Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.2005233
Matthew W. Bost
{"title":"Market affect and the rhetoric of the political economic debates","authors":"Matthew W. Bost","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.2005233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.2005233","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85612581","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.2001151
Jenny D. Schneider
{"title":"Communication strategies for engaging climate skeptics: religion and the environment","authors":"Jenny D. Schneider","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.2001151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.2001151","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81742465","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 : 2021-10-09DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1986944
Carlos A. Tarin
Abstract As the communication discipline continues to grapple with issues pertaining to identity, representation, and equity, it is pivotal that such conversations take place in the domain of intercollegiate forensics as well. While some national organizations have begun to more seriously address the process of improving inclusivity outcomes, little research has been conducted on marginalized populations in the activity. Drawing on critical communication pedagogy, this qualitative study explores the experiences of people of color in competitive intercollegiate forensics. Interviews with people of color within the community reveal three major tensions that are being negotiated: voice ←→ constraint, belonging ←→ exclusion, and support ←→ burnout. Exploring these tensions provides a way of understanding how diverse viewpoints might better be supported in the activity.
{"title":"Beyond the margin: a (critical) qualitative study of people of color in intercollegiate forensics","authors":"Carlos A. Tarin","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1986944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1986944","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As the communication discipline continues to grapple with issues pertaining to identity, representation, and equity, it is pivotal that such conversations take place in the domain of intercollegiate forensics as well. While some national organizations have begun to more seriously address the process of improving inclusivity outcomes, little research has been conducted on marginalized populations in the activity. Drawing on critical communication pedagogy, this qualitative study explores the experiences of people of color in competitive intercollegiate forensics. Interviews with people of color within the community reveal three major tensions that are being negotiated: voice ←→ constraint, belonging ←→ exclusion, and support ←→ burnout. Exploring these tensions provides a way of understanding how diverse viewpoints might better be supported in the activity.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80851049","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446
Go-eun Kim, Benjamin R. Warner, Cassandra C. Kearney, Jihye Park, M. Kearney
Abstract This study presents a novel test of the effects of social watching a live campaign debate. We recruited just over 500 participants to view one of the two 2020 presidential campaign debates or the vice-presidential debate in real time via Zoom watch rooms. We experimentally manipulated the social dynamics of these Zoom watches to include either ideologically homogenous real-time chat, heterogenous chat, or no chat. We found asymmetry in the extent to which these chat manipulations exacerbated biased information processing. Participants in the homogenous chat Zoom sessions were more likely to provide negative debate performance evaluations of the out-group candidate but were no more likely to provide positive evaluations of the in-group candidate. Stronger partisans exhibited more bias in performance evaluation regardless of chat condition but, contrary to our expectations, did not engage in more chat compared to weak partisans.
{"title":"Social watching the 2020 presidential and vice-presidential debates: the effect of ideological homogeneity and partisan identity strength","authors":"Go-eun Kim, Benjamin R. Warner, Cassandra C. Kearney, Jihye Park, M. Kearney","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study presents a novel test of the effects of social watching a live campaign debate. We recruited just over 500 participants to view one of the two 2020 presidential campaign debates or the vice-presidential debate in real time via Zoom watch rooms. We experimentally manipulated the social dynamics of these Zoom watches to include either ideologically homogenous real-time chat, heterogenous chat, or no chat. We found asymmetry in the extent to which these chat manipulations exacerbated biased information processing. Participants in the homogenous chat Zoom sessions were more likely to provide negative debate performance evaluations of the out-group candidate but were no more likely to provide positive evaluations of the in-group candidate. Stronger partisans exhibited more bias in performance evaluation regardless of chat condition but, contrary to our expectations, did not engage in more chat compared to weak partisans.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83689969","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 : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1971381
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, Maria Fernandes‐Jesus, Önder Küçükural
Abstract How do adherents to hegemonic discourses construe and respond to radical arguments by activists? To address the question, we examined how adherents to hegemonic climate change discourses react to a climate activist’s arguments. In interviews conducted with corporate actors of low-carbon transitions, we used a video excerpt to elicit critical reactions to an activist’s argumentation on carbon offsetting. We used the critical reactions as an index of interviewees’ reception of the activist’s case and pragma-dialectical theory to analyze them. We found that interviewees advanced four types of criticism concerning individual agency, awareness-raising, neutralization, and financial instruments. We discuss their inter-relations and how interviewees construed the activist’s argumentation in ways that evaded his more antagonistic claims.
