Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011790537 = product of:
  0.04716215 = sum of:
    0.04716215 = weight(_text_:research in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04716215 = score(doc=830,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research on categories indicates that superordinate categories lack informativeness because they are represented by only a few attributes while subordinate categories lack cognitive economy because they are represented by too many attributes (e.g., Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976). Basic level categories balance informativeness and cognitive economy: They represent the most attributes common to category members and the fewest attributes shared across categories. Green (2006) has suggested that the universality of basic level categories can be used for building crosswalks between classificatory systems. However, studies of basic level categories in KO systems have assumed that the notion of a basic level category is understood and have failed to operationalize the notion of "basic level category" before applying it in the analysis of user-generated vocabularies. Heidegger's (1953/1996) notion of handiness (i.e., zuhandenheit, or being "at hand" can provide a framework for understanding the unstable and relational nature of basic level categories and for operationalizing basic level categories in KO research.