Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.09238384 = product of:
  0.36953536 = sum of:
    0.36953536 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.36953536 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39851433 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

DOI: 10.24894/HWPh.5033. Vgl. unter: https://www.schwabeonline.ch/schwabe-xaveropp/elibrary/start.xav#__elibrary__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27verw.allgemeinesbesonderes%27%5D__1515856414979.

0.06776184 = product of:
  0.13552368 = sum of:
    0.06643467 = weight(_text_:subject in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06643467 = score(doc=5588,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.06908901 = sum of:
      0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037245933 = score(doc=5588,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031843077 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.062208362 = product of:
  0.124416724 = sum of:
    0.0797216 = weight(_text_:subject in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0797216 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
    0.04469512 = product of:
      0.08939024 = sum of:
        0.08939024 = weight(_text_:classification in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08939024 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.032470033 = product of:
  0.064940065 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=6036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=6036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages

0.032470033 = product of:
  0.064940065 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=5118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5118)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 5118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=5118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Philosophy grapples with the deepest and most difficult questions in human life. In a 2012 article, Jonathan Furner raises questions about the "Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data" (FRSAD) model. Can the FRSAD framers really avoid tackling philosophical questions as they attempt to do-the long-running dispute between nominalists and realists, in particular? This article attempts to flesh out a realist position while showing some implications for the new Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records-Library Reference Model. It is not clear that FRSAD really takes a realist view, as Furner claims, and a position on the nominalist-realist debate is not necessary for information professionals.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.2, S.136-144

0.031104181 = product of:
  0.062208362 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=1617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
    0.02234756 = product of:
      0.04469512 = sum of:
        0.04469512 = weight(_text_:classification in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04469512 = score(doc=1617,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems

Source

International classification. 1(1974), S.12-19

0.028012857 = product of:
  0.056025714 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
    0.022808382 = product of:
      0.045616765 = sum of:
        0.045616765 = weight(_text_:classification in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045616765 = score(doc=4926,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).

0.014544982 = product of:
  0.05817993 = sum of:
    0.05817993 = sum of:
      0.02633685 = weight(_text_:classification in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02633685 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
      0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031843077 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:11:25

Series

Forum: The philosophy of classification

0.011744101 = product of:
  0.046976402 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

0.01117378 = product of:
  0.04469512 = sum of:
    0.04469512 = product of:
      0.08939024 = sum of:
        0.08939024 = weight(_text_:classification in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08939024 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

In deutsch auch in: International classification 1(1974) S.12-19.

Source

Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.9-22

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 3835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=3835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3835)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Word aboutness is defined as the relationship between words and subjects associated with them. An aboutness coefficient is developed to estimate the strength of the aboutness relationship. Words that are randomly distributed across subjects are assumed to lack aboutness and the degree to which their usage deviates from a random pattern indicates the strength of the aboutness. To estimate aboutness, title words and their associated subjects are extracted from the titles of non-fiction English language books in the OCLC WorldCat database. The usage patterns of the title words are analyzed and used to compute aboutness coefficients for each of the common title words. Words with low aboutness coefficients (An and In) are commonly found in stop word lists, whereas words with high aboutness coefficients (Carbonate, Autism) are unambiguous and have a strong subject association. The aboutness coefficient potentially can enhance indexing, advance authority control, and improve retrieval.

0.009676777 = product of:
  0.038707107 = sum of:
    0.038707107 = product of:
      0.077414215 = sum of:
        0.077414215 = weight(_text_:classification in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077414215 = score(doc=5876,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'

0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)

0.009217897 = product of:
  0.03687159 = sum of:
    0.03687159 = product of:
      0.07374318 = sum of:
        0.07374318 = weight(_text_:classification in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07374318 = score(doc=962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification theory in the computer age: conversations across the disciplines. Proc. from the Conf. 18.-19.11.1988, Albany, NY

0.009123353 = product of:
  0.036493413 = sum of:
    0.036493413 = product of:
      0.07298683 = sum of:
        0.07298683 = weight(_text_:classification in 4632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07298683 = score(doc=4632,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 4632, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This dissertation from the University of Vienna contains the following chapters: (1) Conceptological aspects in terminology theory. Post-Wüsterian sign models and the four-field model. Vagueness, prototypes, and the four-field model. Morphological aspects of terminology and prototype theory. Word-formation and its role in terminology theory and conceptology. (2) A morpho-conceptual classification system of the English baseball terminology. The classification system. Statistical results. Conclusions

0.008304333 = product of:
  0.033217333 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 6070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=6070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 6070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6070)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This document is not an ISO International Standard. It is distributed for review and comment. It is subject to change without notice and may not be referred to as an International Standard.

0.008220871 = product of:
  0.032883484 = sum of:
    0.032883484 = weight(_text_:subject in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032883484 = score(doc=1077,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.1955951 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.006368615 = product of:
  0.02547446 = sum of:
    0.02547446 = product of:
      0.05094892 = sum of:
        0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05094892 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.0057020956 = product of:
  0.022808382 = sum of:
    0.022808382 = product of:
      0.045616765 = sum of:
        0.045616765 = weight(_text_:classification in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045616765 = score(doc=2527,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The evolution of bibliographic classification schemes, from the end of the 19th century to our time, shows a trend of increasing possibilities to combine concepts in a classmark. While the early schemes, like DDC and LCC, were largely enumerative, more and more synthetic devices have appeared with common auxiliaries, facets, and phase relationships. The last editions of UDC and the UDC-derived FATKS project follow this evolution, by introducing more specific phase relationships and more common auxiliaries, like those for general properties and processes. This agrees with the Farradane's principle that each concept should have a place of unique definition, instead of being re-notated in each context where it occurs. This evolution appears to be unfinished, as even in most synthetic schemes many concepts have a different notation according to the disciplinary main classes where they occur. To overcome this limitation, main classes should be defined in terms of phenomena rather than disciplines: the Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is currently exploring this possibility. Examples with UDC, FATKS, and ILC notations are discussed.