Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Hovy, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies (2002) 0.07 
    0.06611215 = product of:
  0.11018691 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=2178,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
    0.095440306 = weight(_text_:91 in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095440306 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.3693884 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    A set of semantic relations is created every time a domain modeler wants to solve some complex problem computationally. These relations are usually organized into ontologies. But three is little standardization of ontologies today, and almost no discussion an ways of comparing relations, of determining a general approach to creating relations, or of modeling in general. This chapter outlines an approach to establishing a general methodology for comparing and justifying sets of relations (and ontologies in general). It first provides several dozen characteristics of ontologies, organized into three taxonomies of increasingly detailed features, by which many essential characteristics of ontologies can be described. These features enable one to compare ontologies at a general level, without studying every concept they contain. But sometimes it is necessary to make detailed comparisons of content. The chapter then illustrates one method for determining salient points for comparison, using algorithms that semi-automatically identify similarities and differences between ontologies.
    Pages
    S.91-110
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  2. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften : Evaluation einer Herausforderung (2006) 0.03 
    0.026540533 = product of:
  0.06635133 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
    0.06362687 = weight(_text_:91 in 3128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06362687 = score(doc=3128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24625893 = fieldWeight in 3128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3128)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Aufgrund eines Vortrags über Begriffs- und Definitionstheorie, den ich bei der Tagung über Begriffsanalyse in Darmstadt 1986 gehalten hatte (Dahlberg 1987), wandte sich der damalige Mitherausgeber der Zeitschrift Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften, Dr. Rainer Greshoff, 1990 an mich mit der Bitte, einen ähnlichen Beitrag als Hauptartikel für seine Zeitschrift zu schreiben. Ich sagte zu mit der Absicht im Hinterkopf, dabei auch meine Erfahrungen mit der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Terminologie, die ich bei COCTA, dem Committee for Conceptual and Terminological Analysis (Vorsitz Prof. Dr. Fred Riggs, Hawaii) (Riggs 1982) gemacht hatte, einzubringen. Hinzu kam, dass mir gerade zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Werk von Stefan Andreski in die Hände gefallen war, betitelt: "Die Hexenmeister der Sozialwissenschaften. Missbrauch, Mode und Manipulation einer Wissenschaft", (Andreski 1974) der sozusagen "kein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt" und überaus mutig und an vielen Beispielen die Misere der sozialwissenschaftlichen Terminologie offenbar macht. Ich hoffte daher, in einem entsprechenden Beitrag mehr Bewusstsein für eine begriffsorientierte, systematische Terminologie der Sozialwissenschaften zu wecken. In gewisser Weise war für mich dabei die Lösung von Prof. Riggs mit seiner "Onomantik" (Riggs 1985) vorbildlich. Er ging nämlich davon aus, dass der sog. semasiologische Ansatz, bei dem nach der Bedeutung eines Wortes gefragt wird, unbrauchbar für sein Verständnis sei (und das nicht nur in den Sozialwissenschaften), man müsse vielmehr umgekehrt onomasiologisch vorgehen und sich zunächst über einen Begriff klar werden, der mit einem Wort (oder einem Wort in einem Kontext) verbunden ist und seine mögliche Definition finden und dann erst dafür eine Benennung suchen. Aus Zeitmangel entstand mein Beitrag erst 1995. Herr Dr. Greshoff konnte - entsprechend der Methode seiner Zeitschrift - zu meinem Beitrag eine größere Anzahl von Kritikern finden und diese dann auch noch durch eine Replik der Autorin erwidern lassen und mit einer Metakritik eines Nichtinvolvierten das Ganze beenden. In meinem Fall waren es 27 Persönlichkeiten aus 10 verschiedenen Disziplinen und Herr Prof. Dr. Endruweit als Metakritiker. Der Beitrag umfasste die Seiten 3-91 (DIN A4 Format) in Heft 1-1996 unter dem Titel "Zur Begriffskultur in den Sozialwissenschaften. Lassen sich ihre Probleme lösen?" (Dahlberg 1996). Ich war überzeugt, dass sich ihre Probleme mit meiner vorgeschlagenen Methode lösen lassen. Doch meine Kritiker waren es leider nicht. Und über das Warum - davon wird mein Vortrag heute handeln.
