Μοντελοποίηση και αναπαράσταση πολιτισμικής πληροφορίας: Έμφαση στην αναπαράσταση εθνογραφικών δεδομένων

Peponakis, Manolis Μοντελοποίηση και αναπαράσταση πολιτισμικής πληροφορίας: Έμφαση στην αναπαράσταση εθνογραφικών δεδομένων., 2025 PhD thesis, Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο. [Thesis]

[thumbnail of PhD text]
Preview
 Text (PhD text)
Peponakis_PhD.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (3MB) | Preview

English abstract

The relationship between social anthropology and computer science extends in two dimensions. On the one hand, it concerns how anthropology studies technology as a cultural process; on the other hand, it concerns how anthropology uses technology to fulfil its purpose. In the former case, i.e. how anthropology studies technology as a cultural process, concepts such as digital ethnography, netnography, and virtual ethnography are introduced. Regarding the second dimension, namely the use of computer science as a tool or methodological instrument for anthropology, the term ‘computational anthropology’ is introduced. It should be noted that both dimensions are subfields of social anthropology. The first is self-evident, but the second is also part of social anthropology because any computational science is, by definition, part of that science, even though progress in this area requires collaboration with computer scientists. The dissertation deals with the second dimension. The main research question can be summarized as follows: how does anthropology leverage computer science and information science, and specifically, how could semantic web technologies contribute to optimizing this usage or creating new uses? Within this framework, three main goals have been set for the dissertation. The first is to provide an extended overview of the relationship between computer science and anthropology, focusing on how computer science is used by anthropology to achieve its objectives. The second goal, after demonstrating the fundamental role of natural language as a means of representing anthropological research, is to present artificial languages that are concept-centric rather than text-centric and suitable for representing ethnographic data and anthropological knowledge. The analysis includes the evaluation of specific knowledge organization systems and knowledge representation techniques in terms of their suitability for use in anthropology. The third goal is to present the basic principles for representing knowledge in the semantic web in general and focus on capturing anthropological knowledge in particular, outlining the basic prerequisites. In attempting to achieve these goals, the study takes an interdisciplinary approach, aiming to reconcile three different scientific areas: social anthropology, computer science, and information science. The latter primarily concerns its contribution to the organization and representation of knowledge. All of the above is contextualized within the framework of open science, where both the data being processed and the conclusions derived from them can be encoded using open standards and made interoperable with other data As the research preceding the writing of this dissertation was interdisciplinary, the diversity of scientific fields contributed to an increase in the methods used in different phases of the research, as well as potential combinations of methods. The dissertation begins with Grounded Theory a general methodology that allows theories to be developed based on systematically collected and analyzed data. In this dissertation, the data comprise studies, texts, software, information systems, ontologies, knowledge organization systems, and data structures. To integrate these into a whole, the meta-synthesis method was deployed. This study seeks to integrate the results from a series of different—yet interconnected—studies, software, data structures, etc., into a functional whole. However, it takes more of an interpretative rather than a comprehensive view. Thus, it concludes with what is called critical interpretive synthesis. Within this methodological and interpretive framework, the study proceeded in two main components to effectively meet its goal. On the one hand, it examined issues related to using computer science to assist anthropologists in processing their data and drawing conclusions from it. On the other hand, it examined ways to capture these conclusions in a machine-readable manner. For the study of the first component (i.e., how we can draw conclusions), methods and tools that can assist in this process were examined, ranging from databases to qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS), as well as automatic inference systems, focusing on Prolog as a tool for studying kinship. The analysis showed that there is a continuous transition from using computers as simple tools for metrics to using computer science as a tool for developing new methods for analyzing many different types of data—not necessarily quantitative— to assist in drawing evidence-based conclusions. Despite disagreements within the anthropological community, it also became apparent that there is a clear shift towards utilizing digital data for conducting anthropological research. To study the second component, which concerns how analytical conclusions and acquired knowledge can be captured regardless of their origin, knowledge organization systems and knowledge representation techniques were examined, with a focus on semantic web technologies. This examination challenges the exclusive use of natural language in recording anthropological research results by investigating computational representations suitable for ethnographic data and anthropological knowledge. It was demonstrated that natural language is not the only alternative for representing ethnographic data and anthropological knowledge. The environment of knowledge graphs and the semantic web also provides fertile ground for their representation. The dissertation concluded by proposing a model that allows for the creation of two levels of integration. The first level concerns the description of a culture (with the risk of oversimplification, let's call this Ethnography), while the second level (again with the risk of oversimplification, let's call this Social Anthropology) allows for generalization and effectively contributes to comparative anthropology. The proposed ontological representation does what anthropology (should) do: it explicitly clarifies what underlies the knowledge within individuals. In other words, representing knowledge through ontologies aligns with social anthropology in that it attempts to document what is already known within a group of individuals in a clear and scientific manner and use this documentation to draw conclusions by interpreting the knowledge it has captured.

