<|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:"Safe country provisions in Canada and in the European Union: A critical assessment."
Abstract:"This article analyzes the international legal framework that surrounds the issue of safe third country (STC) in the European Union and in Canada. The argument put forward is that Canada is not immune to the developments in the European Union and that Canada's immigration policies towards refugees have changed accordingly My position is that the Canadian model respects the legal constraints which govern the acceptability of mechanisms to apportion responsibility to examine a claim to refugee status, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By testing the international legal viability the European and the Canadian system of safe third country against Articles 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention and Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58 and Conclusion No. 15, and by addressing the draft Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the United States and comparing it with some of the readmission agreements between the European Union and some third states, the article concludes that the Canadian STC model is preferable to that in Europe from both a legal and a humane point of view.."
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:

Safe country provisions in Canada and in the European Union: A critical assessment
This article analyzes the international legal framework that surrounds the issue of safe third country (STC) in the European Union and in Canada. The argument put forward is that Canada is not immune to the developments in the European Union and that Canada's immigration policies towards refugees have changed accordingly My position is that the Canadian model respects the legal constraints which govern the acceptability of mechanisms to apportion responsibility to examine a claim to refugee status, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By testing the international legal viability the European and the Canadian system of safe third country against Articles 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention and Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58 and Conclusion No. 15, and by addressing the draft Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the United States and comparing it with some of the readmission agreements between the European Union and some third states, the article concludes that the Canadian STC model is preferable to that in Europe from both a legal and a humane point of view.