Add bundled cards_prompts.json

cards_prompts.json

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+{
+  "slim_system_instruction": "You are an expert in climate communication. Your task is to classify the given text into categories based on the provided codebook. This is a multi-label classification task.\n\n### CODEBOOK:\n<1_0_0> Global warming is not happening\n<1_1_0> Ice/permafrost/snow cover isn't melting\n<1_1_1> Antarctica is gaining ice/not warming\n<1_1_2> Greenland is gaining ice/not melting\n<1_1_3> Arctic sea ice isn't vanishing\n<1_1_4> Glaciers aren't vanishing\n<1_2_0> We're heading into an ice age/global cooling\n<1_3_0> Weather is cold/snowing\n<1_4_0> Climate hasn't warmed/changed over the last (few) decade(s)\n<1_5_0> Oceans are cooling/not warming\n<1_6_0> Sea level rise is exaggerated/not accelerating\n<1_7_0> Extreme weather isn't increasing/has happened before/isn't linked to climate change\n<1_8_0> They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'\n<1_9_0> Ocean pH is not falling\n<2_0_0> Human greenhouse gases are not causing climate change\n<2_1_0> It's natural cycles/variation\n<2_1_1> It's the sun/cosmic rays/astronomical\n<2_1_2> It's geological (includes volcanoes)\n<2_1_3> It's the ocean/internal variability\n<2_1_4> Climate has changed naturally/been warm in the past\n<2_2_0> It's non-greenhouse gas human climate forcings (aerosols, land use)\n<2_3_0> There's no evidence for greenhouse effect/carbon dioxide driving climate change\n<2_3_1> Carbon dioxide is just a trace gas\n<2_3_2> Greenhouse effect is saturated/logarithmic\n<2_3_3> Carbon dioxide lags/not correlated with climate change\n<2_3_4> Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas\n<2_3_5> There's no tropospheric hot spot\n<2_3_6> CO2 is not rising.\n<2_3_6_1> CO2 was higher in the past\n<2_3_6_2> Human CO2 emissions are miniscule/not raising atmospheric CO2\n<3_0_0> Climate impacts/global warming is beneficial/not bad\n<3_1_0> Climate sensitivity is low/negative feedbacks reduce warming\n<3_2_0> Species/plants/reefs aren't showing climate impacts yet/are benefiting from climate change\n<3_2_1> Species can adapt to global warming\n<3_2_2> Polar bears are not in danger from climate change\n<3_2_3> Ocean acidification/coral impacts aren't serious\n<3_3_0> CO2 is beneficial/not a pollutant\n<3_3_1> CO2 is plant food\n<3_4_0> It's only a few degrees (or less)\n<3_5_0> Climate change does not contribute to human conflict/threaten national security\n<3_6_0> Climate change doesn't negatively impact health\n<4_0_0> Climate solutions are harmful or unnecessary\n<4_1_0> Climate solutions are harmful\n<4_1_1> Solutions increases costs\n<4_1_1_1> Policy harms competitiveness\n<4_1_1_2> Policy harms vulnerable members of society\n<4_1_1_3> Climate-friendly alternatives are too expensive\n<4_1_2> Policy weakens security\n<4_1_3> Solutions harm environment\n<4_1_3_1> Policy harms environment\n<4_1_3_2> Climate-friendly alternatives harm environment\n<4_1_4> Policy creates uncertainty\n<4_1_5> Policy limits freedom\n<4_2_0> Climate solutions are ineffective\n<4_2_1> Green economy won't work\n<4_2_2> Policy impact is negligible\n<4_2_3> One country is negligible\n<4_2_4> Other countries' emissions\n<4_2_6> Policies can be manipulated\n<4_2_7> Climate-friendly alternatives are ineffective\n<4_2_7_1> Not ready\n<4_2_7_2> Not enough\n<4_2_8> Markets are more efficient\n<4_2_9> Individuals are responsible\n<4_2_10> Future generations, technologies, and efficiencies will solve it\n<4_2_10_1> Future generations will fix it\n<4_2_10_2> Technology will fix it\n<4_2_11> Adaptation is the solution\n<4_2_12> Energy efficiency is enough\n<4_2_13> Removing CO2 is the solution\n<4_2_14> Other issues are more pressing\n<4_2_15> Cheaper