Global Issues: Research, Evidence and Group Decisions
GAC Social Science Topic 2 24:24 English narration · English + 中文 subtitles burned in
Chapters
Transcript
A school counts food waste and asks students why they leave food.
一所学校统计食物浪费量，并询问学生为什么剩饭。
The counts describe an amount, while the answers describe reported reasons.
统计数字描述的是数量，而回答描述的是自述的原因。
A useful report connects both to a clear question and makes its limits visible.
一份有用的报告会把两者都与一个清晰的问题联系起来，并让其局限一目了然。
This lesson follows the existing Global Issues handout, then uses separate new notes to broaden historical context and develop source evaluation, group decisions and discussion.
本课沿用现有的《全球议题》讲义，再用另外的新讲义拓展历史背景，并培养来源评估、小组决策和讨论的能力。
A local study can investigate one part of a wider issue without claiming to explain every country's food system or solve the problem for everyone.
一项本地研究可以调查一个更大议题的某个方面，而不必声称解释了每个国家的粮食体系，或为所有人解决了问题。
The public GAC zero two eight module combines global issues, research methodologies and academic reporting.
公开的GAC 028模块把全球议题、研究方法和学术报告结合在一起。
Start with the centre's actual project brief for permitted topics, methods, structure and criteria.
先看中心实际的项目说明，了解允许的主题、方法、结构和标准。
The site's exercises are original practice cases, not official assessments.
网站上的练习是原创的练习案例，不是官方评估。
The invented cases are separate from the historical context cited in the handout.
虚构的案例与讲义中引用的历史背景是分开的。
Use an achievable question and collect only justified information under the required permissions.
选择一个可以完成的问题，在必要的许可下只收集有正当理由的信息。
Notes and a proposal support a practical task; they do not establish that required observations or participant research have already been carried out.
笔记和研究计划支持实践任务，但并不代表所要求的观察或对参与者的研究已经完成。
A global issue matters across societies or connects places through causes, effects or responses.
全球议题是指在不同社会中都很重要，或通过原因、影响或应对措施把各地联系起来的问题。
Water access, food systems and education access can involve international concerns while differing between settings.
用水、粮食体系和受教育机会都可能涉及国际关切，同时又因地而异。
Identify the connection you are investigating: for example a shared river, a supply relationship or a coordinated response.
要说明你所调查的是哪一种联系：比如一条共享的河流、一种供应关系，或一项协调一致的应对。
Local conditions and groups' needs matter.
当地条件和各群体的需求都很重要。
A single classroom observation does not establish the whole global pattern.
一次课堂观察并不能证明整个全球格局。
The question should make clear which part of the issue the evidence can address and which wider claims require other sources.
问题应当说清楚证据能回答议题的哪一部分，以及哪些更大的说法需要其他来源。
A shared resource is used by several groups.
共享资源是由多个群体使用的资源。
An externality is an effect on others whose full cost or benefit is not reflected in an action.
外部性是指一个行为对他人产生的影响，其全部成本或收益没有反映在这个行为中。
A collective action problem arises when individual action alone struggles to secure a shared benefit.
集体行动问题是指仅靠个人行动难以获得共同利益的情况。
These concepts fit some cases, so do not force all three onto every issue.
这些概念只适用于某些案例，不要把三个概念硬套在每个议题上。
Start by identifying the users, actions and possible consequences, then ask which effects are actually measured.
先找出使用者、行为和可能的后果，再问哪些影响确实被测量过。
A possible externality is an analytical concern to investigate, not evidence that contamination or another harm has already occurred.
一个可能的外部性是需要调查的分析关注点，而不是污染或其他损害已经发生的证据。
Development can be studied through health, education, living conditions and income.
可以从健康、教育、生活条件和收入等方面研究发展。
An indicator represents a defined aspect, rather than the whole life of a community.
一个指标代表的是一个确定的方面，而不是一个社区生活的全部。
Before comparing values, check the definition, population, period and relevant context.
比较数值之前，要核实定义、人群、时期和相关背景。
An income measure cannot by itself establish educational access or health conditions.
一个收入指标本身不能说明受教育机会或健康状况。
A report should select indicators suited to its question and explain their limits.