Greek abstract

Η σχέση της Κοινωνικής Ανθρωπολογίας με την Πληροφορική εκτείνεται σε δύο διαστάσεις. Από τη μία, αναφορικά με το πώς η Ανθρωπολογία μελετά την τεχνολογία ως πολιτισμική διαδικασία, και από την άλλη, σχετικά με το πώς η Ανθρωπολογία χρησιμοποιεί την τεχνολογία για να επιτελέσει τον σκοπό της. Για την πρώτη περίπτωση, δηλαδή για το πώς η Ανθρωπολογία μελετά την τεχνολογία ως πολιτισμική διαδικασία, εισάγονται έννοιες όπως Ψηφιακή Εθνογραφία (Digital Ethnography), Netnography και Εικονική Εθνογραφία (Virtual Ethnography). Αναφορικά με τη δεύτερη διάσταση της επίδρασης, δηλαδή εκείνη της χρήσης της Πληροφορικής ως εργαλειακό μέσο ή ως μεθοδολογικό εργαλείο για την ανθρωπολογία, εισάγεται ο όρος Υπολογιστική Ανθρωπολογία (Computational Anthropology). Σημειώνεται ότι και οι δύο διαστάσεις αποτελούν υποκλάδους της Κοινωνικής Ανθρωπολογίας. Για την πρώτη προφανώς είναι αυτονόητο, όμως και η δεύτερη αποτελεί τομέα της Κοινωνικής Ανθρωπολογίας διότι κάθε Χ υπολογιστική επιστήμη είναι, εξ ορισμού, τμήμα αυτής της Χ-επιστήμης, παρότι για την ανάπτυξή της είναι απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση η συνέργεια των ατόμων που την υπηρετούν με την Πληροφορική. Η παρούσα διατριβή ασχολείται με την δεύτερη αυτή διάσταση. Το βασικό ερευνητικό ερώτημα θα μπορούσε να συμπυκνωθεί ως εξής: πώς η ανθρωπολογία αξιοποιεί την πληροφορική και την επιστήμη της πληροφορίας και, ειδικότερα, πώς οι τεχνολογίες του σημασιολογικού ιστού θα μπορούσαν να συμβάλλουν είτε στη βελτιστοποίηση αυτής της χρήσης είτε στην δημιουργία νέων χρήσεων. Μέσα σε αυτό το πλαίσιο τίθενται τρεις κύριοι στόχοι για την διατριβή. Πρώτος στόχος: να παρέχει μια αναλυτική επισκόπηση της σχέσης της πληροφορικής με την ανθρωπολογία, εστιάζοντας στο πώς η πληροφορική χρησιμοποιείται από την ανθρωπολογία ώστε η δεύτερη να επιτύχει τους σκοπούς της. Δεύτερος στόχος: αφού καταδείξει το θεμελιώδη ρόλο της φυσικής γλώσσας ως μέσο αναπαράστασης της ανθρωπολογικής έρευνας, να παρουσιάσει τεχνητές γλώσσες -όχι κειμενοκεντρικές αλλά εννοιοκεντρικές- κατάλληλες για την αναπαράσταση των εθνογραφικών δεδομένων και της ανθρωπολογικής γνώσης. Τρίτος στόχος: να παρουσιάσει τις βασικές αρχές για την αναπαράσταση της γνώσης στο σημασιολογικό ιστό (γενικώς) και να εστιάσει στην αποτύπωση της ανθρωπολογικής γνώσης (ειδικώς) σκιαγραφώντας τις βασικές προϋποθέσεις. Επιχειρώντας να υλοποιήσει τους παραπάνω στόχους εφαρμόζει μια διεπιστημονική προσέγγιση, η οποία επιθυμεί να συγκεράσει τρεις διαφορετικές επιστημονικές περιοχές: την κοινωνική ανθρωπολογία, την πληροφορική και την επιστήμη της πληροφορίας. Την τελευταία κυρίως ως προς την συμβολή της στην οργάνωση και την αναπαράσταση της γνώσης. Όλα τα παραπάνω νοηματοδοτούνται μέσα στα πλαίσια της ανοικτής επιστήμης όπου τόσα τα δεδομένα που υπόκεινται σε επεξεργασία όσο και τα συμπεράσματα που προκύπτουν από αυτά μπορούν να κωδικοποιηθούν με τη χρήση ανοικτών προτύπων και να διαλειτουργήσουν με άλλα δεδομένα. Με δεδομένο ότι η έρευνα που προηγήθηκε της συγγραφής του κειμένου της διατριβής ήταν διεπιστημονική, η πολυσυλλεκτικότητα των επιστημονικών τομέων συνέτεινε στην αύξηση των μεθόδων που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν στις διαφορετικές φάσεις της έρευνας, αλλά και στους δυνητικούς συνδυασμούς μεθόδων. Η διατριβή έχει ως σημείο εκκίνησης τη θεμελιωμένη θεωρία (Grounded Theory). Η θεμελιωμένη θεωρία είναι μια γενική μεθοδολογία η οποία επιτρέπει την ανάπτυξη θεωριών οι οποίες θεμελιώνονται σε δεδομένα τα οποία έχουν συλλεχθεί και αναλυθεί με συστηματικό τρόπο. Στην περίπτωση όμως της συγκεκριμένης διατριβής τα δεδομένα είναι μελέτες, κείμενα, λογισμικά, πληροφοριακά συστήματα, οντολογίες, συστήματα οργάνωσης της γνώσης και δομές δεδομένων. Για να ενταχθούν αυτά σε ένα σύνολο ακολουθήθηκε η μέθοδος της μετα-σύνθεσης (meta-synthesis). η παρούσα μελέτη επιχειρεί να εντάξει σε ένα λειτουργικό σύνολο τα αποτελέσματα από μια σειρά διαφορετικών -αλλά αλληλένδετων- μελετών, λογισμικών, δομών δεδομένων κτλ. Όμως υποστηρίζει μάλλον μια ερμηνευτική παρά μια συγκεντρωτική αντίληψη. Έτσι καταλήγει σε αυτό που ονομάζεται κριτική ερμηνευτική σύνθεση (critical interpretive synthesis). Μέσα αυτό το μεθοδολογικό και ερμηνευτικό πλαίσιο, και για την αποτελεσματική κάλυψη του στόχου της, η μελέτη κινήθηκε σε δύο βασικές συνιστώσες: από τη μία εξέτασε ζητήματα που αφορούν στη χρήση της πληροφορικής ώστε να βοηθηθούν οι ανθρωπολόγοι στην επεξεργασία των δεδομένων τους και την εξαγωγή συμπερασμάτων από αυτά, ενώ από την άλλη εξέτασε τρόπους για την αποτύπωση αυτών των συμπερασμάτων με μηχαναγνώσιμο τρόπο. Για τη μελέτη της πρώτης συνιστώσας (δηλαδή το πώς μπορούμε να καταλήξουμε σε συμπεράσματα) εξέτασε μεθόδους και εργαλεία που μπορούν να λειτουργήσουν επικουρικά για την εξαγωγή συμπερασμάτων: από βάσεις δεδομένων έως λογισμικά ποιοτικής ανάλυσης δεδομένων (CAQDAS), αλλά και συστήματα αυτόματης συνεπαγωγής, εστιάζοντας στην Prolog ως μέσο μελέτης της συγγένειας. Η ανάλυση έδειξε ότι υπάρχει μια συνεχιζόμενη μετάβαση από τη χρήση των υπολογιστών ως απλά εργαλεία μετρήσεων στη χρήση της πληροφορικής ως εργαλείο ανάπτυξης νέων μεθόδων για την ανάλυση πολλών διαφορετικών τύπων δεδομένων -και όχι κατ’ ανάγκη αριθμητικών- ώστε να συνδράμει στην εξαγωγή τεκμηριωμένων συμπερασμάτων. Επίσης έγινε εμφανές ότι, παρά τις διαφωνίες μέρους της κοινότητας των ανθρωπολόγων, υπάρχει μια σαφής στροφή προς την αξιοποίηση των ψηφιακών δεδομένων για την διεξαγωγή της ανθρωπολογικής έρευνας. Για τη μελέτη της δεύτερης συνιστώσας (δηλαδή για το πώς μπορούν να αποτυπωθούν τα συμπεράσματα της ανάλυσης, ήτοι η αποκτηθείσα γνώση ανεξάρτητα από τον τρόπο που αυτή έχει αποκτηθεί) εξέτασε -εφαρμόζοντας, μεταξύ άλλων, τεχνικές επεξεργασίας φυσικής γλώσσας- συστήματα οργάνωσης και αναπαράστασης γνώσης με γνώμονα τις τεχνολογίες του σημασιολογικού ιστού και, αμφισβήτησε τη φυσική γλώσσα ως αποκλειστικό μέσο για την αποτύπωση των αποτελεσμάτων της ανθρωπολογικής έρευνας, διερευνώντας υπολογιστικές κωδικοποιήσεις και αναπαραστάσεις που είναι κατάλληλες για τα εθνογραφικά δεδομένα και την ανθρωπολογική γνώση. Κατέδειξε ότι η φυσική γλώσσα δεν είναι η μόνη εναλλακτική για την αναπαράσταση των εθνογραφικών δεδομένων και της ανθρωπολογικής γνώσης. Το περιβάλλον των γράφων γνώσης και του σημασιολογικού ιστού αποτελεί, επίσης, πρόσφορο έδαφος για την αποτύπωσή τους. Η διατριβή κατέληξε προτείνοντας ένα μοντέλο που επιτρέπει την δημιουργία δύο επιπέδων ολοκλήρωσης (integration). Το πρώτο επίπεδο αφορά στην περιγραφή ενός πολιτισμού (με κίνδυνο υπεραπλούστευσης, ας το ονομάσουμε Εθνογραφία), ενώ το δεύτερο επίπεδο (πάλι με κίνδυνο υπεραπλούστευσης, ας το ονομάσουμε Κοινωνική Ανθρωπολογία) επιτρέπει τη γενίκευση και συμβάλει αποτελεσματικά στη συγκριτική ανθρωπολογία. Η οντολογική αναπαράσταση που προτείνεται κάνει αυτό που (θα έπρεπε να) κάνει και η Ανθρωπολογία: διασαφηνίζει ρητά αυτό που υποβόσκει ως γνώση στα άτομα. Με άλλα λόγια η αναπαράσταση της γνώσης, μέσω οντολογιών, προσιδιάζει με την κοινωνική ανθρωπολογία στο σημείο του ότι προσπαθεί να καταγράψει, με σαφή και επιστημονικό τρόπο, τα όσα ήδη είναι γνωστά σε μια ομάδα ατόμων και να χρησιμοποιήσει αυτή την καταγραφή για να βγάλει συμπεράσματα ερμηνεύοντας τη γνώση που κατέγραψε.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: Knowledge representation Computational anthropology Semantic web Knowledge graphs Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) Ontologies Modeling ethnographic data Computational ethnography Natural Language Processing (NLP) Artificial intelligence (AI) Interoperability Open science Αναπαράσταση γνώσης Υπολογιστική ανθρωπολογία Σημασιολογικός Ιστός Γράφοι γνώσης Συστήματα Οργάνωσης Γνώσης (ΣΟΓ) Οντολογίες Μοντελοποίηση εθνογραφικών δεδομένων Υπολογιστική εθνογραφία Επεξεργασία φυσικής γλώσσας Τεχνητή νοημοσύνη Διαλειτουργικότητα Ανοικτή επιστήμη
Subjects: I. Information treatment for information services > ID. Knowledge representation.
I. Information treatment for information services > IL. Semantic web
L. Information technology and library technology
Depositing user: Manolis Peponakis
Date deposited: 25 Feb 2026 18:00
Last modified: 25 Feb 2026 18:00
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/47690

References

Γκέφου-Μαδιανού, Δ. (1998). Αναστοχασμός, ετερότητα και ανθρωπολογία οίκοι: Διλήμματα και αντιπαραθέσεις. Στο Ανθρωπολογική θεωρία και Εθνογραφία: Σύγχρονες τάσεις (4η έκδ., σελ. 365–435). Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

Θεωρία πληροφορίας. (2023). Στο Βικιπαίδεια. https://el.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%98%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82&oldid=9964643

Καπιδάκης, Σ., Πεπονάκης, Μ., & Doerr, M. (2024). Τεκμηρίωση μουσειακών συλλογών: Μεταδεδομένα για αντικείμενα πολιτισμικής κληρονομιάς. Κάλλιπος, Ανοικτές Ακαδημαϊκές Εκδόσεις. http://dx.doi.org/10.57713/kallipos-955

Μάστορα, Ά. (2016). Συμβολή στη Μελέτη της Εννοιολογικής Συσχέτισης των Όρων που Χρησιμοποιούνται από τους Χρήστες κατά τη Σύνθεση και Ανασύνθεση Ερωτημάτων σε Ψηφιακές Βιβλιοθήκες [Διδακτορική Διατριβή]. Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο. Τμήμα Αρχειονομίας και Βιβλιοθηκονομίας (ΤΑΒ).

Μήτρου, Λ. (Επιμ.). (2023). Μπορεί ο αλγόριθμος... Να είναι ηθικός, να είναι δίκαιος, να είναι διαφανής, να δικάζει & να διοικεί. Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης.

Παναγιωτίδης, Φ. (2014). Μίλα μου για γλώσσα: Μικρή εισαγωγή στη γλωσσολογία. Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης.

Παπαηλία, Π., & Πετρίδης, Π. (2015). Ψηφιακή εθνογραφία. Κάλλιπος, Ανοικτές Ακαδημαϊκές Εκδόσεις. https://repository.kallipos.gr/handle/11419/6117

Τουντασάκη, Ε. (2008). Ανθρωπολογικές θεωρήσεις της συγγένειας κατά τον 20ό αιώνα. Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

Τουντασάκη, Ε. (2015). ‘Το παιδί που μεγαλώνει μέσα σου θα πάρει κι από σένα’: Δωρεά ωαρίων, μητρότητα και συγγένεια. Πατάκης.

Τουντασάκη, Ε. (2022). Διακρατική/διαφυλετική υιοθεσία: ‘ήπια μετανάστευση’ και νέες χωρογραφίες της συγγένειας. Εκδόσεις Πατάκη.

Χατζηβασιλείου, Γ. (2023). Φιλοσοφία της τεχνητής νοημοσύνης: Ένα ταξίδι στο μέλλον. Διόπτρα.

Abrams, M. H. (2014). Τι είναι μια ανθρωπιστική κριτική; (Ά. Μπερλής, Μτφ.). ΜΙΕΤ.

Abramson, C. M., & Dohan, D. (2015). Beyond Text: Using Arrays to Represent and Analyze Ethnographic Data. Sociological Methodology, 45(1), 272–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175015578740

Abramson, C. M., Joslyn, J., Rendle, K. A., Garrett, S. B., & Dohan, D. (2018). The promises of computational ethnography: Improving transparency, replicability, and validity for realist approaches to ethnographic analysis. Ethnography, 19(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117725340

Abreu, S. C. de, & Vieira, R. (2017). RelP: Portuguese Open Relation Extraction. Knowledge Organization, 44(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-3-163

Acker, A. (2015). Toward a Hermeneutics of Data. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 37(3), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2015.68

Aitchison, J., & Clarke, S. D. (2004). The Thesaurus: A Historical Viewpoint, with a Look to the Future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 37(3–4), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v37n03_02

Albris, K., Otto, E. I., Astrupgaard, S. L., Gregersen, E. M., Jørgensen, L. S., Jørgensen, O., Sandbye, C. R., & Schønning, S. (2021). A view from anthropology: Should anthropologists fear the data machines? Big Data & Society, 8(2), 20539517211043655. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211043655

Alexiev, B., & Marksbury, N. (2010). Terminology as Organized Knowledge. Στο C. Gnoli & F. Mazzocchi (Επιμ.), Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010, Rome, Italy (σελ. 363–370). Ergon.

Alexiev, V., Isaac, A., & Lindenthal, J. (2016). On the composition of ISO 25964 hierarchical relations (BTG, BTP, BTI). International Journal on Digital Libraries, 17(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-015-0162-2

Alvard, M., & Carlson, D. (2020). Identifying Patch Types Using Movement Data from Artisanal Fishers from the Commonwealth of Dominica. Current Anthropology, 61(3), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1086/708720

Anderson, A., Chilczuk, S., Nelson, K., Ruther, R., & Wall-Scheffler, C. (2023). The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s contribution to the hunt across ethnographic contexts. PLOS ONE, 18(6), e0287101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287101

Androutsopoulos, I., Lampouras, G., & Galanis, D. (2013). Generating Natural Language Descriptions from OWL Ontologies: The NaturalOWL System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48, 671–715. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4017

Anticoli, L., & Toppano, E. (2011a). How culture may influence ontology co-design: A qualitative study. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering, 6(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/jitwe.2011040101

Anticoli, L., & Toppano, E. (2011b). The role of culture in collaborative ontology design. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Intelligent Semantic Web-Services and Applications, 4:1-4:9. https://doi.org/10.1145/1980822.1980826

Antonijević, S. (2020). Digital Workflow in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Data Ethnography. Στο J. W. Crowder, M. Fortun, R. Besara, & L. Poirier (Επιμ.), Anthropological Data in the Digital Age: New Possibilities – New Challenges (σελ. 59–83). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24925-0_4

Antoniou, G., & Van Harmelen, F. (2008). A Semantic Web Primer (2ed ed.). MIT Press.

Applin, S. A., & Fischer, M. D. (2015). New technologies and mixed-use convergence: How humans and algorithms are adapting to each other. 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2015.7439436

Arnold, T., & Fuller, H. J. A. (2018). In Search of the User’s Language: Natural Language Processing, Computational Ethnography, and Error-Tolerant Interface Design. Advances in Usability, User Experience and Assistive Technology, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94947-5_4

Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Artmann, S. (2010). Computers and Anthropology. Στο J. H. Birx (Επιμ.), 21st century anthropology: A reference handbook (σελ. 915–924). Sage.

Assael, Y., Sommerschield, T., Cooley, A., Shillingford, B., Pavlopoulos, J., Suresh, P., Herms, B., Grayston, J., Maynard, B., Dietrich, N., Wulgaert, R., Prag, J., Mullen, A., & Mohamed, S. (2025). Contextualizing ancient texts with generative neural networks. Nature, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09292-5

Asuncion, C. H., & van Sinderen, M. J. (2010). Pragmatic Interoperability: A Systematic Review of Published Definitions. Στο P. Bernus, G. Doumeingts, & M. Fox (Επιμ.), Enterprise Architecture, Integration and Interoperability (σελ. 164–175). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15509-3_15

Athanasiou, S., Amiridis, V., Gavriilidou, M., Evangelos Gerasopoulos, Alexandros Dimopoulos, Georgina Kaklamani, Fotis Karagiannis, Iraklis Klampanos, Dimitra Kondili, Kostas Koumantaros, Panos Konstantopoulos, Katerina Lenaki, Angelos Likiardopoulos, Natalia Manola, Despoina Mitropoulou, Agiatis Benardou, Nikolaos Boukos, Alexandros Nousias, Maria Daoudaki, … Fotis Psomopoulos. (2020). Εθνικό σχέδιο για την ανοικτή επιστήμη = National Plan for Open Science. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3908953

Ayimdji, A., Koussoubé, S., Fotso, L. P., & Konfé, B. O. (2011). Towards a “Deep” Ontology for African Traditional Medicine. Intelligent Information Management, 03, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2011.36030

Baker, T., Bechhofer, S., Isaac, A., Miles, A., Schreiber, G., & Summers, E. (2013). Key choices in the design of Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 20, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2013.05.001

Bakharia, A., & Corrin, L. (2019). Using Recent Advances in Contextual Word Embeddings to Improve the Quantitative Ethnography Workflow. Στο B. Eagan, M. Misfeldt, & A. Siebert-Evenstone (Επιμ.), Advances in Quantitative Ethnography (σελ. 299–306). Springer International Publishing.

