Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0095403055 = product of:
  0.038161222 = sum of:
    0.038161222 = product of:
      0.076322444 = sum of:
        0.076322444 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076322444 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, 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=591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.0055651786 = product of:
  0.022260714 = sum of:
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0023542228 = product of:
  0.009416891 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A universal non-discipline-based classification is a complement to, rather than substitute for, domain-specific classifications. Cognitive work analysis suggests that especially interdisciplinary researchers but also specialized researchers would benefit from both types of classification. Both practical and theoretical considerations point to complementarity. The research efforts of scholars pursuing both types of classification can thus usefully reinforce each other.

0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A synthetic and universal approach to classification which allows the free combination of basic concepts would better address a variety of challenges in classifying both humanities scholarship and the works of art (including literature) that humanists study. Four key characteristics of this classificatory approach are stressed: a universal non-discipline-based approach, a synthetic approach that allows free combination of any concepts but stresses a sentence-like structure, emphasis on basic concepts (for which there are broadly shared understandings across groups and individuals), and finally classification of works also in terms of the theories, methods, and perspectives applied. The implications of these four characteristics, alone or (often) in concert, for many aspects of classification in the humanities are discussed. Several advantages are found both for classifying humanities scholarship and works of art. The se four characteristics are each found in the Basic Concepts Classification (which is briefly compared to other faceted classifications), but each could potentially be adopted elsewhere as well.

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).