Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2139085
Katharina Stevens
Abstract In this short commentary, I identify a common theme that argumentation scholars of and from the Americas might have in common - despite the vast heterogeneity of their research interest. I trace the interest in moral and political dimension of argumentation through ANA sponsored events and publication and make the case that this is a welcome development.
{"title":"On the occasion of the first Argumentation Network of the Americas special issue","authors":"Katharina Stevens","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2139085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2139085","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this short commentary, I identify a common theme that argumentation scholars of and from the Americas might have in common - despite the vast heterogeneity of their research interest. I trace the interest in moral and political dimension of argumentation through ANA sponsored events and publication and make the case that this is a welcome development.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76637368","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2139088
Darrin Hicks, R. W. Greene
ABSTRACT We nominate conviction as a shared research problematic for argumentation scholarship in the Americas. Conviction has long been presumed as a constitutive feature of argumentation theory. Yet, important questions pertaining to the nature of conviction, how convictions are acquired, and conviction’s role in democratic governance have not received sustained attention. Using US President Joseph Biden’s address at the 2022 Summit of the Americas as a touchstone, we identify four distinct modalities of conviction – juridical, propositional, identitarian, and affective – which advocates articulate to advance strategic goals. Given the affective modality has received less attention from argumentation theorists, and the ever-increasing role affect plays in contemporary politics, we focus on explicating the affective modality and how it influences democratic governance and political activism in the Americas.
{"title":"Americas’ conviction: arguing democracy in the affective episteme","authors":"Darrin Hicks, R. W. Greene","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2139088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2139088","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We nominate conviction as a shared research problematic for argumentation scholarship in the Americas. Conviction has long been presumed as a constitutive feature of argumentation theory. Yet, important questions pertaining to the nature of conviction, how convictions are acquired, and conviction’s role in democratic governance have not received sustained attention. Using US President Joseph Biden’s address at the 2022 Summit of the Americas as a touchstone, we identify four distinct modalities of conviction – juridical, propositional, identitarian, and affective – which advocates articulate to advance strategic goals. Given the affective modality has received less attention from argumentation theorists, and the ever-increasing role affect plays in contemporary politics, we focus on explicating the affective modality and how it influences democratic governance and political activism in the Americas.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87274766","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2138174
Gabriel Fortes, Valentina Guzmán, Antonia Larrain
ABSTRACT With this paper, we aim to present what has been developed so far in the field of argumentation and education in South America to the best of our knowledge. However, we also aim to anticipate new trends that will arise from the challenges South American democracies face right now, and the role of collective reasoned discussion in tackling them. Traditionally argumentation studies have been proposed within three broad areas of research and practice. First, argue to learn, as the uses of argumentation practices to develop conceptual knowledge in different domains of education. Second, learn to argue by promoting argumentative practices to develop argumentative and thinking skills. Third, teacher professional development enables teachers to enact argumentation in their classrooms. From this scenario, we argue that three interrelated branches of research are the future ahead of us: studies of argumentation and citizen education using deliberative practices, cultivating virtuous intellectual habits, and the rise of deliberative teaching focused on collaborative settings designed to empower democratic values (diversity, equality, and participation). We conclude by stating that South America has helped the advancement of argumentation theory, but we still have a road ahead in developing more spaces for democratic participation.
{"title":"Studying argumentation and education in South America: what has been advanced and what lies ahead","authors":"Gabriel Fortes, Valentina Guzmán, Antonia Larrain","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138174","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT With this paper, we aim to present what has been developed so far in the field of argumentation and education in South America to the best of our knowledge. However, we also aim to anticipate new trends that will arise from the challenges South American democracies face right now, and the role of collective reasoned discussion in tackling them. Traditionally argumentation studies have been proposed within three broad areas of research and practice. First, argue to learn, as the uses of argumentation practices to develop conceptual knowledge in different domains of education. Second, learn to argue by promoting argumentative practices to develop argumentative and thinking skills. Third, teacher professional development enables teachers to enact argumentation in their classrooms. From this scenario, we argue that three interrelated branches of research are the future ahead of us: studies of argumentation and citizen education using deliberative practices, cultivating virtuous intellectual habits, and the rise of deliberative teaching focused on collaborative settings designed to empower democratic values (diversity, equality, and participation). We conclude by stating that South America has helped the advancement of argumentation theory, but we still have a road ahead in developing more spaces for democratic participation.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80619544","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2138177
J. Eckstein, Harry Weger
Conceptualizing, theorizing, researching, and practicing argumentation transcends disciplinary boundaries and national borders. As a field, the contemporary study of argumentation emerged through a network of shared objects, questions, journals, conferences, and concerns that coalesced around the ordinary practice of arguing. Although scholarship is global, the embeddedness of all social practices, including research, indicate that the location of these activities matters. When we think of the places of our examples, case studies, and our data sets, where the argument happens has an influence upon how we think of argumentation. Culturally situated practices shape arguers’ behavior, scholars’ study of argumentation, how argumentation is taught, and even what it means for something to count as an argument in the first place. The exchange of ideas between scholars has resulted in expanded theories, nuanced descriptions, and new normative frameworks. The intercultural dialogue gives us more tools to solve complex social, political, environmental, economic, and interpersonal problems. This exchange did not just happen in texts but led to the for-mulation of an entire circuit of major conferences, summer schools, workshops, and exchanges. These include but are not limited to the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, the European Society for Argumentation, European Conference for Argumentation, the Alta Conference on Argumentation, and the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. These networks and institutions provide important sites for developing and supporting individual scholarship as well as entire schools of thought. They nurtured young scholars, ensured that schools of thought were systematically developed, and facilitated the pollination of ideas across different institutions. In this special issue, we present essays that focus spe-cifically on the traditions, customs, and cultural institutions of the Americas. Opening up new circuitry between places, spaces, and histories presents opportunities for knowledge production and new networked connections. We live in precarious times as we navigate a climate disaster
{"title":"Introduction to the special issue","authors":"J. Eckstein, Harry Weger","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138177","url":null,"abstract":"Conceptualizing, theorizing, researching, and practicing argumentation transcends disciplinary boundaries and national borders. As a field, the contemporary study of argumentation emerged through a network of shared objects, questions, journals, conferences, and concerns that coalesced around the ordinary practice of arguing. Although scholarship is global, the embeddedness of all social practices, including research, indicate that the location of these activities matters. When we think of the places of our examples, case studies, and our data sets, where the argument happens has an influence upon how we think of argumentation. Culturally situated practices shape arguers’ behavior, scholars’ study of argumentation, how argumentation is taught, and even what it means for something to count as an argument in the first place. The exchange of ideas between scholars has resulted in expanded theories, nuanced descriptions, and new normative frameworks. The intercultural dialogue gives us more tools to solve complex social, political, environmental, economic, and interpersonal problems. This exchange did not just happen in texts but led to the for-mulation of an entire circuit of major conferences, summer schools, workshops, and exchanges. These include but are not limited to the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, the European Society for Argumentation, European Conference for Argumentation, the Alta Conference on Argumentation, and the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. These networks and institutions provide important sites for developing and supporting individual scholarship as well as entire schools of thought. They nurtured young scholars, ensured that schools of thought were systematically developed, and facilitated the pollination of ideas across different institutions. In this special issue, we present essays that focus spe-cifically on the traditions, customs, and cultural institutions of the Americas. Opening up new circuitry between places, spaces, and histories presents opportunities for knowledge production and new networked connections. We live in precarious times as we navigate a climate disaster","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89889865","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2138182
D. Mejía, Hugo Ribeiro Mota, M. D. Baumtrog
ABSTRACT This article synthesizes the results of several interviews with argumentation scholars from across the American continents to address three questions regarding the connections in argumentation studies between North and South/Central America: “What motivated the study of argumentation in the Americas?” “What commonalities, if any, exist in argumentation studies across the Americas?” and “What should the future of argumentation studies in the Americas look like?” Using these interviews in combination with existing textual sources, the article also provides motivated suggestions for directions for the future of the community in the field.
