9.19 Q+RC+坐稳放狗攒人品~

CheeJo

先说明构筑这次Q50，但V爆炸了（比几次模考差好多呜呜），V那边pace也没有掌握太好，很匆忙，加上阅读本身偏弱，难免有理解错误，所以仅供参考，大家一定要结合其他寂静来食用！


数学：
1.不知道有没有理解错：一个直径为五的圆，外面有一圈五厘米的边，求边的面积。




2.两个1，2，3，4，x组成的数组，第一个x为平均数，第二个x为中位数，请问有多少满足条件的x。


3.（具体数字记不清了）一批灯泡。其中有？%箱的次品大于等于五个，求中位数。


（1）有百分之60大于等于3个
（2）有百分之35小于等于1个


条件连立，求出来好像是3/4，不知道这个算不算sufficient呢？要求是必须求出一个具体值，还是求出范围就可以了？




4.从P到Q经过距离那题也考到了，具体数字有变化，每个求出来就行，我的答案好像是4x+5


5.10000的100次方等于多少
（1）（100）^2 * （100）^100
（2）（100）^200
（3）（10）^400
类似这样三个选项




6.k除以26的余数是k-2，k是正整数好像？求k等于几
（1）k大于5
（2）k小于10
好像选了c




7.
k是2-200的正整数，k=a^b， b>1 求k有多少解。






阅读：
1.女权那个jj里面有的，考到了。


2.
第一段简单背景介绍：
研究者关于公司提高产品单的价格的影响做了一组实验。分为现有客户 和 潜在客户。


第二段：
短期来看，提高价格可以提高现有和潜在客户的购买量（具体关系有点记不清了。）


第三段：
长期来说，现有客户会减少，潜在会变多。


第四段：
分析了两个原因，一个是与之前储存有关，一个是与替代品有关。




3.
涉及评价研究者的两者指标，一个h好像和发文被引用量有关，一个r和replicable有关。
好像说现在impact比较重要，r不是很重要，一般都是用h的指标。
但是h指标也有缺点，比如作者为了提高h，可能会发controversial但r低的文。
所以，用r指标进行补充也有好处。


4.好像是关于deep雪地里caribou的特点。K原来提出了它们具有几个...特点（比如腿长），但是做了一个对比实验，发现好像不能印证。
后来有研究是不是食物的nutrition不一样，但是好像也没有显著的结果支持。


坐稳：
报纸杂志社论：因为公交成本高，利润下降，所以某city决定减少几个利润少的bus routes。但是这会（好像有信息说线路减少造成乘车不便？不太确定了）损害所有乘客的利益，最终使得service停运。所以更好的办法是提高所有的bus fares。






最后是一点心得教训（唠唠叨叨 无关紧要）：
这次一战，准备时间只有二十天，虽然不缺准备几天就分手的大神，但本渣渣基本上是知道还有很多东西都没复习的时候，就去考试了。
所以这个结果也能接受吧（苦笑），还好自己知道接下来还需要做什么。
虽然一开始看到分数的时候确实很难接受，脑子一片空白地确认取消成绩。
（顺便，prep模考试是不是参考价值比较小？构筑三次VQ考出来总分都在700左右QAQ大家有更科学的模考方式吗？）
出考场后做心里建设：gmat存在的意义也在于检验你是不是一个优秀的决策者管理者呀~这只是个小小坎，过不了的话，可能确实不适合读商科吧（呜呜）。备考gmat绝对是个不断提升自己的机会！不要因为还有提升空间而灰心丧气，要继续加油呀！

好啦！希望不久之后，可以有机会有资格来分享自己的经验！大家一起加油！

billyisfragile!

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11587

是原文吗？

涉及评价研究者的两者指标，一个h好像和发文被引用量有关，一个r和replicable有关。
好像说现在impact比较重要，r不是很重要，一般都是用h的指标。
但是h指标也有缺点，比如作者为了提高h，可能会发controversial但r低的文。
所以，用r指标进行补充也有好处。

Replicability
BRIAN KNUTSON
Associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, Stanford University

Since different visiting teachers had promoted contradictory philosophies, the villagers asked the Buddha

whom they should believe. The Buddha advised: “When you know for yourselves . . . these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then live and act accordingly.” Such empirical advice might sound surprising coming from a religious leader, but not from a scientist.