Balakireva, L., & Balakirev, F. (2022). Making FAIR Practices Accessible and Attractive. Στο G. Silvello, O. Corcho, P. Manghi, G. M. Di Nunzio, K. Golub, N. Ferro, & A. Poggi (Επιμ.), Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (σελ. 417–424). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_41

Barkhatova, L. A. (2023). The computational analysis of digital traces in ethnographic studies of online communities. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 160(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/07591063231196161

Barley, N. (2005). Ο ανυποψίαστος ανθρωπολόγος: Σημειώσεις σε μία χωμάτινη καλύβα (Μ. Μπονάτσου & Α. Μπουκάλα, Επιμ.; Γ. Σεφερλής, Μτφ.). Αιώρα.

Bartlett, A., Lewis, J., Reyes-Galindo, L., & Stephens, N. (2018). The locus of legitimate interpretation in Big Data sciences: Lessons for computational social science from -omic biology and high-energy physics. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 2053951718768831. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718768831

Bean, C. A., Green, R., & Myaeng, S. H. (2002). Introduction. Στο R. Green, C. A. Bean, & S. H. Myaeng (Επιμ.), The Semantics of Relationships (σελ. vii–xvi). Springer Netherlands.

Beaulieu, A. (2017). Vectors for Fieldwork: Computational Thinking and New Modes of Ethnography. Στο L. Hjorth, H. A. Horst, A. Galloway, & G. Bell (Επιμ.), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography (σελ. 29–39). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Companion-to-Digital-Ethnography-1st-Edition/Hjorth-Horst-Galloway-Bell/p/book/9781138940918

Behrens, C. A. (1990). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to the analysis of anthropological data: A new synthesis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 2(1), 305–328.

Behrens, C. A., & Read, D. W. (1993). Anthropology: Moving from task-driven to science-driven computing. Social Science Computer Review, 11(4), 429–451.

Bekiari, C., Bruseker, G., & Doerr, M. (2021). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model version 7.1.1 (σελ. 232). CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. https://www.cidoc-crm.org/version/version-7.1.1

Beller, S. (2001). A model theory of deontic reasoning about social norms. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 63–68.

Beller, S. (2008). Deontic norms, deontic reasoning, and deontic conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(4), 305–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780802222258

Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Interview with Tim Berners-Lee (B. Runciman) [Συνέντευξη]. https://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/25/interview-with-tim-berners-lee/

Bernstein, A., & Dohan, D. (2020). Using Computational Tools to Enhance Comparative Ethnography: Lessons from scaling ethnography for biomedicine. Στο Beyond the Case: The Logics and Practices of Comparative Ethnography (σελ. 209–237). Oxford University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190608484.003.0009

Beuving, J. J. (2020). Ethnography’s future in the big data era. Information, Communication & Society, 23(11), 1625–1639. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1602664

Bharwani, S. (2006). Understanding Complex Behavior and Decision Making Using Ethnographic Knowledge Elicitation Tools (KnETs). Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 78–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305282346

Bhuyan, B. P., Ramdane-Cherif, A., Tomar, R., & Singh, T. P. (2024). Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence: A survey. Neural Computing and Applications, 36(21), 12809–12844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-09960-z

Birx, J. H. (Επιμ.). (2010). 21st Century Anthropology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979283

Blair, D. (2006). Wittgenstein, Language and Information: ‘Back to the Rough Ground!’ (τ. 10). Springer.

Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human (New edition). Princeton University Press.

Borgatti, S. P. (1996). ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies. https://ay14-15.moodle.wisc.edu/prod/pluginfile.php/59450/mod_resource/content/0/APGUIDE6.doc

Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an Australian Aboriginal Community. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1635–1639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610386621

Borofsky, R. (2002). The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Mythmakers. American Anthropologist, 104(2), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.2.463

Bryda, G. (2020). From CAQDAS to Text Mining. The Domain Ontology as a Model of Knowledge Representation About Qualitative Research Practices. Στο A. P. Costa, L. P. Reis, & A. Moreira (Επιμ.), Computer Supported Qualitative Research (σελ. 72–88). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_6

Burns, P., McCormack, T., Jaroslawska, A. J., O’Connor, P. A., & Caruso, E. M. (2019). Time Points: A Gestural Study of the Development of Space–Time Mappings. Cognitive Science, 43(12), e12801. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12801

Burton, M. L. (1970). Computer applications in cultural anthropology. Computers and the Humanities, 5(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404256

Burton, M. L. (1973). Recent computer applications in cultural anthropology. Computers and the Humanities, 7(6), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02395108

Caliandro, A. (2017). Digital Methods for Ethnography: Analytical Concepts for Ethnographers Exploring Social Media Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241617702960

Campos, M. L. de A., & Gomes, H. E. (2017). Ontology: Several Theories on the Representation of Knowledge Domains. Knowledge Organization, 44(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-3-178

Carlson, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). What Are Data? The Many Kinds of Data and Their Implications for Data Re-Use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00342.x

Chang, R. M., Kauffman, R. J., & Kwon, Y. (2014). Understanding the paradigm shift to computational social science in the presence of big data. Decision Support Systems, 63, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.08.008

Chansanam, W., Nguyen, L. T., Li, C., & Guan, C. K. S. (2025). Semantic Knowledge Graphs for Intercultural and Ethnographic Diversity in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 25(3), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v25i3.1161

Chantas, G., Karavarsamis, S., Nikolopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, I. (2018). A Probabilistic, Ontological Framework for Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 12:1-12:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131610

Charles, V., & Gherman, T. (2018). Big Data Analytics and Ethnography: Together for the Greater Good. Στο Big Data for the Greater Good (σελ. 19–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93061-9_2

Chi, Y.-L., Sung, H.-Y., & Lien, Y.-Y. (2020). Towards the Ethnic Understanding of Taiwanese Indigenous Peoples: A Mashup Based on Semantic Web and Open Data. Στο P.-L. P. Rau (Επιμ.), Cross-Cultural Design. User Experience of Products, Services, and Intelligent Environments (σελ. 287–297). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49788-0_21

Christin, A. (2020a). Algorithmic ethnography, during and after COVID-19. Communication and the Public, 2057047320959850. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320959850

Christin, A. (2020b). The ethnographer and the algorithm: Beyond the black box. Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09411-3

Chung, H. (2006). GlobalMind: Bridging the gap between different cultures and languages with common-sense computing [Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37388

Chung, H., & Lieberman, H. (2007). GlobalMind: Automated analysis of cultural contexts with multicultural common-sense computing. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.4018/jswis.2007010104

Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2016). Bigger Computational Social Science: Data, Theories, Models, and Simulations -- Not Just Big Data (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2784278; σελ. 1–5). Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2784278

Clarke, S. D. (2001). Thesaural Relationships. Στο C. A. Bean & R. Green (Επιμ.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (σελ. 37–52). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9696-1_11

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Επιμ.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press.

Cliggett, L. (2013). Qualitative Data Archiving in the Digital Age: Strategies for Data Preservation and Sharing. The Qualitative Report, 18(24), 1–11.

Combi, M. (1992). The imaginary, the computer, artificial intelligence: A cultural anthropological approach. AI & Society, 6(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472768

Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed). University of Chicago Press.

Cukier, K., & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The Rise of Big Data: How it’s Changing the Way We Think about the World. Foreign Affairs, 92, 28–40.

Curran, J. (2013). Big Data or ‘Big Ethnographic Data’? Positioning Big Data within the ethnographic space. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2013(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-8918.2013.00006.x

Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/701478

Davis, R., Shrobe, H., & Szolovits, P. (1993). What is a Knowledge Representation? AI Magazine, 14(1), 17–33.

