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   11659篇
  免费   4篇
教育   9024篇
科学研究   1234篇
体育   338篇
文化理论   382篇
信息传播   685篇
  2023年   1篇
  2022年   3篇
  2021年   4篇
  2020年   19篇
  2019年   16篇
  2018年   2181篇
  2017年   2081篇
  2016年   1575篇
  2015年   118篇
  2014年   117篇
  2013年   112篇
  2012年   221篇
  2011年   689篇
  2010年   832篇
  2009年   430篇
  2008年   644篇
  2007年   1149篇
  2006年   73篇
  2005年   393篇
  2004年   444篇
  2003年   358篇
  2002年   130篇
  2001年   7篇
  2000年   19篇
  1998年   3篇
  1997年   14篇
  1996年   3篇
  1995年   1篇
  1994年   2篇
  1993年   2篇
  1992年   1篇
  1991年   8篇
  1990年   1篇
  1988年   1篇
  1987年   1篇
  1986年   2篇
  1985年   1篇
  1984年   1篇
  1982年   1篇
  1980年   1篇
  1976年   1篇
  1975年   1篇
  1974年   1篇
  1973年   1篇
排序方式: 共有10000条查询结果,搜索用时 46 毫秒
101.
102.
103.
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   
104.
105.
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   
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