{"title":"Connecting argumentation in the Americas: past, present, future","authors":"D. Mejía, Hugo Ribeiro Mota, M. D. Baumtrog","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138182","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article synthesizes the results of several interviews with argumentation scholars from across the American continents to address three questions regarding the connections in argumentation studies between North and South/Central America: “What motivated the study of argumentation in the Americas?” “What commonalities, if any, exist in argumentation studies across the Americas?” and “What should the future of argumentation studies in the Americas look like?” Using these interviews in combination with existing textual sources, the article also provides motivated suggestions for directions for the future of the community in the field.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84811587","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984
Juan Mamberti, Dale Hample
ABSTRACT Orientations toward interpersonal arguing were systematically assessed in Argentina in this article. Several hundred university-connected respondents self-reported their motivations, understandings, and emotional reactions for face-to-face arguing. Comparisons were made to earlier investigations in Mexico and Chile. We found that Argentinian, Mexican, and Chilean orientations were identifiably different. Argentinian men and women often had different orientations, as was also the case in Mexico and Chile (but not in all other nations studied in this global project). Older Argentinian respondents were less aggressive and less interested in arguing than younger ones. Arguing motivations generally reproduced the U.S. correlational patterns, which was not as clearly the case in Mexico and Chile. Early reports on the connections between the standard orientation variables and both power distance and workplace arguing are also reported, and show points of interest.
{"title":"Interpersonal arguing in Argentina","authors":"Juan Mamberti, Dale Hample","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Orientations toward interpersonal arguing were systematically assessed in Argentina in this article. Several hundred university-connected respondents self-reported their motivations, understandings, and emotional reactions for face-to-face arguing. Comparisons were made to earlier investigations in Mexico and Chile. We found that Argentinian, Mexican, and Chilean orientations were identifiably different. Argentinian men and women often had different orientations, as was also the case in Mexico and Chile (but not in all other nations studied in this global project). Older Argentinian respondents were less aggressive and less interested in arguing than younger ones. Arguing motivations generally reproduced the U.S. correlational patterns, which was not as clearly the case in Mexico and Chile. Early reports on the connections between the standard orientation variables and both power distance and workplace arguing are also reported, and show points of interest.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88193725","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2136756
Stephen M. Llano
ABSTRACT Many have attempted to tell the story of debate education in America in a variety of ways. These accounts do more than provide the story, they create the reasons and the nature of debate. In this paper, I consider debate as a discourse that is productive of particular results in both students and understanding of debate by the way we frame and discuss debate education. To do this I rely on Jacques Lacan’s theory of the four discourses in his twenty-third seminar. Through this analysis I find three traditions of teaching debate in America and a suggestion of what a fourth, revolutionary debate pedagogy might look like, one that would meet the results of what most debate teachers and coaches claim they want.
{"title":"Three discourses of American debate (with a glimpse toward a fourth)","authors":"Stephen M. Llano","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2136756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2136756","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many have attempted to tell the story of debate education in America in a variety of ways. These accounts do more than provide the story, they create the reasons and the nature of debate. In this paper, I consider debate as a discourse that is productive of particular results in both students and understanding of debate by the way we frame and discuss debate education. To do this I rely on Jacques Lacan’s theory of the four discourses in his twenty-third seminar. Through this analysis I find three traditions of teaching debate in America and a suggestion of what a fourth, revolutionary debate pedagogy might look like, one that would meet the results of what most debate teachers and coaches claim they want.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72766363","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173
Nicholas S. Paliewicz
ABSTRACT Through two of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto and BHP, this article traces arguments of green colonialism that use techno-determinist environmental rhetoric for extraction purposes. Contributing to environmental communication, de/coloniality studies, and Indigenous research, I argue for a more expansive approach to argument that accounts for situated knowledge, place, and affect as ontological argumentative forces. I introduce a series of case studies on Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s resource colonialisms at different sites of extraction throughout the Americas, particularly in South America, to show how “good” arguments are determined by the modern/colonial matrix power and how decolonial actors speak back. The Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA) is in a unique position to resist argumentative logics of resource colonialism in the Americas, but argumentation must first address its own extractive models rooted in European ideals of modernism/colonialism.
{"title":"Arguments of green colonialism: a post-dialectical reading of extractivism in the Americas","authors":"Nicholas S. Paliewicz","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2138173","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Through two of the largest mining companies in the world, Rio Tinto and BHP, this article traces arguments of green colonialism that use techno-determinist environmental rhetoric for extraction purposes. Contributing to environmental communication, de/coloniality studies, and Indigenous research, I argue for a more expansive approach to argument that accounts for situated knowledge, place, and affect as ontological argumentative forces. I introduce a series of case studies on Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s resource colonialisms at different sites of extraction throughout the Americas, particularly in South America, to show how “good” arguments are determined by the modern/colonial matrix power and how decolonial actors speak back. The Argumentation Network of the Americas (ANA) is in a unique position to resist argumentative logics of resource colonialism in the Americas, but argumentation must first address its own extractive models rooted in European ideals of modernism/colonialism.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73814148","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-23DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2125698
Andrew W. Howat, J. Bruschke, Marissa Ocampo
{"title":"Critical thinking instruction for the post-truth era","authors":"Andrew W. Howat, J. Bruschke, Marissa Ocampo","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2125698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2125698","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82266839","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-21DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2022.2124762
Dale A. Herbeck, S. Drury
ABSTRACT The first Kennedy-Nixon debate did not occur in the Fall of 1960, but rather in the Spring of 1947 when the Junto, a community group in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, hosted a forum on the Hartley bill, controversial legislation pending in Congress that substantively curtailed the power of labor unions. The freshman legislators selected to headline the event, Representatives John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Richard M. Nixon of California, would later become the 35th and the 37th presidents of the United States. The newspaper account of the McKeesport Junto, published the next day in the McKeesport Daily News, employed a content frame that focused on the substance of the debate. Later accounts of the Junto, published after the advent of television, shifted to a mediated frame that emphasized physical appearance and argumentative style. By highlighting the difference between the two analytical frames, this analysis explores the impact television had on the format for political debates, the history of the McKeesport Junto, and the famous presidential debates of 1960.
肯尼迪与尼克松的第一次辩论并没有发生在1960年的秋天，而是发生在1947年的春天，当时宾夕法尼亚州McKeesport的一个社区组织Junto主持了一个关于哈特利法案的论坛，这是一项在国会悬而未决的有争议的立法，实质上削弱了工会的权力。马萨诸塞州众议员约翰·f·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)和加利福尼亚州众议员理查德·m·尼克松(Richard M. Nixon)这两位新当选的议员，后来分别成为美国第35任和第37任总统。第二天发表在《麦基波特每日新闻》(McKeesport Daily News)上的关于麦基波特军团的报道，采用了一个专注于辩论实质内容的内容框架。后来在电视出现后出版的关于俊托的描述，转向了一种强调外表和辩论风格的中介框架。通过强调两种分析框架之间的差异，本分析探讨了电视对政治辩论形式的影响，McKeesport Junto的历史，以及1960年著名的总统辩论。
{"title":"The first Kennedy-Nixon debate: the McKeesport Junto of 1947","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck, S. Drury","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2022.2124762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2124762","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The first Kennedy-Nixon debate did not occur in the Fall of 1960, but rather in the Spring of 1947 when the Junto, a community group in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, hosted a forum on the Hartley bill, controversial legislation pending in Congress that substantively curtailed the power of labor unions. The freshman legislators selected to headline the event, Representatives John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Richard M. Nixon of California, would later become the 35th and the 37th presidents of the United States. The newspaper account of the McKeesport Junto, published the next day in the McKeesport Daily News, employed a content frame that focused on the substance of the debate. Later accounts of the Junto, published after the advent of television, shifted to a mediated frame that emphasized physical appearance and argumentative style. By highlighting the difference between the two analytical frames, this analysis explores the impact television had on the format for political debates, the history of the McKeesport Junto, and the famous presidential debates of 1960.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82191327","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：