开头先介绍了一种R开头的打分策略，然后说学术界对于一种R打头的计分方式implicitly尊重，但是不会explicitly使用，原因是学术界有一个H打头的分数，这个分数决定了他们的prestige，然后所有低于这个H分数的都列入其他。但是H打头的分数的这种计分方式有坏处，那就是作者为了提过引用率，经常会去提供一些容易引起争议的观点，这样其实没法确保学术质量。

“See for yourself” is an unspoken credo of science. It is not enough to run an experiment and report the findings. Others who repeat that experiment must find the same thing. Repeatable experiments are called “replicable.” Although scientists implicitly respect replicability, they do not typically explicitly reward it.

To some extent, ignoring replicability comes naturally. Human nervous systems are designed to respond to rapid changes, ranging from subtle visual flickers to pounding rushes of ecstasy. Fixating on fast change makes adaptive sense—why spend limited energy on opportunities or threats that have already passed? But in the face of slowly growing problems, fixation on change can prove disastrous (think of lobsters in the cooking pot or people under greenhouse gases).

第一段：讲了repeatable experiments的定义。一般情况下，学术研究的评估标准之一是看引用量，可以用h index来代表。h index越高确实可以代表这个学术研究更eminence，但是有的人会为了高h index来发表一些controversial的研究成果，这样反而对学术研究不好

阅读二 R score：第一段先讲现在普遍使用H score去rate scientists的文章发表成果， 其中一大局限性是有的scientists会为了H score发表unreplicable的作品，无法保证作品的质量；

Cultures can also promote fixation on change. In science, some high-profile journals, and even entire fields, emphasize novelty, consigning replications to the dustbin of the unremarkable and unpublishable. More formally, scientists are often judged based on their work’s novelty rather than its replicability. The increasingly popular “h-index” quantifies impact by assigning a number (h) which indicates that an investigator has published h papers that have been cited h or more times (so, Joe Blow has an h-index of 5 if he has published five papers, each of which others have cited five or more times). While impact factors correlate with eminence in some fields (e.g., physics), problems can arise. For instance, Dr. Blow might boost his impact factor by publishing controversial (thus, cited) but unreplicable findings.

Why not construct a replicability (or “r”) index to complement impact factors? As with h, r could indicate that a scientist has originally documented r separate effects that independently replicate r or more times (so, Susie Sharp has an r-index of 5 if she has published five independent effects, each of which others have replicated five or more times). Replication indices would necessarily be lower than citation indices, since effects have to first be published before they can be replicated, but they might provide distinct information about research quality. As with citation indices, replication indices might even apply to journals and fields, providing a measure that can combat biases against publishing and publicizing replications.

第三段前半段不记得了，后面讲R score可以应用在研究public policy的方面(such as health，education，etc.)

第三段是对于R打头这个策略在公共政策领域的引用做了一一些延伸，说这个策略如何适用于公共政策的improvement，因为很多既定政策经过反复试验就会发现其实是有问题并且需要改善的。

A replicability index might prove even more useful to nonscientists. Most investigators who have spent significant time in the salt mines of the laboratory already intuit that most ideas don’t pan out, and those that do sometimes result from chance or charitable interpretations. Conversely, they also recognize that replicability means they’re really onto something. Not so for the general public, who instead encounter scientific advances one cataclysmic media-filtered study at a time. As a result, laypeople and journalists are repeatedly surprised to find the latest counterintuitive finding overturned by new results. Measures of replicability could help channel attention toward cumulative contributions. Along those lines, it is interesting to consider applying replicability criteria to public-policy interventions designed to improve health, enhance education, or curb violence. Individuals might even benefit from using replicability criteria to optimize their personal habits (e.g., more effectively dieting, exercising, working, etc.).

