After reviewing the content of the uploaded files, I have identified the following issues:

1. **Issue in `dataset_infos.json`**:

```json
{
    "issue": "Incomplete `dataset_infos.json` content",
    "evidence": "\"size_categories\":\n- 10K<n<100K\n",
    "description": "The content of `dataset_infos.json` file seems to be truncated or incomplete. Specifically, the size_categories entry is improperly formatted and ends abruptly without closing quotation marks or braces. The dataset description halts at `10K<n<100K`, suggesting that the file content may not be complete or was improperly uploaded."
}
```

2. **Issue in `bc2gm_corpus.py`**:

```json
{
    "issue": "License Notice in Code file",
    "evidence": "# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the \"License\");",
    "description": "The Python script `bc2gm_corpus.py` contains a license notice at the beginning of the file. While including a license notice is standard practice, this specific notice does not clarify whether it applies to the dataset itself or merely to the script. It's important to clearly specify the licensing of the dataset, separate from any software (e.g., scripts or tools) used to manipulate or access the dataset."
}
```

3. **Missing License Information**:

```json
{
    "issue": "Missing or unclear license information",
    "evidence": "\"license\": \"\"",
    "description": "In the `dataset_infos.json`, the `license` field is left empty. It's crucial for dataset users to understand the usage rights and restrictions. The lack of clear license information could hinder users from appropriately using or citing the dataset."
}
```

These issues should be corrected to ensure clarity, completeness, and compliance with expected standards. The incomplete JSON content needs to be verified for correctness, the implications of the license clarified for both script and dataset, and explicit license information provided for the dataset.