-
Storms, G.; VanMechelen, I.; DeBoeck, P.: Structural-analysis of the intension and extension of semantic concepts (1994)
0.05
0.04654435 = product of:
0.0930887 = sum of:
0.0930887 = sum of:
0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049993843 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2574, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2574)
0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043094855 = score(doc=2574,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 7.2000 19:17:40
-
Svenonius, E.: Indexical contents (1982)
0.03
0.030300846 = product of:
0.060601693 = sum of:
0.060601693 = product of:
0.121203385 = sum of:
0.121203385 = weight(_text_:i in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.121203385 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.70719934 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields (1992)
0.03
0.025250703 = product of:
0.050501406 = sum of:
0.050501406 = product of:
0.10100281 = sum of:
0.10100281 = weight(_text_:i in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10100281 = score(doc=3217,freq=16.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.58933276 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.
-
Dahlberg, I.: Concept and definition theory (1989)
0.02
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = product of:
0.099987686 = sum of:
0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099987686 = score(doc=962,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Onofri, A.: Concepts in context (2013)
0.02
0.02164797 = product of:
0.04329594 = sum of:
0.04329594 = product of:
0.08659188 = sum of:
0.08659188 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08659188 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, 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.
-
Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979)
0.02
0.021425933 = product of:
0.042851865 = sum of:
0.042851865 = product of:
0.08570373 = sum of:
0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08570373 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual structures and systematization (1995)
0.01
0.014283955 = product of:
0.02856791 = sum of:
0.02856791 = product of:
0.05713582 = sum of:
0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05713582 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Dahlberg, I.: Concepts and terms : ISKO's major challenge (2009)
0.01
0.012498461 = product of:
0.024996921 = sum of:
0.024996921 = product of:
0.049993843 = sum of:
0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 3273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049993843 = score(doc=3273,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 3273, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3273)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001)
0.01
0.008927471 = product of:
0.017854942 = sum of:
0.017854942 = product of:
0.035709884 = sum of:
0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035709884 = score(doc=4484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = queryNorm
0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.
-
Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002)
0.01
0.00769551 = product of:
0.01539102 = sum of:
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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
-
Marradi, A.: ¬The concept of concept : concepts and terms (2012)
0.01
0.00769551 = product of:
0.01539102 = sum of:
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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
-
Besler, G.; Szulc, J.: Gottlob Frege's theory of definition as useful tool for knowledge organization : definition of 'context' - case study (2014)
0.01
0.00769551 = product of:
0.01539102 = sum of:
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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
-
Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007)
0.01
0.00769551 = product of:
0.01539102 = sum of:
0.01539102 = product of:
0.03078204 = sum of:
0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03078204 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045439374 = 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