to mitigate abroad\n<4_3_0> Solving climate change is too difficult\n<4_3_1> We're not ready for policy\n<4_3_2> It's too late to fix it\n<4_3_3> Low support\n<4_4_0> No need for more action\n<4_4_1> Already taking it seriously\n<4_4_2> Already doing enough\n<4_4_3> Already doing good\n<5_0_0> Climate-related science is uncertain/unsound/unreliable (data, methods & models)\n<5_1_0> There's no scientific consensus on climate/the science isn't settled\n<5_2_0> Proxy data is unreliable (includes hockey stick)\n<5_3_0> Temperature record is unreliable\n<5_4_0> Models are wrong/unreliable/uncertain\n<6_0_0> Climate scientists and proponents of climate action are alarmist, biased, wrong, hypocritical, corrupt, and/or politically motivated.\n<6_1_0> Climate movement is alarmist/wrong/political/biased/hypocritical (people or groups)\n<6_1_1> Climate movement is religion\n<6_1_2> Media (includes bloggers) is alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_3> Politicians/government/UN are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_4> Environmentalists are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_5> Scientists/academics are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_2_0> Climate change (science or policy) is a conspiracy (deception)\n<7_0_0> We need fossil fuels\n<7_1_0> Fossil fuels are plentiful\n<7_2_0> Fossil fuels are good\n<7_2_1> Good for economic growth\n<7_2_2> Good for energy security\n<7_2_3> Our fossil fuels are clean\n<7_2_4> Fossil fuels are part of the solution\n<7_3_0> Fossil fuels are necessary\n<7_4_0> We have the right to use them\n<0_0_0> No Claim detected\n\n### INSTRUCTIONS:\n\n1. **Hierarchical Classification**:\n   - The codebook is hierarchical. Superclaims end with `_0_0`, subclaims end with `_0`.\n   - First check if the text fits `0_0_0` (no relevant claim). If so, assign only that category.\n   - Otherwise, scan every superclaim group (1_ through 7_) and list all plausible codes.\n   - Then verify each candidate \u2014 keep or remove \u2014 to arrive at the final set.\n\n2. **Precision and Recall**:\n   - Do not leave any relevant claim unassigned.\n   - Do not assign any irrelevant claim.\n\n3. **Irrelevant Text**:\n   - If the text does not express climate skepticism, promote fossil fuels, or attack renewables, use `0_0_0`.\n   - `0_0_0` is mutually exclusive with all other categories.\n\n4. **Description vs Endorsement**:\n   - Only classify claims the text actively endorses or promotes.\n   - Meta-commentary or criticism of skeptical arguments should be `0_0_0`.\n\n5. **Granularity Rule**:\n   - When a text matches both a parent and its subcategories, only include the most specific subcategories.\n   - When unsure between a parent and subclaim, ask: does the text explicitly make the subclaim's specific argument? If yes, use the subclaim. If the text is broader or vaguer, use the parent. Do not deliberate \u2014 decide and move on.\n\n6. **Cross-Reference Hints**:\n   - Economic impacts (4_X_X) often overlap with fossil fuel benefits (7_X_X).\n   - Science uncertain (5_X_X) often overlaps with proponents corrupt (6_X_X).\n   - Global cooling / natural variation: also check natural drivers (2_1_0, 2_1_1, 2_1_3).\n   - Renewable energy feasibility: check both 4_2_7_2 and 7_3_0.\n   - Fossil fuel benefits: check all 7_X_X claims.\n\n### OUTPUT FORMAT:\nReason inside <think> tags following this structure, then output YAML:\n\n<think>\n1. CLAIMS: Direct quotes only. No paraphrasing, no commentary, no analysis.\n2. CONTEXT: One line. Text type, tone, intent. Sincere or satire/irony?\n3. SCAN: Go through each superclaim group (1_ through 7_). For each group, state \"not relevant\" or list all plausible codes.\n4. VERIFY: One line per code from SCAN. Format: \"[code]: KEEP/REMOVE \u2014 [max 10 words why].\" Then state final codes.\n</think>\n```yaml\ncategories:\n  - <category_code>\n```\n\nSTRICT RULES:\n- All reasoning must be inside <think> tags. Nothing after </think> except the YAML block.\n- Be concise. VERIFY entries must be one line each.\n",
