首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   11521篇
  免费   0篇
教育   8883篇
科学研究   1247篇
各国文化   1篇
体育   335篇
文化理论   382篇
信息传播   673篇
  2022年   1篇
  2021年   3篇
  2019年   5篇
  2018年   2169篇
  2017年   2075篇
  2016年   1563篇
  2015年   106篇
  2014年   112篇
  2013年   75篇
  2012年   214篇
  2011年   687篇
  2010年   832篇
  2009年   431篇
  2008年   638篇
  2007年   1148篇
  2006年   65篇
  2005年   394篇
  2004年   444篇
  2003年   357篇
  2002年   128篇
  2001年   8篇
  2000年   20篇
  1999年   1篇
  1998年   3篇
  1997年   16篇
  1996年   2篇
  1995年   1篇
  1994年   1篇
  1993年   4篇
  1992年   5篇
  1991年   7篇
  1989年   1篇
  1985年   1篇
  1982年   1篇
  1980年   1篇
  1978年   1篇
  1976年   1篇
排序方式: 共有10000条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
101.
102.
Creative ideas are the driving force behind knowledge production, the producers of which are generally domesticated at universities for the purposes of ensuring the methodological credibility of the knowledge produced, in order to minimise the impact of chance in the creation of new knowledge. The status of producers is determined by indicators designed to simulate the demand for knowledge, precipitate a quantitative and qualitative comparison of elements which are not comparable, and establish legitimacy for the means of control used. Furthermore, incentives for competitive sport research and the symbolic recognition of scientists via sport practice play a particular role for knowledge production in sports science. In order to compensate for the practical world’s unwillingness to pay for sports science expertise relevant to competitive sport, the German Federal Institute of Sports Science (BISp) functions as a simulator of demand for knowledge generated by universities, while the Institute for Applied Training Science with its services exclusively available to umbrella organisations limits the range of incentives to produce (competitive) sporting knowledge. Sports scientists are thus faced with a market situation which favours routine research and standard methods, creates legitimacy at a central level, does not necessarily tackle actual issues faced by (competitive) athletes, stimulates demand for monitoring services, and all in all leaves monoculture-driven gaps which could most likely only be avoided by advocating and applying individual scope for action throughout the research ethos.  相似文献   
103.
104.
David Demortain 《Minerva》2017,55(2):139-159
Regulating technologies, innovations and risks is an activity that, as much as scientific research needs proofs and evidence. It is the site of development of a distinct kind of science, regulatory science. This special issue addresses the question of the standards of knowledge governing how we test, assess and monitor technologies and their effects. This topic is relevant and timely in the light of problematics of regulation of innovation, regulatory failure and capture. Given the enormous decisions and stakes regulatory science commends, it becomes crucial to ask where its standards come from and gain credibility, but also what valuations of technology and appreciations of their risks or benefits do they embed, and who controls them? This paper introduces the four contributions comprising the special issue, and outlines a perspective from which to question the construction of regulatory science or, in the terminology adopted here, the authorization and standardization of regulatory knowledge, particularly the role of networks of scientific experts therein.  相似文献   
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号