally reflect internal social tensions: in the German case related to vaccine hesitancy, and in the Greek case to controversy about the provision of public goods to foreigners and the inclusion of refugees in the local societies.