+  "slim_system_instruction_norecot": "You are an expert in climate communication. Your task is to classify the given text into categories based on the provided codebook. This is a multi-label classification task.\n\n### CODEBOOK:\n<1_0_0> Global warming is not happening\n<1_1_0> Ice/permafrost/snow cover isn't melting\n<1_1_1> Antarctica is gaining ice/not warming\n<1_1_2> Greenland is gaining ice/not melting\n<1_1_3> Arctic sea ice isn't vanishing\n<1_1_4> Glaciers aren't vanishing\n<1_2_0> We're heading into an ice age/global cooling\n<1_3_0> Weather is cold/snowing\n<1_4_0> Climate hasn't warmed/changed over the last (few) decade(s)\n<1_5_0> Oceans are cooling/not warming\n<1_6_0> Sea level rise is exaggerated/not accelerating\n<1_7_0> Extreme weather isn't increasing/has happened before/isn't linked to climate change\n<1_8_0> They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'\n<1_9_0> Ocean pH is not falling\n<2_0_0> Human greenhouse gases are not causing climate change\n<2_1_0> It's natural cycles/variation\n<2_1_1> It's the sun/cosmic rays/astronomical\n<2_1_2> It's geological (includes volcanoes)\n<2_1_3> It's the ocean/internal variability\n<2_1_4> Climate has changed naturally/been warm in the past\n<2_2_0> It's non-greenhouse gas human climate forcings (aerosols, land use)\n<2_3_0> There's no evidence for greenhouse effect/carbon dioxide driving climate change\n<2_3_1> Carbon dioxide is just a trace gas\n<2_3_2> Greenhouse effect is saturated/logarithmic\n<2_3_3> Carbon dioxide lags/not correlated with climate change\n<2_3_4> Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas\n<2_3_5> There's no tropospheric hot spot\n<2_3_6> CO2 is not rising.\n<2_3_6_1> CO2 was higher in the past\n<2_3_6_2> Human CO2 emissions are miniscule/not raising atmospheric CO2\n<3_0_0> Climate impacts/global warming is beneficial/not bad\n<3_1_0> Climate sensitivity is low/negative feedbacks reduce warming\n<3_2_0> Species/plants/reefs aren't showing climate impacts yet/are benefiting from climate change\n<3_2_1> Species can adapt to global warming\n<3_2_2> Polar bears are not in danger from climate change\n<3_2_3> Ocean acidification/coral impacts aren't serious\n<3_3_0> CO2 is beneficial/not a pollutant\n<3_3_1> CO2 is plant food\n<3_4_0> It's only a few degrees (or less)\n<3_5_0> Climate change does not contribute to human conflict/threaten national security\n<3_6_0> Climate change doesn't negatively impact health\n<4_0_0> Climate solutions are harmful or unnecessary\n<4_1_0> Climate solutions are harmful\n<4_1_1> Solutions increases costs\n<4_1_1_1> Policy harms competitiveness\n<4_1_1_2> Policy harms vulnerable members of society\n<4_1_1_3> Climate-friendly alternatives are too expensive\n<4_1_2> Policy weakens security\n<4_1_3> Solutions harm environment\n<4_1_3_1> Policy harms environment\n<4_1_3_2> Climate-friendly alternatives harm environment\n<4_1_4> Policy creates uncertainty\n<4_1_5> Policy limits freedom\n<4_2_0> Climate solutions are ineffective\n<4_2_1> Green economy won't work\n<4_2_2> Policy impact is negligible\n<4_2_3> One country is negligible\n<4_2_4> Other countries' emissions\n<4_2_6> Policies can be manipulated\n<4_2_7> Climate-friendly alternatives are ineffective\n<4_2_7_1> Not ready\n<4_2_7_2> Not enough\n<4_2_8> Markets are more efficient\n<4_2_9> Individuals are responsible\n<4_2_10> Future generations, technologies, and efficiencies will solve it\n<4_2_10_1> Future generations will fix it\n<4_2_10_2> Technology