Search (114 results, page 6 of 6)

0.007484829 = product of:
  0.014969658 = sum of:
    0.014969658 = product of:
      0.029939316 = sum of:
        0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029939316 = score(doc=5260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006351088 = product of:
  0.012702176 = sum of:
    0.012702176 = product of:
      0.025404353 = sum of:
        0.025404353 = weight(_text_:c in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025404353 = score(doc=3380,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.16169086 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 10:16:49

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:32:44

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 5000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=5000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5000)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2019 11:45:19

0.006171255 = product of:
  0.01234251 = sum of:
    0.01234251 = product of:
      0.02468502 = sum of:
        0.02468502 = weight(_text_:22 in 5234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02468502 = score(doc=5234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:33:49

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0059878635 = product of:
  0.011975727 = sum of:
    0.011975727 = product of:
      0.023951454 = sum of:
        0.023951454 = weight(_text_:c in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023951454 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Google hat seine Suchmaschine um eine Datenbank erweitert, die die Suchergebnisse um Fakten zu verschiedensten Objekten und Personen ergänzt. Diese semantische Suchfunktion, die vorerst nur Nutzern in den USA zur Verfügung steht, soll Suchbegriffe inhaltlich erkennen und Zusammenhänge zu anderen Themen herstellen. Damit soll Google noch besser erkennen, wonach die Nutzer suchen und möglichst auch gleich weitere Fragen beantworten. In einem Blogeintrag [http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not.html] erläutert Google-Manager Amit Singhal die neue Funktion, die unter der Bezeichnung "Knowledge Graph" [http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/knowledge.html] firmiert und in einem Video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmQl6VGvX-c] vorgestellt wird. Dabei handele es sich um eine große Informationsdatenbank, die derzeit über 500 Millionen Objekte und mehr als 3,5 Milliarden Informationen über die Beziehungen zwischen ihnen enthalte. Darunter fänden sich Sehenswürdigkeiten, berühmte Personen, Städte, Sportmannschaften, Gebäude, Orte, Filme, Himmelsobjekte, Kunstwerke oder Ähnliches. Anhand der Suchanfragen und der Ergebnisse wird die Datenbank immer weiter verbessert, verspricht Google. Dank dieser Neuerung verspricht Google seinen Nutzern drei merkliche Verbesserungen. So könne die Suchmaschine nun besser erkennen, wonach genau gesucht werde, beispielsweise das Gebäude Taj Mahal oder der US-Musiker mit gleichem Namen. Weiterhin könne Google durch den Knowledge Graph wichtige Inhalte besser zusammenfassen, beispielsweise die Lebensdaten einer berühmten Person und ihre Leistungen. Auch bereits getätigte Suchen andere Nutzer könnten künftige Suchergebnisse dadurch beeinflussen. So sei für für Suchende etwa von Interesse, welche Bücher Charles Dickens geschrieben habe. Bei dem Architekten Frank Lloyd Wright sei jedoch weniger die Literatur interessant, als die von ihm gestalteten Gebäude.

0.005399848 = product of:
  0.010799696 = sum of:
    0.010799696 = product of:
      0.021599391 = sum of:
        0.021599391 = weight(_text_:22 in 3451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021599391 = score(doc=3451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 17:14:47

0.00523938 = product of:
  0.01047876 = sum of:
    0.01047876 = product of:
      0.02095752 = sum of:
        0.02095752 = weight(_text_:c in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02095752 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.13338815 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.004628441 = product of:
  0.009256882 = sum of:
    0.009256882 = product of:
      0.018513763 = sum of:
        0.018513763 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018513763 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.0038570343 = product of:
  0.0077140685 = sum of:
    0.0077140685 = product of:
      0.015428137 = sum of:
        0.015428137 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015428137 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045548957 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24.10.2008 14:19:22