De Giorgis, S., Gangemi, A., & Damiano, R. (2022). Basic Human Values and Moral Foundations Theory in ValueNet Ontology. Στο O. Corcho, L. Hollink, O. Kutz, N. Troquard, & F. J. Ekaputra (Επιμ.), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (σελ. 3–18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17105-5_1

de Koning, M., Meyer, B., Moors, A., & Pels, P. (2019). Guidelines for anthropological research: Data management, ethics and integrity. Ethnography, 20(2), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138119843312

Decoteau, C. L. (2017). The AART of Ethnography: A Critical Realist Explanatory Research Model. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12107

Delli Paoli, A., & D’Auria, V. (2025). The Digitalization of Ethnography: A Scoping Review of Methods in Netnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, [in press]. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416251342795

Doerr, M. (2001). Semantic Problems of Thesaurus Mapping. Journal of Digital Information, 1(8). http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/31/32

Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. AI Magazine, 24(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720

Doerr, M. (2005). Modelling Learning Subjects as Relationships. Στο G. Grieser & Y. Tanaka (Επιμ.), Intuitive Human Interfaces for Organizing and Accessing Intellectual Assets (τ. 3359, σελ. 201–214). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32279-5_14

Doerr, M. (2025). Identifiable Individuals and Reality: Describing the Past by Formal Propositions. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 3715011. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715011

Doerr, M., & Iorizzo, D. (2008). The dream of a global knowledge network: A new approach. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 1(1), 5:1-5:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/1367080.1367085

Dohan, D., & Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (1998). Using Computers to Analyze Ethnographic Field Data: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 477–498. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.477

Dourish, P., & Gómez Cruz, E. (2018). Datafication and data fiction: Narrating data and narrating with data. Big Data & Society, 5(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718784083

Edwards, J., & Kaimal, G. (2016). Using meta-synthesis to support application of qualitative methods findings in practice: A discussion of meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, and critical interpretive synthesis. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 51, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2016.07.003

Ekbia, H. R., & Nardi, B. A. (2018). From Form to Content. Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 360–367. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca33.3.02

Ember, C. R. (2007). Using the HRAF Collection of Ethnography in Conjunction With the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample and the Ethnographic Atlas. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(4), 396–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397107306593

Emeneau, M. B. (Murray B. (1941). Language And Social Forms: A Study Of Toda Kinship And Dual Descent. Στο Language, Culture And Personality: Essays In Memory Of Edward Sapir (σελ. 158–179). Sapir Memorial Publication Fund. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=aw60-012

Emmelhainz, C. (2014). Controlled Vocabulary Standards for Anthropological Datasets. International Journal of Digital Curation, 9(1), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.290

Engerer, V. (2017). Control and syntagmatization: Vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1480–1490. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23783

Everett, D. L. (2009). Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle. Vintage.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.

Feyerabend, P. (2009). Against method (3rd ed.). Verso.

Fischer, M. (2004). Integrating Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Culture: The “hard” and the “soft”. Cybernetics and Systems, 35(2–3), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969720490426830

Fischer, M. D. (χ.χ.). Representing Anthropological Knowledge: Calculating Kinship [Prolog]. Ανακτήθηκε 14 Απρίλιος 2025, από https://era.anthropology.ac.uk/Kinship/prolog.html

Fischer, M. D. (1994). Applications in Computing for Social Anthropologists (edition published in the Taylor&Francis e-Library, 2005). Routledge.

Fischer, M. D. (2006). Introduction: Configuring Anthropology. Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305282575

Fischer, M. D., & Ember, C. (2018). Big Data and Research Opportunities Using HRAF Databases. Στο C. Shu-Heng (Επιμ.), Big Data in Computational Social Science and Humanities. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95465-3_17

Fischer, M. D., & Finkelstein, A. (1991). Social knowledge representation: A case study. Στο N. Fielding & R. Lee (Επιμ.), Using computers in qualitative research (σελ. 119–135). SAGE.

Fischer, M. D., Lyon, S. M., Sosna, D., & Henig, D. (2013). Harmonizing Diversity Tuning Anthropological Research to Complexity. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312455311

Fortun, M., Fortun, K., & Marcus, G. E. (2017). Computers in/and anthropology: The poetics and politics of digitization. Στο L. Hjorth, H. A. Horst, A. Galloway, & G. Bell (Επιμ.), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography (σελ. 11–20). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Companion-to-Digital-Ethnography-1st-Edition/Hjorth-Horst-Galloway-Bell/p/book/9781138940918

Foucault, M. (1986). Οι λέξεις και τα πράγματα: Μια αρχαιολογία των επιστημών του ανθρώπου. Γνώση.

Frické, M. (2019). The Knowledge Pyramid: The DIKW Hierarchy. Knowledge Organization, 46(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2019-1-33

Fuentes, A., & Wiessner, P. (2016). Reintegrating Anthropology: From Inside Out: An Introduction to Supplement 13. Current Anthropology, 57(S13), S3–S12. https://doi.org/10.1086/685694

Galeano, E. (2008). Καθρέφτες: Μια σχεδόν παγκόσμια ιστορία (Ι. Κανσή, Μτφ.). Πάπυρος Εκδοτικός Οργανισμός.

Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., & Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. Στο A. Gómez-Pérez & V. R. Benjamins (Επιμ.), Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web (σελ. 166–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_18

Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2024). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey (No. arXiv:2312.10997). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.10997

Geertz, C. (2003). Η ερμηνεία των πολιτισμών (Θ. Παραδέλλης, Μτφ.). Αλεξάνδρεια.

Geiger, R. S., & Ribes, D. (2011). Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through Documentary Practices. 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 1–10. https://dx.doi.org//10.1109/HICSS.2011.455

Goguen, J. A. Jr. (1974). Concept representation in natural and artificial languages: Axioms, extensions and applications for fuzzy sets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 6(5), 513–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(74)80017-9

Gorichanaz, T., & Latham, K. F. (2016). Document phenomenology: A framework for holistic analysis. Journal of Documentation, 72(6), 1114–1133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2016-0007

Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2022). The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Penguin.

Green, R. (2001). Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge: An Overview. Στο C. A. Bean & R. Green (Επιμ.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (σελ. 3–18). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9696-1_1

Green, R., & Panzer, M. (2011). Relations in the Notational Hierarchy of the Dewey Decimal Classification. Στο A. Slavic & E. Civallero (Επιμ.), Classification & ontology: Formal approaches and access to knowledge: Proceedings of the international UDC seminar 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, the Netherlands, organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague (σελ. 161–176). Ergon.

Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081

Gruber, T. R. (2007). Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(1), 1–11.

Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066

Hakken, D. (1993). Computing and Social Change: New Technology and Workplace Transformation, 1980-1990. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 107–132.

Haron, H., & Hamiz, M. (2014a). An Ontological Framework to Preserve Malay Indigenous Health Knowledge. Advanced Science Letters, 20(1), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2014.5261

Haron, H., & Hamiz, M. (2014b). An Ontological Model for Indigenous Knowledge of Malay Confinement Dietary. Journal of Software, 9(5), 1302–1312. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.9.5.1302-1312

Harper, C. A. (2006). Encoding Library of Congress Subject Headings in SKOS: Authority control for the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/842

Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5(1), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.05.100176.001553

Headland, T. N., Pike, K., & Harris, M. (Επιμ.). (1990). Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Heath, T., & Bizer, C. (2011). Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool.

Heiner-Freiling, M. (2000). Survey on Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1–2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_13

Henley, J. (2019, Ιούνιος 20). The Norwegian island that abolished time: ‘You can cut the lawn at 4am’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/sommaroy-island-norway-attempt-create-first-time-free-zone

Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hitzler, P., Eberhart, A., Ebrahimi, M., Sarker, M. K., & Zhou, L. (2022). Neuro-symbolic approaches in artificial intelligence. National Science Review, 9(6), nwac035. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwac035

Hjørland, B. (1992). The Concept of ‘Subject’ in Information Science. Journal of Documentation, 48(2), 172–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026895

Hjørland, B. (2009). Concept Theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1519–1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21082

Hjørland, B. (2012). Is Classification Necessary After Google? Journal of Documentation, 68(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225557

Hjørland, B., & Pedersen, K. N. (2005). A Substantive Theory of Classification for Information Retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510625804

Hoeppe, G. (2015). Representing Representation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(6), 1077–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915594025

Holbraad, M., & Pedersen, M. A. (2017). The Ontological Turn: An Anthropological Exposition. Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (Επιμ.). (1965). The Use of Computers in Anthropology (First Edition edition). Mouton.

Ingold, T. (2017). Anthropology contra ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.005

ISO. (2006). ISO 21127: Information and documentation: A reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. ISO.

ISO. (2011). ISO 25964-1: Information and documentation—Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval (No. ISO 25964-1:2011(E); σελ. 160). International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

ISO. (2023). ISO 21127: Information and documentation: A reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/85100.html

Jacob, E. K. (2004). Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a Difference. Library Trends, 52(3), 515–540.