报告应选择适合其问题的指标，并说明它们的局限。
Comparing compatible measures is more informative than ranking situations from one number whose meaning differs between sources.
比较口径一致的指标，比根据一个在不同来源中含义各异的数字给各种情况排名，更能说明问题。
The existing handout cites the first United Nations Water Conference in Mar del Plata in nineteen seventy-seven and the inclusion of water and sanitation in the Sustainable Development Goals in twenty fifteen.
现有讲义引用了一九七七年在马德普拉塔召开的第一次联合国水事会议，以及二〇一五年把水和环境卫生纳入可持续发展目标。
These milestones show sustained international attention. They do not establish that water access was achieved everywhere or describe a particular river's current quality.
这些里程碑表明国际社会持续关注这一问题，但并不能证明各地都已实现用水保障，也不能描述某条河流当前的水质。
Historical sources can support dates and stated aims.
历史来源可以支持日期和既定目标。
A claim about local conditions needs suitable measurements for the place and period being discussed.
关于当地状况的说法，需要针对所讨论的地点和时期的合适测量数据。
The original river diagram keeps upstream and downstream users visible.
原讲义的河流示意图让上游和下游的使用者都清晰可见。
In the fictional case settlement A uses irrigation, while B downstream draws household water.
在这个虚构案例中，A定居点用水灌溉，下游的B取水供家庭使用。
A proposed discharge could impose a water-quality cost on B.
一项拟议的排放可能给B带来水质方面的代价。
This identifies a possible externality; no supplied tests establish contamination and no permit is approved.
这指出了一种可能的外部性；没有提供任何检测能证明存在污染，也没有批准任何许可。
Shared monitoring could inform both users.
共同监测可以为双方提供信息。
Agree what to measure, where and when, how results will be reported and who pays.
要商定测什么、在哪里测、什么时候测、结果怎样报告，以及由谁付费。
A discussion proposal is not permission to discharge, and each group's needs should remain part of the evaluation.
讨论中的提议并不等于获准排放，评价时也应始终考虑各方的需求。
Counting plate waste can estimate amounts during observed lunches.
清点餐盘剩余可以估计所观察的午餐中浪费了多少。
Interviews can explore participants' reported reasons.
访谈可以探究参与者自述的原因。
Mixed methods combine kinds of evidence when that helps the question, but using two methods is not automatically better.
混合方法在有助于回答问题时结合不同类型的证据，但用两种方法并不自动更好。
It does not turn association or self-report into causal proof.
它不会把相关性或自我报告变成因果证明。
Define the bounded question first and identify the evidence each method can provide.
先确定一个有边界的问题，再弄清每种方法能提供什么证据。
A useful combination explains how the amounts and accounts relate while retaining their separate meanings and limits, rather than treating agreement between them as a guarantee of an explanation.
有用的结合会解释数量与自述之间的关系，同时保留各自的含义和局限，而不是把两者一致当作解释成立的保证。
Sampling selects observations or participants.
抽样是选取观测对象或参与者。
Describe the people, places, period, selection method and missing responses.
要描述人群、地点、时期、选取方法和未回应的情况。
Volunteers may differ from nonvolunteers.
自愿参加的人可能与不参加的人不同。
A small convenience sample can support a useful local pilot without representing the whole school or population.
一个小规模的便利样本可以支持一次有用的本地试点，但不能代表全校或整个人群。
More records collected through the same limited selection do not necessarily fix the problem.
用同样有限的方式收集更多记录，不一定能解决问题。
State the claim the sample can support and avoid quietly expanding its reach after seeing a result.
要说明样本能支持什么结论，并避免在看到结果后悄悄扩大结论的范围。
Any extension of the study needs the required permission and an appropriate consistent method.
任何研究的扩展都需要必要的许可和一致、合适的方法。
Validity concerns whether a measure fits the intended question; reliability concerns consistency.
效度关乎一项测量是否符合所要回答的问题；信度关乎一致性。
A checked scale used in the same way can support consistent measurement. It cannot make a three-lunch observation describe an unobserved whole week.