{"title":"Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate","authors":"Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, Maria Fernandes‐Jesus, Önder Küçükural","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1971381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1971381","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do adherents to hegemonic discourses construe and respond to radical arguments by activists? To address the question, we examined how adherents to hegemonic climate change discourses react to a climate activist’s arguments. In interviews conducted with corporate actors of low-carbon transitions, we used a video excerpt to elicit critical reactions to an activist’s argumentation on carbon offsetting. We used the critical reactions as an index of interviewees’ reception of the activist’s case and pragma-dialectical theory to analyze them. We found that interviewees advanced four types of criticism concerning individual agency, awareness-raising, neutralization, and financial instruments. We discuss their inter-relations and how interviewees construed the activist’s argumentation in ways that evaded his more antagonistic claims.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89220202","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 : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1924936
Harry Weger
{"title":"Argumentation Network of the Americas announcement","authors":"Harry Weger","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1924936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1924936","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88018221","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 : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1965303
Christopher Earle
Abstract This article reconstructs and analyzes the argument strategies used by right-wing public intellectuals, journalists, and political figures to delegitimize the controversy over racialized police violence. I demonstrate how right-wing advocates aim to shift the issue to the technical sphere, claiming to represent an expert consensus and depicting antiracist advocates as misunderstanding, if not intentionally misusing, technical data. This case provides a rich opportunity to deepen rhetoric and argument study of, first, how advocates disguise racist and post-racial discourses in the terms of technical expertise, and, second, how the burden of proof is assigned and negotiated within racial controversies. Claiming to represent an expert consensus would seem to carry a much higher burden of proof than would amplifying technical uncertainty. I argue, however, that defenders of the police mitigate this burden through heavy reliance on argument from ignorance, insinuating that the supposed lack of evidence of officer bias means that police use of lethal force must be racially fair.
{"title":"“All the research says”: manufactured consensus and the burden of proof in the racialized police violence controversy","authors":"Christopher Earle","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1965303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1965303","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reconstructs and analyzes the argument strategies used by right-wing public intellectuals, journalists, and political figures to delegitimize the controversy over racialized police violence. I demonstrate how right-wing advocates aim to shift the issue to the technical sphere, claiming to represent an expert consensus and depicting antiracist advocates as misunderstanding, if not intentionally misusing, technical data. This case provides a rich opportunity to deepen rhetoric and argument study of, first, how advocates disguise racist and post-racial discourses in the terms of technical expertise, and, second, how the burden of proof is assigned and negotiated within racial controversies. Claiming to represent an expert consensus would seem to carry a much higher burden of proof than would amplifying technical uncertainty. I argue, however, that defenders of the police mitigate this burden through heavy reliance on argument from ignorance, insinuating that the supposed lack of evidence of officer bias means that police use of lethal force must be racially fair.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83518491","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 : 2021-08-06DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526
M. McKinney
