Questões de Concurso Sobre sinônimos | synonyms em inglês

TEXT II

The backlash against big data

[…]

Big data refers to the idea that society can do things with a large body of data that weren’t possible when working with smaller amounts. The term was originally applied a decade ago to massive datasets from astrophysics, genomics and internet search engines, and to machine-learning systems (for voice-recognition and translation, for example) that work well only when given lots of data to chew on. Now it refers to the application of data-analysis and statistics in new areas, from retailing to human resources. The backlash began in mid-March, prompted by an article in Science by David Lazer and others at Harvard and Northeastern University. It showed that a big-data poster-child—Google Flu Trends, a 2009 project which identified flu outbreaks from search queries alone—had overestimated the number of cases for four years running, compared with reported data from the Centres for Disease Control (CDC). This led to a wider attack on the idea of big data.

The criticisms fall into three areas that are not intrinsic to big data per se, but endemic to data analysis, and have some merit. First, there are biases inherent to data that must not be ignored. That is undeniably the case. Second, some proponents of big data have claimed that theory (ie, generalisable models about how the world works) is obsolete. In fact, subject-area knowledge remains necessary even when dealing with large data sets. Third, the risk of spurious correlations—associations that are statistically robust but happen only by chance—increases with more data. Although there are new statistical techniques to identify and banish spurious correlations, such as running many tests against subsets of the data, this will always be a problem.

There is some merit to the naysayers' case, in other words. But these criticisms do not mean that big-data analysis has no merit whatsoever. Even the Harvard researchers who decried big data "hubris" admitted in Science that melding Google Flu Trends analysis with CDC’s data improved the overall forecast—showing that big data can in fact be a useful tool. And research published in PLOS Computational Biology on April 17th shows it is possible to estimate the prevalence of the flu based on visits to Wikipedia articles related to the illness. Behind the big data backlash is the classic hype cycle, in which a technology’s early proponents make overly grandiose claims, people sling arrows when those promises fall flat, but the technology eventually transforms the world, though not necessarily in ways the pundits expected. It happened with the web, and television, radio, motion pictures and the telegraph before it. Now it is simply big data’s turn to face the grumblers.

(From http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist explains/201 4/04/economist-explains-10)

TEXT III

Use of language in diplomacy

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession? 

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-andsuch a country spoke of the given subject in totally nondiplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands.

All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.

Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another. 

There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.

So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all […].

Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

(adapted from http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/language_and_ diplomacy/texts/pdf/nick.PDF)

TEXT II

World Work Worker Workplace

Does your workplace offer affordances for #wellbeing? Natural light, movement, a view, informal areas to socialize or collaborate? 40% say no. 

Read the text and answer questions 22 to 25.

INSTRUCTIONS – Read the following text carefully and then choose the correct alternatives that answer the questions.

THE SADDEST TWEETERS LIVE IN TEXAS

Melody Kramer for National Geographic - Published May 29, 2013

Researchers analyzed ten million tweets to map happiness in the U.S.

Average word happiness for geotagged tweets in U.S. states collected in 2011. Redder states have higher averages and bluer states have lower averages.

Image courtesy Mitchell et al, PLoS ONE

The town of Beaumont is known as "Texas … with a little something extra." But the industrial town along the Gulf Coast now has a more dubious distinction: It's been named the saddest city in America—at least, if you're measuring sadness on Twitter.

That's according to a group of researchers at the Vermont Complex Systems Center, who analyzed over 80 million words from more than ten million geotagged tweets written throughout 2011. The results of their study, published Wednesday in the journal PLoS ONE, showed that the happiest tweeters in the U.S. live in Napa, California, and their sad counterparts live mostly in the Rust Belt and along the Gulf Coast border.

"You can infer a lot of information about an area based on what people are writing on Twitter," says Christopher Danforth, a mathematician and a co-author of the study.

Danforth explains how his team measured the emotional state of a tweet: They created a simple computer algorithm to analyze the words within the tweets themselves. Each word was measured on a happiness scale, which his team had previously created using paid workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service. The workers were asked to score more than 10,000 common English words on a happiness scale from 1 to 9. Words like "laughter," "love," "rainbow," and "smile" made the top of the list; at the very bottom—unsurprisingly—were words like "terrorist," "ugly," "cancer," "die," and "fatal."

