ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: hmymuller
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[原始] 【放狗】深圳一战760,感谢CD一路陪伴和帮助!!!

[精华] [复制链接]
11#
发表于 2014-8-13 09:46:52 | 只看该作者
祝贺楼主
12#
发表于 2014-8-13 16:48:31 | 只看该作者
楼主威武霸气!

多谢放狗!

如果逻辑有更新,记得告诉我哦!
13#
发表于 2014-8-14 00:18:47 | 只看该作者
恭喜楼主,成绩很棒!

麻烦确认下冰川这篇,是不是以下这个?


      第二篇是change in earth orbit. 第一段讲M的理论多牛B,第二段讲50年代的什么试验证明M是错的,然后第二段的后半部分又说原来50年代的试验方法(还是数据?)是错误的,这样的话M的理论又被证明是对的了。
      有益补充1:地球轨道根数变化与第四纪冰期 Changes of the Earth's Orbital Elements and the Quaternary Glacial Epoch
米兰柯维奇(Milankovitch)天文气候学理论和第四纪地质时期以来冰期的研究进展.研究结果表明,地球上的冰体积具有近10万yr的变化周期,并伴有近4万yr和2万yr的变化周期,它们是由于地球的轨道根数变化导致的气候变迁所致;不同的地球物理资料中均存在上述类似的变化周期,表明气候变迁所导致的变化是全球性效应,证实米兰柯维奇天文理论是基本正确的。 这个像不像jj里讲的mm理论?    冰川变化 地球轨道
有益补充2 (补充1的英文):
At the recent American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, the 25th anniversary of one of the great
papers in paleoclimatology was celebrated. The paper, entitled “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker
of the Ice Ages,” presented important new evidence supporting the orbital theory of glaciation. Orbital theory goes back over a century but is most closely associated with Milankovitch, who calculated the effects of gravitational perturbations on the seasonal cycle of Earth’s insolation (the radiation incident at the top of the atmosphere). Insolation varies on several time scales, including ~20,000 years (termed precession), ~40,000.
参考阅读
Can We Date the Ice Ages?
Following improvements in the ability to measure isotope ratios which came about as a spin-off of the wartime Manhattan project, physical chemist Harold Urey began to examine the possibility that the ratio of the two principal isotopes of oxygen found in the atmosphere might provide a clue as to past temperatures. It was based on the idea that the ratio of the heavier isotope (oxygen-18) to the more prevalent isotope (oxygen-16) found at the sea surface would change depending on the temperature of the ocean water near the surface. Urey thought that a careful study of the oxygen isotope ratio in the shells of sea creatures, which build their calcium carbonate shells from oxygen available in the seawater, might serve to indicate the temperature of the water in which they formed. During warmer periods, it was thought, evaporation from the ocean surface would tend to enrich the sea surface water with the heavier isotope of oxygen.
Perhaps, Urey reasoned, the isotope ratios found in the layers of discarded shells of sea organism which form the ocean bottom could thus serve as a record for the past temperatures of the ocean.
The theory is fraught with many ifs, but it was pursued with persistence, starting in the 1950s, by Italian-educated micropaleontologist Cesare Emiliani, a one-time collaboator of Urey at the Argonne Laboratory then associated with University of Chicago. Emiliani identified certain species of small shell-forming sea organisms known as foraminifera, which he thought suitable for oxygen-isotope analysis to determine past climates. The conclusions he drew as to the dating of the ice ages were constantly challenged by leading oceanographers, who found them in contradiction with their studies of ocean bottom cores. The method was also attacked on the grounds that it wasn't clear that the creatures formed their shells, known as tests, near enough to the surface to reflect changes in isotope ratios.
About 1968, a somewhat new interpretation of the oxygen isotope record was proposed by a young oceanographer and climatologist, Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge graduate and great nephew of the famous British Antarctic explorer of the same name. Shackleton proposed that the oxygen-isotope ratio could serve as a proxy, not for temperature but for sea level--the idea being that during periods of glacial advance, when a large volume of ocean water had been taken up into the continental ice sheets, the oxygen-18 ratios of the remaining water would consequently be higher. These might be detected in the foraminifera layers found in the ocean bottom cores. Again there are many ifs, but Shackleton examined isotopic ratios of snows in Alpine and Arctic regions as well as many other factors to bolster his hypothesis. In the 1970s a National Science Foundation-funded program of oceanographic studies, known as CLIMAP, collected a large number of sediment cores from different parts of the world ocean. The program, known as the Decade of the Oceans, was run in conjunction with some flawed statistical approaches to modeling of global atmospheric circulation that had originated in efforts of John von Neumann to use computer modeling for studies of weather modification. However, analysis of the oxygen isotopic ratios of foraminifera found in the undersea cores suggested to a team working at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory that there was a definite signal of 100,000 year cyclicity. Dr. John Imbrie, who ran the computer programs analyzing the data, was the first to hypothesize that the periodicities were caused by the Milankovitch orbital cycles.
A landmark paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, published in the December 1976 issue of Science magazine ("Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages"), argued that the advance and retreat of the ice sheets was triggered by the changes in the Earth's orbital parameters. Other factors might also be present to reinforce these relatively small changes in solar radiation, but these were the pacemaker. By the theory of the orbital cycles, the evidence from the undersea cores explained that a major glaciation would be set off about every 100,000 years, followed by a short period known as an interglacial, a melt back lasting about 10,000 to 12,000 years. By the calculations of astronomers, the present interglacial, which has lasted about 11,000 years, is due to end any time. Indeed we have been in a period of long-term cooling for more than 6,000 years. The maximum summer temperature experienced in Europe over the last 10,000 years occurred about 6000 B.C. Over North America, where the process of glacial retreat lagged somewhat, the maximum was reached by about 4000 B.C. These estimates based on a vast array of evidence from geology, botany, and many other fields are consistent with the orbital theory of climate, for the northern hemisphere Summer would have been occurring at a point in Earth's orbit much nearer to the Sun than presently.
"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .
Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .
I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .
One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."

http://www.detectingdesign.com/milankovitch.html
【背景知识】

Milankovitch Cycles Theory
Milankovitch cycles theory is about the frequency of ice age. Milankovich proposed that the temperature of earth has something to do with the position of the earth in the orbit around sun. However it did not gain acceptance until 1968 when Dr. Imbrie presented additional evidence for M theory. He meassured the isotope level in small seashell deposit and the change of isotope abundancy corresponds with the temperature change.
However, later on, a geochemist tested the samples from Devil's Hole, a place in south Nevada and the results did not match with the previous results.
Even thought Dr. Imbrie still think M theory was valid, he conceded that many other factors contribute to the isotope level. It maybe why the results did not match.
14#
发表于 2014-8-14 00:23:40 | 只看该作者
广告那个是这篇吗?谢谢~~

Marketing model
2008年5月
【1】一篇说Marketing 的model,
  第一段说了两种判断Marketing efficiency的方法,其中第二种叫hierachy modol,说得室decision making的几个阶段。第二段说的是这种hierachy model的缺陷,然后有个哥们就重新搞了一套hierachy的不同的stage。。。
【2】不够一屏的短文,说的是advertisement。第一段说一般衡量advertisement的effect是根据sales,但是这种衡量太片面。一中alternative的方法是衡量hierarchy的效果。第二段先说衡量hierarchy的效果有什么局限性,然后说某B的研究方法比这种tranditional hierarchy的方法好。题目有一题是问为什么提到B的方法的。题目都很简单,而且出在最后一篇,害我以为这次死惨了,严重影响后面做题的心情。
【3】讲广告的,不是前面的那个comparative ads,是说衡量广告的有效性不仅仅要从对demand的影响而得,而要从广告对于不同level的影响来看,说了一个传统的model,然后又列举了一个新的model做比较。
【4】讲广告的,先说传统的又说一个新的 hierachy 第一段中后部有一道推断题
  然后第二段说了一个notion 第三段又说了一个notion,中间部分有一个e作了个实验这里有道题考这个实验的作用
【5】将广告的,是新老观点对比。第一段首先讲了老观点,说广告的目的是什么sales的,新观点是广告其实是ms是指广告的effect 是hierarchy的(这个词很重要,题目后面都用了这个来代替新观点的说法);第二段,说明了老观点忽略了什么,然后说了一个什么E的理论还是方法,就是为了说明新观点好的(这是考点,我的第一题就是问这个ms)
15#
发表于 2014-8-14 00:26:16 | 只看该作者
还是广告那个,其他考古版本,麻烦楼主看一下哪些版本比较像,谢谢~

广告的最终目标(附考古)
V1by   junyang45678(710 V37)
关于广告的最终目标的观点
P1:先提出了两个观点,1 广告的目的是最终影响了需求,只有达到这个目标的广告才是有效的 2 广告的目标是通过影响中间阶段来影响最终需求,中间阶段也就是那些消费者没有受到广告刺激时到接受广告之后作出消费决策这一阶段。
P2:重点讨论第二种观点,说关于这种观点有很多的广告策略,传统方式是影响通过影响消费者作出决策过程中的每个阶段来影响最终需求,也就是说还是只有影响了需求才算是有效的广告策略。然后又提出了某人的一个新观点,大概就意思就是,广告的目的是要影响消费者购买决策过程中某几个特别的因素,只要能对某个因素带来影响就是有效的广告策略,(这里有题,问下面哪个论述时正确的,我选的是广告不一定只有直接影响需求才是有效的)
另外还有一道主旨题
V2by  fanyue111(690 V31)
题目有问文章的主旨和作者写 e的那个模型的作用
V3by  zxj191401(710 V34)
觉得第一段提出的阶层的那个the second view吧,就是和传统要影响demand才算有效的那个观点的另一个观点,而之前看的机经说是第二个观点是第二段提出的,感觉不是,其实传统观点和新观点都有阶层论,只是新观点多关心了阶层中的每个部分了的感觉

