The Experts below are selected from a list of 152595 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Walter M Stroup - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • General System Theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all
    Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1993
    Co-Authors: David Chen, Walter M Stroup
    Abstract:

    In this paper we suggest using General System Theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical framework for “science and technology education for all.” Five reasons are articulated: the multidisciplinary nature of Systems Theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to describe System dynamics and change, the ability to represent the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and human worlds. The historical origins of System ideas are described, and the major concepts of System Theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophical constructs. The various efforts to implement System thinking in educational contexts are reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simulation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educational implications of System thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world and simulated learning environments is advocated.

  • General System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Science and Technology
    1993
    Co-Authors: David Chen, Walter M Stroup
    Abstract:

    In this paper we suggest using General System Theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical framework for "science and technology education for all." Five reasons are articulated: the multidisciplinary nature of Systems Theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to describe System dynamics and change, the ability to represent the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and human worlds. The historical origins of System ideas are described, and the major concepts of System Theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophical constructs. The various efforts to implement System thinking in educational contexts are reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simulation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educational implications of System thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world and simulated learning environments is advocated.

David Chen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • General System Theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all
    Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1993
    Co-Authors: David Chen, Walter M Stroup
    Abstract:

    In this paper we suggest using General System Theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical framework for “science and technology education for all.” Five reasons are articulated: the multidisciplinary nature of Systems Theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to describe System dynamics and change, the ability to represent the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and human worlds. The historical origins of System ideas are described, and the major concepts of System Theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophical constructs. The various efforts to implement System thinking in educational contexts are reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simulation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educational implications of System thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world and simulated learning environments is advocated.

  • General System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Science and Technology
    1993
    Co-Authors: David Chen, Walter M Stroup
    Abstract:

    In this paper we suggest using General System Theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical framework for "science and technology education for all." Five reasons are articulated: the multidisciplinary nature of Systems Theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to describe System dynamics and change, the ability to represent the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and human worlds. The historical origins of System ideas are described, and the major concepts of System Theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophical constructs. The various efforts to implement System thinking in educational contexts are reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simulation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educational implications of System thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world and simulated learning environments is advocated.

Vitaly Dubrovsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • toward System principles General System Theory and the alternative approach
    Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2004
    Co-Authors: Vitaly Dubrovsky
    Abstract:

    General System Theory (GST) sets its goal as unification of science, and its subject matter as formulation of General System principles, or principles applicable to all Systems. Unfortunately, no such principles have been formulated to date. This paper demonstrates that GST is incapable of formulating System principles due to its naturalistic methods and realist ontology that represents System as a real object, or thing. This paper suggests an alternative approach to development of System principles based on the assumption that the purpose of the System approach is not unification of science but dealing with complexity, and the corresponding method is analysis–synthesis. According to this approach, reality is neither Systemic nor non-Systemic, and only our methods of treating real objects and corresponding representations of them are either Systemic or not. The paper asserts that System science cannot study real Systems, because they do not exist. Instead it should study history of System reasoning as the process of development of System principles. As a preliminary step, by analyzing classical definitions of System, this paper identifies the principal System concepts and categorical oppositions that can be used as an initial framework for empirical studies of System reasoning. It also outlines methodology for such studies. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Pierre Bricage - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Survival Management by Living Systems. A General System Theory of the Space-Time Modularity and Evolution of Living Systems: Associations for the Reciprocal and Mutual Sharing of Advantages and DisAdvantages (ARMSADA).
    2014
    Co-Authors: Pierre Bricage
    Abstract:

    To survive that is 'to eat and not to be eaten'. Whatever its spatial and temporal level of organization, any living System, to survive and live on, has 'to be lucky' for 'to be at the right place at the right time'. Formed by embedments and juxtapositions of pre-existing Systems in a new Whole, it is a part of food chains: it eats and is eaten, within an ecoexotope of survival (EXO) that it shares with other living Systems. But 'soon or late it is impossible not to be eaten.' Man is not an exception! The modularity of living Systems allows both a partial location and a global recycling of matter and energy. The pleiotropy of structures and functions, allowing 'to make of a stone several knocks', is a mechanism of exaptation. The ago-antagonistic relations balance, within any ecoexotope (EXO: external, tope: space, eco: of inhabitation), leads sooner or later to predators disappearance, with a reduction of biodiversity. The spatial and temporal structuring and functioning are associated with scaling independent, local and global, qualitative characteristics (gauge invariance) and quantitative laws (power laws) which allow the emergence of a new biodiversity through the Systems merging into 'Associations for the Reciprocal and Mutual Sharing of Advantages and Dis- Advantages' (ARMSADA). They are more and more independent from the new global level of organization and the previous local situations of emergence. The local actors become more and more mutually integrated into their more and more new global Whole. And reversely (Systemic constructal law), the global Whole is more and more integrating local parceners. The evolution of living Systems is often seen as a cooperative evolution resulting from altruist behaviors, modeled or simulated using games like the prisoners' dilemma game, showing why 2 individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. But the law of the strongest is not-at-all the best ! The only way to escape for a while from the struggle is to enter into an ARMSADA. A lichen is both an organism and an ecoSystem, a cell is also an ecoSystem and an endosyncenosis (CENO: to meet and fuse, syn: into a System, endo: with a new internal structural and functional organization), both are ARMSADAs. An ARMSADA emerges when the partners lose simultaneously the capacity to kill the other ones. In the new Whole, all that is an advantage for a partner is a disadvantage for the other ones. The 'parceners' are fused together 'for the best and for the worst'. If some benefits they are only for their Wholeness which expresses new abilities. The nitrogen fixation of the legumes' nodes emerges from the fusion of a population of Monera with, and within, an organism. The eukaryotic cell has emerged with the help of a RNA virus from a mat of Monera. In their new endophysiotope (ENDO: internal, tope: space, physio: of functioning), the parceners are absolutely dependent from each others. But, through the iteration process of new ARMSADAs' emerging, the new more and more complex System-of-Systems is more and more independent from its EXO. There are never advantages without dis- advantages. To survive that is to turn disadvantages into advantages and to avoid advantages turning to disadvantages. The cell apoptosis results from the Systemic dys-functioning of its ARMSADA, the death of an endangered internal partner (the Monera' parts: the population of mitochondria or the nucleus) leads to the endosyncenosis death. Cancer is a breaking of the cell's ARMSADA. Cells that should have to die, because of external dangers, thanks to escapes of internal dormant viruses do not. The new endophysiotope (ENDO) survives through a metamorphosis but the previous EXO, the organism, is altered and endangered. Into an ARMSADA each partner can survive only if the other ones survive first. Man is not an exception!

  • time management by living Systems a General System Theory of the time modularity of living Systems zeitgebers interactions design conics running timelines
    IEEE International Conference on Complex Systems, 2012
    Co-Authors: Pierre Bricage
    Abstract:

    The holistic approach of the description of a living System is based on the concept that the System participates not only to its evolution but also to that of all the sub-Systems it contains and all the Systems of which it is a sub-System (Fig. 1). No System can be defined as an independent, organizationally closed space but rather as an independent, autonomous closed “time and timer“. Its time modularity is revealed by rhythms at different scales. The clocks of the System result from recalls of both external and internal time information. The watches, clocks and calendars, which are the actors of endogenous rhythms, are built as a result of the memorization of past responses of interaction (phase shift delays, entrainments, breakages) between its endophysiotope and ecoexotope. The System needs to be both a clock-maker, a watch-maker and a wake-maker. So modeling has to take into account “simultaneously“ the concepts of [1] — temporal window: "Before the time, that is not the time. After the time, this no longer is the time.", — time latency and time shifting: "It is necessary to give some time to the time.", — compartmentation of the time: "There is a time for each event. And each event is located into its time place.", — nonlinearity and non-summation: "The temporal Whole is both more and less than the sum of its Parts." and — interactions between time and space: “The arrow of the time structures the clocks of living Systems. But, the living Systems structure back the arrow of their time.“ [2]. Calendars are tools for forecasting gates (allowed time zones of a cycle through which an event may emerge) and fixing a time horizon (a fixed point in the future at which a processes will be evaluated or be assumed to end or start). The time knowledge needs the design by the living System of a range of skills and tools used to manage time when accomplishing specific tasks to survive. It appears that timelines are designed as ellipses, projected on a plan or a Moebius strip, labeled with dates alongside and events labeled on the points where they would have happened. The emergence of a new blueprint runs through the juxtaposition and embedment of previous Systems. The new time Whole is both more and less than the sum of its Parts (Table 1), it merges through the simultaneous metamorphoses of the Parts into the Whole. But each subSystem maintains its space-time identity into the Whole of which it is a partner. The partial autonomy of each partner is allowed through the maintenance of individual or collective, spatial and temporal boundaries. These interfaces structure the spatial and temporal integration of the parts into the endophysiotope (ENDO) of their whole, and of the whole into the ecoexotope (EXO) of its survival. The transition from one level of organization to an adjacent and superior one is the result of the building of a new, spatial and temporal, network. In this new orderly spaced-timed System all braces are allowed and each partner owns a special place, both through the time and into the space. The integration of the parts, and simultaneously of the whole, merges through the building of Associations for the Reciprocal and Mutual Sharing of Advantages and DisAdvantages (http://armsada.eu). This allows, in a no-change ecoexotope (Fig. 6), the maintenance of both the requisite variety of the partners and the unity of the whole [3]. If changes of the endophysiotope or ecoexotope, this is the only way to make a new networking mode of organization and integration. These associations merge through the interactive fitness between the capacity "to welcome" of the ecoexotope and the capacity "to be welcomed" of the endophysiotope of each parcener. Failures of medical treatments and pathological processes can be explained in terms of “irregularities” or breakages of the time architecture. Inside a System, the time can stop, move with different speeds, jump from one step to another, but it will never turn back. When a step is in the past you need to turn forward a complete cycle to reach it again (anthocyanin adaptive synthesis, asthma crises, rhythms of peroxidase capacities, glycaemia regulation, awakenings times, forest equilibrium). (10 figures, 2 tables)

Jean-louis Ermine - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Modèle théorique et formel d'un système de gestion de connaissances
    2006
    Co-Authors: Jean-louis Ermine
    Abstract:

    Knowledge management is now a huge domain, where it is difficult to have a clear view of the manipulated concepts and their crossed-relations. The development of that domain requires now a theoretical framework including concepts from various theories as Knowledge Economy, Information Systems, Knowledge theories (in particular Nonaka's Theory), Communities of practice (Wenger's Theory), General System Theory, Semiotic, Information Theory, Knowledge Worker concept ...This paper is an attempt to provide sound basis for such a framework, with a mathematical formalism. The formalism is inspired by the one used in Information System Theory, based on General System Theory (OID Model). The proposed model is structured by the set of networks (or communities) of Knowledge Workers, A, the Information System, I, and the Knowledge Capital, K (AIK model). Different morphisms, functions and operators provide classical KM links (or knowledge flows) and KM combinations for those subSystems.

  • A theoretical and formal model for knowledge management Systems
    2005
    Co-Authors: Jean-louis Ermine
    Abstract:

    Knowledge management is now a huge domain, where it is difficult to have a clear view of the manipulated concepts and their crossed-relations. The development of that domain requires now a theoretical framework including concepts from various theories as Knowledge Economy, Information Systems, Knowledge theories (in particular Nonaka's Theory), Communities of practice (Wenger's Theory), General System Theory, Semiotic, Information Theory, Knowledge Worker concept This paper is an attempt to provide sound basis for such a framework, with a mathematical formalism. The formalism is inspired by the one used in Information System Theory, based on General System Theory (OID Model). The proposed model is structured by the set of networks (or communities) of Knowledge Workers, A, the Information System, I, and the Knowledge Capital, K (AIK model). Different morphisms, functions and operators provide classical KM links (or knowledge flows) and KM combinations for those subSystems.