一台经过校准、使用方法相同的秤，可以支持一致的测量，但它不能让三次午餐的观察描述一整周没有观察到的情况。
Wording also affects evidence.
措辞也会影响证据。
Calling a canteen careless in a question pushes participants towards a judgement.
在问题中称食堂“粗心”，会把参与者引向某种评判。
Use neutral wording and check whether participants understand the intended question.
要使用中立的措辞，并检查参与者是否理解了想问的问题。
Explain the particular measurement or selection problem and its likely effect, rather than assuming one improvement solves every limitation.
要说明具体的测量或抽样问题及其可能的影响，而不是认为一项改进就能解决所有局限。
Research ethics include understandable information, voluntary participation, appropriate consent, respectful treatment and careful handling of data.
研究伦理包括提供易懂的信息、自愿参与、恰当的同意、尊重的态度以及谨慎地处理数据。
Omitting names reduces some identification risks, but distinctive details or a small group can still reveal someone.
不写姓名能降低一部分被识别的风险，但特殊的细节或很小的群体仍可能暴露某个人。
Decide what can be withdrawn before collecting records and explain any limit under the approved procedure.
在收集记录之前，就决定哪些内容可以撤回，并按照批准的程序说明任何限制。
Avoid collecting identifying or sensitive information without a justified need and required permission.
没有正当需要和必要许可，不要收集可识别身份或敏感的信息。
A classroom task should not turn participation into public pressure, and the report should describe safeguards that were actually used.
课堂任务不应让参与变成公开的压力，报告应描述实际采取的保护措施。
The original canteen diagram separates measured amounts from volunteered descriptions.
原讲义的食堂示意图把测得的数量与自愿提供的描述分开。
Three fictional lunch groups each serve ten meals.
三个虚构的午餐组各供应十份餐。
Their returned plate waste is two, three and one kilograms.
退回的餐盘剩余分别是两千克、三千克和一千克。
Eight interview volunteers provide accounts, with seven mentioning portion size and three mentioning lunch time.
八名自愿受访者提供了说法，其中七人提到份量，三人提到午餐时间。
Counts answer an amount question; accounts explore reported explanations.
统计数字回答数量问题；说法则探究自述的解释。
Keep the meal denominator separate from the respondent count.
要把餐数这个分母与受访人数分开。
The diagram's final bounded conclusion reminds you that neither set establishes every student's needs or independently verifies the causes mentioned by volunteers.
图中最后那个有边界的结论提醒你：这两组数据都不能说明每个学生的需求，也不能独立证实自愿者所说的原因。
Pause and attempt this practice task before the solution.
暂停一下，先自己做这道练习再看答案。
Three lunch groups each served 10 meals. Their returned waste was 2.0, 3.0 and 1.0 kg.
三个午餐组各供应10份餐，退回的剩余分别为2.0、3.0和1.0千克。
Calculate recorded waste per served meal. Explain why it is not waste per student who left food.
计算每份所供应餐食记录到的浪费量，并解释为什么这不是“每名剩饭学生”的浪费量。
Add the fictional masses of two, three and one kilograms to obtain six kilograms.
把虚构的两千克、三千克和一千克相加，得到六千克。
There are thirty served meals, so divide six by thirty to obtain zero point two kilograms per served meal.
一共供应了三十份餐，所以六除以三十，得到每份所供应餐食零点二千克。
This is not waste per student who left food, because that student count is not provided.
这不是每名剩饭学生的浪费量，因为没有提供剩饭学生的人数。
The denominator is part of the meaning of the result.
分母是结果含义的一部分。
State both the observed period and the unit.
要写明观察的时期和单位。
Different menus can complicate comparison across days, and a checked calculation does not remove selection or context limitations.
不同的菜单会让不同日子之间的比较更复杂，而一个核对过的计算并不能消除抽样或背景方面的局限。
Seven of eight volunteers mention portion size and three mention lunch time.
八名自愿者中有七人提到份量，三人提到午餐时间。
The total mentions exceed eight without necessarily indicating an error because reasons can overlap.
提及的总次数超过八次，并不一定说明有错，因为原因可以重叠。
Explain the recording rule rather than forcing the categories to sum to the respondent count.
