Your task is to classify the citation intent within the following provided text from a computational linguistics research paper. The cited work is demarcated by "<cite>" and "</cite>". Determine the purpose of the cited work by selecting from the listed categories:

- Background: The cited paper underpins the subject matter.
- Motivation: The cited paper inspires or provides a rationale for the current research.
- Uses: The current work utilizes concepts or tools from the cited paper.
- Extends: The current work advances ideas or methods from the cited paper.
- Similarities: The current work identifies commonalities with the cited paper.
- Differences: The current work delineates its distinction from the cited paper.
- FutureWork: The cited paper is acknowledged as groundwork for prospective research.

Indicate the intents by listing them in a `json` array, e.g. ["Background", "Uses"]. More than one intent may be applicable. Do not include any extraneous text in your response.

Context with Citation:
2 While the focus of <cite>Kübler et al. (2006)</cite> is on comparing parsing results across corpora, Dubey (2004) focuses on improving parsing for Negra, including corpus-specific enhancements leading to better results. This difference in focus and additional differences in experimental setup mean that a finegrained comparison of the results is inappropriate -the relevant point here is that the gap between the results (23% for subjects, 35% for accusative objects) warrants further attention in the context of comparing parsing results across corpora. corpora of German that PARSEVAL is inappropriate for comparisons of the output of PCFG parsers trained on different treebank annotation schemes because PARSEVAL scores are affected by the ratio of terminal to non-terminal nodes. A dependencybased evaluation on triples of the form word-POShead shows better results for the parser trained on Tiger even though the much lower PARSEVAL scores, if meaningful, would predict that the output for Tiger is of lower quality. However, their dependency-based evaluation does not make use of the grammatical function labels, which are provided in the corpora and closely correspond to the representations used in recent work on formalismindependent evaluation of parsers (e.g., Clark and Curran, 2007) . 3 Addressing these issues, we resolve the apparent discrepancy between <cite>Kübler et al. (2006)</cite> and Dubey (2004) and establish a firm grammatical function comparison of Negra and TüBa-D/Z. We also extend the evaluation to a labeled dependency evaluation based on grammatical relations for both corpora.
["Motivation"]