Rithy Panh's film S-21. The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine (2003) was the result of a three-year shooting period in the Khmer Rouge centre of torture where perpetrators and victims exchanged experiences and re-enacted scenes from the past under the gaze of the filmmaker's camera. Yet, a crucial testimony was missing in that puzzle: the voice of the prison's director, Kaing Guek Eav, comrade Duch. When the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) were finally established in Phnom Penh to judge the master criminals of Democratic Kampuchea, the first to be indicted was this desk criminal. The film Duch, Master of the Forges of Hell (R. Panh, 2011) deploys a new confrontation – an agon, in the terminology of tragedy ¬– between a former perpetrator and a former victim, seen through cinema language. The audiovisual document registers Duch's words and body as he develops his narrative, playing cunningly with contrition and deceit. The construction of this narrative and its deconstruction by Panh can be more fully understood by comparing some film scenes with other footage shot before, during and after the hearings. In sum, this 'chamber film' permits us to analyse two voices: the one of the perpetrator, including his narrative and body language; and the invisible voice of the survivor that expresses itself through editing, sound effects, and montage.
{"title":"The Perpetrator's mise-en-scene: Language, Body, and Memory in the Cambodian Genocide","authors":"Vicente Sánchez‐Biosca","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.15","url":null,"abstract":"Rithy Panh's film S-21. The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine (2003) was the result of a three-year shooting period in the Khmer Rouge centre of torture where perpetrators and victims exchanged experiences and re-enacted scenes from the past under the gaze of the filmmaker's camera. Yet, a crucial testimony was missing in that puzzle: the voice of the prison's director, Kaing Guek Eav, comrade Duch. When the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) were finally established in Phnom Penh to judge the master criminals of Democratic Kampuchea, the first to be indicted was this desk criminal. The film Duch, Master of the Forges of Hell (R. Panh, 2011) deploys a new confrontation – an agon, in the terminology of tragedy ¬– between a former perpetrator and a former victim, seen through cinema language. The audiovisual document registers Duch's words and body as he develops his narrative, playing cunningly with contrition and deceit. The construction of this narrative and its deconstruction by Panh can be more fully understood by comparing some film scenes with other footage shot before, during and after the hearings. In sum, this 'chamber film' permits us to analyse two voices: the one of the perpetrator, including his narrative and body language; and the invisible voice of the survivor that expresses itself through editing, sound effects, and montage.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115864150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this article is to discern and analyse three dominant strategies in the memory games employed in public discourse in Poland, all of which have the aim of ‘finishing the revolution’. These are: neutralization, retribution and zombification. Within this discursive framework, the dark legacy of the Communist secret police is seen to loom constantly over the rebirth of Poland and to be the root cause of social problems such as poverty, economic inequalities and ‘lack of moral standards’. Neutralization, retribution and zombification reflect three underpinning narratives that are interwoven into the politics of memory in Poland. The ‘neutralization’ approach, embedded in the vision of the past controlling the present, stands for an effort to deprive the perpetrators of their supposed hidden powers. The strategy of retribution translates into a demand to restore justice, thought of as a kind of ‘moral equilibrium’, both using legal measures and symbolic representations of the past. Finally, I use the term ‘zombification’ to describe widespread attempts to manipulate collective memory in order to bring dead perpetrators back to life.
{"title":"From Neutralization to Zombification: Memory Games and Communist Perpetrators in Poland after 1989","authors":"Piotr Osęka","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.22","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to discern and analyse three dominant strategies in the memory games employed in public discourse in Poland, all of which have the aim of ‘finishing the revolution’. These are: neutralization, retribution and zombification. Within this discursive framework, the dark legacy of the Communist secret police is seen to loom constantly over the rebirth of Poland and to be the root cause of social problems such as poverty, economic inequalities and ‘lack of moral standards’. Neutralization, retribution and zombification reflect three underpinning narratives that are interwoven into the politics of memory in Poland. The ‘neutralization’ approach, embedded in the vision of the past controlling the present, stands for an effort to deprive the perpetrators of their supposed hidden powers. The strategy of retribution translates into a demand to restore justice, thought of as a kind of ‘moral equilibrium’, both using legal measures and symbolic representations of the past. Finally, I use the term ‘zombification’ to describe widespread attempts to manipulate collective memory in order to bring dead perpetrators back to life.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125249499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christian Gudehus’s reflections on the Editors’ Introduction to the first issue of the Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) raise a host of profound and challenging critiques for this field. I sympathize with many of Gudehus’s points, though in some instances they appear compatible with the general thrust of the research program set out by the JPR editors. These remarks, then, are meant as a friendly engagement with his own provocative points, but also an invitation to pursue a topic that is not extensively covered in either of those two contributions, namely how to theorize moral responsibility in light of the empirical advances of perpetrator research.
