|
|
CLOZE(有删减）
Data sharing: An open mind on open date
It is a movement building steady momentum: a call to make research data, software code and experimental methods publicly available and transparent. A spirit of openness is gaining acceptance in the science community, and is the only way, say advocates, to address a 'crisis' in science whereby too few findings are successfully reproduced. Furthermore, they say, it is the best way for researchers to gather the range of observations that are necessary to speed up discoveries or to identify large-scale trends.
The open-data shift poses a confusing problem for junior researchers. On the one hand, the drive to share is gathering official steam. Since 2013, global scientific bodies have begun to back politics that support increased public access to research. On the other hand, scientists disagree about how much and when they should share date, and they debate whether sharing it is more likely to accelerate science and make it more robust, or to introduce vulnerabilities and problems. As more journal and funders adopt data-sharing requirements, and as a growing number of enthusiasts call for more openness, junior researchers must find their place between adopters and those who continue to hold out, even as they strive to launch their own careers.
One key challenge facing young scientists is how to be open without becoming scientifically vulnerable. They must determine the risk of jeopardizing a job offer or a collaboration proposal from those who are wary of—or unfamiliar with—open science. And they must learn how to capitalize on the movement's benefits, such as opportunities for more citations and a way to build a reputation without the need for conventional metrics, such as publication in high-impact journals.
Some fields have embraced open data more than others. Researchers in psychology, a field rocked by findings of irreproducibility in the past few years, have been especially vocal supporters of the drive for more-open science. A few psychology journals have created incentives to increase interest in reproducible science—for example, by affixing an 'open-data' badge to articles that clearly state where data are available. According to social psychologist Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science, the average data-sharing rate for the journal Psychological Science, which uses the badges, increased tenfold to 38% from 2013 to 2015.
Funders, too, are increasingly adopting an open-data policy. Several strongly encourage, and some require, a date-management plan that makes data available. The US National Science Foundation is among these, some philanthropic funders, including the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, and the Wellcome Trust in London, also mandate open data from their grant recipients.
But many young researchers, especially those who have not been mentored in open science, are uncertain about whether to share or to stay private. Graduate students and postdocs, who often are working on their lab head's grant, may have no choice if their supervisor or another senior colleague opposes sharing.
Some fear that the potential impact of sharing is too high, especially at the early stages of a career. "Everybody has a scary story about someone getting scooped," says New York University astronomer David Hogg. Those fears may be a factor in a lingering hesitation to share data even when publishing in journals that mandate it.
Researchers at small labs or at institutions focused on teaching arguably have the most to lose when sharing hard-won data. "With my institution and teaching load, I don't have postdocs and grad students," says Terry McGlynn, a tropical biologist at California State University, Dominguez Hills. "The stakes are higher to share data because it's a bigger fraction of what's happening in my lab."
Researchers also point to the time sink that is involved in preparing data for others to view. Once the data and associated materials appear in a repository, answering questions and handling complaints can take many hours.
The time investment can present other problems. In some cases, says data scientist Karthik Ram, it may be difficult for junior researchers to embrace openness when senior colleagues—many of whom head selection and promotion committees—might ridicule what they may view as misplaced energies. "I've heard this recently—that embracing the idea of open data and code makes traditional academics uncomfortable," says Ram. "The concern seems to be that open advocates don't spend their time being as productive as possible."
An open-science stance can also add complexity to a collaboration. Kate Ratliff, who studies social attitudes at the University of Florida, Gainesville, says that it can seem as if there are two camps in a field—those who care about open science and those who don't. "There's a new area to navigate—'Are you cool with the fact that I'll want to make the data open?'—when talking with somebody about an interesting research idea," she says.
Despite complications and concerns, the upsides of sharing can be significant. For example, when information is uploaded to a repository, a digital object identifier (DOI) is assigned. Scientists can use a DOI to publish each step of the research life cycle, not just the final paper. In so doing, they can potentially get three citations—one each for the data and software, in addition to the paper itself. And although some say that citations for software or data have little currency in academia, they can have other benefits.
Many advocates think that transparent data procedures with a date and time stamp will protect scientists from being scooped. "This is the sweet spot between sharing and getting credit for it, while discouraging plagiarism," says Ivo Grigorov, a project coordinator at the National Institute of Aquatic Resources Research Secretariat in Charlottenlund, Denmark. Hogg says that scooping is less of a problem than many think. "The two cases I'm familiar with didn't involve open data or code," he says.
Open science also offers junior researchers the chance to level the playing field by gaining better access to crucial date. Ross Mounce, a postdoc studying evolutionary biology at the University of Cambridge, UK, is a vocal champion of open science, partly because his fossil-based research depends on access to others' data. He says that more openness in science could help to discourage what some perceive as a common practice of shutting out early-career scientists' requests for data.
Communication also helps for those who worry about jeopardizing a collaboration, he says. Concerns about open science should be discussed at the outset of a study. "Whenever you start a project with someone, you have to establish a clear understanding of expectations for who owns the data, at what point they go public and who can do what with them," he says.
In the end, sharing data, software and materials with colleagues can help an early-career researcher to gain recognition—a crucial component of success. "The thing you are searching for is reputation," says Titus Brown, a genomics researcher at the University of California, Davis. "To get grants and jobs, you have to be relevant and achieve some level of public recognition. Anything you do that advances your presence—especially in a larger sphere, outside the communities you know—is a net win."
改错（原文）
Biologically, there is only one quality which distinguishes us from animals: the ability to laugh. In a universe which appears to be utterly deficient of humor, we enjoy this supreme luxury. And it is a luxury, for unlike any other bodily process, laughter does not seem to serve a biologically useful purpose. In a divided world, laughter is a unifying force. Human beings oppose each other on a great many issues. Nations may disagree about systems of government and human relations may be plagued by ideological clans and political camps, but we all share the ability to laugh. And laughter, in turn, depends on that most complex and subtle of all human qualities: a sense of humor. Certain comic stereotypes have a universal appeal. This can best be seen from the world-wide popularity of Charlie Chaplin’s early films. As that great commentator on human affairs, Dr. Samuel Johnson, once remarked, "men have been wise in very different modes; but they have always laughed in the same way."
A sense of humor may take various forms and laughter may be anything from refined tinkle to an earth quaking roar, but the effect is always the same. Humor helps us to maintain a correct sense of values. It is the one quality which political fanatics appear to lack. If we can see the funny side, we never make the mistake of taking ourselves too seriously. We are always reminded that tragedy is not really far removed from comedy, so we never get one-sided view of things.
READING
A
In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to citiesand by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides,who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence-as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What isreally frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the humanrace, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when wedismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us.The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and herder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living-standards and providing education and employment for all,we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mopup the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law.Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violencesay, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed." Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.
1. What is the best title for this passage?
[A] Advocating Violence.
[B] Violence Can Do Nothing to Diminish Race Prejudice.
[C] Important People on Both Sides See Violence As a Legitimate Solution.
[D] The Instincts of Human Race Are Thirsty for Violence.
2. Recorded history has taught us
[A] violence never solves anything.
[B] nothing.
[C] the bloodshed means nothing.
[D] everything.
3. It can be inferred that truly reasonable men
[A] can't get a hearing.
[B] are looked down upon.
[C] are persecuted.
[D] Have difficulty in advocating law enforcement.
4. "He was none the wiser" means
[A] he was not at all wise in listening.
[B] He was not at all wiser than nothing before.
[C] He gains nothing after listening.
[D] He makes no sense of the argument.
5. According the author the best way to solve race prejudice is
[A] law enforcement.
[B] knowledge.
[C] nonviolence.
[D] Mopping up the violent
参考答案
BBDCA
B有原文无题目
Indigenous peoples
by Richard Sidaway
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children’ (Native American proverb)
In December 2005, Evo Morales became the new President of Bolivia. He was only 46 years old and openly supported the production and use of the coca plant. He also wanted the state to take control of the profitable natural gas industry. But what was really significant was where he came from. He was born into a farming family in the Andes and spent much his life campaigning for the interests of the original inhabitants of the country. He was one of the first leaders of an indigenous people to make it to the top.
There are perhaps 370 million indigenous peoples in 70 countries around the world. They live on 20% of the world’s land, and they contribute 80% of the world’s biological and cultural diversity. For the last few hundred years, however, European colonialism has marginalised them. Europeans gave them diseases against which they had no defences, suppressed their culture and language, and tried to assimilate them into western societies.
Sometimes they almost disappeared from history. Few people today have heard of the Herero of Namibia. Eighty per cent of their population died from starvation a century ago at the hands of German colonisers. In 1803, there were 10,000 people living in Tasmania, but after the British declared war on them twenty years later, only 300 survived. The last Tasman died in 1905.
