Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028059429 = product of:
  0.056118857 = sum of:
    0.056118857 = product of:
      0.16835657 = sum of:
        0.16835657 = weight(_text_:universal in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16835657 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.65859777 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A universal non-discipline-based classification is a complement to, rather than substitute for, domain-specific classifications. Cognitive work analysis suggests that especially interdisciplinary researchers but also specialized researchers would benefit from both types of classification. Both practical and theoretical considerations point to complementarity. The research efforts of scholars pursuing both types of classification can thus usefully reinforce each other.

0.02147853 = product of:
  0.04295706 = sum of:
    0.04295706 = product of:
      0.12887117 = sum of:
        0.12887117 = weight(_text_:universal in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12887117 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.50413394 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).

0.021044573 = product of:
  0.042089146 = sum of:
    0.042089146 = product of:
      0.12626743 = sum of:
        0.12626743 = weight(_text_:universal in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12626743 = score(doc=1084,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.49394834 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A synthetic and universal approach to classification which allows the free combination of basic concepts would better address a variety of challenges in classifying both humanities scholarship and the works of art (including literature) that humanists study. Four key characteristics of this classificatory approach are stressed: a universal non-discipline-based approach, a synthetic approach that allows free combination of any concepts but stresses a sentence-like structure, emphasis on basic concepts (for which there are broadly shared understandings across groups and individuals), and finally classification of works also in terms of the theories, methods, and perspectives applied. The implications of these four characteristics, alone or (often) in concert, for many aspects of classification in the humanities are discussed. Several advantages are found both for classifying humanities scholarship and works of art. The se four characteristics are each found in the Basic Concepts Classification (which is briefly compared to other faceted classifications), but each could potentially be adopted elsewhere as well.

0.017537143 = product of:
  0.035074286 = sum of:
    0.035074286 = product of:
      0.10522286 = sum of:
        0.10522286 = weight(_text_:universal in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10522286 = score(doc=1893,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.4116236 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

0.017537143 = product of:
  0.035074286 = sum of:
    0.035074286 = product of:
      0.10522286 = sum of:
        0.10522286 = weight(_text_:universal in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10522286 = score(doc=5883,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.4116236 = fieldWeight in 5883, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5883)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Basics Concept Classification (BCC) is a "universal" scheme: it attempts to encompass all areas of human understanding. Whereas most universal schemes are organized around scholarly disciplines, the BCC is instead organized around phenomena (things), the relationships that exist among phenomena, and the properties that phenomena and relators may possess. This structure allows the BCC to apply facet analysis without requiring the use of "facet indicators." The main motivation for the BCC was a recognition that existing classifications that are organized around disciplines serve interdisciplinary scholarship poorly. Complex concepts that might be understood quite differently across groups and individuals can generally be broken into basic concepts for which there is enough shared understanding for the purposes of classification. Documents, ideas, and objects are classified synthetically by combining entries from the schedules of phenomena, relators, and properties. The inclusion of separate schedules of-generally verb-like-relators is one of the most unusual aspects of the BCC. This (and the schedules of properties that serve as adjectives or adverbs) allows the production of sentence-like subject strings. Documents can then be classified in terms of the main arguments made in the document. BCC provides very precise descriptors of documents by combining phenomena, relators, and properties synthetically. The terminology employed in the BCC reduces terminological ambiguity. The BCC is still being developed and it needs to be fleshed out in certain respects. Yet it also needs to be applied; only in application can the feasibility and desirability of the classification be adequately assessed.

0.017360885 = product of:
  0.03472177 = sum of:
    0.03472177 = product of:
      0.10416531 = sum of:
        0.10416531 = weight(_text_:universal in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10416531 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.40748656 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We take a small sample of works and compare how these are classified within both the Universal Decimal Classification and the Basic concepts Classification. We examine notational length, expressivity, network effects, and the number of subject strings. One key finding is that BCC typically synthesizes many more terms than UDC in classifying a particular document - but the length of classificatory notations is roughly equivalent for the two KOSs. BCC captures documents with fewer subject strings (generally one) but these are more complex.

0.014880758 = product of:
  0.029761516 = sum of:
    0.029761516 = product of:
      0.08928455 = sum of:
        0.08928455 = weight(_text_:universal in 1378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08928455 = score(doc=1378,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 1378, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1378)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper argues that a new approach to classification best supports and respects social diversity. We should want a classification that facilitates communication both within groups and across groups. We should also want no group to be privileged within the classification. These goals are best accomplished through a truly universal classification, grounded in basic concepts, that classifies works in terms of authorial perspective. Strategies for classifying perspective are discussed. The paper then addresses issues of classification structure. It follows a feminist approach to classification, and shows how a web-of-relations approach can be instantiated in a classification. Finally the paper turns to classificatory process. The key argument here is that much (perhaps all) of the concern regarding the possibility that classes can be subdivided into subclasses in multiple ways, each favored by different groups or individuals, simply vanish es within a web-of-relations approach. The reason is that most of these supposed ways of subdividing classes are in fact ways of subdividing different relationships among classes.

0.013146939 = product of:
  0.026293878 = sum of:
    0.026293878 = product of:
      0.07888163 = sum of:
        0.07888163 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07888163 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.009920506 = product of:
  0.019841012 = sum of:
    0.019841012 = product of:
      0.059523035 = sum of:
        0.059523035 = weight(_text_:universal in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059523035 = score(doc=3804,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.23284946 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

-Existing classification systems serve interdisciplinary research and teaching poorly. -A novel approach to classification, grounded in the phenomena studied rather than disciplines, would serve interdisciplinary scholarship much better. It would also have advantages for disciplinary scholarship. The productivity of scholarship would thus be increased. -This novel approach is entirely feasible. Various concerns that might be raised can each be addressed. The broad outlines of what a new classification would look like are developed. -This new approach might serve as a complement to or a substitute for existing classification systems. -Domain analysis can and should be employed in the pursuit of a general classification. This will be particularly important with respect to interdisciplinary domains. -Though the impetus for this novel approach comes from interdisciplinarity, it is also better suited to the needs of the Semantic Web, and a digital environment more generally. Though the primary focus of the book is on classification systems, most chapters also address how the analysis could be extended to thesauri and ontologies. The possibility of a universal thesaurus is explored. The classification proposed has many of the advantages sought in ontologies for the Semantic Web. The book is therefore of interest to scholars working in these areas as well.

0.0076690475 = product of:
  0.015338095 = sum of:
    0.015338095 = product of:
      0.046014283 = sum of:
        0.046014283 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046014283 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16990048 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.007440379 = product of:
  0.014880758 = sum of:
    0.014880758 = product of:
      0.044642273 = sum of:
        0.044642273 = weight(_text_:universal in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044642273 = score(doc=325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25562882 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04851763 = queryNorm
            0.1746371 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .