关于x的一元二次方程x²+（2a﹣1）x+5﹣a=ax+1的一次项系数为4，则常数项为：____．

根据下表回答：

阅读下面的作品，完成小题。

乐书

宗璞

    多年以前，读过一首《四时读书乐》，现在只记得四句：“读书之乐乐何如？绿满窗前草不除。”“读书之乐乐无穷，瑶琴一曲来熏风。”这是春夏的情景，也是读书的乐境。

    经常读书，接触的都是别人的精华。读书本身就是一件聪明的事，也是一件快乐的事。陶渊明说：“每有会意，便欣然忘食。”金圣叹读到《西厢记》“不瞅人待怎生”一句，感动得三日卧床不食不语。这都是读书的至高境界。

    我不是一个做学问的读书人，读书缺少严谨的计划，常是兴之所至。虽然不够正规，也算和书打了几十年交道。我想，读书有一个分——合——分的过程。

    分就是要把各种书区分开来，也就是要有一个选择的过程。现在书出得极多，有人形容，写书的比读书的还多，简直成了灾。我看见那些装帧精美的书，总想着又有几棵树冤枉地献身了。开卷有益可以说是一句完全过时的话。千万不要让那些假冒伪劣的“精神产品”侵蚀。即便是列入必读书目的，也要经过自己慎重选择。有些书评简直就是一种误导，名实不符者极多，名实相悖者也有。当然可读的书更多。总的说来，有的书可精读，有的书可泛读，有的书浏览一下即可。书经过区分，选好了，读时就要合。古人说读书得间，就是要在字里行间得到弦外之音，象外之旨，得到言语传达不尽的意思。朱熹说读书要“涵泳玩索，久之自有所见”，“涵泳”就是在水中潜行，也就是说必须入水，与水相合，才能了解水，得到滋养润泽。王国维谈读书三境界，第三种境界是“蓦然回首，那人却在灯火阑珊处”，这种豁然贯通，便是一种会心。古时有人自外回家，有了很大变化，人们议论，说他不是遇见了奇人，就是遇见了奇书。书对人的影响是非常大的。不过要使书真的为自己所用，就要从合中跳出来，再有一次分，把书中的理和自己掌握的理参照而行。虽然自己的理不断受书中的理影响，却总能用自己的理去衡量、判断、实践。

    其实，这些都是废话，每个人有自己的读书法，平常读书不一定都想得那么多，随意翻阅也是一种快乐。因为从小在书堆中长大，磕头碰脑都是书，有一阵子很为其困扰，曾写了《恨书》、《卖书》等文，颇引关注。后来把这些朋友都安排到妥当或不甚妥当的去处，却又觉得很为想念，眼皮子底下少了这一箱那一柜或索性乱堆着的书，确实失去了很多。原来走到房屋的每一个角落，都可以接触到各种宏论，感受到各种情感，这里那里还不时会冒出一个个小故事。虽然足不出户，书把我的生活从时空上都拓展了。因为思念，曾想写一篇《忆书》。近几年来眼疾发展，几乎不能视物，和书也久违了。幸好科学发达，经治疗后，忽然又看见了世界，也看见经过整顿后书柜里的书。我拿起几部特别喜爱的线装书抚摩着，一部《东坡乐府》，一部《李义山诗集》，一部《世说新语》，还有一部《温飞卿诗集》，字特别大，我随手翻到“捣麝成尘香不灭，拗莲作寸丝难绝”，不觉一惊，现在哪里还有这样的真诚和执著呢。

    寒暑交替，我们的忙总无变化，忙着做各种有意义和无意义的事。我和老伴现在最大的快乐就是每晚在一起读书，其实是他念给我听。朋友们称赞他的声音厚实有力，我通过这声音得到书的内容，更觉得丰富。书房中有一副对联：“把酒时看剑，焚香夜读书。”我们也焚香，不过不是名贵的龙涎香，而是最普通的蚊香，以免蚊虫骚扰。古人焚香或也有这个用处？

    四时读书乐，另两时记不得了。乃另诌了两句，曰：“读书之乐何处寻？秋水文章不染尘。”“读书之乐乐融融，冰雪聪明一卷中。”聊充结尾。

（略有改动）

注意：每空一词。

    A recent study points out a so-called “gender-equality paradox(性别平等悖论)”: there are more women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) in countries with lower gender equality. Why do women make up 40 percent of engineering majors in Jordan, but only 34 percent in Sweden and 19 percent in the U.S.? The researchers suggest that women are just less interested in STEM, and when liberal Western countries let them choose freely, they freely choose different fields.

    We disagree.

    From cradle to classroom, a wealth of research shows that the environment has a major influence on girls' interest and ability in math and science. Early in school, teachers, unconscious prejudice push girls away from STEM. By their preteen years, girls outperform boys in science class and report equal interest in the subject, but parents think that science is harder and less interesting for their daughters than their sons, and these misunderstandings predict their children's career choices.

    Later in life, women get less credit than men for the same math performance. When female STEM majors write to potential PhD advisors, they are less likely to get a response. When STEM professors review applications for research positions, they are less likely to hire “Jennifer” than “John,” even when both applications are otherwise identical—and if they do hire “Jennifer,” they pay her $4,000 less.

    These findings make it clear that women in Western countries are not freely expressing their lack of “interest” in STEM. In fact, cultural attitudes and discrimination are shaping women's interests in a way that is anything but free, even in otherwise free countries.

    “Gender-equality paradox” research misses those social factors because it relies on a broad measure of equality called the Gender Gap Index (GGI), which tracks indicators such as wage difference, government representation and health outcomes. These are important markers of progress, but if we want to explain something as complicated as gender representation in STEM, we have to look into people's heads.

    Fortunately, we have ways to do that. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a well-validated tool for measuring how tightly two concepts are tied together in people's minds. The psychologist Brian Nosek and his colleagues analyzed over 500,000 responses to a version of the IAT that measures mental associations between men/women and science, and compared results from 34 countries. Across the world, people associated science more strongly with men than with women.

    But surprisingly, these gendered associations were stronger in supposedly egalitarian (主张平等的) Sweden than they were in the U.S., and the most pro-female scores came from Jordan. We re-analyzed the study's data and found that the GGI's assessment of overall gender equality of a country has nothing to do with that country's scores on the science IAT.

    That means the GGI fails to account for cultural attitudes toward women in science and the complicated mix of history and culture that forms those attitudes.