The main reason for the decimation of indigenous peoples has been to get their land and natural resources. In Colombia, a hundred years of oil extraction has resulted in the pollution of rivers, soil and drinking water. The story is repeated in Ecuador and Peru. In Brazil, the government plan to build five large dams on the Xingu River. These will flood thousands of square kilometres of tribal reserves and destroy much agricultural land.
Often governments have used forced relocation to get the local inhabitants out of the way. In Botswana today it is happening because of diamond mining and tourism. In the islands of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, the entire population were banished forever in order to build an airbase.
Land has a spiritual significance for indigenous people. In 1985 the Australian government finally recognised this and returned ownership of Uluru (Ayers Rock) to the Pitjantjatjara Aborigines. In the USA, however, the government is planning to store radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, although it is a sacred site for the Shoshone nation.
Businesses often try to take possession of indigenous cultures. Multinational companies wanted to become the owners of traditional knowledge in areas such as food, farming and health. They have tried to create patents on plants and medicines that indigenous people have used for centuries.
Native languages are also disappearing. They were banned in schools for decades. Parents stopped using them to communicate in the home, and so they were no longer passed from one generation to another.
Sometimes families have been affected in more dramatic ways. In Australia, it was government policy from 1900-1972 to forcibly remove aboriginal children from their parents and bring them up in institutions.
Health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes are another feature of indigenous life. The writer Paul Theroux, travelling in the Pacific, noted that most islanders’ diets nowadays consisted of junk food and canned fish imported from Japan thousands of miles away - despite the fact that they were surrounded by water, and fishing had been a way of life for millennia.
So is the election of Mr Morales, in one of the world’s poorest countries, a sign that things are finally getting better? Various peoples around the world now have their own representation. There is a Sámi parliament in Sweden and an Assembly of First Nations in Canada.
Formal Apologies were passed in several Australian State Parliaments in 1998 for the past mistreatment of the Aboriginal population. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi Act has made it possible for Maoris to claim back land, fisheries and forest in special courts where they have equal representation with non-indigenous people. The Miskito Indians in Nicaragua have had similar success.
Some Native American Tribes have recently become extremely wealthy because of a change in the law. They can now start casinos on their own land. Some people worry about the morality of this, but some of the profit has been used for improvements in education and health.
The meeting between western and indigenous cultures has not often been a happy one, but perhaps there is hope yet for the continued diversity of humankind.
C有原文无题目
http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/s/blog_5af57e2e0100gk66.html
D
C
No student of a foreign language needs to be told that grammar is complex. By changing the order of the words and by adding a range of auxiliary verbs (助动词) and suffixes (后缀), we can turn a statement into a question, state whether an action has taken place or is soon to take place, and perform many other word tricks to convey different meanings. However, the question which many language experts can’t understand and explain is—who created grammar?
Some recent languages evolved due to the Atlantic slave trade. Since the slaves didn’t know each other’s languages, they developed a make-shift language called a pidgin. Pidgins are strings of words copied from the language of the landowners. They have little in the way of grammar, and speakers need to use too many words to make their meaning understood. Interestingly, however, all it takes for a pidgin to become a complex language is for a group of children to be exposed to it at the time when they learn their mother tongue. Slave children didn’t simply copy the strings of words used by their elders. They adapted their words to create an expressive language. In this way complex grammar systems which come from pidgins were invented.
Further evidence can be seen in studying sign languages for the deaf. Sign languages are not simply a group of gestures; they use the same grammatical machinery that is found in spoken languages. The creation of one such language was documented quite recently in Nicaragua. Previously, although deaf children were taught speech and lip reading in the classrooms, in the playgrounds they began to invent their own sign system, using the gestures they used at home. It was basically a pidgin and there was no consistent grammar. However, a new system was born when children who joined the school later developed a quite different sign language. It was based on the signs of the older children, but it was shorter and easier to understand, and it had a large range of special use of grammar to clarify the meaning. What’s more, they all used the signs in the same way. So the original pidgin was greatly improved.
Most experts believe that many of the languages were pidgins at first. They were initially used in different groups of people without standardization and gradually evolved into a widely accepted system. The English past tense—“ed” ending— may have evolved from the verb “do”. “It ended” may once have been “It end-did”. It seems that children have grammatical machinery in their brains. Their minds can serve to create logical and complex structures, even when there is no grammar present for them to copy.
|
|
[复制链接]
/4 
|关注微信公众号|2024年广外考研群|明德尚行教育淘宝店铺|手机版|电话：18819455115|广外考研论坛
( 京ICP备18034083号-5 ) 
发表于 2021-12-19 17:17:17
收藏
支持
反对