在现场条件允许的情况下，可带负荷拉合隔离开关(刀闸)。

远方操作一次设备前，宜对现场发出提示信号，提醒现场人员观察操作设备状态。

单人值班的变电站或发电厂升压站操作时，运维人员应根据发令人用电话传达的操作指令进行，可不用操作票。

操作票应填写设备的双重名称。

全站停电可不使用工作票。

倒闸操作中不准擅自更改操作票，不准随意解除闭锁装置。

解锁工具（钥匙）使用后应在所有工作结束后再封存并做好记录。

高压设备上工作，在手车开关拉出后，应观察隔离挡板是否可靠封闭。

电气设备停电后（包括事故停电），在未拉开有关断路器（开关）前，不得触及设备或进入遮栏，以防突然来电。

经本单位批准允许单独巡视高压设备的人员巡视高压设备时，如果确因工作需要，可临时移开或越过遮栏，事后应立即恢复。

地震、台风、洪水、泥石流等灾害发生后，如需要对设备进行巡视时，应制定必要的安全措施，得到设备运维管理单位批准，可单人巡视，但巡视人员应与派出部门之间保持通信联络。

专责监护人应是具有相关工作经验，熟悉设备情况和本规程的人员。

监护操作时，其中一人对设备较为熟悉者作监护。特别重要和复杂的倒闸操作，由熟练的运维负责人操作，工区领导监护。

在发生人身触电事故时，可以不经许可，即行断开有关设备的电源，但事后应立即报告调度控制中心（或设备运维管理单位）和上级部门。

新参加电气工作的人员、实习人员和临时参加劳动的人员（管理人员、非全日制用工等），应经过安全知识教育后，方可到现场单独工作。

承发包工程中，工作票可实行“双签发”形式。

第一种工作票所列工作地点超过两个，或有两个及以上不同的工作单位(班组)在一起工作时，可采用总工作票和分工作票。

用户变、配电站的工作许可人应是持有效证书的高压电气工作人员。

一个工作负责人可以同时执行多张工作票，工作票上所列的工作地点，以一个电气连接部分为限。

单人操作时若需进行登高或登杆操作，应做好相应的安全措施。

1、在带电杆塔上进行测量、防腐、巡视检查、紧杆塔螺栓、清除杆塔上异物等工作，应使用绝缘无极绳索，风力应不大于___级，并应有专人监护。

2、在同杆塔架设多回路中部分线路停电的杆塔上进行工作时，___进入带电侧的横担，或在该侧横担上放置任何物件。

3、解开或恢复杆塔、配电变压器和避雷器的接地引线时，应戴___。禁止直接接触与地断开的接地线。

4、巡线人员发现导线、电缆断落地面或悬挂空中，应设法防止行人靠近断线地点___m以内，以免跨步电压伤人，并迅速报告调控人员和上级，等候处理。

5、成套接地线应由有透明护套的多股软铜线和专用线夹组成，其截面不准小于___mm²，同时应满足装设地点短路电流的要求。禁止使用其他导线接地或短路。

"根据《中铁四局集团投资类公司、直管项目公司薪酬与绩效考核管理办法》（中铁四人（2017）860号）规定，局直管项目公司建设期年度考核得分低于___分，取消副处职及以上领导人员年度绩效薪酬兑现资格，建设期全周期绩效考核得分低于（ ）分，项目公司副处职及以上领导人员预留的20%绩效年薪全部扣除，不再兑现。

"根据《中铁四局集团投资类公司、直管项目公司薪酬与绩效考核管理办法》（中铁四人（2017）860号）规定，局投资发展部配合拟订投资类公司、局直管项目公司年度绩效考核指标，下达投资类指标目标值并按___进行绩效考核评分。

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司PPP项目税务处理指引》（中铁四财〔2017〕793号）规定，实行简易计税的高速公路项目其有关开工日期说法正确的是___

"根据《中铁四局集团有限公司PPP项目投资尽职调查管理办法》（中铁四法（2017）812号）规定，PPP项目投资尽职调查小组成员中法律人员应作为尽职调查工作的牵头人，负责协调尽职调查小组其他成员开展工作。暂未设置法律岗位的单位，在人员到位前由局___指派一人为牵头人。

"根据《中铁四局安全生产费用管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）418号）规定，各分公司、局直管、代管项目经理部，针对房屋建筑工程、水利水电工程、电力工程、铁路工程、城市轨道工程，每季根据项目的季度建安计划，分别按不低于___的标准提取安全费用，并上缴到指定的“安全资金账户”。

"根据《中铁四局安全生产费用管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）418号）规定，各分公司、局直管、代管项目经理部，针对市政公用工程、冶炼工程、机电安装工程、化工石油工程、港口与航道工程、公路工程、通信工程，每季根据项目的季度建安计划，分别按不低于___的标准提取安全费用，并上缴到指定的“安全资金账户”。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，采用简易计税法的项目，安全生产费照合同价款分劈的安全生产费金额的___计列成本。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，采用一般计税法的项目，安全生产费照合同价款分劈的安全生产费金额的___计列成本。

"根据《中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法》（中铁四成本（2016）502号）规定，局直、代管工程项目中参建公司工经部门根据经审批的项目管理策划书，结合工地调查和收集的基础资料，除非特别原因，应在参建分部施工组织设计审批通过且局内部分劈文件下达后___内，利用成本管理信息系统，完成参建分部的责任成本预算的编制工作。

"根据《中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法》（中铁四成本（2016）502号）规定，中铁四局集团直、代管工程项目目标利润率确定办法中目标利润率的计算方法为___

"根据《中国中铁关于加强基础设施投资统筹协调和风险管控的通知》（股份传2017-400）规定，为加强基础设施投资统筹协调，各投资公司在划定的责任区域内，应积极运作实施单项___亿元及以上的大型基础设施投资项目，（ ）亿元以下的单项投资项目应由工程局负责，鼓励有实力的工程局在其优势领域积极运作投资项目。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈与验工计价管理办法》（中铁四工经﹝2013﹞67号）规定，中铁四局集团工程项目合同价款分劈原则上应在任务划分后___个月内完成。

"根据《中铁四局集团工程项目验工计价管理办法》（中铁四成本（2016）451号）规定，局成本部按季度和年度，分别下达局指和子分公司验工计价的目标计划。要求各单位将当期验工计价与调度建安产值及建造合同收入的偏差控制在___以内，并在下一期验工计价目标计划中通报上期完成情况.

"根据《中铁四局作业层队伍管理办法》（中铁四程（2016）877号）规定，项目部应配置专职或兼职劳务员。劳务员负责基础台账、报表及资料备案、作业层队伍现场管理、施工能力、履约和诚信情况记录等工作。每名在岗的专职或兼职劳务员，每年度参加子分公司举办的劳务员培训不得少于___次。

"根据《中铁四局作业层队伍管理办法》（中铁四程（2016）877号）规定，局成本管理部在职能部门职责分工中负责的内容为___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___