要说明记录规则，而不是强行让各类别加起来等于受访人数。
These are reported reasons among volunteers. They do not independently establish the causes of waste or every student's preferences.
这些是自愿者自述的原因，它们不能独立证明浪费的原因，也不能代表每个学生的偏好。
Compare recruitment, wording and context before transferring the result to another group.
在把结果推广到另一个群体之前，要比较招募方式、措辞和背景。
Any later investigation should address a specified uncertainty instead of simply collecting more anecdotes.
之后的任何调查都应针对一个明确的不确定点，而不是只收集更多的个人说法。
Follow the actual report brief.
遵循实际的报告说明。
A common structure includes the question or introduction, method, findings, discussion, conclusion and references.
常见的结构包括问题或引言、方法、结果、讨论、结论和参考文献。
An abstract may briefly identify the question, method, result and a key limit where required.
在要求时，摘要可以简要说明问题、方法、结果和一个关键局限。
Instructions vary.
各项说明的要求各不相同。
The method explains what was observed, categories, period, selection and ethical safeguards.
方法部分说明观察了什么、分类、时期、选取方式和伦理保护措施。
Findings state recorded observations, while discussion evaluates meaning, alternatives and reach.
结果部分陈述记录到的观察，讨论部分评价其意义、其他可能的解释和适用范围。
The conclusion answers the bounded question and labels future work as a proposal.
结论回答有边界的问题，并把未来的工作标注为计划。
A clear structure helps a reader trace the study rather than assuming one format is an unchanging official rule.
清晰的结构能帮助读者追溯研究过程，而不是把某一种格式当作不变的官方规定。
The original report diagram connects the question and method to findings, then to discussion with limits and permission requirements retained.
原讲义的报告示意图把问题和方法与结果相连，再连到讨论，并始终保留局限和许可要求。
The distinction is important in the fictional bin study.
这一区分在虚构的垃圾桶研究中很重要。
An observed error rate can identify where a problem was recorded, but does not demonstrate that new labels reduced it when no labels were changed.
观察到的错误率可以指出在哪里记录到了问题，但如果标签从未更换，就不能证明新标签降低了错误率。
A source supporting label testing provides background for a proposed study, not evidence of an unmeasured improvement in this school.
支持测试标签的来源，为一项计划中的研究提供背景，而不是本校某项未经测量的改进的证据。
Keep researched background, supplied fictional data and any actual observations separate in the report.
报告中要把调研得到的背景、给定的虚构数据和任何实际观察分开。
Pause and attempt this practice task before the solution.
暂停一下，先自己做这道练习再看答案。
Classroom: 8 errors in 80 items.
教室：80件中有8件分错。
Stair landing: 18 in 90.
楼梯平台：90件中有18件。
Canteen: 15 in 150.
食堂：150件中有15件。
Calculate and compare rates.
计算并比较错误率。
Can these observations prove new labels reduced errors?
这些观察能证明新标签降低了错误吗？
Explain.
请解释。
The five-day fictional study records eight errors in eighty items near a classroom, eighteen in ninety at a stair landing and fifteen in one hundred and fifty at a canteen.
这项为期五天的虚构研究记录到：教室附近八十件物品中有八件分错，楼梯平台九十件中有十八件，食堂一百五十件中有十五件。
Divide each error count by its own item count and multiply by one hundred percent.
用每处的错误数除以各自的物品数，再乘以百分之百。
The rates are ten, twenty and ten percent.
错误率分别为百分之十、百分之二十和百分之十。
The stair landing has the highest recorded rate.
楼梯平台记录到的错误率最高。
Raw counts alone hide the different denominators.
只看原始数字会掩盖分母的不同。
No intervention was tested, so these observations cannot establish that changing labels reduced errors.
由于没有测试任何干预措施，这些观察不能证明更换标签降低了错误。
Give enough source detail for a reader to trace each borrowed idea using the required reference style.
按规定的参考文献格式，给出足够的来源信息，让读者能追溯每一个借用的观点。
Keep references separate from invented practice data.
把参考文献与虚构的练习数据分开。
In a group presentation assign speaker roles, rehearse handovers, explain the table and invite questions.
