sot_question
stringlengths 42
9.8k
| ds_name
stringclasses 8
values | pred_label
int64 0
2
| logits
sequencelengths 3
3
|
|---|---|---|---|
Upper Austria had been rebellious for centuries, with 62 known uprisings between 1356 and 1849, 14 of which occurred in the 16th century. However, the Peasants' War of 1626 was the costliest in terms of human life and damage to livestock and property. The war caused Martin Aichinger to lose his farm and begin roaming the country. He eventually became a religious leader who led a popular revolt against aristocratic rule. His revolutionary ideas frightened the rulers so much that they tried to arrest him, leading to another series of uprisings that ended in the Battle on the Frankenberg in 1636. All of Aichinger's followers were slaughtered during the battle, including the remaining women and children who had been in hiding.. Across how many years did Upper Austria have 62 uprisings? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.2475173473358154,
-0.7683054804801941,
-3.130516529083252
] |
Upper Austria had been rebellious for centuries, with 62 known uprisings between 1356 and 1849, 14 of which occurred in the 16th century. However, the Peasants' War of 1626 was the costliest in terms of human life and damage to livestock and property. The war caused Martin Aichinger to lose his farm and begin roaming the country. He eventually became a religious leader who led a popular revolt against aristocratic rule. His revolutionary ideas frightened the rulers so much that they tried to arrest him, leading to another series of uprisings that ended in the Battle on the Frankenberg in 1636. All of Aichinger's followers were slaughtered during the battle, including the remaining women and children who had been in hiding.. How many of the 62 known uprisings did not occur in the 16th century? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.183251142501831,
0.4523784816265106,
-3.156240940093994
] |
Upper Austria had been rebellious for centuries, with 62 known uprisings between 1356 and 1849, 14 of which occurred in the 16th century. However, the Peasants' War of 1626 was the costliest in terms of human life and damage to livestock and property. The war caused Martin Aichinger to lose his farm and begin roaming the country. He eventually became a religious leader who led a popular revolt against aristocratic rule. His revolutionary ideas frightened the rulers so much that they tried to arrest him, leading to another series of uprisings that ended in the Battle on the Frankenberg in 1636. All of Aichinger's followers were slaughtered during the battle, including the remaining women and children who had been in hiding.. How many years passed between the Peasants' War of 1626 and the Battle on the Frankenberg? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.089708089828491,
-0.6537092924118042,
-3.1112160682678223
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the most amount of people in it? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.9856863021850586,
1.4214653968811035,
-2.8196334838867188
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the least amount of people in it? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
1.0688878297805786,
1.3582819700241089,
-2.8571619987487793
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Were there more females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.993911623954773,
0.42436063289642334,
-2.8881399631500244
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many more percent are under the age of 18 compared to the 18 to 24 group? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.63629412651062,
-1.4630956649780273,
-2.7004928588867188
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't under the age of 18? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3732450008392334,
-1.1066300868988037,
-2.7229726314544678
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.459272861480713,
-1.2026070356369019,
-2.7242398262023926
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 25 to 44? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.517669439315796,
-1.2475389242172241,
-2.7385401725769043
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.527310609817505,
-1.2787481546401978,
-2.7258834838867188
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4330761432647705,
-1.1607788801193237,
-2.7355523109436035
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which gender group is larger: females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.4743189513683319,
2.0806119441986084,
-3.0195274353027344
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which gender group is smaller: females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.6235489845275879,
1.9561798572540283,
-3.08083438873291
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: under the age of 18 or 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5217668414115906,
1.810685634613037,
-2.805835247039795
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is smaller: under the age of 18 or 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5811466574668884,
1.7550491094589233,
-2.840359687805176
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: 25 to 44 or 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.7354801893234253,
0.647255539894104,
-2.8279061317443848
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is smaller: 25 to 44 or 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.7704602479934692,
0.6190462708473206,
-2.8571572303771973
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: under the age of 18 or 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5184153318405151,
1.8692623376846313,
-2.876683473587036
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percentage of the population are ages 25 to 44 than ages 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.43786883354187,
-1.2224836349487305,
-2.653541326522827
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is the highest percentage, 29.70% from 25 to 44 or 24.70% from 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.2137460708618164,
0.0502481684088707,
-2.698105812072754
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is the highest percentage, 23.50% under the age of 18 or 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.1740596294403076,
0.10161734372377396,
-2.7519123554229736
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which gender has the highest population age 18 and over, 100 females or 96.60 males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.9912490844726562,
0.3603267967700958,
-2.848208427429199
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group gender is the lowest population in the county, 100 females or 99.10 males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.309053897857666,
0.055450282990932465,
-2.878051519393921
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group was the most prominent in the city? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
