太疯狂了FEMALE是什么意思(female是什么意思中文意思是什么)

There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.【THE

 

 There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.【THE CONVERSATION】Who writes science and technology stories?

More men than women

中文导读对话的科学和技术故事非常受欢迎 ,但谁写的？学术界，是的 . 男性多于女性新闻是新闻,重要的是要澄清一下，我们并不是在试图减少男性的机会但是，有更多的女性可以为新闻业做出贡献努力实现性别平衡,它有影响吗？我们可。

以看到我们在当前作者身上的女性代表中存在真正的主题差距阻碍妇女在科学和技术事业上取得进步的障碍有很多只有16％的顶级科技研究人员和专业人士是女性 ,学术界的“漏洞管道”看到女性在中层管理层失去了系统向上滑动阅览原文

The Conversation’s Science and Technology stories are hugely popular – but who writes them? Academics, yes – and more men than women.

At the end of 2017 we assessed a year’s worth of stories: 584 articles. Some were written by a single academic, others featured two, three and occasionally more. Overall, 681 authors were involved – 489 men, and 192 women. That’s 72% men and 28% women.

We want to narrow that gender gap.Changes we’ve made to date are having an impact – but we’d like to be better. Maybe you can help.

News is newsIt’s important to clarify here that we aren’t trying to reduce opportunities for men. Novel research matters, news is news, and strong ideas will get up regardless of gender. We value the contributions of all our past and current authors – the popularity of their stories speaks for itself.

However there is room for more women to contribute to the news landscape.At The Conversation, we encourage more female academics to pitch. Data collected since 2013 shows that less than 30% of author pitches to our Science and Technology section come from women (with 60-67% from men, and 5-15% of unknown gender).

Not all pitches are successful, but as with most forms of writing, the more academics pitch the better they get at it.

Working towards gender balanceAs part of our weekly process, our team now reviews author gender across the past five days.

We deliberately seek out new female academics who may be keen to share their expertise and their experience. Unique perspectives are interesting. Evidence-based stories from fresh voices create diversity in our understanding of important issues.

We know that when new authors are supported editorially, over time they become repeat authors.When we need to commission fast breaking news stories, we talk with both men and women who we know can write great copy at short notice.

Has it had an impact?To date, stats collected over 2018 show that of 342 Science and Technology stories written by 322 authors, 68% of authors were male and 32% female (compared to 72% men and 28% women at end of 2017).

We’ve broken these stats down by subject. Among authors of stories classed as “science”, 38% of authors were female – with female authors particularly underrepresented in astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, human evolution and science methods.

In other science subjects, the author ratio was around 50:50 (archaeology, communication, innovation, physics, space, sport and veterinary science) or tipped in favour of women (genetics, politics/society).

In stories classed as “technology”, women comprised 29% of authors overall. This figure included authors writing on technology innovation (13% female), technology security/legal topics (26% female) and games/gaming (30% female).

Other topics within technology were covered by around 50:50 male:female authors (engineering, forensics, politics/society and social media).

Now we can see where we’ve got real subject gaps in female representation in our body of current authors.

The broader pictureThere are many barriers that impede women’s progress in science and technology careers. Just 16% of top-level science and technology researchers and professionals are women – it’s a leaky pipeline.

The ‘leaky pipeline’ in academia sees women lost from the system at the middle-management level. Data adapted from the Department of Education and Training, Higher Education Research Data, 2014.Heffernan, Umbers, Mustafa 2018

Do these statistics contribute to the relatively low proportion of women in our author body? Probably.

But more factors are likely at play. Demands on professional women’s time can be overwhelming, as they feel pressure to constantly provide evidence of their competence, and still somehow work less hours if they’ve had children.

It’s also worth noting that being a woman in the public arena can be brutal. Our community standards aim to address this problem.

How you can helpIf you’re an academic already writing for The Conversation, thank you! Let us know if your university department, research conference or professional support network would benefit from an editor visit so that more women in your field can see how we work.

If you’re an academic with a strong story idea, please pitch it here or reach out to one of our team to have an informal chat.

For us as editors, we will continue to take actions to bring the gender balance in our academic authorship as close to parity as we can.

For us, this is really important. We appreciate your support.

The Conversation’s Science and Technology stories are hugely popular – but who writes them? Academics, yes – and more men than women.

At the end of 2017 we assessed a year’s worth of stories: 584 articles. Some were written by a single academic, others featured two, three and occasionally

 more. Overall, 681 authors were involved – 489 men, and 192 women. That’s 72% men and 28% women.We want to narrow that gender gap.

Changes we’ve made to date are having an impact – but we’d like to be better.Maybe you can help.News is news

It’s important to clarify here that we aren’t trying to reduce opportunities for men. Novel research matters, news is news, and strong ideas will get up 

regardless of gender. We value the contributions of all our past and current authors – the popularity of their stories speaks for itself.

However there is room for more women to contribute to the news landscape.At The Conversation, we encourage more female academics to pitch. Data 

collected since 2013 shows that less than 30% of author pitches to our Science and Technology section come from women (with 60-67% from men, and 

5-15% of unknown gender).Not all pitches are successful, but as with most forms of writing, the more 

academics pitch the better they get at it.Working towards gender balanceAs part of our weekly process, our team now reviews author gender across the 

past five days.We deliberately seek out new female academics who may be keen to share their expertise and their experience. Unique perspectives are interesting. 

Evidence-based stories from fresh voices create diversity in our understanding of important issues.【1】deliberately[dɪlɪbərətli]  adv.有意地；蓄意地

consciously and intentionally; on purpose.in a careful and unhurried way.in a careful and unhurried way.

例句Hes taken it from somebody else, ; and in doing so I think hes doing this deliberately; hes exposing some of the darker ironies behind his own literary ambition.

但他从别人那里借用了这个说法，他的做法让我认为他是故意这么做的;,他这是在他自己自由意志的背后,表现一些尖刻的讽刺耶鲁公开课 - 弥尔顿课程节选We know that when new authors are supported editorially, over time they 。

become repeat authors.When we need to commission fast breaking news stories, we talk with both men and women who we know can write great copy at short notice.

Has it had an impact?To date, stats collected over 2018 show that of 342 Science and Technology stories written by 322 authors, 68% of authors were male and 32% female

(compared to 72% men and 28% women at end of 2017).We’ve broken these stats down by subject. Among authors of stories classed as 

“science”, 38% of authors were female – with female authors particularly underrepresented in astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, human evolution 

and science methods.In other science subjects, the author ratio was around 50:50 (archaeology, communication, innovation, physics, space, sport and veterinary science) or 

tipped in favour of women (genetics, politics/society).In stories classed as “technology”, women comprised 29% of authors overall. 

This figure included authors writing on technology innovation (13% female), technology security/legal topics (26% female) and games/gaming (30% 

female).Other topics within technology were covered by around 50:50 male:female authors (engineering, forensics, politics/society and social media).

Now we can see where we’ve got real subject gaps in female representation in our body of current authors.

The broader pictureThere are many barriers that impede women’s progress in science and technology careers. Just 16% of top-level science and technology researchers 

and professionals are women – it’s a leaky pipeline.[1]leaky  [liki]adj. 漏的；有漏洞的a container, roof etc that is leaky has a hole or crack in it so that liquid or gas passes through it 

The US banking system has always been a little bit like a leaky bucket.美国银行体系始终有点像一只漏水的桶www.ftchinese.com。

The ‘leaky pipeline’ in academia sees women lost from the system at the middle-management level.Data adapted from the Department of Education and Training, Higher Education Research Data, 

2014.Heffernan, Umbers, Mustafa 2018Do these statistics contribute to the relatively low proportion of women in our 

author body? Probably.But more factors are likely at play. Demands on professional women’s time can be overwhelming, as they feel pressure to constantly provide evidence of

 heir competence, and still somehow work less hours if they’ve had children.It’s also worth noting that being a woman in the public arena can be brutal. 

Our community standards aim to address this problem.How you can helpIf you’re an academic already writing for The Conversation, thank you! Let us 

know if your university department, research conference or professional support network would benefit from an editor visit so that more women in 

your field can see how we work.If you’re an academic with a strong story idea, please pitch it here or reach out 

to one of our team to have an informal chat.For us as editors, we will continue to take actions to bring the gender balance 

in our academic authorship as close to parity as we can.For us, this is really important. We appreciate your support.