Jain, P., Hitzler, P., Yeh, P. Z., Verma, K., & Sheth, A. (2010). Linked Data is merely more data. Στο D. Brickley, V. K. Chaudhri, H. Halpin, & D. McGuinness (Επιμ.), Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence (σελ. 82–86). AAAI Press. http://knoesis.wright.edu/library/publications/linkedai2010_submission_13.pdf

Johansson, I. (2008). Four Kinds of Is_a Relation. Στο K. Munn & B. Smith (Επιμ.), Applied Ontology: An Introduction (σελ. 235–254). De Gruyter.

Jupp, S., Bechhofer, S., & Stevens, R. (2009). SKOS with OWL: Don’t be full-ish! 432. Scopus.

Jürgens, P., Stark, B., & Magin, M. (2019). Two Half-Truths Make a Whole? On Bias in Self-Reports and Tracking Data. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439319831643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319831643

Karpouzis, K. (2025). AI, Digital Humanities, and the Legacies of Colonial Power (No. 2025021823). Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202502.1823.v1

Kelder, J.-A. (2005). Using Someone Else’s Data: Problems, Pragmatics and Provisions. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/501

Kemper, J., & Kolkman, D. (2018). Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1477967

Keuschnigg, M., Lovsjö, N., & Hedström, P. (2017). Analytical sociology and computational social science. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-017-0006-5

Kim, Y., & Adler, M. (2015). Social scientists’ data sharing behaviors: Investigating the roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.007

Kippen, J. (1988). On the Uses of Computers in Anthropological Research. Current Anthropology, 29(2), 317–320.

Kirby, K. R., Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J., Jordan, F. M., Gomes-Ng, S., Bibiko, H.-J., Blasi, D. E., Botero, C. A., Bowern, C., Ember, C. R., Leehr, D., Low, B. S., McCarter, J., Divale, W., & Gavin, M. C. (2016). D-PLACE: A Global Database of Cultural, Linguistic and Environmental Diversity. PLOS ONE, 11(7), e0158391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391

Kless, D., Jansen, L., & Milton, S. (2016). A content-focused method for re-engineering thesauri into semantically adequate ontologies using OWL. Semantic Web, 7(5), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-150194

Kless, D., Lindenthal, J., Milton, S., & Kazmierczak, E. (2011). Interoperability of knowledge organization systems with and through ontologies. Στο A. Slavic & E. Civallero (Επιμ.), Classification & ontology: Formal approaches and access to knowledge: Proceedings of the international UDC seminar 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, the Netherlands, organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague (σελ. 55–74). Ergon.

Kless, D., Milton, S., Kazmierczak, E., & Lindenthal, J. (2015). Thesaurus and ontology structure: Formal and pragmatic differences and similarities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1348–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23268

Kohne, J. (2014). Ontology, Its Origins and Its Meaning in Information Science. Στο R. Hagengruber & U. Riss (Επιμ.), Philosophy, computing and information science (σελ. 85–89). Pickering & Chatto.

Kopytoff, I. (1964). Family And Lineage Among The Suku Of The Congo. Στο The Family Estate In Africa (σελ. 83–116). Routledge & K. Paul. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=fo46-002

Kuhn, T. (2014). A Survey and Classification of Controlled Natural Languages. Computational Linguistics, 40(1), 121–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00168

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions ([2d ed., enl). University of Chicago Press.

Kuper, A. (1994). Ανθρωπολογία και ανθρωπολόγοι: η σύγχρονη βρετανική σχολή (Χ. Μιχαλοπούλου - Βεΐκου, Μτφ.). Καστανιώτης.

Kwaśnik, B. H. (2011). Approaches to Providing Context in Knowledge Representation Structures. Στο A. Slavic & E. Civallero (Επιμ.), Classification & ontology: Formal approaches and access to knowledge: Proceedings of the international UDC seminar 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, the Netherlands, organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague (σελ. 9–23). Ergon.

Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: An Original Method to Synthesize Qualitative Literature in Psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 269. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00269

Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Alstyne, M. V. (2009). Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742

Lazer, D., & Radford, J. (2017). Data ex Machina: Introduction to Big Data. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053457

Leach, E. R. (1993). Πολιτισμός και επικοινωνία: Η λογική της διαπλοκής των συμβόλων: Μια εισαγωγή στη χρήση της στρουκτουραλιστικής ανάλυσης στην κοινωνική ανθρωπολογία (Θ. Παραδέλλης, Επιμ.; Έ. Σουρράπα, Μτφ.). Καστανιώτης.

Leetaru, K. H., Perkins, T., & Rewerts, C. (2014). Cultural Computing at Literature Scale: Encoding the Cultural Knowledge of Tens of Billions of Words of Academic Literature. D-Lib Magazine, 20(9/10). https://doi.org/10.1045/september2014-leetaru

L’Homme, M.-C., & Bernier-Colborne, G. (2012). Terms as labels for concepts, terms as lexical units: A comparative analysis in ontologies and specialized dictionaries. Applied Ontology, 7(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2012-0116

Lioma, C., & Ounis, I. (2008). A syntactically-based query reformulation technique for information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.12.005

Lippolis, A. S., Saeedizade, M. J., Keskisarkka, R., Gangemi, A., Blomqvist, E., & Nuzzolese, A. G. (2025). Assessing the Capability of Large Language Models for Domain-Specific Ontology Generation (No. arXiv:2504.17402). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.17402

Lippolis, A. S., Saeedizade, M. J., Keskisärkkä, R., Zuppiroli, S., Ceriani, M., Gangemi, A., Blomqvist, E., & Nuzzolese, A. G. (2025). Ontology Generation using Large Language Models (No. arXiv:2503.05388). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.05388

Loizos, P. (1998). Ο θάνατος του θετικισμού είναι υπερβολή (Ρ. Αστρινάκη, Μτφ.). Στο Ανθρωπολογική θεωρία και Εθνογραφία: Σύγχρονες τάσεις (4η έκδ., σελ. 273–295). Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

Lowrie, I. (2018). Algorithms and Automation: An Introduction. Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca33.3.01

Lyon, S. M. (2013). Networks and Kinship Formal Models of Alliance, Descent, and Inheritance in a Pakistani Punjabi Village. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312453275

Lyon, S. M., & Magliveras, S. S. (2006). Kinship, Computing, and Anthropology. Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305281494

Machado, L. M. O., Souza, R. R., & Simões, M. da G. (2019). Semantic web or web of data? A diachronic study (1999 to 2017) of the publications of Tim Berners-Lee and the world wide web consortium. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24111

Mader, C., Haslhofer, B., & Isaac, A. (2012). Finding Quality Issues in SKOS Vocabularies. Στο P. Zaphiris, G. Buchanan, E. Rasmussen, & F. Loizides (Επιμ.), Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33290-6_25

Mai, J.-E. (1999). A Postmodern Theory of Knowledge Organization. Στο L. Woods (Επιμ.), ASIS ’99: Proceedings of the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 31-November 4, 1999: Knowledge, Creation, Organization and Use (σελ. 547–556). Information Today.

Mai, J.-E. (2011). The modernity of classification. Journal of Documentation, 67(4), 710–730. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111145061

Malinowski, B. (2014). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge.

Maltese, V., & Farazi, F. (2011). Towards the integration of knowledge organization systems with the linked data cloud. Στο A. Slavic & E. Civallero (Επιμ.), Classification & ontology: Formal approaches and access to knowledge: Proceedings of the international UDC seminar 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, the Netherlands, organized by UDC Consortium, The Hague (σελ. 75–90). Ergon.

Manganaro, M. (Επιμ.). (1990). Modernist Anthropology: From Fieldwork to Text. Princeton University Press.

Marcus, G. E. (1998). The once and future ethnographic archive. History of the Human Sciences, 11(4), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/095269519801100404

Marcus, G. E. (2007). Ethnography Two Decades after Writing Culture: From the Experimental to the Baroque. Anthropological Quarterly, 80(4), 1127–1145. JSTOR.

Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2011). Concepts. Στο E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Επιμ.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/concepts/

Martínez, E., Mollica, F., & Gibson, E. (2022). Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language. Cognition, 224, 105070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105070

Mastora, A., Peponakis, M., & Kapidakis, S. (2017). SKOS Concepts and Natural Language Concepts: An Analysis of Latent Relationships in KOSs. Journal of Information Science, 43(4), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516648108

Mazzocchi, F. (2017). Relations in KOS: Is it possible to couple a common nature with different roles? Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2016-0063

McKinnon, S. (2009). Νεοφιλελεύθερη γενετική: Μύθοι και ηθικού περιεχομένου ιστορίες της εξελικτικής ψυχολογίας (Θ. Παραδέλλης, Μτφ.). Εκδόσεις Εικοστού Πρώτου.

McNamara, P. (2006). Deontic logic. Στο D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Επιμ.), Handbook of the History of Logic (τ. 7, σελ. 197–288). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4

McNamara, P., & Van De Putte, F. (2022). Deontic Logic. Στο E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Επιμ.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/logic-deontic/

Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Aiden, E. L. (2011). Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644

Mitchell, J. S., Zeng, M. L., & Žumer, M. (2014). Modeling Classification Systems in Multicultural and Multilingual Contexts. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.845620

Moore, R. J., Smith, R., & Liu, Q. (2020). Using computational ethnography to enhance the curation of real-world data (RWD) for chronic pain and invisible disability use cases. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 127, 4:1-4:7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412836.3412840

Moretti, F. (2013). Distant Reading. Verso Books.

Mueller, A. (2016). Beyond ethnographic scriptocentrism: Modelling multi-scalar processes, networks, and relationships. Anthropological Theory, 16(1), 98–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499615626621

Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology, 8(4), 329–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/3772907

Murillo, L. F. R. (2018). What Does “Open Data” Mean for Ethnographic Research? American Anthropologist, 120(3), 577–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13088

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press.

Nafus, D. (2018). Exploration or Algorithm? The Undone Science Before the Algorithms. Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca33.3.03

Needham, R. (2004). Remarks on the analysis of kinship and marriage. Στο Rethinking Kinship and Marriage (σελ. 1–34). Routledge.

Nelson, L. K. (2017). Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework. Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703

Noack, R. (2015, Φεβρουάριος 24). Out of fear of racism, Sweden changes the names of bird species. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/24/out-of-fear-of-racism-sweden-changes-the-names-of-bird-species/

Noakes, T., Harpur, P., & Uys, C. (2023). Noteworthy Disparities With Four CAQDAS Tools: Explorations in Organising Live Twitter Data. Social Science Computer Review, 08944393231204163. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231204163

Novak, L., & Harris, J. (2020). Anthropology and Informatics in Health Care. Στο L. Novak & J. Harris, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.6

Nowroozi, M., Mirzabeigi, M., & Sotudeh, H. (2018). The comparison of thesaurus and ontology: Case of ASIS&T web-based thesaurus and designed ontology. Library Hi Tech. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-03-2017-0060

O’Kane, P. (2020). Demystifying CAQDAS: A Series of Dilemmas. Στο T. Russell Crook, J. Lê, & A. D Smith (Επιμ.), Advancing Methodological Thought and Practice (τ. 12, σελ. 133–152). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720200000012020

Oldman, D., Doerr, M., & Gradmann, S. (2016). Zen and the Art of Linked Data. Στο S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Επιμ.), A New Companion to Digital Humanities (σελ. 251–273). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118680605.ch18/summary

Olson, H. A. (2000). Difference, Culture and Change: The Untapped Potential of LCSH. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1–2), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_04

Olson, H. A. (2001). The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs. Signs, 26(3), 639–668.

O’Neil, D. (1987). Anthropological Computing in the Mid-1980s. Social Science Microcomputer Review, 5(4), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443938700500403

Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024). Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(7), 3580–3599. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.3352100

Panzer, M. (2008). Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. Στο J. Greenberg & K. Wolfgang (Επιμ.), Metadata for Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (σελ. 183–190). http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/932

Papakyriakopoulos, O., & Mboya, A. M. (2022). Beyond Algorithmic Bias: A Socio-Computational Interrogation of the Google Search by Image Algorithm. Social Science Computer Review, 08944393211073169. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211073169

Pattuelli, M. C., Provo, A., & Thorsen, H. (2015). Ontology Building for Linked Open Data: A Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of Library Metadata, 15(3–4), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2015.1099979

Pels, P., Boog, I., Florusbosch, J. H., Kripe, Z., Minter, T., Postma, M., Sleeboom‐Faulkner, M., Simpson, B., Dilger, H., Schönhuth, M., Poser, A. von, Castillo, R. C. A., Lederman, R., & Richards‐Rissetto, H. (2018). Data management in anthropology: The next phase in ethics governance? Social Anthropology, 26(3), 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12526

Peponakis, M. (2016). In the Name of the Name: RDF literals, ER Attributes and the Potential to Rethink the Structures and Visualizations of Catalogs. Information Technology and Libraries, 35(2), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v35i2.8749

Peponakis, M., Kapidakis, S., Doerr, M., & Tountasaki, E. (2024). From calculations to reasoning: History, trends and the potential of Computational Ethnography and Computational Social Anthropology. Social Science Computer Review, 42(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231167692

Peponakis, M., Mastora, A., Kapidakis, S., & Doerr, M. (2019). Expressiveness and machine processability of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS): An analysis of concepts and relations. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-019-00269-0

Perec, G. (2005). Σκέψη—Ταξινόμηση (Λ. Τσιριμώκου, Μτφ.). Άγρα.

Peters, I., & Weller, K. (2008). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in knowledge organization systems. Information Wissenschaft und Praxis, 59(2), 100–107.

Phefo, O. S. D., Kefitiley, N., & Hlomani, H. (2015). Towards the Cultural Knowledge Ontology. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRI.2015.85

Pink, S., & Lanzeni, D. (2018). Future Anthropology Ethics and Datafication: Temporality and Responsibility in Research. Social Media + Society, 4(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118768298

Pinker, S. (2007). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (third edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Pirkola, A. (2001). Morphological typology of languages for IR. Journal of Documentation, 57(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007085

Poincaré, H. (1952). Science and Hypothesis. Courier Corporation.

Pokraev, S., Reichert, M., Steen, M. W. A., & Wieringa, R. J. (2005). Semantic and pragmatic interoperability: A model for understanding. 160. Scopus. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-160/paper21.pdf

Polanyi, M. (1997). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge.

Poli, R., & Obrst, L. (2010). The Interplay Between Ontology as Categorial Analysis and Ontology as Technology. Στο R. Poli, M. Healy, & A. Kameas (Επιμ.), Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications (σελ. 1–26). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_1

Pool, R. (2017). The verification of ethnographic data. Ethnography, 18(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117723936

Portner, P. H. (2005). What is Meaning?: Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Blackwell.

Prokopidis, P., Georgantopoulos, B., & Papageorgiou, H. (2011). A suite of NLP tools for Greek. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics. http://nlp.ilsp.gr/nlp/ICGL2011_Prokopidis_etal.pdf

Purzycki, B. G., & Jamieson-Lane, A. (2017). AnthroTools: An R Package for Cross-Cultural Ethnographic Data Analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 51(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397116680352

Read, D., Fischer, M., & Leaf, M. (2013). What Are Kinship Terminologies, and Why Do We Care? A Computational Approach to Analyzing Symbolic Domains. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 16–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312455914

Read, D. W. (1990). Anthropology and computers: Promise and potential. Social Science Computer Review, 8(4), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939000800402

Read, D. W. (2001). Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its relationship to what constitutes kinship. Anthropological Theory, 1(2), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/146349960100100205

Read, D. W. (2006). Kinship Algebra Expert System (KAES) A Software Implementation of a Cultural Theory. Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305282372

Read, D. W. (2007). Kinship Theory: A Paradigm Shift. Ethnology, 46(4), 329–364.

Read, D. W., & Behrens, C. A. (1990). KAES: An expert system for the algebraic analysis of kinship terminologies. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 2(4), 353–393.

Reyes, V. (2017). Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: Naming places, naming people, and sharing data. Ethnography, 1466138117733754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117733754

Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2009). Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the knowledge of communities. Information and Organization, 19(4), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.001

Rips, L. J., Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (2013). Concepts and Categories: Memory, Meaning, and Metaphysics. Στο K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Επιμ.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (σελ. 177–209). Oxford University Press.

