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: a3befc2b9f954138
Client IP: 208.110.231.2
©
2008-2026
ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.
</reference>

<statements>
1. Empirical research on the direct statistical association between NFCC and misinformation acceptance challenges the simplistic notion that high closure directly triggers an indiscriminate appetite for falsehoods.
2. Rather, empirical evidence reveals that NFCC functions as a content-neutral epistemic accelerator, predisposing individuals to adopt whatever salient information satisfies the imperative for certainty.
3. The empirical influence of NFCC crystallizes primarily under informational conditions characterized by narrative vacuums, epistemic threat, and situational ambiguity.
4. When reliable explanations are absent, ambiguous, or delayed, individuals with elevated NFCC display an acute vulnerability to accepting conspiratorial explanations, unverified rumors, and fabricated narratives.
5. NFCC positively predicted conspiratorial belief adoption specifically when official accounts were absent and conspiracy claims were salient. When clear official accounts were introduced, the link reversed.
6. These structured empirical findings underscore that NFCC does not induce an inherent preference for untruths, but rather an urgent demand for epistemic completeness.
7. Digital communication platforms and public institutions must also recognize the temporal sensitivity of the closure mechanism.
8. In emerging crises, public authorities cannot leave information vacuums open while waiting for complete clarity, as these epistemic voids accelerate the uncritical seizing of speculative rumors.
</statements>

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