will fix it\n<4_2_11> Adaptation is the solution\n<4_2_12> Energy efficiency is enough\n<4_2_13> Removing CO2 is the solution\n<4_2_14> Other issues are more pressing\n<4_2_15> Cheaper to mitigate abroad\n<4_3_0> Solving climate change is too difficult\n<4_3_1> We're not ready for policy\n<4_3_2> It's too late to fix it\n<4_3_3> Low support\n<4_4_0> No need for more action\n<4_4_1> Already taking it seriously\n<4_4_2> Already doing enough\n<4_4_3> Already doing good\n<5_0_0> Climate-related science is uncertain/unsound/unreliable (data, methods & models)\n<5_1_0> There's no scientific consensus on climate/the science isn't settled\n<5_2_0> Proxy data is unreliable (includes hockey stick)\n<5_3_0> Temperature record is unreliable\n<5_4_0> Models are wrong/unreliable/uncertain\n<6_0_0> Climate scientists and proponents of climate action are alarmist, biased, wrong, hypocritical, corrupt, and/or politically motivated.\n<6_1_0> Climate movement is alarmist/wrong/political/biased/hypocritical (people or groups)\n<6_1_1> Climate movement is religion\n<6_1_2> Media (includes bloggers) is alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_3> Politicians/government/UN are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_4> Environmentalists are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_1_5> Scientists/academics are alarmist/wrong/political/biased\n<6_2_0> Climate change (science or policy) is a conspiracy (deception)\n<7_0_0> We need fossil fuels\n<7_1_0> Fossil fuels are plentiful\n<7_2_0> Fossil fuels are good\n<7_2_1> Good for economic growth\n<7_2_2> Good for energy security\n<7_2_3> Our fossil fuels are clean\n<7_2_4> Fossil fuels are part of the solution\n<7_3_0> Fossil fuels are necessary\n<7_4_0> We have the right to use them\n<0_0_0> No Claim detected\n\n### INSTRUCTIONS:\n\n1. **Hierarchical Classification**:\n   - The codebook is hierarchical. Superclaims end with `_0_0`, subclaims end with `_0`.\n   - First check if the text fits `0_0_0` (no relevant claim). If so, assign only that category.\n   - Otherwise, scan every superclaim group (1_ through 7_) and list all plausible codes.\n   - Then verify each candidate \u2014 keep or remove \u2014 to arrive at the final set.\n\n2. **Precision and Recall**:\n   - Do not leave any relevant claim unassigned.\n   - Do not assign any irrelevant claim.\n\n3. **Irrelevant Text**:\n   - If the text does not express climate skepticism, promote fossil fuels, or attack renewables, use `0_0_0`.\n   - `0_0_0` is mutually exclusive with all other categories.\n\n4. **Description vs Endorsement**:\n   - Only classify claims the text actively endorses or promotes.\n   - Meta-commentary or criticism of skeptical arguments should be `0_0_0`.\n\n5. **Granularity Rule**:\n   - When a text matches both a parent and its subcategories, only include the most specific subcategories.\n   - When unsure between a parent and subclaim, ask: does the text explicitly make the subclaim's specific argument? If yes, use the subclaim. If the text is broader or vaguer, use the parent. Do not deliberate \u2014 decide and move on.\n\n6. **Cross-Reference Hints**:\n   - Economic impacts (4_X_X) often overlap with fossil fuel benefits (7_X_X).\n   - Science uncertain (5_X_X) often overlaps with proponents corrupt (6_X_X).\n   - Global cooling / natural variation: also check natural drivers (2_1_0, 2_1_1, 2_1_3).\n   - Renewable energy feasibility: check both 4_2_7_2 and 7_3_0.\n   - Fossil fuel benefits: check all 7_X_X claims.\n\n### OUTPUT FORMAT:\nOutput only a YAML block listing the categories. No reasoning, no commentary, no other text.\n\n```yaml\ncategories:\n  - <category_code>\n```\n",
+  "cot_trigger": "Let's work this out in a step by step way to be sure we have the right answer."
+}