-0.02337752841413021,
2.2677037715911865,
-2.6249618530273438
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Were there more residents under the age of 18 or over the age of 65? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.4528638124465942,
0.7885215878486633,
-2.6473875045776367
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Were there more females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.993911623954773,
0.42436063289642334,
-2.8881399631500244
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't under the age of 18? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3732450008392334,
-1.1066300868988037,
-2.7229726314544678
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.459272861480713,
-1.2026070356369019,
-2.7242398262023926
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 25 to 44? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.517669439315796,
-1.2475389242172241,
-2.7385401725769043
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.527310609817505,
-1.2787481546401978,
-2.7258834838867188
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many in percent weren't 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4330761432647705,
-1.1607788801193237,
-2.7355523109436035
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which gender group is larger: females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.4743189513683319,
2.0806119441986084,
-3.0195274353027344
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which gender group is fewer in number: females or males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.5641118288040161,
1.0751638412475586,
-3.158480644226074
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: under the age of 18 or 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5217668414115906,
1.810685634613037,
-2.805835247039795
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is smaller: under the age of 18 or 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5811466574668884,
1.7550491094589233,
-2.840359687805176
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: 25 to 44 or 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.7354801893234253,
0.647255539894104,
-2.8279061317443848
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is smaller: 25 to 44 or 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.7704602479934692,
0.6190462708473206,
-2.8571572303771973
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group is larger: under the age of 18 or 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.5184153318405151,
1.8692623376846313,
-2.876683473587036
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percent were not under the age of 18? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.2724997997283936,
-1.0541988611221313,
-2.6856813430786133
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percent were not from 18 to 24? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.390846014022827,
-1.178825855255127,
-2.7079222202301025
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percent were not from 25 to 44? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4219257831573486,
-1.1996216773986816,
-2.722703218460083
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percent were not from 45 to 64? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4340479373931885,
-1.2301361560821533,
-2.710655689239502
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many percent were not 65 years of age or older? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3614566326141357,
-1.119260311126709,
-2.7148733139038086
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many years old was the average person? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4587509632110596,
-1.1137956380844116,
-2.803976535797119
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many more females per 100 were there than males? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.5900285243988037,
-1.353795051574707,
-2.749654769897461
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. How many more females per 100 were there than males 18 or over? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4914186000823975,
-1.2479851245880127,
-2.737123727798462
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the most people? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.561271071434021,
1.7816728353500366,
-2.707770824432373
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the least people? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.6231619119644165,
1.7296913862228394,
-2.7450578212738037
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the second most people? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.7518101334571838,
1.635715365409851,
-2.7575254440307617
] |
In the county, the population was spread out with 23.50% under the age of 18, 8.70% from 18 to 24, 29.70% from 25 to 44, 24.70% from 45 to 64, and 13.30% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 99.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.60 males.. Which age group had the third most people? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.8131000995635986,
1.5717017650604248,
-2.753641128540039
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. How was Plunkett's house destroyed? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
-0.6775139570236206,
2.450185537338257,
-2.1169955730438232
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. The ratio of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% over how many years? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.5149505138397217,
-0.7719308733940125,
-2.5170230865478516
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. How many officials were mentioned that were appointed in December 1922 to the Free State's first Senate? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.1645405888557434,
2.0643885135650635,
-2.5551772117614746
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. How many years did it take for the proportion of the Southern Irish Protestants decline from 10% to 3%? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.6913554668426514,
-0.6324586272239685,
-2.7697243690490723
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. How many percentage points did the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants decrease from 1921 to 1991? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.076096296310425,
-1.1000826358795166,
-2.6186671257019043
] |
