Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022940148 = product of:
  0.114700735 = sum of:
    0.114700735 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114700735 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.022019787 = product of:
  0.110098936 = sum of:
    0.110098936 = weight(_text_:objects in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110098936 = score(doc=5883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37497213 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5883)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013381752 = product of:
  0.06690876 = sum of:
    0.06690876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06690876 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.011975816 = product of:
  0.05987908 = sum of:
    0.05987908 = weight(_text_:7 in 4136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05987908 = score(doc=4136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.25620884 = fieldWeight in 4136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4136)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.7, S.494-505

0.0088897385 = product of:
  0.044448692 = sum of:
    0.044448692 = weight(_text_:7 in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044448692 = score(doc=325,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.19018576 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?

Date

7. 9.1996 17:35:55

Series

Information Science & Knowledge Management ; 7

0.008554155 = product of:
  0.042770773 = sum of:
    0.042770773 = weight(_text_:7 in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042770773 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 6.2008 12:19:45