You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable



Access restricted
We've detected unusual activity from your network. Access to this page is temporarily restricted.
Are you a researcher?
Log in or sign up as a ResearchGate member to verify your access.
Log in
Create account
Ray ID: a3befc2fa9475af6
Client IP: 208.110.231.2
©
2008-2026
ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.
</reference>

<statements>
1. When an unexpected, ambiguous, or threatening event occurs, individuals with an elevated need for closure experience an aversive affective state characterized by uncertainty distress.
2. Once an explanation is seized and internalized into an individual’s cognitive representation, the permanence phase takes precedence.
3. Small direct positive association between NFCC and endorsement of conspiracy narratives (\(r = 0.12\)); institutional trust exerted a significantly more powerful explanatory influence.
4. The relationship between NFCC and misinformation acceptance is non-linear and moderated by sociopolitical identities, institutional trust configurations, reflective thinking, and ambient environmental pressures.
5. High closure functions as an epistemic engine, but external moderating forces determine which narratives that engine adopts and preserves.
6. Institutional and scientific trust serves as the foundational switch governing the direction of the closure-seeking process.
7. In large-scale empirical studies examining conspiracy theories and misinformation during national health crises, political and institutional trust routinely emerges as a dominant predictor, with effect sizes that far surpass dispositional NFCC.
8. When individuals high in NFCC possess strong trust in medical, scientific, and governmental authorities, their need for certainty is successfully fulfilled through official briefings, scientific consensus, and verified public institutional channels.
9. Under these conditions, the high NFCC profile acts as an adherence mechanism, leading individuals to reject fringe theories and align with authoritative directives.
10. In the absence of credible institutional answers, the urgent demand for cognitive closure drives distrustful individuals to seize upon anti-establishment conspiracy narratives and decentralized online misinformation to reconstruct a sense of order and predictability.
11. Delivering rapid, transparent, and structured explanations preempts misinformation ecosystems from satisfying the public's urgency drive.
12. Countering misinformation in an information-dense landscape requires transforming knowledge revision from an exercise in creating destabilizing uncertainty into a process of providing clear, structurally coherent, and definitive epistemic resolution.
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.