Closes #615 | Add Dataloader IDK-MRC-NLI

[muhammadravi251001]

Title: Add Dataloader IDK-MRC-NLI

First line PR Message: Closes https://github.com/SEACrowd/seacrowd-datahub/issues/615

Notes

• For the _CITATION field, I will add it later.

Checkbox

• [x] Confirm that this PR is linked to the dataset issue.
• [x] Create the dataloader script seacrowd/sea_datasets/{my_dataset}/{my_dataset}.py (please use only lowercase and underscore for dataset folder naming, as mentioned in dataset issue) and its __init__.py within {my_dataset} folder.
• [x] Provide values for the _DATASETNAME, _DESCRIPTION, _HOMEPAGE, _LICENSE, _LOCAL, _URLs, _SUPPORTED_TASKS, _SOURCE_VERSION, and _SEACROWD_VERSION variables.
• [x] Implement _info(), _split_generators() and _generate_examples() in dataloader script.
• [x] Make sure that the BUILDER_CONFIGS class attribute is a list with at least one SEACrowdConfig for the source schema and one for a seacrowd schema.
• [x] Confirm dataloader script works with datasets.load_dataset function.
• [x] Confirm that your dataloader script passes the test suite run with python -m tests.test_seacrowd seacrowd/sea_datasets/<my_dataset>/<my_dataset>.py or python -m tests.test_seacrowd seacrowd/sea_datasets/<my_dataset>/<my_dataset>.py --subset_id {subset_name_without_source_or_seacrowd_suffix}.
• [ ] If my dataset is local, I have provided an output of the unit-tests in the PR (please copy paste). This is OPTIONAL for public datasets, as we can test these without access to the data files.

[muhammadravi251001]

@muhammadravi251001 : Thank you for the update! LGTM!

Thanks for the approval, Sir!

[holylovenia]

A friendly reminder for @luckysusanto to review.

[muhammadravi251001]

The code works well, but, I noticed that there are only two labels in the dataset: 0 and 2.

I checked the original homepage, and the owner did state that there are 3 labels: Entailment (0), neutral (1), and contradiction (2). However, the original dataset only contains two labels: either entailment or contradiction.

I think it would be better for us to turn "contradiction" into (1) [changed from (2)], and then put a comment/note on the file. I fear that currently, it might cause some confusion for users later on

cc: @holylovenia

It was done on purpose, Lucky. I've already made the explanation/clarification on this comment for the same task of my NLI dataset: https://github.com/SEACrowd/seacrowd-datahub/pull/633#issuecomment-2088094588

[luckysusanto]

I see, in that case, approved!

[muhammadravi251001]

I see, in that case, approved!

Alright, thanks for the approval, Lucky!