The split effectively ended the realistic electoral chances of the Irish Unionist Alliance in southern Ireland. As the partition of Ireland became more likely, Southern Unionists formed numerous political movements in an attempt to find a solution to the "Irish Question". Among these were Irish Dominion League and the Irish Centre Party. As such, the southern rump of the IUA became increasingly fractured and in 1922 it lost its reason to exist with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Leading unionist figures, such as the Earl of Midleton, Lord Dunraven, James Campbell and Horace Plunkett were appointed in December 1922 by WT Cosgrave to the Free State's first Senate. Amongst others, Horace Plunkett's home in County Dublin was then burnt down during the Irish Civil War because of his involvement in the Irish Senate. The IUA helped form the Southern Irish Loyalist Relief Association to assist war refugees and claim compensation for damage to property. From 1921 IUA voters began to support the mainstream Cumann na nGaedheal party. In the 1923 election three formerly loyalist businessmen were elected as the Business and Professional Group. From 1921 to 1991 the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants declined from 10% to 3% of the population; these had provided the bulk of the IUA's support base. Unionists continued to have a majority on Rathmines Council until 1929, when the IUA's successors lost their last elected representatives in the Irish Free State.. How many years did it take the proportion of Southern Irish Protestants to decline from 10 to 3%? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.67829966545105,
-0.5213558673858643,
-2.8273119926452637
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many more forces Tokugawa had than Sanada? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.363548517227173,
-1.1423563957214355,
-2.8819847106933594
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. Who had more forces under their command, Toyotomi or Hosokawa? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.33424025774002075,
2.121699094772339,
-2.941861152648926
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many more forces did Tokugawa have compared to Sanada's? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3869645595550537,
-1.2037699222564697,
-2.8621578216552734
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. Why did troops slow theier pace? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.1722586452960968,
2.2382092475891113,
-2.777068614959717
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many were in the Tokugawa force then Sanada's force? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.212005138397217,
-0.9633737206459045,
-2.9000086784362793
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many troops were at Tanabe Castle? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.026606798171997,
-0.6466178297996521,
-2.976501226425171
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. Who had more troops, Tokugawa or Sanada? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
1.1822503805160522,
1.3455193042755127,
-3.0426852703094482
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many did Tokugawa's forces outnumber Sanada's forces by? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.07346510887146,
-0.7064929008483887,
-2.9751338958740234
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. Who had more forces, Tokugawa or Toyotomi? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.8365351557731628,
1.667769193649292,
-2.9936070442199707
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many more men did Tokugawa forces have compared to Sanada? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3978383541107178,
-1.2428438663482666,
-2.839171886444092
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many more troops did Toyotomi have compared to those holding them under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4279417991638184,
-1.2601029872894287,
-2.8448829650878906
] |
Both sides had forces that did not arrive at Sekigahara in time to participate due to other battles. Ieyasu's son Hidetada led another group through Nakasendō. However, Hidetada's forces were bogged down as he attempted to besiege Sanada Masayuki's Ueda Castle against his father's direct orders. Even though the Tokugawa forces numbered some 38,000, an overwhelming advantage over the Sanada's mere 2,000, they were still unable to capture the strategist's well-defended position. At the same time, 15,000 Toyotomi troops were being held up by 500 troops under Hosokawa Yūsai at Tanabe Castle in present-day Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture. Some among the 15,000 troops respected Hosokawa so much they intentionally slowed their pace. Due to these incidents, a large number of troops from both sides failed to show up in time for the battle. If either of these armies participated in the conflict, it could have ended quite differently.. How many more troops were in the Tokugawa forces than Sanada had? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4488565921783447,
-1.263440489768982,
-2.8558521270751953
] |
Hoping to rebound from their loss to the Jets, the Steelers stayed at home for a Week 16 interconference duel with the Carolina Panthers on Thursday night. Pittsburgh delivered the game's opening punch in the first quarter with a 26-yard field goal from kicker Shaun Suisham. The Steelers added onto their lead in the second quarter as Roethlisberger found wide receiver Mike Wallace on a 43-yard touchdown pass, followed by a 1-yard touchdown run from running back Rashard Mendenhall and a 29-yard field goal from Suisham. Pittsburgh continued their dominating night in the third quarter with Roethlisberger's 1-yard touchdown run. The Panthers would close out the game in the fourth quarter as kicker John Kasay got a 27-yard field goal.. How many field goals were made during the first half? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.9292280673980713,
-0.15837007761001587,
-3.268831253051758
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many in percent in 1901 Singapore wasn't Malays? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6672487258911133,
-1.6133911609649658,
-2.774782657623291
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many in percent in 1901 Singapore wasn't Chinese? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.661687135696411,
-1.5929083824157715,
-2.7921760082244873
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many in percent in 1901 Singapore wasn't Indian? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6662354469299316,
-1.5820648670196533,
-2.8039679527282715
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many in percent in 1901 Singapore wasn't Europeans and Eurasians? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.64603328704834,
-1.618443250656128,
-2.763817310333252
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1860 were there more Chinese or Europeans and Eurasians in Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.730480432510376,
-0.5571568608283997,
-2.947223663330078
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1860 how many people in Singapore were not Chinese? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.368812322616577,
-0.9740740060806274,
-3.0587568283081055
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many people, in terms of percentage of the population of Singapore, were not Chinese as of 1871? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6034090518951416,
