Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019222366 = product of:
  0.03844473 = sum of:
    0.03844473 = product of:
      0.07688946 = sum of:
        0.07688946 = weight(_text_:k in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07688946 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.47329018 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009611183 = product of:
  0.019222366 = sum of:
    0.019222366 = product of:
      0.03844473 = sum of:
        0.03844473 = weight(_text_:k in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03844473 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006407455 = product of:
  0.01281491 = sum of:
    0.01281491 = product of:
      0.02562982 = sum of:
        0.02562982 = weight(_text_:k in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02562982 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.15776339 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the early 1960s, the Classification Research Group in London (q.v.) had reached the point in its experimentation with faceted classification systems where some kind of amalgamation of individual schemes was needed. They sought a unifying principle or set of principles that would provide a basis for a general system. The individual faceted schemes would not merge; what was central to one subject was fringe to another, but the fringes did not coalesce. In looking farther afield, they discovered the theory of "integrative levels" set forth by James K. Feibleman, Chairman and Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University until 1969 and author of forty-five books and more than 175 articles in various fields of philosophy. Feibleman's research concerned the development of the sciences considered in terms of an organizing principle. In the physical sciences, one Gould begin with subparticles and work up to atoms, molecules, and molecular assemblages, interpolating the biological equivalents. Feibleman separates the various levels by use of a "no return" device: "each level organizes the level or levels below it plus one emergent quality." The process is not reversible without loss of identity. A dog, in his system, is no longer a dog when it has been run over by a car; the smashed parts cannot be put together again to function as a dog. The theory of integrative levels is an interesting one. The levels from subparticles to clusters of galaxies or from nuclei to organisms are relatively clearly defined. A discipline, such as any of the ones comprising the "hard sciences," is made up of integrative levels. Research is cumulative so that scholars are ready to contribute when very young. Classification in these fields can make good use of the theory of integrative levels-in fact it should do so. It would appear that the method is more difficult to apply in the social sciences and humanities. This appearance may, however, be superficial. Almost all past happenings are irrevocable; one cannot recall the French Revolution and re-fight it. Any academic discipline that moves an over time does not usually return to an earlier position, even when there are schools of thought involved. Philosophy may have "neo-" this or that, but the subsequent new is not the same as the previous new. One has only to look at the various kinds of neo-Platonists that arise from time to time to realize that. Physical science recognizes a series of paradigms in changing its methodology over time and a similar situation may also turn out to be true in cognitive science." If this should turn out to be the case, integrative levels would probably have a part in that field as weIl.

0.0056065232 = product of:
  0.0112130465 = sum of:
    0.0112130465 = product of:
      0.022426093 = sum of:
        0.022426093 = weight(_text_:k in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022426093 = score(doc=3639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16245733 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045509085 = queryNorm
            0.13804297 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Very interesting experimental work was done by Douglas Foskett and other British classificationists during the fifteen-year period following the end of World War II. The research was effective in demonstrating that it was possible to make very sophisticated classification systems for virtually any subject-systems suitable for experts and for the general user needing a detailed subject classification. The success of these special systems led to consideration of the possibility of putting them together to form a new general classification system. To do such a thing would require a general, overall framework of some kind, since systems limited to a special subject are easier to construct because one does not have to worry about including all of the pertinent facets needed for a general system. Individual subject classifications do not automatically coalesce into a general pattern. For example, what is central to one special classification might be fringe in another or in several others. Fringe terminologies may not coincide in terms of logical relationships. Homographs and homonyms may not rear their ugly heads until attempts at merger are made. Foskett points out that even identifying a thing in terms of a noun or verb involves different assumptions in approach. For these and other reasons, it made sense to look for existing work in fields where the necessary framework already existed. Foskett found the rudiments of such a system in a number of writings, culminating in a logical system called "integrative levels" suggested by James K. Feibleman (q.v.). This system consists of a set of advancing conceptual levels relating to the apparent organization of nature. These levels are irreversible in that if one once reached a certain level there was no going back. Foskett points out that with higher levels and greater complexity in structure the analysis needed to establish valid levels becomes much more difficult, especially as Feibleman stipulates that a higher level must not be reducible to a lower one. (That is, one cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.) Foskett is optimistic to the extent of suggesting that references from level to level be made upwards, with inductive reasoning, a system used by Derek Austin (q.v.) for making reference structures in PRECIS. Though the method of integrative levels so far has not been used successfully with the byproducts of human social behavior and thought, so much has been learned about these areas during the past twenty years that Foskett may yet be correct in his optimism. Foskett's name has Jong been associated with classification in the social sciences. As with many of the British classificationists included in this book, he has been a member of the Classification Research Group for about forty years. Like the others, he continues to contribute to the field.