Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016914926 = product of:
  0.033829853 = sum of:
    0.02441524 = weight(_text_:social in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02441524 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.13217081 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
    0.009414612 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = weight(_text_:22 in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018829225 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2514, 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=2514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Dervos, D.A., A. Coleman: A common sense approach to defining data, information, and metadata. - Keränen, S.: Equivalence and focus of translation in multicultural thesaurus construction. - Dabbadie, M., J.M. Blancherie: Alexandria, a multilingual dictionary for knowledge management purposes. - Rosemblat, G., L. Graham: Cross-language search in a monolingual health information system: flexible designs and lexical processes. - Garcia Marco, F.J.: Understanding the categories and dynamics of multimedia information: a model for analysing multimedia information. - Afolabi, B., O. Thiery: Using users' expectations to adapt business intelligence systems. - Zimmermann, K., J. Mimkes u. H.U. Kamke: An ontology framework for e-learning in the knowledge society. - Jacob, E.K., H. Albrechtsen u. N. George: Empirical analysis and evaluation of a metadata scheme for representing pedagogical resources in a digital library for educators. - Breitenstein, M.: Global unity: Otto Neurath and the International Encyclopedia of United Science. - Andersen, J.: Social change, modernity and bibliography: bibliography as a document and a genre in the global learning society. - Miksa, S.D., WE. Moen u. G. Snyder u.a.: Metadata assistance of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Record's four user tasks: a report on the MARC content designation utilization (MCDU) project. - Salaba, A., M.L. Zeng u. M. Zumer: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records. - Frâncu, V.: Subjects in FRBR and poly-hierarchical thesauri as possible knowledge organization tools. - Peschl, M.F.: Knowledge-oriented educational processes from knowledge transfer to collective knowledge creation and innovation. - Miller, S.J., M.J. Fox u. H.L. Lee u.a.: Great expectations: professionals' perceptions and knowledge organization curricula. - Pajarillo, E.J.Y.: A qualitative research on the use of knowledge organization in nursing information behavior.

Date

27.12.2008 11:22:36

0.008632091 = product of:
  0.034528363 = sum of:
    0.034528363 = weight(_text_:social in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034528363 = score(doc=325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.18691775 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2007 12:07:51

0.004069207 = product of:
  0.016276827 = sum of:
    0.016276827 = weight(_text_:social in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016276827 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.088113874 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

While each single paragraph of the book is packed with valuable advice and real-life experience, I consider the last chapter to be the most intriguing and ground-breaking one. It's only here that taxonomists meet folksonomists and ontologists in a fundamental attempt to write a new page on the relative position between old and emerging classification techniques. In a well-balanced and sober analysis that foregoes excessive enthusiasm in favor of more appropriate considerations about content scale, domain maturity, precision and cost, knowledge infrastructure tools are all arrayed from inexpensive and expressive folksonomies on one side, to the smart, formal, machine-readable but expensive world of ontologies on the other. In light of so many different tools, information infrastructure clearly appears more as a complex dynamic ecosystem than a static overly designed environment. Such a variety of tasks, perspectives, work activities and paradigms calls for a resilient, adaptive and flexible knowledge environment with a minimum of standardization and uniformity. The right mix of tools and approaches can only be determined case by case, by carefully considering the particular objectives and requirements of the organization while aiming to maximize its overall performance and effectiveness. Starting from the history of taxonomy-building and ending with the emerging trends in Web technologies, artificial intelligence and social computing, Organising Knowledge is thus both a guiding tool and inspirational reading, not only about taxonomies, but also about effectiveness, collaboration and finding middle ground: exactly the right principles to make your intranet, portal or document management tool a rich, evolving and long-lasting ecosystem."

0.003138204 = product of:
  0.012552816 = sum of:
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 320, 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=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2007 10:37:38

0.002353653 = product of:
  0.009414612 = sum of:
    0.009414612 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018829225 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2008 17:56:19