    Type
    a
  3. Olson, H.A.: How we construct subjects : a feminist analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.021637667 = product of:
  0.054094166 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=5588,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.045083858 = sum of:
      0.013672504 = weight(_text_:information in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013672504 = score(doc=5588,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Gender Issues in Information Needs and Services'.
    Date
    11.12.2019 19:00:22
    Type
    a
  4. Jouis, C.: Logic of relationships (2002) 0.02 
    0.020997968 = product of:
  0.052494917 = sum of:
    0.013189741 = weight(_text_:a in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013189741 = score(doc=1204,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
    0.039305177 = sum of:
      0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007893822 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1204)
      0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031411353 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046368346 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifcations. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency. The semantic system proposed is based an a structured set of semantic primitives-types, relations, and properties-based an a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desc16s, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings. Relations are part of a specification network based an a general terminological scheure (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).
    Date
    1.12.2002 11:12:22
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  5. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.01 
    0.010702303 = product of:
  0.026755756 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
    0.021987949 = product of:
      0.043975897 = sum of:
        0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043975897 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, 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=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Pages
    S.22-33
    Type
    a
  6. Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001) 0.01 
    0.008738357 = product of:
  0.021845892 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=4484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
    0.0142307915 = product of:
      0.028461583 = sum of:
        0.028461583 = weight(_text_:information in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028461583 = score(doc=4484,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article presents the semantic information theory, formulated by the philosopher Fred I. Dretske, as a contribution to the discussion of metatheories and their practical implications in the field of library and information science. Dretske's theory is described in Knowledge and the flow of information. It is founded on mathematical communication theory but developed and elaborated into a cognitive, functionalistic theory, is individually oriented, and deals with the content of information. The topics are: the information process from perception to cognition, and how concept formation takes place in terms of digitisation. Other important issues are the concepts of information and knowledge, truth and meaning. Semantic information theory can be used as a frame of reference in order to explain, clarify and refute concepts currently used in library and information science, and as the basis for critical reviews of elements of the cognitive viewpoint in IR, primarily the notion of "potential information". The main contribution of the theory lies in a clarification of concepts, but there are still problems regarding the practical applications. More research is needed to combine philosophical discussions with the practice of information and library science.
    Theme
    Information
    Type
    a
  7. Hetzler, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships (2002) 0.01 
    0.008717269 = product of:
  0.021793172 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=1189,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.013535086 = product of:
      0.027070172 = sum of:
        0.027070172 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027070172 = score(doc=1189,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Relationships can provide a rich and powerful set of information and can be used to accomplish application goals, such as information retrieval and natural language processing. A growing trend in the information science community is the use of information visualization-taking advantage of people's natural visual capabilities to perceive and understand complex information. This chapter explores how visualization and visual exploration can help users gain insight from known relationships and discover evidence of new relationships not previously anticipated.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  8. Khoo, C.; Myaeng, S.H.: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction (2002) 0.01 
    0.008189849 = product of:
  0.02047462 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
    0.013396261 = product of:
      0.026792523 = sum of:
        0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026792523 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Automatic identification of semantic relations in text is a difficult problem, but is important for many applications. It has been used for relation matching in information retrieval to retrieve documents that contain not only the concepts but also the relations between concepts specified in the user's query. It is an integral part of information extraction-extracting from natural language text, facts or pieces of information related to a particular event or topic. Other potential applications are in the construction of relational thesauri (semantic networks of related concepts) and other kinds of knowledge bases, and in natural language processing applications such as machine translation and computer comprehension of text. This chapter examines the main methods used for identifying semantic relations automatically and their application in information retrieval and information extraction.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  9. Evens, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval (2002) 0.01 