Christian Gudehus对《犯罪者研究杂志》(Journal of犯罪者Research, JPR)第一期编辑导言的反思，对这一领域提出了一系列深刻而具有挑战性的批评。我对Gudehus的许多观点表示同情，尽管在某些情况下，它们似乎与JPR编辑制定的研究计划的总体主旨是一致的。因此，这些评论是对他自己的挑衅性观点的友好接触，也是对一个主题的邀请，这个主题在这两篇文章中都没有广泛涉及，即如何根据肇事者研究的经验进展将道德责任理论化。
{"title":"Response to Christian Gudehus","authors":"E. Verdeja","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.18","url":null,"abstract":"Christian Gudehus’s reflections on the Editors’ Introduction to the first issue of the Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) raise a host of profound and challenging critiques for this field. I sympathize with many of Gudehus’s points, though in some instances they appear compatible with the general thrust of the research program set out by the JPR editors. These remarks, then, are meant as a friendly engagement with his own provocative points, but also an invitation to pursue a topic that is not extensively covered in either of those two contributions, namely how to theorize moral responsibility in light of the empirical advances of perpetrator research.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125262615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Post-World War II Holocaust studies, followed by genocide, trauma, and postcolonial studies, set the triangulation of perpetrator, victim, and bystander at the heart of their discussion of both the ethical legacy of the Holocaust and the aftermath of other twentieth-century catastrophes. Aiming at the constitution of an appropriate instrument to deal with transitional justice issues, during the 1990s the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) interwove these subject positions, thereby attesting to a major transformation in post-genocide reconciliation processes, though not altering their basic foundation. Other theorizations, especially of the perpetrator, for example, expanded the scale of sociological characterization of the triangulation or confronted its call for interpellation and identification (most prominently in the fields of criminology and literature, respectively), but further reflected the same triadic foundation. The exploratory opposition between subject position and action provoked by Gudehus in his ‘Some Remarks on the Label, Field, and Heuristics of Perpetrator Research’ (in this issue) follows the twentieth century’s legacy as well. Undoubtedly, opposing epistemology (subject position) and ontology (the action-able), as his essay suggests, contributes to our renewed efforts to comprehend perpetratorhood, recently kindled by the initiation of the Journal of Perpetrator Research and its pioneering editorial. However, I suggest that while adhering to the twentieth-century legacies – from Hilberg’s triad to Primo Levi’s ‘Gray Zone’ – it is necessary to comprehend perpetratorhood in light of the shift from the victim era, defined as such by the seminal works of Felman and Laub and particularly Wieviorka, to the perpetrator era.
{"title":"On the Definition of the Perpetrator: From the Twentieth to the Twenty-First Century","authors":"R. Morag","doi":"10.5334/JPR.2.1.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/JPR.2.1.19","url":null,"abstract":"Post-World War II Holocaust studies, followed by genocide, trauma, and postcolonial studies, set the triangulation of perpetrator, victim, and bystander at the heart of their discussion of both the ethical legacy of the Holocaust and the aftermath of other twentieth-century catastrophes. Aiming at the constitution of an appropriate instrument to deal with transitional justice issues, during the 1990s the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) interwove these subject positions, thereby attesting to a major transformation in post-genocide reconciliation processes, though not altering their basic foundation. Other theorizations, especially of the perpetrator, for example, expanded the scale of sociological characterization of the triangulation or confronted its call for interpellation and identification (most prominently in the fields of criminology and literature, respectively), but further reflected the same triadic foundation. The exploratory opposition between subject position and action provoked by Gudehus in his ‘Some Remarks on the Label, Field, and Heuristics of Perpetrator Research’ (in this issue) follows the twentieth century’s legacy as well. Undoubtedly, opposing epistemology (subject position) and ontology (the action-able), as his essay suggests, contributes to our renewed efforts to comprehend perpetratorhood, recently kindled by the initiation of the Journal of Perpetrator Research and its pioneering editorial. However, I suggest that while adhering to the twentieth-century legacies – from Hilberg’s triad to Primo Levi’s ‘Gray Zone’ – it is necessary to comprehend perpetratorhood in light of the shift from the victim era, defined as such by the seminal works of Felman and Laub and particularly Wieviorka, to the perpetrator era.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128910544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How much agency perpetrators have during genocide is highly contested and significant for dealing with the past after the end of conflict. In this context, ascriptions of roles such as perpetrators, bystanders and victims are drawn upon to delineate responsibility and innocence. Yet, this simple, black-and-white categorisation belies the complexity of roles which individuals can take on and the actions they engage in during genocide and mass violence. Naturally, there are many actors who fit neatly into categories as perpetrators who kill, victims who are killed or heroes who rescue. However, people can often be more aptly located in the ‘grey zones’ between these categories. This article explores the various types of actions that former low-level cadres of the Khmer Rouge engaged in, and looks at how they represent these actions. Former Khmer Rouge portray themselves only rarely and indirectly as perpetrators, but more often as victims and sometimes as heroes; this article uncovers various strategies they employ to justify these self-representations. These various actions and self-representations are drawn upon to reflect on the notion of agency of low-level perpetrators within the context of an oppressive genocidal regime.
{"title":"Agency, Responsibility, and Culpability: The Complexity of Roles and Self-representations of Perpetrators","authors":"Timothy Williams","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.16","url":null,"abstract":"How much agency perpetrators have during genocide is highly contested and significant for dealing with the past after the end of conflict. In this context, ascriptions of roles such as perpetrators, bystanders and victims are drawn upon to delineate responsibility and innocence. Yet, this simple, black-and-white categorisation belies the complexity of roles which individuals can take on and the actions they engage in during genocide and mass violence. Naturally, there are many actors who fit neatly into categories as perpetrators who kill, victims who are killed or heroes who rescue. However, people can often be more aptly located in the ‘grey zones’ between these categories. This article explores the various types of actions that former low-level cadres of the Khmer Rouge engaged in, and looks at how they represent these actions. Former Khmer Rouge portray themselves only rarely and indirectly as perpetrators, but more often as victims and sometimes as heroes; this article uncovers various strategies they employ to justify these self-representations. These various actions and self-representations are drawn upon to reflect on the notion of agency of low-level perpetrators within the context of an oppressive genocidal regime.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115858260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In very different ways the Stanford Prison experiment, Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, and the intensified media coverage of the prevalence of sexual assault reveal that perpetrators are neither the ‘other’ of a society often perceived to be non-violent, nor are they to be found only at its margins. How can we develop a transgressive concept of perpetration that does not essentialize, stigmatize, or symbolically dehumanize perpetrator figures, but instead allows for perspectives that reflect the appropriate level of complexity? What is needed is a notion that describes perpetration in terms of implicatedness in violence , e.g. as something that can grow out of a victim’s position, or as a capability to carry out violence that can in certain situations develop in “perfectly normal people” . These questions were at the focus of the multidisciplinary conference “Models of Perpetration and Transgression. Borderline Cases in Violence and Trauma Research” (“Tatermodelle und Transgression. Grenzfalle in Gewalt- und Traumaforschung”), organized by Julia B. Kohne and Jan Mollenhauer, held on 19th January 2018 in the Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum at Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin. Talks were given by a wide range of international researchers, each of whom drew on their expertise to call into question crucial elements of how we understand perpetration and perpetratorship. These talks generated a discussion that encompassed the notion of perpetration in its broadest sense, starting with the psychology of victimhood and perpetratorship at the individual level, expanding to media representations that contribute to public discourse on perpetrators, both in terms of smaller-scale acts of violence, e.g. murders, and mass-scale perpetration of political violence, the effects of this discourse, (cultural) historical genealogies and contexts, as well as the traumatic consequences of perpetratorship. The following reflections upon the discussion should serve to inform current research on perpetration in the context of political violence by providing some helpful guidelines for approaching present challenges in this area.
斯坦福监狱实验、皮埃尔·布迪厄的象征性暴力概念，以及媒体对性侵犯的广泛报道，以截然不同的方式揭示出，犯罪者既不是社会中通常被视为非暴力的“他者”，也不是只在社会边缘被发现的人。我们怎样才能发展出一种犯罪的越界概念，既不将犯罪人物本质化、污名化，也不象征性地非人化，而是允许反映适当复杂程度的观点?我们所需要的是一种概念，即从与暴力有关的角度来描述犯罪行为，例如，作为一种可以从受害者的立场中生长出来的东西，或者作为一种在某些情况下可以在“完全正常的人”身上发展起来的实施暴力的能力。这些问题是多学科会议“犯罪和越轨模式”的焦点。暴力与创伤研究中的边缘性案例”(“性模式与越界”)。由Julia B. Kohne和Jan Mollenhauer组织的“grenzfallle in Gewalt- und创伤”，于2018年1月19日在柏林洪堡大学的Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum举行。广泛的国际研究人员发表了演讲，他们每个人都利用自己的专业知识，对我们如何理解犯罪和犯罪行为的关键要素提出了质疑。这些谈话引发了一场讨论，从最广泛的意义上涵盖了犯罪的概念，从个人层面的受害者心理和犯罪者心理开始，扩展到媒体表现，促进对犯罪者的公共话语，无论是小规模的暴力行为，如谋杀，大规模的政治暴力，这种话语的影响，(文化)历史谱系和背景，以及肇事者的创伤性后果。以下对讨论的思考应有助于为当前关于政治暴力背景下的犯罪行为的研究提供信息，为应对这一领域目前的挑战提供一些有益的指导方针。
{"title":"Conference Report: Models of Perpetration and Transgression: Borderline Cases in Violence and Trauma Research","authors":"Laura Cater, Juliane Dyroff, S. Köthe","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.14","url":null,"abstract":"In very different ways the Stanford Prison experiment, Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, and the intensified media coverage of the prevalence of sexual assault reveal that perpetrators are neither the ‘other’ of a society often perceived to be non-violent, nor are they to be found only at its margins. How can we develop a transgressive concept of perpetration that does not essentialize, stigmatize, or symbolically dehumanize perpetrator figures, but instead allows for perspectives that reflect the appropriate level of complexity? What is needed is a notion that describes perpetration in terms of implicatedness in violence , e.g. as something that can grow out of a victim’s position, or as a capability to carry out violence that can in certain situations develop in “perfectly normal people” . These questions were at the focus of the multidisciplinary conference “Models of Perpetration and Transgression. Borderline Cases in Violence and Trauma Research” (“Tatermodelle und Transgression. Grenzfalle in Gewalt- und Traumaforschung”), organized by Julia B. Kohne and Jan Mollenhauer, held on 19th January 2018 in the Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum at Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin. Talks were given by a wide range of international researchers, each of whom drew on their expertise to call into question crucial elements of how we understand perpetration and perpetratorship. These talks generated a discussion that encompassed the notion of perpetration in its broadest sense, starting with the psychology of victimhood and perpetratorship at the individual level, expanding to media representations that contribute to public discourse on perpetrators, both in terms of smaller-scale acts of violence, e.g. murders, and mass-scale perpetration of political violence, the effects of this discourse, (cultural) historical genealogies and contexts, as well as the traumatic consequences of perpetratorship. The following reflections upon the discussion should serve to inform current research on perpetration in the context of political violence by providing some helpful guidelines for approaching present challenges in this area.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126677249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In response to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Perpetrator Research, and in particular the Editors’ Introduction, we received an essay from Christian Gudehus, the editor in chief of Genocide Studies and Prevention, in which he raised a number of important points regarding the terminology, heuristics, focus, and ambit of JPR and of perpetrator studies as a field. We welcome this intervention and decided to take it as a starting point for an ongoing conversation about theoretical and methodological questions pertaining to the study of perpetrators and perpetration. For this issue, we invited a number of scholars from different disciplines to engage with our Editorial and the points Gudehus raised in a virtual roundtable. We hope that these kinds of cross-disciplinary conversations will become a regular feature of our journal.
{"title":"Response to Christian Gudehus","authors":"S. Knittel, U. Üngör","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.23","url":null,"abstract":"In response to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Perpetrator Research, and in particular the Editors’ Introduction, we received an essay from Christian Gudehus, the editor in chief of Genocide Studies and Prevention, in which he raised a number of important points regarding the terminology, heuristics, focus, and ambit of JPR and of perpetrator studies as a field. We welcome this intervention and decided to take it as a starting point for an ongoing conversation about theoretical and methodological questions pertaining to the study of perpetrators and perpetration. For this issue, we invited a number of scholars from different disciplines to engage with our Editorial and the points Gudehus raised in a virtual roundtable. We hope that these kinds of cross-disciplinary conversations will become a regular feature of our journal.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127976571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Perpetrator Research has been around for some time. It has many merits. This is in no way meant patronizingly but with genuine appreciation. This text does not intend to praise, criticise or historicise the diverse approaches that labelled themselves or were labelled as research on those individuals that played diverse, often extremely violent parts in the context of collective violence. The following pages are a reaction to the institutionalisation of perpetrator research – especially manifest in the launch of JPR. As part of this development, the design of conceptual frames that theorise collective violence, seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
{"title":"Some remarks on the label, field, and heuristics of Perpetrator Research","authors":"Christian Gudehus","doi":"10.21039/JPR.2.1.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21039/JPR.2.1.20","url":null,"abstract":"Perpetrator Research has been around for some time. It has many merits. This is in no way meant patronizingly but with genuine appreciation. This text does not intend to praise, criticise or historicise the diverse approaches that labelled themselves or were labelled as research on those individuals that played diverse, often extremely violent parts in the context of collective violence. The following pages are a reaction to the institutionalisation of perpetrator research – especially manifest in the launch of JPR. As part of this development, the design of conceptual frames that theorise collective violence, seems to be a step in the wrong direction.","PeriodicalId":152877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perpetrator Research","volume":"266 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116421324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：