Rohner, R. P., Berg, D. S., & Rohner, E. C. (1982). Data Quality Control in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample: Cross-Cultural Codes. Ethnology, 21(4), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773766

Romele, A. (2020). The datafication of the worldview. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00989-x

Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.2.02a00020

Sahlins, M. (2002). Waiting for Foucault, Still. Prickly Paradigm Press.

Salah, A. A., Gao, C., Suchecki, K., Scharnhorst, A., & Smiraglia, R. P. (2012). The evolution of classification systems: Ontogeny of the UDC. Στο A. Neelameghan & K. S. Raghavan (Επιμ.), Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference, 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India (σελ. 51–57). Ergon.

Santucci, J.-F., Doja, A., & Capocchi, L. (2020). A Discrete-Event Simulation of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ Structural Analysis of Myths Based on Symmetry and Double Twist Transformations. Symmetry, 12(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12101706

Schmidt, S., & Schweizer, T. (1990). Comparative Anthropological Research Today: The World Cultures Electronic Database and New Substantive Developments. Anthropos, 85(1/3), 195–201.

Schneider, D. M. (1995). Schneider on Schneider: The Conversion of the Jews and Other Anthropological Stories. Duke University Press Books.

Schroeder, R. (2019). Big data and cumulation in the social sciences. Information, Communication & Society, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1594334

Schwarz, U., & Smith, B. (2008). Ontological Relations. Στο K. Munn & B. Smith (Επιμ.), Applied Ontology An Introduction. De Gruyter. http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110324860/9783110324860.219/9783110324860.219.xml

Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104

Seaver, N. (2018). What Should an Anthropology of Algorithms Do? Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca33.3.04

Seidel, J. V., & Clark, J. A. (1984). THE ETHNOGRAPH: A computer program for the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987111

Seth, A. (Διευθυντής). (2017). Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality [Video recording]. TED Talks. https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo

Shannon, C. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.

Shiri, A. (2014). Linked Data Meets Big Data: A Knowledge Organization Systems Perspective. Advances in Classification Research Online, 24(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.7152/acro.v24i1.14672

Smiraglia, R., & Heuvel, C. V. den. (2013). Classifications and Concepts: Towards an Elementary Theory of Knowledge Interaction. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2012-0092

Smiraglia, R. P. (2014). The Elements of Knowledge Organization. Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-09357-4

Smith, B. (2015). Basic Formal Ontology 2.0: Specification and user’s guide (σελ. 102). https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BFO-ontology/BFO/master/docs/bfo2-reference/BFO2-Reference.pdf

Snow, C. P. (1961). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press.

Sosna, D., Galeta, P., Šmejda, L., Sladek, V., & Bruzek, J. (2013). Burials and Graphs Relational Approach to Mortuary Analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312453277

Sowa, J. F. (2009). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole.

Sperberg-McQueen, C. M. (2004). Classification and its Structures. Στο S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Επιμ.), A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/

Spero, S. E. (2008). LCSH is to Thesaurus as Doorbell is to Mammal: Visualizing Structural Problems in the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Metadata For Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the International Conference On Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 203. http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/937

Starn, O. (2022). Anthropology and the misery of writing. American Anthropologist, 124(1), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13677

Stellato, A. (2012). Dictionary, Thesaurus or Ontology? Disentangling Our Choices in the Semantic Web Jungle. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 11(5), 710–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(12)60060-4

Stone, A. T. (2000). The LCSH Century: A Brief History of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, and Introduction to the Centennial Essays. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1–2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_01

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Handbook of qualitative research, 273–285.

Stubbersfield, J., & Tehrani, J. (2013). Expect the Unexpected? Testing for Minimally Counterintuitive (MCI) Bias in the Transmission of Contemporary Legends A Computational Phylogenetic Approach. Social Science Computer Review, 31(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312453567

Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Summers, E., Isaac, A., Redding, C., & Krech, D. (2008). LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. Στο J. Greenberg & K. Wolfgang (Επιμ.), Metadata for Semantic and Social Applications: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (σελ. 25–33). Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/916/912

Svenonius, E. (2000). LCSH: Semantics, Syntax and Specificity. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1–2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_02

Szostak, R. (2011). Complex concepts into basic concepts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2247–2265. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21635

Tallyn, E., Fried, H., Gianni, R., Isard, A., & Speed, C. (2018). The Ethnobot: Gathering Ethnographies in the Age of IoT. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 604:1-604:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174178

TEDx Talks (Διευθυντής). (2011, Ιούλιος 14). A picture is worth 500 billion words: Erez Lieberman Aiden and Jean-Baptiste Michel at TEDxBoston [Video recording]. https://youtu.be/WtJ50v7qByE

Tobin, J. (1990). The HRAF as Radical Text? Cultural Anthropology, 5(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1990.5.4.02a00090

Totaro, P., & Ninno, D. (2014). The Concept of Algorithm as an Interpretative Key of Modern Rationality. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(4), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413510051

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind: A quarterly review of psychology and philosophy, 59(236), 433–460.

Turner, A. (2019). Using Data from Git and GitHub in Ethnographies of Software Development. Στο C. Öhman & D. Watson (Επιμ.), The 2018 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab (σελ. 35–49). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17152-0_4

Van Der Leeuw, S. E. (2004). Why Model? Cybernetics and Systems, 35(2–3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969720490426803

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł. ukasz, & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is All you Need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html

W3C. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/

W3C. (2009a). SKOS eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL) Namespace Document—HTML Variant. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/skos-xl.html

W3C. (2009b). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/

W3C. (2014a). RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax: W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/

W3C. (2014b). RDF Schema 1.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/

Wacholder, N., & Liu, L. (2006). User preference: A measure of query-term quality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1566–1580. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20315

Wagner, R. A. (1989). The Rise of Computing in Anthropology: Hammers and Nails. Social Science Computer Review, 7(4), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443938900700403

Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x

Warters, B. (2005). Software Review: Review of TAMS Analyzer (Macintosh Version). Field Methods, 17(3), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05277533

Weber, F. (2017). Towards a digital architecture of reflexive ethnographic data. Ethnography, 18(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117724482

Weingart, S., & Jorgensen, J. (2013). Computational analysis of the body in European fairy tales. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(3), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs015

Weinstein, M. (2006). TAMS Analyzer: Anthropology as Cultural Critique in a Digital Age. Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305281496

Wesch, M. (Διευθυντής). (2007, Ιανουάριος 31). Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us [Video recording]. https://youtu.be/6gmP4nk0EOE

Wesch, M. (2008, Ιούλιος 29). An anthropological introduction to YouTube. Digital Ethnography. http://mediatedcultures.net/youtube/an-anthropological-introduction-to-youtube-presented-at-the-library-of-congress/

White, D. R. (1986). The World Cultures Database. World Cultures eJournal, 1(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3r21c3xb

Wilf, E. (2013). Toward an Anthropology of Computer-Mediated, Algorithmic Forms of Sociality. Current Anthropology, 54(6), 716–739. https://doi.org/10.1086/673321

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Wilmont, I., Hengeveld, S., Barendsen, E., & Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2013). Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Modelling. Στο W. Ng, V. C. Storey, & J. C. Trujillo (Επιμ.), Conceptual Modeling (σελ. 74–87). Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_7

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Wittgenstein, L. (1977). Φιλοσοφικές έρευνες (Π. Χριστοδουλίδης, Μτφ.). Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση.

Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Θ. Κιτσόπουλος, Μτφ.). Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση.

Wolfe, A. W. (1978). The rise of network thinking in anthropology. Social Networks, 1(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90012-6

Yoon, A., Kim, J., & Donaldson, D. R. (2025). Big data curation framework: Curation actions and challenges. Journal of Information Science, 51(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221133528

Zavalina, O. L. (2012). Subject Access: Conceptual Models, Functional Requirements, and Empirical Data. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2–3), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2012.699829

Zeng, M. L., & Mayr, P. (2019). Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) in the Semantic Web: A multi-dimensional review. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-018-0241-2

Zheng, K., Hanauer, D. A., Weibel, N., & Agha, Z. (2015). Computational Ethnography: Automated and Unobtrusive Means for Collecting Data In Situ for Human–Computer Interaction Evaluation Studies. Στο V. Patel, T. Kannampallil, & D. Kaufman (Επιμ.), Cognitive Informatics for Biomedicine (σελ. 111–140). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17272-9_6


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS