Search (43 results, page 3 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Dahlberg, I."
  1. Dahlberg, I.: Desiderate für die Wissensorganisation (2013) 0.00
    0.0021627804 = product of:
      0.0043255608 = sum of:
        0.0043255608 = product of:
          0.0086511215 = sum of:
            0.0086511215 = weight(_text_:d in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0086511215 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04338591 = queryNorm
                0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    d
  2. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The terminology of subject-fields (2015) 0.00
    0.0021627804 = product of:
      0.0043255608 = sum of:
        0.0043255608 = product of:
          0.0086511215 = sum of:
            0.0086511215 = weight(_text_:d in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0086511215 = score(doc=2104,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04338591 = queryNorm
                0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften : Evaluation einer Herausforderung (2006) 0.00
    0.0017302242 = product of:
      0.0034604485 = sum of:
        0.0034604485 = product of:
          0.006920897 = sum of:
            0.006920897 = weight(_text_:d in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006920897 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04338591 = queryNorm
                0.08396327 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    d