全文获取类型
| 收费全文 | 12098篇 |
| 免费 | 10篇 |
| 国内免费 | 1篇 |
专业分类
| 教育 | 9335篇 |
| 科学研究 | 1230篇 |
| 各国文化 | 7篇 |
| 体育 | 384篇 |
| 文化理论 | 388篇 |
| 信息传播 | 765篇 |
出版年
| 2021年 | 3篇 |
| 2020年 | 15篇 |
| 2019年 | 13篇 |
| 2018年 | 2195篇 |
| 2017年 | 2096篇 |
| 2016年 | 1584篇 |
| 2015年 | 125篇 |
| 2014年 | 128篇 |
| 2013年 | 236篇 |
| 2012年 | 228篇 |
| 2011年 | 699篇 |
| 2010年 | 841篇 |
| 2009年 | 441篇 |
| 2008年 | 652篇 |
| 2007年 | 1158篇 |
| 2006年 | 75篇 |
| 2005年 | 396篇 |
| 2004年 | 460篇 |
| 2003年 | 365篇 |
| 2002年 | 142篇 |
| 2001年 | 15篇 |
| 2000年 | 26篇 |
| 1999年 | 12篇 |
| 1998年 | 7篇 |
| 1997年 | 25篇 |
| 1996年 | 4篇 |
| 1995年 | 3篇 |
| 1994年 | 5篇 |
| 1993年 | 7篇 |
| 1992年 | 9篇 |
| 1991年 | 15篇 |
| 1990年 | 3篇 |
| 1989年 | 7篇 |
| 1988年 | 9篇 |
| 1987年 | 6篇 |
| 1986年 | 9篇 |
| 1985年 | 6篇 |
| 1984年 | 8篇 |
| 1983年 | 7篇 |
| 1982年 | 4篇 |
| 1981年 | 6篇 |
| 1980年 | 9篇 |
| 1979年 | 6篇 |
| 1978年 | 3篇 |
| 1977年 | 4篇 |
| 1976年 | 5篇 |
| 1970年 | 4篇 |
| 1968年 | 3篇 |
| 1967年 | 5篇 |
| 1966年 | 3篇 |
排序方式： 共有10000条查询结果，搜索用时 296 毫秒
101.
Youjung Shin 《Minerva》2018,56(2):231-257
This paper aims to show the historical contingency of policy entrepreneurship in science by analyzing the case of brain research in South Korea during the last decade of the 20th century. This decade saw an increasing emphasis placed upon the development of information technology and its use for societal changes. The rise of the “Information Society” in Korea was an important context for shaping the field of brain research as an amalgam of multiple disciplines which led to the passage of the Brain Research Promotion Act; the first law in the world enacted to promote brain research. This paper, through focusing on in what context someone takes up an entrepreneurial role, shows how the concept of interdisciplinarity has been shaped by, and how it has influenced the development of brain research and its related policy measures in Korea. It ultimately reveals the contingent and transient aspect of a policy entrepreneur and his effect on building a new field. 相似文献
102.
Donghui Zhang 《Frontiers of Education in China》2018,13(3):448-450
103.
104.
105.
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
106.
107.
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
108.
109.
110.