    0.0070676133 = product of:
  0.017669033 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=1201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
    0.010590675 = product of:
      0.02118135 = sum of:
        0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02118135 = score(doc=1201,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Thesaural relations have long been used in information retrieval to enrich queries; they have sometimes been used to cluster documents as well. Sometimes the first query to an information retrieval system yields no results at all, or, what can be even more disconcerting, many thousands of hits. One solution is to rephrase the query, improving the choice of query terms by using related terms of different types. A collection of related terms is often called a thesaurus. This chapter describes the lexical-semantic relations that have been used in building thesauri and summarizes some of the effects of using these relational thesauri in information retrieval experiments
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  10. Cruse, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties (2002) 0.01 
    0.0068851607 = product of:
  0.017212901 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=1186,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=1186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This chapter deals with the paradigmatic sense relation of hyponymy as manifested in nouns. A number of approaches to the definition of the relation are discussed, with particular attention being given to the problems of framing a prototype-theoretical characterization. An account is offered of a number of sub-varieties of hyponymy.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  11. McCray, A.T.; Bodenreider, O.: ¬A conceptual framework for the biomedical domain (2002) 0.01 
    0.0066833766 = product of:
  0.016708441 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=1207,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Specialized domains often come with an extensive terminology, suitable for storing and exchanging information, but not necessarily for knowledge processing. Knowledge structures such as semantic networks, or ontologies, are required to explore the semantics of a domain. The UMLS project at the National Library of Medicine is a research effort to develop knowledge-based resources for the biomedical domain. The Metathesaurus is a large body of knowledge that defines and inter-relates 730,000 biomedical concepts, and the Semantic Network defines the semantic principles that apply to this domain. This chapter presents these two knowledge sources and illustrates through a research study how they can collaborate to further structure the domain. The limits of the approach are discussed.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.01 
    0.006536471 = product of:
  0.016341178 = sum of:
    0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005898632 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.010442546 = product of:
      0.020885091 = sum of:
        0.020885091 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020885091 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
    Theme
    Information
    Type
    a
  13. Fellbaum, C.: On the semantics of troponymy (2002) 0.01 
    0.006474727 = product of:
  0.016186817 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=1191,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=1191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The principal relation linking verbs in a semantic network is the manner relation (or "troponymy"). We examine the nature of troponymy across different semantic domains and verb classes in an attempt to arrive at a more subtle understanding of this intuitive relation. Troponymy is not a semantically homogeneous relation; rather, it is polysemous and encompasses distinct sub-relations. We identify and discuss Manner, Function, and Result. Furthermore, different kinds of troponyms differ from their semantically less elaborated superordinates in their syntactic behavior. In some cases, troponyms exhibit a wider range of syntactic altemations; in other cases, the troponyms are more restricted in their argument-projecting properties.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  14. Thellefsen, M.: ¬The dynamics of information representation and knowledge mediation (2006) 0.01 
    0.0063011474 = product of:
  0.015752869 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  15. Guarino, N.; Welty, C.: Identity and subsumption (2002) 0.01 
    0.0060245167 = product of:
  0.015061291 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=1195,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The intuitive simplicity of the so-called is-a (or subsumption) relationship has led to widespread ontological misuse. Where previous work has focused largely an the semantics of the relationship itself, we concentrate here an the ontological nature of its arguments, in Order to tell whether a single is-a link is ontologically well-founded. For this purpose, we introduce some techniques based an the philosophical notions of identity, unity, and essence, which have been adapted to the needs of taxonomy design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques by taking real examples of poorly structured taxonomies and revealing cases of invalid generalization.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a
  16. ¬The semantics of relationships : an interdisciplinary perspective (2002) 0.01 
    0.005889678 = product of:
  0.014724194 = sum of:
    0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005898632 = score(doc=1430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
    0.008825562 = product of:
      0.017651124 = sum of:
        0.017651124 = weight(_text_:information in 1430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017651124 = score(doc=1430,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1430, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Work on relationships takes place in many communities, including, among others, data modeling, knowledge representation, natural language processing, linguistics, and information retrieval. Unfortunately, continued disciplinary splintering and specialization keeps any one person from being familiar with the full expanse of that work. By including contributions form experts in a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, this volume demonstrates both the parallels that inform work on relationships across a number of fields and the singular emphases that have yet to be fully embraced, The volume is organized into 3 parts: (1) Types of relationships (2) Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning (3) Applications of relationships
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: Pt.1: Types of relationships: CRUDE, D.A.: Hyponymy and its varieties; FELLBAUM, C.: On the semantics of troponymy; PRIBBENOW, S.: Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part-whole relations; KHOO, C. u.a.: The many facets of cause-effect relation - Pt.2: Relationships in knowledge representation and reasoning: GREEN, R.: Internally-structured conceptual models in cognitive semantics; HOVY, E.: Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies; GUARINO, N., C. WELTY: Identity and subsumption; JOUIS; C.: Logic of relationships - Pt.3: Applications of relationships: EVENS, M.: Thesaural relations in information retrieval; KHOO, C., S.H. MYAENG: Identifying semantic relations in text for information retrieval and information extraction; McCRAY, A.T., O. BODENREICHER: A conceptual framework for the biiomedical domain; HETZLER, B.: Visual analysis and exploration of relationships
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
  17. Gerstenkorn, A.: Informationsbezug zwischen Gemein- und Fachsprache : Zum gemein- und fachsprachlichen Wort "Tal" (2006) 0.01 
    0.0056083994 = product of:
  0.014020998 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=6013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 6013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=6013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.5, S.259-267
    Type
    a
  18. Gerbé, O.; Mineau, G.W.; Keller, R.K.: Conceptual graphs, metamodelling, and notation of concepts : fundamental issues (2000) 0.01 
    0.005549766 = product of:
  0.013874415 = sum of:
    0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009138121 = score(doc=5078,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5078,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5078, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5078)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Knowledge management, in particular corporate knowledge management, is a challenge companies and researchers have to meet. The conceptual graph formalism is a good candidate for the representation of corporate knowledge, and for the development of knowledge management systems. But many of the issues concerning the use of conceptual graphs as a metalanguage have not been worked out in detail. By introducing a function that maps higher level to lower level, this paper clarifies the metalevel semantics, notation and manipulation of concepts in the conceptual graph formalism. In addition, this function allows metamodeling activities to take place using the CG notation
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
    Type
    a
  19. Working with conceptual structures : contributions to ICCS 2000. 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Darmstadt, August 14-18, 2000 (2000) 0.01 
    0.0054945312 = product of:
  0.013736328 = sum of:
    0.009829085 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009829085 = score(doc=5089,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1838419 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.003907243 = product of:
      0.007814486 = sum of:
        0.007814486 = weight(_text_:information in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007814486 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures - Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues (ICCS 2000) brings together a wide range of researchers and practitioners working with conceptual structures. During the last few years, the ICCS conference series has considerably widened its scope on different kinds of conceptual structures, stimulating research across domain boundaries. We hope that this stimulation is further enhanced by ICCS 2000 joining the long tradition of conferences in Darmstadt with extensive, lively discussions. This volume consists of contributions presented at ICCS 2000, complementing the volume "Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues" (B. Ganter, G.W. Mineau (Eds.), LNAI 1867, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000). It contains submissions reviewed by the program committee, and position papers. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors of submitted papers, to the general chair, the program chair, the editorial board, the program committee, and to the additional reviewers for making ICCS 2000 a valuable contribution in the knowledge processing research field. Special thanks go to the local organizers for making the conference an enjoyable and inspiring event. We are grateful to Darmstadt University of Technology, the Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Land Hessen, and NaviCon GmbH for their generous support
    Content
    Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)
  20. Khoo, C.; Chan, S.; Niu, Y.: ¬The many facets of the cause-effect relation (2002) 0.01 
    0.0051638708 = product of:
  0.012909677 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=1192,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This chapter presents a broad survey of the cause-effect relation, with particular emphasis an how the relation is expressed in text. Philosophers have been grappling with the concept of causation for centuries. Researchers in social psychology have found that the human mind has a very complex mechanism for identifying and attributing the cause for an event. Inferring cause-effect relations between events and statements has also been found to be an important part of reading and text comprehension, especially for narrative text. Though many of the cause-effect relations in text are implied and have to be inferred by the reader, there is also a wide variety of linguistic expressions for explicitly indicating cause and effect. In addition, it has been found that certain words have "causal valence"-they bias the reader to attribute cause in certain ways. Cause-effect relations can also be divided into several different types.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.3
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 27
  • d 8

Types

Themes