Discussion--and-Conclusion讲义.docx

Discussion / Conclusion

Contents
Part 1: sample analysis
Part 2. Grammar and writing skills: modal verbs
Part 3. Vocabulary

Part 1: sample analysis
Read the following passage and decide what the writer told us in each sentence. Try building the model of Discussion/ Conclusion.

sample 1.
Cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM)
skills and quality of life in stress-related disorders
Discussion
（1）Prior work has documented the effectiveness of psychosocial intervention on improving quality of life (Q0L) and reducing stress in patients suffering from various disorders; Epstein,18 for example, reports that orthopedic patients participating in a two-week multimedia intervention programme improved across several Q0L indices, including interpersonal conflict and mental health. （2）However, these studies have either been short-term studies or have not focused on patients whose disorder was stress-related. （3）In this study we tested the extent to which an extended three-month stress management programme improved QOL among a group of patients being treated for stress-related skin disorders such as eczema.
（4） We found that in virtually all cases, participation in our three-month stress management programme was associated with substantial increases in the skills needed to improve Q0L. （5）These findings extend those of Kaliom, confirming that a longer, more intensive period of stress-management training tends to produce more effective skills than when those skills are input over a shorter period via information transfer media such as leaflets and presentations (Kaliiometal., 2003).（6）In addition, the improvements noted in our study were unrelated to age, gender or ethnic background. （7）This study therefore indicated that the benefits gained from stress-management intervention may address Q0L needs across a wide range of patients.（8）Most notably, this is the first study to our knowledge to instigate the effectiveness of extended psychosocial intervention in patients whose disorder is itself thought to be stress-related. （9）Our results provide compelling evidence for long-term involvement with such patients and suggest that this approach appears to be effective in counteracting stress that may exacerbate the disorder. （10） However, some limitations are worth noting. （11）Although our hypotheses were supported statistically, the sample was not reassessed once the programme was over. （12）Future work should therefore include follow-up work designed to evaluate whether the skills are retained in the long term and also whether they continue to be used to improve Q0L.

sample2.
Generalized thermodynamic perturbation theory for
polyatomic fluid mixtures.
I. Formulation and results for chemical potentials
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
We have derived (Sec. III) exact results relating certain background pair correlation functions in a mixture to βμe. This derivation makes contact with earlier results obtained by us, 13,14 and clarifies, makes rigourous, and extends the approach of Stell and Zhou. 4– 7 The results hold for mixtures of arbitrary compositions and for both FHS and non-FHS systems.
We have used thermodynamic arguments to develop a general EOS for mixtures of polyatomic molecules and their constituent atoms (Sec. IV), based solely on the ideal-associated solution approximation (IASA). When the exact result for βμe from Sec. III is incorporated, this theory can be seen to be a generalization of the first-order thermodynamic perturbation theory of Wertheim, 2 originally developed for tangent fusedhard-sphere mixtures. One form of this theory is based upon and requires for its implementation only thermodynamic information for the reference mixture, and the alternative form requires structural information for the reference system in the form of the background correlation function y*(1, 2, … , m). Since information of the latter kind is very diffi cult to obtain (apart from the diatomic case), we generally advocate use of the former form of the theory. We note that the generalized theory accounts for differences in structural isomers of polymeric species, unlike other approaches. 17
We have demonstrated that alternative implementations of the generalized EOS for fused-hard-sphere systems produce slightly different results, depending on the way in which certain quantities are calculated (Sec. V). We showed that, for bondedhard-sphere (BHS) systems, the thermodynamically based implementation yields results identical to those obtained by using the Boublik– Nezbeda equation of state, 8 and the alternative based upon structural information yields similar, but not exact, results. This sheds light on the reason for the accuracy of results obtained by previous implementations of TPT1 for diatomic systems.2.9.6
We have derived expressions for the excess chemical potentials, consistent with the generalized EOS, for the components of mixtures of homonuclear polyatomic molecules and their constituent atoms (Sec. VI). Since the TPT and its generalizations have the practical drawback of requiring information concerning the properties of a reference mixture system, approximations implementable requiring only accurate knowledge of pure systems are more feasible. We have tested the results of the Lewis– Randall rule approximation 10 against those of other approximations and against some exact and near-exact results. It produces good results overall.
We have presented new and more accurate results for the individual βμe and for βμe for the system of tangent diatomic FHS molecules with size ratio 0.6 (System B), using both conventional NVT Monte Carlo simulations and the reaction ensemble method. 11 For this system, the simulation results show that βμe is essentially independent of composition. The BN EOS was found to predict that βμe is exactly independent of composition. We conjecture that this result holds for all BHS systems. This result is in agreement with the fundamental approximation of the IASA.

sample3.
On combining classifiers
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of combining classifiers which use different representations of the patterns to be classified was studied. We have developed a common theoretical framework for classifier combination and showed that many existing schemes can be considered as special cases of compound classification where all the pattern representations are used jointly to make a decision. We have demonstrated that under different assumptions and using different approximations we can derive the commonly used classifier combination schemes such as the product rule, sum rule, min rule, max rule, median rule, and majority voting. The various classifier combination schemes were compared experimentally. A surprising outcome of the comparative study was that the combination rule developed under the most restrictive assumptions — the sum rule — outperformed other classifier combinations schemes. To explain this empirical finding, we investigated the sensitivity of various schemes to estimation errors. The sensitivity analysis has shown that the sum rule is most resilient to estimation errors and this may provide a plausible explanation for its superior performance.

Part 2. Grammar and writing skills: modal verbs

The modal verbs that are commonly used in science writing are may, might, could, can, should, ought to, need to, have to and must.
Modal verbs are particularly useful in the Results and Discussion sections. In these sections you are writing about the reasons, interpretations and implications of your results and you often need to communicate that something is a possible reason, or an obvious interpretation or a probable implication. Here is a typical sentence from a (combined) Results and Discussion section:
The kinetics can be described by these equations, suggesting that the electrons are transferred directly. This might involve a supercharge mechanism, but the data could also be described by electron transfer via a hopping mechanism.
There are two reasons why these verbs are difficult to use. First of all, as you can see, some modal verbs have more than one meaning. Second, most modal verbs do not follow standard grammar rules. Some disappear and others change their meaning in the negative, or in a different tense. For example, He must go home means the same as He has to go home, but He must not go home means that he is not allowed to go home, which is not the same as He doesn’t have to go home.
Here is a table showing how each of these modal verbs works in the past tense and in the negative, with examples.

1. ABILITY/CAPABILITY
Present Simple
CAN
This software can distinguish between different viruses.
Present Simple negative
CANNOT
Until 18 months a child cannot use symbols to represent objects.
Past Simple
COULD
COULD HAVE
It was found that the gun could shoot accurately even at 300 meters. If we had extended the time period we could have produced more crystals.
Past Simple negative
COULD NOT COULD NOT HAVE
1n 1990, 80% of households could not receive digital television. The subjects reported that they could not have fallen asleep without medication.

Notes:
1. The modal verb can only forms these two tenses when it refers to ABILITY or CAPABILITY. If you need other tenses, you will need to switch to be capable of or be able to, i.e. It is believed that this software will eventually be capable of distinguishing between different viruses.
2. could means ‘was generally capable of doing/able to do something in the past’, whereas was able to is used in relation to specific past events or past occasions, i.e. The result suggests that in this case, the viruses were able to multiply freely. If you’re not sure whether to use can or be able to, use be able to — it’s safer.

