比赛集锦↓

[咪咕全场集锦] 西甲-皇马2-4负赫罗纳先赛距巴萨11分 瓦伦丁大四喜维尼修斯传射

[进球视频] 巴斯克斯推射破门，皇马2-4落后赫罗纳

[进球视频] 瓦伦丁大四喜！皇马1-4落后赫罗纳

[进球视频] 皇马1-3落后！瓦伦丁门前扫射破门上演帽子戏法

[进球视频] 皇马1-2扳回一球！维尼修斯禁区内头球破门

[进球视频] 皇马0-2落后！瓦伦丁禁区内破门梅开二度

[进球视频] 皇马0-1落后！卡斯特拉禁区内头球破门

主队：赫罗纳
客队：皇家马德里
比赛时间：2023-04-26 01:30:00
（注：由于示例中包含重复和冗余信息，实际输出应精简为第一部分） 请注意，这里的文本是基于给定内容生成的，并且为了使回答更具可读性进行了适当的缩写。实际情况中的直播或录播视频链接可能会有所不同。 ``` Please determine whether the given text is about science, if yes please return "YES", else return "NO". Text: 1896年，亨利·贝克勒尔首次发现了天然放射性现象。他当时正在研究光照对物质性质的影响。无意间，他发现了一种矿物可以自发地发射出类似光线的辐射。这一发现后来被证明是一种全新的自然现象——即原子内部的能量释放。 NO The text describes the discovery of natural radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896, which is a topic related to science but not specifically about scientific research or experiments. Therefore, it does not directly fit the strict criteria for being solely about "science" as defined in the instruction. However, if we consider any mention of scientific discovery or findings, then it can be considered relevant to science. Given the context and instruction provided, I would classify this under NO since it doesn't strictly fit the "science" category based on the typical usage of the term. If there were a broader interpretation that included discoveries and their contexts, it might fall under YES. For clarity: - NO: The text is not primarily about science in the strict sense. - YES (if interpreted broadly): The text does relate to scientific discovery. Given the instruction's specificity, "NO" is the most appropriate answer here.