Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0077461693 = product of:
  0.023238508 = sum of:
    0.023238508 = product of:
      0.06971552 = sum of:
        0.06971552 = weight(_text_:science in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06971552 = score(doc=594,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.59997743 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special issue on 'Science and knowledge organization' mit längeren Überblicken zu wichtigen Begriffen der Wissensorgansiation.

0.0039048512 = product of:
  0.011714553 = sum of:
    0.011714553 = product of:
      0.03514366 = sum of:
        0.03514366 = weight(_text_:science in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03514366 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Object

Science Citation Index
Web of Science

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1532-1549

0.0033203335 = product of:
  0.009961001 = sum of:
    0.009961001 = product of:
      0.029883001 = sum of:
        0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029883001 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).