Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0690029 = product of:
  0.1380058 = sum of:
    0.1380058 = product of:
      0.41401735 = sum of:
        0.41401735 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41401735 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4419972 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.03226404 = product of:
  0.06452808 = sum of:
    0.06452808 = sum of:
      0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 1407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02921053 = score(doc=1407,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1407, 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=1407)
      0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 1407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03531755 = score(doc=1407,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1407, 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=1407)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concept of integrative levels as an organizing principle for knowledge organization has a long history in library and information science. Traditionally, the model of a nested hierarchy in which each higher level transcends and includes the lower levels has been applied to the ontological dimension of human knowledge as "levels of being" in order to provide a basic schema for classifying different kinds of world phenomena. In this paper, a complementary application of the integrative levels concept for the epistemological dimension as "levels of knowing" is proposed. It will be argued that under the condition of epistemic pluralism, knowledge organization theory should take the epistemic frameworks adopted by authors or creators of documents into account such as modes of thought or worldview structures as they emerge and transform in individual development as well as in human history. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to outline the concept of integrative levels of knowing as an or ganizing principle for a classification of viewpoints.

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

0.011684213 = product of:
  0.023368426 = sum of:
    0.023368426 = product of:
      0.04673685 = sum of:
        0.04673685 = weight(_text_:classification in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673685 = score(doc=4895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=1074,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 1074, 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=1074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the last two decades of knowledge organization (KO) research, there has been an increasing interest in the context-dependent nature of human knowledge. Contextualism maintains that knowledge is not available in a neutral and objective way, but is always interwoven with the process of knowledge production and the prerequisites of the knower. As a first step towards a systematic organization of epistemic contexts, the concept of knowledge will be considered in its ontological (WHAT) and epistemological (WHO) including methodological (HOW) dimensions. In current KO research, however, either the contextualism is not fully implemented (classification-as-ontology) or the ambition for a context-transcending universal KOS seems to have been abandoned (classification-as-epistemology). Based on a combined ontology and epistemology it will be argued that a phenomena-based approach to KO as stipulated by the León Manifesto, for example, requires a revision of the underlying phenomenon concept as a relation between the known object (WHAT) and the knowing subject (WHO), which is constituted by the application of specific methods (HOW). While traditional subject indexing of documents often relies on the organizing principle "levels of being" (WHAT), for a future context indexing, two novel principles are proposed, namely "levels of knowing" (WHO) and "integral methodological pluralism" (HOW).