A GEOGRAPHY OF HAPPINESS

Using that list, researchers then collected tweets from more than 300 separate cities and towns across the United States and created an algorithm to assess how frequently "happy" words occurred vs. how frequently "sad" words occurred in different places. For example, people in Napa were much more likely to tweet the word "hope" than were their counterparts living along the Gulf Coast.

"The differences in the words people used told us a lot about the cities themselves," says Lewis Mitchell, a mathematician and the study's lead author. "Essentially we were able to create a geography of happiness."

Many of the places at the very top of the list— Hawaii, Maine, and Napa—are also top vacation spots. A previous study by the same researchers indicated that people tend to use less-negative words when they're far away from home. But other places near the top of the list—like Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Spokane, Washington—aren't really tourist destinations.

The researchers say they plan to look at tourism's role in a future study. They also plan to analyze tweets in other languages. The current study looks only at tweets written in English, which could skew data in parts of the United States where many people tweet in Spanish.

In addition, the researchers plan to look at profanity more closely. Their current findings suggest that one of the major driving forces in a city's happiness—or lack thereof—is how frequently people use curse words in their tweets.

"People curse more and more as the day goes on," says Danforth, "but there are definitely places where profanity is more common. In the South, more people are cursing on Twitter. It's a tapestry of negative words."

TRENDING SADDER

He notes that many of the cities close to the bottom of their happiness list also rank low on other lists that measure factors like health outcomes and quality of life.

"The people at the bottom of our list live in states that are more socioeconomically depressed and where more natural disasters occur," he says."There are higher rates of poverty, and the median incomes are lower."

This might explain why places like Beaumont and Shreveport, Louisiana, have sadder tweets. But it doesn't explain one surprising finding: Tweets across the country are getting sadder, in general.

"If you go through all of the demographics since 2008, it's getting sadder everywhere," says Mitchell. "There's a strong downward trend. We don't know why this is."

He recently made a Twitter account— @geographyofhapp—that tracks the happiest and saddest cities on Twitter on a daily basis. But his own personal Twitter account—@dr_pyser— remains cheerfully optimistic.

"I try to be more conscious of what I'm talking about online and the way I talk about it," says Mitchell. "I try to put my best self out there."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130529-saddest-happieststates-twitter-texas-maine-hawaii-california/y

Read the text to answer 

On Education, Republican Candidates Retreat From National Standards

                                                                                                  BY EMILY CADEI 8/20/15 AT 4:40 AM

           After 15 years of rising federal involvement in K through 12 schools, U.S. education policy is poised for a big shift in direction. If that wasn’t already apparent, it certainly became clear on Wednesday, when six of the Republican party’s leading 2016 contenders spoke about their views on educating America’s youth, and what their priorities would be should they make it to the White House. The consensus: national‐level reform efforts are out. Ceding control to state and local school districts is in.

     That’s always been the preference for some segments of the Republican party. But under President George W. Bush, a crop of GOP leaders interested in business‐backed education reforms banded together with Democrats eager to expand public funding for schools, particularly for underachieving schools, to carve out a more assertive federal role. That coalition helped pass the 2001 law known as No Child Left Behind, which set national standards for schools and used federal funding to create incentives to meet them.

      Though there is now broad agreement that parts of No Child Left Behind were ill‐conceived, the Obama administration has continued Bush’s muscular approach to education, prodding states to participate in national programs with offers of federal cash. But that coalition of Democratic and Republican reformers is now looking wobbly. The House and Senate have both passed updated versions of No Child Left Behind that would rein in the federal government’s role in setting K through 12 education policy, though not nearly as much as conservatives would like. The next step is reconciling differences between the bills in a way that keeps the more conservative House happy, without jeopardizing President Barack Obama’s signature. That’s going to be a tough task for Congress this fall. On the presidential trail, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have made clear that they side with teachers’ unions who are critics of expanding charter schools and more teacher accountability, which both Bush and Obama tried to promote nationally.

      On the Republican side, meanwhile, the six candidates who spoke at the American Federation for Children’s Education Summit 2015 in New Hampshire fell all over themselves trying distance their agendas from current education policies and declare their support for local autonomy.

                                                                                (Available: http://www.newsweek.com/education)