小组展示时，要分配讲解角色、排练交接、解释表格并邀请提问。
Do not omit limitations merely to sound certain.
不要为了显得确定而省略局限。
A listener should be able to distinguish what was recorded, what you infer and what you propose next.
听众应能分清哪些是记录到的、哪些是你推断的、哪些是你下一步的计划。
Adapt technical explanations to the audience instead of assuming that a table or a citation communicates its meaning without explanation.
要根据听众调整专业解释，而不是以为一张表格或一条引用不加解释就能传达其含义。
The additional notes begin by connecting a local study with a wider global issue.
补充讲义首先把本地研究与更大的全球议题联系起来。
One week's school waste cannot explain every country's food system.
一所学校一周的浪费情况无法解释每个国家的粮食体系。
A historical conference can show international attention without demonstrating that the problem was solved.
一次历史上的会议可以显示国际关注，却不能证明问题已经解决。
The notes add a broader historical outline, source evaluation, group problem solving and academic discussion.
讲义补充了更广泛的历史概述、来源评估、小组解决问题和学术讨论。
The current centre guide governs required issue selection, depth and assessment.
必须选择的议题、深度和评估要求以中心最新的指南为准。
These examples develop public outcomes while keeping the actual investigation and the evidence needed for its claims visible.
这些例子在培养公开要求的能力的同时，让实际的调查以及支持其结论所需的证据始终清晰可见。
The economic-security example uses the Great Depression, beginning in nineteen twenty-nine and spreading beyond the United States.
经济安全的例子使用了始于一九二九年、并蔓延到美国以外的大萧条。
Federal Reserve History describes unemployment and financial disruption, primarily through a United States account.
美联储历史网站主要从美国的角度描述了失业和金融动荡。
That source supports the historical claims within its scope.
这一来源在其范围内支持相关的历史说法。
An analysis of a particular other society needs appropriate evidence for that society.
要分析另一个具体社会，就需要关于那个社会的合适证据。
Ask how employment and household resources were affected, and avoid making the stock-market crash a complete explanation of every consequence or treating all households' experiences as identical.
要问就业和家庭资源受到了怎样的影响，避免把股市崩盘当作所有后果的完整解释，也不要认为所有家庭的经历都一样。
The peace-and-cooperation example uses the creation of the United Nations in nineteen forty-five after the Second World War.
和平与合作的例子使用了第二次世界大战后、一九四五年联合国的成立。
Its history records the aim of preventing another world war.
它的历史记载了防止再次发生世界大战这一宗旨。
An institution's purpose differs from evidence about every later outcome.
一个机构的宗旨，不同于关于其后所有结果的证据。
Study a particular response, the evidence for its effects and its limits.
要研究一项具体的应对、其效果的证据及其局限。
Conflict and its consequences can connect places through disrupted lives, movement and livelihoods.
冲突及其后果会通过生活被打乱、人口流动和生计受损把各地联系起来。
A clear argument identifies the particular relationship it is analysing instead of assuming an institution's creation solved every subsequent problem.
清晰的论证会指出它所分析的具体关系，而不是假定一个机构的成立解决了之后的每一个问题。
The public-health example draws on WHO's smallpox history.
公共卫生的例子取自世界卫生组织关于天花的历史。
It records the intensified programme in nineteen sixty-seven and the eradication declaration in nineteen eighty.
它记载了一九六七年强化的根除计划，以及一九八〇年宣布天花已被根除。
Coordinated prevention and surveillance were part of this particular achievement.
协调一致的预防和监测是这项成就的一部分。
The case supports analysis of a shared threat and a coordinated response; it does not establish one identical programme for every disease or show that technology alone secured the result.
这个案例支持对共同威胁和协调应对的分析；它不能证明每种疾病都适用一模一样的计划，也不能说明这一结果仅靠技术就能取得。
Keep the historical evidence and the broader comparison distinct, and identify which feature of cooperation your argument examines.
要把历史证据与更广泛的比较分开，并指出你的论证考察的是合作的哪一个特点。
The environmental example uses the nineteen seventy-two Stockholm conference and its role in establishing the United Nations Environment Programme.
环境的例子使用了一九七二年的斯德哥尔摩会议，以及它在设立联合国环境规划署中的作用。
This is a dated institutional response.
这是一项有日期可查的机构性应对。
Environmental problems can connect production, consumption, shared resources and effects on other people.
环境问题可以把生产、消费、共享资源以及对他人的影响联系在一起。
A conference or agreement does not measure every later environmental change.
一次会议或一项协议并不能衡量之后的每一项环境变化。
An argument about a particular result needs relevant measurements and a stated period.
关于某个具体结果的论证需要相关的测量数据和明确的时期。
Compare the response's intended aims with the evidence used to assess outcomes, rather than treating the existence of an agreement as proof that its aims were achieved.
要把应对措施的预期目标与用来评估结果的证据加以比较，而不是把协议的存在当作其目标已经实现的证明。
The development example uses the Sustainable Development Goals adopted in twenty fifteen.
发展的例子使用了二〇一五年通过的可持续发展目标。
They connect poverty reduction with health, education, inequality and environmental concerns.
它们把减贫与健康、教育、不平等和环境问题联系起来。
Goals and targets describe intended results; they are not a report that every target was achieved.
目标和具体指标描述的是预期结果，而不是每个指标都已实现的报告。
Development includes several aspects of people's lives.
发展涉及人们生活的多个方面。
An income indicator alone cannot establish a community's health or educational experience.
单靠一个收入指标，无法说明一个社区的健康或教育状况。
Select measures relevant to the question, compare definitions and explain the aspect each measure describes.
要选择与问题相关的指标，比较它们的定义，并说明每个指标描述的是哪个方面。
This allows a more precise argument than treating one indicator as a complete ranking of community life.
这样的论证比把一个指标当作对社区生活的完整排名更加精确。
An authoritative source has relevant expertise or a documented basis for the claim being used.
权威来源对所引用的说法具有相关的专业知识，或有书面依据。
An institutional name is a starting point, not permission to ignore scope, methods or uncertainty.
机构的名气只是一个起点，并不意味着可以忽视范围、方法或不确定性。
A historical account may establish a milestone, while a local measurement report can support a result for its stated place and period.
历史记述可以确立一个里程碑，而一份本地测量报告可以支持在其所述地点和时期内的结果。
A promotional success statement needs the criteria and evidence used to judge success.
一份宣传成功的声明，需要说明用来判断成功的标准和证据。
Identify exactly what your citation supports and whether another source is needed for the broader claim you want to make.
要准确指出你的引用支持什么，以及你想提出的更大说法是否还需要另一个来源。
Keep an evidence log with claim, source, date, population or setting, measure, method and limitation.
保留一份证据记录，写明说法、来源、日期、人群或情境、测量指标、方法和局限。
Trace a statistic to its original report when possible.
尽可能把统计数据追溯到原始报告。
Check whether two websites reproduce the same evidence rather than adding independent observations.
检查两个网站是否只是转载了同一份证据，而不是增加了独立的观察。
Bias can arise from selection, wording, missing responses or interpretation.
偏差可能来自抽样、措辞、缺失的回答或解读。
Explain how that problem could affect the result.
要说明这个问题会怎样影响结果。
Merely labelling a source biased because you disagree does not evaluate its method.
仅仅因为你不同意就给一个来源贴上“有偏见”的标签，并不是在评价它的方法。
A specific limitation tells a reader what can be used, what needs checking and why.
具体的局限能告诉读者哪些可以使用、哪些需要核实，以及为什么。
In the worked source comparison one source sets a waste-reduction target while another records waste per served meal during three lunches.
在这个来源比较示例中，一个来源设定了减少浪费的目标，另一个记录了三次午餐中每份所供应餐食的浪费量。
The target shows an intended outcome, and the observations describe a measured period.
目标表明的是预期结果，观察描述的是一段测量时期。
Comparing them requires compatible measures and relevant context.
要比较两者，需要口径一致的指标和相关背景。
Neither establishes that a new school policy caused a reduction if no intervention was tested.
如果没有测试过任何干预，两者都不能证明一项新的学校政策带来了减少。
Say exactly which claim each source supports.
