Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011814341 = product of:
  0.023628682 = sum of:
    0.023628682 = product of:
      0.047257364 = sum of:
        0.047257364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047257364 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17449035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2574, 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=2574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:17:40

0.010011364 = product of:
  0.020022728 = sum of:
    0.020022728 = product of:
      0.08009091 = sum of:
        0.08009091 = weight(_text_:authors in 6046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08009091 = score(doc=6046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22715813 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6046, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6046)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Draws attention to the efforts to define the terms 'concept' and 'term' and suggests a schedule of isolates for the term 'concept' under eight headings: 0. Concept; 1. Theoretical aspects; 2. Learning theory and Psychological aspects; 3. Origin, evolution, formation, construction; 4. Semantic aspects; 5.Terms and Terminology; 6. Usage and discipline-specific applications; and 7. Concepts and ISAR systems. The schedule also includes about 150 aspects/isolate terms related to 'concept' along with the name of the authors who have used them. The schedule is intended to help in identifying the various aspects of a concept with the help of the terms used for them. These aspects may guide to some extent, in dissecting and seeing the social science concepts from various point of views

0.008438815 = product of:
  0.01687763 = sum of:
    0.01687763 = product of:
      0.03375526 = sum of:
        0.03375526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03375526 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17449035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1.12.2002 11:12:22

0.008438815 = product of:
  0.01687763 = sum of:
    0.01687763 = product of:
      0.03375526 = sum of:
        0.03375526 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03375526 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17449035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:11:25

0.008438815 = product of:
  0.01687763 = sum of:
    0.01687763 = product of:
      0.03375526 = sum of:
        0.03375526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03375526 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17449035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, 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=1440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.008438815 = product of:
  0.01687763 = sum of:
    0.01687763 = product of:
      0.03375526 = sum of:
        0.03375526 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03375526 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17449035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.007150974 = product of:
  0.014301948 = sum of:
    0.014301948 = product of:
      0.057207793 = sum of:
        0.057207793 = weight(_text_:authors in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057207793 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22715813 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.

0.005005682 = product of:
  0.010011364 = sum of:
    0.010011364 = product of:
      0.040045455 = sum of:
        0.040045455 = weight(_text_:authors in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040045455 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22715813 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support

0.005005682 = product of:
  0.010011364 = sum of:
    0.010011364 = product of:
      0.040045455 = sum of:
        0.040045455 = weight(_text_:authors in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040045455 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22715813 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04982834 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.