2. POSSIBILITY/OPTIONS
Present simple
May/might/
Could/can
A rubber seal may/might/could/can be useful at this location.
Present simple negative
May not/
Might not(but not could not or cannot)
A rubber seal may not/might not be useful at this location.
Past simple
May have might have could have (not can have)
The fall in pressure may have been /might have been/could have been caused by leakage.
Past simple negative
May not have mightnot have (but not could not have or (can not have)
The fall in pressure may not have been /might not have been caused by leakage.
Notes:
1. might is slightly weaker than may.
2. Interestingly, can not and cannot don’t mean the same thing at all! can not means possibly not in the same way as may not or might not, cannot, on the other hand, means something completely different: it doesn’t mean possibly not, it means impossible.

3. PROBABILITY/BELIEF/EXPECTATION
Present simple
Should
Ought to
The material should remain stable if it is kept below 30°C.
Present simple negative
Should not
Ought not to
The material should not decompose unless heated above 30°C.
Past simple
Should have
Ought to have
By the time the cobalt is added, the crystals should have dissolved.
Past simple negative
Should not have
Ought not to have
This was unexpected; the material should not have decomposed at this temperature.
Note: although ought to means the same as should, it is less common in science writing. So examples have not been given.

4.VIRTUALCERTAINTY
Present simple
Must
Have to
Our results indicate that contamination must be due to the presence of sea water in the pipe.
Present simple negative
cannot
It is clear that contamination cannot/could not be due to the presence of sea water in the pipe.
Past simple
Must have
Our results indicate that contamination must have been due to the presence of sea water in the pipe.
Past simple negative
Cannot have
Could not
Could not have
It is clear that contamination could not be/cannot have been/could not have been due to the presence of sea water in the pipe.
Notes:
1. have to is less common in science writing, so examples have not been given.
2. must not means ‘not allowed/permitted’, it doesn’t mean ‘not possible’.

5.ADVICE /OPINION
Present simple
Should
Ought to
The apparatus should be disconnected from the mains during repairs.
Present simple negative
Should not
Ought not to
This material should not be exposed to sunlight.
Past simple
Should have
Ought to have
The apparatus should have been disconnected from the mains during repairs.
Past simple negative
Should not have
Ought not to have
This material should not be exposed to sunlight..
Note:
Should have/ought to have usually refer to something that didn’t occur and should not have /ought not to have usually refer to something that did.

6.NECESSITY/OBLIGATION
Present simple
Must
Need to
Have to
The apparatus must/needs to/has to be disconnected from the mains during repairs.
Present simple negative
Need not
Do not need to
Do not have to
The apparatus need not/does not need to/does not have to be disconnected from the mains during repairs.
Past simple
Needed to
Had to
We needed to/had to heat the valves before use.
Past simple negative
Did not need to
Did not have to
Need not have
We did not need to/did not have to heat the valves before use. We need not have heated the valves before use.
Notes:
Must not means not allowed, it doesn’t mean “not necessary”.

Part 3. Vocabulary
In this section, we will look at vocabulary for the following 6 areas of the model apart from: 1. revisiting previous sections; 2. summarizing/revisiting key results 3. refining the implication/s. Since most of the vocabulary you need for these can be found in previous sections, there is no need here for additional vocabulary input;
4. Mapping (relationship to existing research，revisiting previous sections.)
This/Our study/method/result/
approach is:

analogous to
comparable to
compatible with
identical (to)
in contradiction to
in contrast to
in good agreement (with)
in line with
significantly different (to/from)
the first of its kind
(very/remarkably) similar (to)
unlike
This/Our study:

broadens
challenges
compares well (with)
confirms
contradicts
corresponds to
corroborates
differs (from)
extends
expands
goes against
lends support to
mirrors
modifies
proves
provides insight into
provides support for
refutes
supports
tends to refute
verify
Sentence patterns:
1.To the knowledge of the authors, the data in Fig. 4-6 is the first of its kind.
2. The results of this simulation therefore challengeLaskay’s assumption that percentage porosity increases with increasing Mg levels.
3. The FMD method provides results that are comparable to existing clay hydration processes.
4. Similar films on gold nanoparticles have also been found to be liquid –like.
5. Using this multi-grid solver, load information is propagated faster through the mesh.
6. Our results are in general agreement with previo