要准确说明每个来源支持哪一个说法。
A possible solution can be justified as a proposal while leaving its actual effect open to a suitable later evaluation.
一个可能的解决方案可以作为计划提出，而它的实际效果有待日后合适的评估。
A bounded question asks what waste mass per served meal was recorded in the observed lunches and what reasons volunteers reported.
一个有边界的问题会问：在所观察的午餐中，每份所供应餐食记录到多少浪费量？
A quantitative method measures amounts or counts; a qualitative method examines accounts and meanings.
自愿者自述了哪些原因？ 定量方法测量数量或次数；定性方法考察说法和含义。
The original six kilograms across thirty meals gives zero point two kilograms per served meal.
原来三十份餐共六千克，即每份所供应餐食零点二千克。
Interviews can add participants' reported explanations, not prove their causes.
访谈可以补充参与者自述的解释，但不能证明原因。
The two methods answer different parts of the question.
两种方法回答问题的不同部分。
Keep each evidence type's definition, selection and limit visible when bringing them together in the discussion.
在讨论中把它们结合起来时，要让每类证据的定义、选取方式和局限保持清晰可见。
Specify observation period, selection, categories, units, permissions and analysis before collecting records.
在收集记录之前，就规定观察时期、选取方式、类别、单位、许可和分析方法。
Use the same recording rule and retain unexpected observations.
使用相同的记录规则，并保留意料之外的观察。
With permission, pilot wording to check understanding.
在获得许可的情况下，先试用问卷措辞，检查理解是否正确。
Explain consent, handling and withdrawal limits under the approved procedure.
按照批准的程序说明同意、数据处理和撤回的限制。
A permitted school pilot does not represent all schools or solve global food waste.
一次获准的学校试点不能代表所有学校，也解决不了全球的食物浪费问题。
A literature review can support background, but cannot replace required observations that were never made.
文献综述可以提供背景，但不能取代从未进行的、所要求的观察。
The project report should state whether an investigation is proposed or actually conducted, with the corresponding evidence.
项目报告应说明调查是计划中的还是实际进行过的，并附上相应的证据。
A stakeholder is a person or group affected by a decision.
利益相关者是受某个决定影响的个人或群体。
Students, canteen staff and school managers may have different needs.
学生、食堂员工和学校管理者的需求可能不同。
Define the problem from evidence, generate alternatives, compare explicit criteria and justify a feasible proposal.
要根据证据界定问题，提出备选方案，用明确的标准进行比较，并说明一个可行方案的理由。
A group decision should retain unresolved evidence and permission requirements.
小组决定应保留尚未解决的证据问题和许可要求。
Record disagreement and compare options against the same criteria instead of switching standards to favour a preferred solution.
要记录分歧，并用相同的标准比较各个方案，而不是为了偏爱某个方案而更换标准。
The decision log should explain why the chosen next step is suitable and what information remains necessary before implementation or evaluation.
决策记录应解释为什么选定的下一步是合适的，以及在实施或评估之前还需要哪些信息。
The fictional planning table compares three proposals.
这张虚构的规划表比较了三个方案。
A smaller-portion option could match some appetites, but needs checks of nutrition requirements, capacity, demand and actual waste.
较小份量的选项可能符合一部分人的胃口，但需要核查营养要求、产能、需求和实际浪费量。
A voluntary preference study could clarify reported preferences, with neutral wording and a suitable recruitment plan.
一项自愿参加的偏好研究可以弄清自述的偏好，需要使用中立的措辞和合适的招募计划。
A reminder could draw attention to waste, but its comprehension, unintended pressure and actual effect need evaluation.
提醒标语可以引起人们对浪费的注意，但它是否被理解、是否带来意外的压力以及实际效果如何，都需要评估。
No intervention has been performed.
没有实施任何干预。
Compare the proposals' possible benefits and evidence needs rather than presenting any option as a tested solution.
要比较各方案可能的好处和所需的证据，而不是把任何一个选项说成经过检验的解决方案。
A team might propose the portion-preference study first because the current interviews mention size but do not establish demand or feasibility.
团队可能提议先做份量偏好研究，因为目前的访谈提到了份量，却不能证明有需求或可行。
This is a reasoned next step, not proof that smaller portions will reduce waste.