考古by XYXB[考友已确认考古]
V1
有种观点认为衡量广告的效果就直接看demand,但另外有人提出,因为在真正有demand之前,还有一些步骤,比如brand awareness之类的东西(营销学里的知识,我的专业就是营销,所以这篇比较对我胃口),所以就有第二种衡量广告的model,文章里好像是说多层模型吧。然后最后有一段里面又出现了一个traditional 的多层模型,云云。我就不是很理解了。
V2
当时传统观点的人为,广告要起作用的话,必须要通过不断影响消费者,促使其购买产品.但是第二个理论认为, 广告其实可以通过潜移默化,出现 “继承”效应 . 就第二个理论,有很多的模型,但是大部分模型都有两个缺陷.
然后某人提出一个东东,认为如何如何, 和传统的”继承”理论有些不一样,然后BLABLA
问题1: 第二种理论支持什么观点: 我的答案是:他们认为广告的效应可以不是直接影响消费者,反正就是类似的话
问题2 :文章主题       
V3
另一篇讲广告的。第一段提出两个view,第一个view说广告是否有效要看对demand有没有影响,第二个view讲对demand有没有影响 又要看什么什么(不好意思,记不清了),第二段就第二个view提出了两种model做比较,traditional的和一个谁谁谁的。有考到这两种 model的比较,还有第一段中两种view的比较,也有主题题。
V4
第一篇是讲advertising的effect,1P给出两个观点,不同学家对 advertising如何产生效果有不同的认识:一个认为advertising will be effective only if 它能对customer的demand stage产生影响;另一个认为对intermediate stage的影响同样会产生正面效果。2P是针对stage的hierarchical的划分进行详细描述。3道题,有主题题,我选了比较中性没有褒贬态度的discuss...的那个选项;剩下的想不起来了.

考古by  og12
V5
第一段两个观点,第一个是可以广告要满足消费者需要,第二个观点要用hierarchical模型来对消费者进行渗透影响。
第二段是说有很多这种模型,但有两个不足,然后分别阐述不足在那里。这些都是传统的一些模型,这个模型有一些特点,跟传统的不一样(这里描写了一些)
16#
 楼主| 发表于 2014-8-14 11:56:49 | 只看该作者
伊蔓达 发表于 2014-8-14 00:18
恭喜楼主,成绩很棒!

麻烦确认下冰川这篇,是不是以下这个?

有益补充1,2靠谱,参考阅读的背景知识和原文符合,主要是一个理论提出,再淡忘最后有证明部分,并有待证明的一篇大体框架。
17#
 楼主| 发表于 2014-8-14 12:04:29 | 只看该作者
伊蔓达 发表于 2014-8-14 00:23
广告那个是这篇吗?谢谢~~

Marketing model

恩恩5篇应该内容都对,但V1,V2,V3,V5最符合,记得只有两段的,第三段没有讲到实验
18#
 楼主| 发表于 2014-8-14 12:10:28 | 只看该作者
伊蔓达 发表于 2014-8-14 00:26
还是广告那个,其他考古版本,麻烦楼主看一下哪些版本比较像,谢谢~

广告的最终目标(附考古)

考古V1的细节补充的挺好,之前是以demand为最终目标确定的model;
主旨题我选的是 differing E‘s model among other traditional model, 因为discuss那一选项记得是说discuss a debate  over  two models,但原文说的是traditional models 和E的model,我也纠结了一会,供参考哈!
19#
发表于 2014-8-14 15:50:36 | 只看该作者
LZ想问问:一笔股票投资,第一年亏62500,第二年赚了5%,两年加起来一共亏53025,问原始资金是多少钱?(妈蛋这一题花了我快8分钟,刚开始算错急死我o(╯□╰)o太傻了)
答:设原始资金X。有(X—62500)*(1+5%)=X—53025, 答案是E:252,000.   (印象比较深,可是盯了8分钟啊,应该没错)


是不是应该X-(X-62500)*(1+5%)=53025-62500,因为53025是两年总共的亏损,你好像只算了第二年的
20#
 楼主| 发表于 2014-8-14 16:55:02 | 只看该作者
lancyyao18 发表于 2014-8-14 15:50
LZ想问问:一笔股票投资,第一年亏62500,第二年赚了5%,两年加起来一共亏53025,问原始资金是多少钱?(妈 ...

你列的左边式子是两年后的钱,右边是第二年亏的钱嘛,所以不对~~~
是一笔钱经过两年后的投资,不是说每一年都有同样笔原始资金X投资。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-3-12 22:22
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部