Replication should be celebrated rather than denigrated. Often taken for granted, replicability may be the exception rather than the rule. As running water resolves rock from mud, so can replicability highlight the most reliable findings, investigators, journals, and even fields. More broadly, replicability may provide an indispensable tool for evaluating both personal and public policies. As suggested in the Kalama Sutta, replicability might even help us decide whom to believe.

CheeJo

bzy! 发表于 2019-9-19 15:29
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11587

是原文吗？

sorry，可能不是原文，但可以作为背景知识看~
补充：

这段的介绍可以参考：
Cultures can also promote fixation on change. In science, some high-profile journals, and even entire fields, emphasize novelty, consigning replications to the dustbin of the unremarkable and unpublishable. More formally, scientists are often judged based on their work’s novelty rather than its replicability. The increasingly popular “h-index” quantifies impact by assigning a number (h) which indicates that an investigator has published h papers that have been cited h or more times (so, Joe Blow has an h-index of 5 if he has published five papers, each of which others have cited five or more times). While impact factors correlate with eminence in some fields (e.g., physics), problems can arise. For instance, Dr. Blow might boost his impact factor by publishing controversial (thus, cited) but unreplicable findings.

这个关于为什么不是r的说法，倒有点像原文对于h缺点的介绍方法：
Why not construct a replicability (or “r”) index to complement impact factors? As with h, r could indicate that a scientist has originally documented r separate effects that independently replicate r or more times (so, Susie Sharp has an r-index of 5 if she has published five independent effects, each of which others have replicated five or more times). Replication indices would necessarily be lower than citation indices, since effects have to first be published before they can be replicated, but they might provide distinct information about research quality. As with citation indices, replication indices might even apply to journals and fields, providing a measure that can combat biases against publishing and publicizing replications.

这段好像和最后一段有些类似：
A replicability index might prove even more useful to nonscientists. Most investigators who have spent significant time in the salt mines of the laboratory already intuit that most ideas don’t pan out, and those that do sometimes result from chance or charitable interpretations. Conversely, they also recognize that replicability means they’re really onto something. Not so for the general public, who instead encounter scientific advances one cataclysmic media-filtered study at a time. As a result, laypeople and journalists are repeatedly surprised to find the latest counterintuitive finding overturned by new results. Measures of replicability could help channel attention toward cumulative contributions. Along those lines, it is interesting to consider applying replicability criteria to public-policy interventions designed to improve health, enhance education, or curb violence. Individuals might even benefit from using replicability criteria to optimize their personal habits (e.g., more effectively dieting, exercising, working, etc.).


具体真的不太记得啦！

billyisfragile!

CheeJo 发表于 2019-9-19 15:30
sorry，可能不是原文，但可以作为背景知识看~
补充：

could edit your original post so that yuedujun can read it?

fredagmat

请问数学第三题灯泡题怎么做？你选了c吗？

AnnieLinbaby

fredagmat 发表于 2019-9-20 11:11
请问数学第三题灯泡题怎么做？你选了c吗？

我觉得是A呀。。。。
中位数是50%
条件A给出了大于3是60%，然后大于5是X%。相减的话应该就能求出50%在哪一个位置了！但楼主忘了x%是啥。。。有可能在4的位置，或者5以上的位置，还是要知道X是啥，呵呵，上考场再看吧。。。
条件B只涵盖了35%，明显不够

alex1117

AnnieLinbaby 发表于 2019-9-20 19:35
我觉得是A呀。。。。
中位数是50%
条件A给出了大于3是60%，然后大于5是X%。相减的话应该就能求出50%在哪 ...

同意！               

naomi一定行

楼主楼主，第六题是不是26除以k--是不是写反了！因为这样可以算出三个k，按照条件12刚好可以选c

naomi一定行

alex1117 发表于 2019-9-20 21:13
同意！

请问这个题如果给了x是40%的话是不是就可以求出来是选a-