——August 14, 2018 2.46pm AEST |Science+Technology|776  words本文单词音标符号来自权威词典|柯林斯,必应及朗文编辑：Anda  (安徽建筑大学)

审核：ANDA此篇文章感谢小编的辛勤付出

牛刀小试：1.a container, roof etc that is leaky has a hole or crack in it so that liquid or gas passes through it

指的是哪一个单词的意思？2.请用你的话，概述一下今天文章所讲的主要内容。欢迎留言

想进班级学习打卡的宝宝注意啦，班级每天都会分享当天文本班级打卡相关要求有：1.每班上限为50人2.执行打卡管理制度，原因：a.督促每一位朋友b.避免有占领学习名额而不学习的宝宝出现3.打卡内容围绕公众号推文中的“牛刀小试”题目进行，第一题是必答题，第二题选做。

4.打卡方式，三类（三选一，大家觉得哪一类可行选哪一类）：a.截图打卡b.笔记打卡c.文字打卡截图打卡：在公众号推文后面，对文章中提出的问题，留言回答，回答完换行，再加你自己的累计学习天数（如day 9），截图留言内容，发送学习班，如果头像不一致，则需指明。

笔记打卡：阅读公众号推文后，对文章中提出的问题，自己写下笔记，也需要记录学习天数，拍照发送学习班文字打卡：阅读公众号推文后，对文章中提出的问题，自行解答，将答案发送至班级，不要忘了统计你自己的学习天数的消息。

（注意，必须要记录累计学习天数）5.打卡样式（几条消息即可搞定）：a.在学习班里，发送自己的打卡内容，用自己的打卡方式，详见（4.a; 4.b; 4.c）b.打卡4.（接着上一位朋友的打卡序号往下加，如果你是当天第一位，就写打卡1）

6.打卡统计天数，各班学委将会不定期清理打卡少的宝宝班级谢绝懒宝宝( ˙-˙ )7.可以补打卡，补打卡需要@学委但还是提倡当日内容，当日学习8.我们的目标是发现你的力量，愿每一个宝宝都要认真坚持下去，做极致的自我。

希望我们可以一起用心营造好的学习氛围不管你们是学生党，工作党，兴趣党，只要你想深度学习，这儿总有一期令你满意9.我们的平台是公益平台，谢绝一切广告入内！如果发广告，立即抱走，学委还将其记入小本本，存入黑名单。

本平台的相关人员都是无偿给大家服务的，愿大家好好珍惜学习机会大家有什么建议，希望多与小助手交流~Tips双语学习英语学习思维的培养众所周知，量变转变为质变需要一个过程双语学习离不开积累首先要澄清一个误区：英语思维的培养绝不是靠简单的短时培训就能够获得的。

想想你的中文是怎么学的任何一门语言熟练程度都是依靠单词，结合语法，构成句子，最终形成段落。每个环节与环节之间都需要一定时间的积累和结合，千里之行始于足下。

以最小的单词为例我们常觉得背单词，靠背单词书最高效单位时间内考查背诵的结果，似乎确实是这样的单词书，背单词的app层出不穷就我自己而言，有段日子里也拿某宝书，某app来背但是效果并不好，而且app中的打卡天数似乎能满足人的虚荣心，背了多少心里还是知道的。

考完试，这些单词就彻底忘记了在用单词书背的单词，只记得它的汉语意思，怎么用？完全无解以我个人的经验来说，如果是要背，还不如背句子，而非背功能性单词书我们只在意英文单词和中文释义之间的一一对应，这是我们并不能“背”下英文单词的真正原因。

所以，从单词入手时，要感知它的英文释义，而不是“粉饰”后的中文释义很多人推荐英英词典，也是从这个角度出发在这里推荐大家相关的英英词典：dictionary.comwww.dictionary.com/www.pdawiki.com

想培养英语思维，首先在记忆单词的环节，需要用英文释义而不是中文释义来理解单词。用英语记忆单词比用汉语记，能更加透彻的理解这个单词的本来含义。——经济学人双语精析

经济学人双语精析公益丨英语丨教育丨讲座让学习成为习惯丨让习惯伴随快乐

经济学人双语精析2018七月版，基本整理成形，内含47篇文章，共250多页进QQ群学习班444042382，可以免费获得7月里所有文本各位看官，如果想进微信学习班，可以扫描下方，小助手的微信二维码，加好友，备注“经济学人学习者”，会集中拉到学习班，分享打印文本。

Copyright © 2018 经济学人双语精析转载事宜请留言 | 获得授权后方可转载本平台所使用的文章、图片及音乐属相关权利人所有因客观原因部分作品若存在不当使用的情况，请相关权利人随时与我们联系，以协商授权事宜。

铁粉请关注备用订阅号（考研专用）

温故知新：手机软件具有跟踪位置功能，而你又不想被跟踪，怎么办？|2018.08.17|天天一期

免责声明：本站所有信息均搜集自互联网，并不代表本站观点，本站不对其真实合法性负责。如有信息侵犯了您的权益，请告知，本站将立刻处理。联系QQ：1640731186