这是一个有理由的下一步，而不是较小份量一定会减少浪费的证明。
Record the reasoning and any disagreement, then identify the permitted evidence needed.
要记录理由和任何分歧，然后确定所需的、经允许的证据。
A later evaluation requires comparable waste-per-meal measures.
之后的评估需要口径一致的每餐浪费量指标。
Changed menus or recruitment can complicate interpretation.
菜单或招募方式的改变会让解读更复杂。
A good group solution is an explicit, feasible proposal tied to the evidence, with an honest plan for checking the intended result.
好的小组方案是一个明确、可行、与证据挂钩的计划，并附有检验预期结果的诚实安排。
Pause and attempt this practice task before the solution.
暂停一下，先自己做这道练习再看答案。
Eight volunteers responded; seven mentioned portion size and three lunch time.
八名自愿者作了回答，其中七人提到份量，三人提到午餐时间。
Rewrite: “Everyone wants smaller meals, so the solution will work.”
改写这句话：“每个人都想要更小的份量，所以这个方案一定有效。”
Preserve what the evidence supports and state the limit.
保留证据所支持的内容，并说明局限。
Academic register uses precise, appropriate language and distinguishes evidence from opinion.
学术语体使用准确、恰当的语言，并把证据与观点区分开。
Adapt explanations to the audience's knowledge.
要根据听众已有的知识调整解释。
Define a technical measure before using it, explain a table's denominator and state the study's limit.
使用专业指标之前先给出定义，解释表格的分母，并说明研究的局限。
Clear language need not sound complicated.
清楚的语言不必听起来复杂。
Saying seven volunteers mentioned portion size is more precise than saying everyone wants smaller meals.
说“七名自愿者提到了份量”，比说“每个人都想要更小的份量”更准确。
The evidence can justify exploring preferences without establishing the effect of a new policy.
这些证据可以支持进一步探究偏好，但不能证明一项新政策的效果。
Use a relevant citation for borrowed claims, and keep fictional practice data separate from researched findings.
借用的说法要附上相关引用，并把虚构的练习数据与调研得到的结果分开。
Plan speaker and chair roles, rehearse handovers and agree a discussion question.
规划好发言人和主持人的角色，排练交接，并商定一个讨论问题。
The chair might ask which criterion the group should use to compare the options.
主持人可以问：小组应当用哪个标准来比较这些方案？
Invite a quieter member without forcing personal disclosure.
邀请较少发言的成员参与，但不要强迫他们透露个人信息。
Summarise different views fairly and ask what evidence would resolve the disagreement.
公正地总结不同的观点，并问什么证据能解决分歧。
Finish with an agreed next step or an explicit unresolved point.
最后得出一个商定的下一步，或明确列出一个尚未解决的问题。
Leading a discussion means helping the group reason about evidence and alternatives, rather than merely announcing the chair's preferred answer or suppressing uncertainty to sound confident.
主持讨论意味着帮助小组围绕证据和备选方案进行推理，而不只是宣布主持人偏爱的答案，或为了显得自信而回避不确定性。
Use the seven checks in the additional notes.
用补充讲义中的七项检查来检验自己。
An institutional aim does not measure every later outcome.
一个机构的宗旨不能衡量之后的所有结果。
The smallpox case establishes a particular coordinated achievement, not one universal programme for all diseases.
天花案例确立的是一项具体的协调成就，而不是适用于所有疾病的统一计划。
A target states an intended result, while an observation records evidence.
目标陈述的是预期结果，观察记录的是证据。
Counts measure amounts and interviews explore reported reasons.
统计数字衡量数量，访谈探究自述的原因。
Compare proposals using staff capacity, demand, nutrition or measured waste.
用员工能力、需求、营养或测得的浪费量来比较各方案。
A chair should summarise views fairly and identify needed evidence.
主持人应公正地总结各方观点，并指出需要的证据。
Revise the claim to say seven volunteers mentioned portion size and further permitted research is needed before predicting policy effects.
把那句话改为：七名自愿者提到了份量，在预测政策效果之前，还需要进一步的、经允许的研究。