-1.5224847793579102,
-2.804456949234009
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. Which group made up the second largest percentage of the Singapore population in 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.0341451168060303,
-0.1254141628742218,
-2.624274253845215
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. Were there more Malays or Indians in Singapore in 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.0413620471954346,
0.17203611135482788,
-2.9506914615631104
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. Were there more Europeans and Eurasians or Indians in Singapore in 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
2.2118122577667236,
-0.06298495829105377,
-2.9117486476898193
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many Malays were there in Singapore in 1901 in terms of absolute number? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.4650917053222656,
-1.2371585369110107,
-2.948385000228882
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many Chinese were there in Singapore in 1901 in terms of absolute number? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.430100202560425,
-1.2036266326904297,
-2.9514896869659424
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many people, in terms of percentage of the population of Singapore, were not Chinese in 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6212103366851807,
-1.543144702911377,
-2.7990643978118896
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1860 how many people were not Chinese in Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.3279829025268555,
-0.9337869882583618,
-3.0617542266845703
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1871, how many percent of Singapore was not Chinese? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6104133129119873,
-1.582185983657837,
-2.7621634006500244
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more people were in Singapore in 1901 compared to 1860? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6913223266601562,
-1.5946121215820312,
-2.822770118713379
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1901 which group had the smallest percentage of people in Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.538875699043274,
0.5133223533630371,
-2.7366929054260254
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more percent of people did the Chinese have compared with the Malays in 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.69754695892334,
-1.668226718902588,
-2.7384719848632812
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. Which ancestry was originally the largest in Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
1.1262083053588867,
1.1299095153808594,
-2.9027276039123535
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more percentage of people in Singapore are Chinese than Malays? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.7322394847869873,
-1.7149240970611572,
-2.7436509132385254
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. Which race has the smallest percentage in Singapore, Chinese or European? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.4992824792861938,
0.3127388656139374,
-2.5517868995666504
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more Chinese than Europeans living in China? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.744807481765747,
-1.640529751777649,
-2.821791887283325
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more percent did the Malay population have than the Indians in the first half of century? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.6994595527648926,
-1.7103650569915771,
-2.721649169921875
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more percent Indians are there than Eurasians? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.753420114517212,
-1.7009180784225464,
-2.7678115367889404
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. What were all the 1881 Census grouped main categories? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
1.7053927183151245,
0.7346317172050476,
-3.0506882667541504
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more Chinese in 1860 than Europeans and Eurasians? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.73329496383667,
-1.7114624977111816,
-2.757038116455078
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. What were all the races in 1901 that populated Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 1 | [
0.9892715215682983,
1.521737813949585,
-3.05661678314209
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many more percentage of Chinese than Malays in Singapore? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.742549180984497,
-1.766305923461914,
-2.7193377017974854
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. In 1860 Singapore how many people were neither Chinese, Europeans or Eurasians? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.465280055999756,
-1.2353155612945557,
-2.9404187202453613
] |
Many of the migrants from China in the 19th century came to work on the pepper and Uncaria gambir plantations, with 11,000 Chinese immigrants recorded in one year. Singapore became one of the entry and dispersal points for large number of Chinese and Indian migrants who came to work in the plantations and mines of the Straits Settlements, many of whom then settled in Singapore after their contract ended. By 1860, the total population had reached around 90,000, of these 50,000 were Chinese, and 2,445 Europeans and Eurasians. The first thorough census in Singapore was undertaken in 1871, and the people were grouped into 33 racial, ethnic or national categories, with Chinese forming the largest group at 57.6%. Censuses were then conducted at 10 year intervals afterwards. The 1881 census grouped the people into 6 main categories, and further subdivided into 47 sub-categories. The 6 broad groups were given as Europeans, Eurasians, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others in 1921. The Malays group includes other natives of the Malay archipelago, the Europeans include Americans, the Indians would be people from the Indian subcontinent including what would now be Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1901, the total population of Singapore was 228,555, with 15.8% Malays, 71.8% Chinese, 7.8% Indians, and 3.5% Europeans and Eurasians. The Chinese population figure of Singapore has stayed at over 70% of the total since, reaching 77.8% in 1947. After dropping from a peak of 60% in the early years of Singapore, the Malay population would range between 11 and 16% in the first half of the 20th century, while Indians hovered between 7 and just over 9% in the same period.. How many people did Singapore grow by between 1860 and 1901? | ucinlp/drop | 0 | [
3.2347822189331055,
-0.8569560050964355,
-3.0554006099700928
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.