Four years ago, the Argumentation and Advocacy special issue of presidential debate scholarship was introduced by noting the “unconventional, unpredictable, unprecedented, and on many occasions rather ‘unpresidential’ presidential contest.” The studies contained in that issue went on to explore a “rather topsy-turvy election cycle [and] presidential campaign debates, with both primary and general-election debates serv[ing] as important campaign communication moments” (McKinney 2018, p. 72). Little did we know as we evaluated the debates of 2016 that what would occur in 2020 would set new records—on several measures new lows—for presidential debating, with a “topsy-turvy” debate cycle followed by one best characterized by outright tumult and disorder that overturned historic precedent and, potentially, has now established disturbing examples for the practice of future presidential debates. A common thread that runs throughout several of the studies contained in the current special issue of debate scholarship highlights the deficiencies with presidential candidates’ debate dialogue and argumentation, with these analyses often concluding the electorate is ill-served by current practices in presidential debating, particularly with our general-election debates. Important questions are raised by a number of these studies as to the future of our presidential debates, including how they should be structured, how journalists and debate moderators can best facilitate candidate debate, and suggestions for the type of candidate debate dialogue that will produce a more informed voter. Certainly, the stress of holding a national election in the midst of a global pandemic posed great challenges for many aspects of our electoral process in 2020, including our presidential debates. Yet, as the empirical analyses found in several of the studies in this special issue reveal, it was actually the incumbent president, Donald J. Trump, who posed perhaps the greatest threat to the institution of presidential debates. In keeping with his usual strategy of seeking to circumvent, control or even destroy those entities that present rules he must follow or would in any way limit his power and ability to exert his will, such as his frequent attacks on the judiciary (Rosen 2017), the legislative branch (Wehle 2020), or the press (Cobus 2020), Donald Trump also “declared war” on the Commission on Presidential Debates
四年前，总统辩论奖学金的《论证与倡导》特刊推出时指出，这是一场“非常规的、不可预测的、前所未有的、在许多场合甚至‘非总统’的总统竞选”。该问题中的研究继续探讨了“相当混乱的选举周期[和]总统竞选辩论，初选和大选辩论都是重要的竞选沟通时刻”(McKinney 2018，第72页)。当我们评估2016年的辩论时，我们几乎不知道，2020年将会发生的事情将创下总统辩论的新纪录——从几个方面来看都是新低——一个“颠倒”的辩论周期之后，一个最具特征的是彻底的骚动和混乱，推翻了历史先例，并可能为未来的总统辩论实践树立了令人不安的榜样。在当前的辩论学术特刊中，有几项研究都强调了总统候选人辩论对话和辩论的不足之处，这些分析往往得出结论，认为当前的总统辩论实践，尤其是大选辩论，对选民没有好处。这些研究提出了许多关于总统辩论未来的重要问题，包括辩论应该如何组织，记者和辩论主持人如何最好地促进候选人辩论，以及对候选人辩论对话类型的建议，这将产生一个更知情的选民。当然，在全球大流行病期间举行全国选举的压力对我们2020年选举进程的许多方面构成了巨大挑战，包括我们的总统辩论。然而，正如本期特刊的几项研究中发现的实证分析所揭示的那样，对总统辩论制度构成最大威胁的，实际上是现任总统唐纳德·j·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)。为了保持他一贯的策略，即寻求规避、控制甚至摧毁那些提出他必须遵守的规则的实体，或者以任何方式限制他行使自己意志的权力和能力，比如他频繁攻击司法机构(Rosen 2017)、立法部门(Wehle 2020)或新闻界(Cobus 2020)，唐纳德·特朗普还向总统辩论委员会“宣战”
{"title":"Presidential campaign debates in the 2020 elections: debate scholarship and the future of presidential debates","authors":"M. McKinney","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526","url":null,"abstract":"Four years ago, the Argumentation and Advocacy special issue of presidential debate scholarship was introduced by noting the “unconventional, unpredictable, unprecedented, and on many occasions rather ‘unpresidential’ presidential contest.” The studies contained in that issue went on to explore a “rather topsy-turvy election cycle [and] presidential campaign debates, with both primary and general-election debates serv[ing] as important campaign communication moments” (McKinney 2018, p. 72). Little did we know as we evaluated the debates of 2016 that what would occur in 2020 would set new records—on several measures new lows—for presidential debating, with a “topsy-turvy” debate cycle followed by one best characterized by outright tumult and disorder that overturned historic precedent and, potentially, has now established disturbing examples for the practice of future presidential debates. A common thread that runs throughout several of the studies contained in the current special issue of debate scholarship highlights the deficiencies with presidential candidates’ debate dialogue and argumentation, with these analyses often concluding the electorate is ill-served by current practices in presidential debating, particularly with our general-election debates. Important questions are raised by a number of these studies as to the future of our presidential debates, including how they should be structured, how journalists and debate moderators can best facilitate candidate debate, and suggestions for the type of candidate debate dialogue that will produce a more informed voter. Certainly, the stress of holding a national election in the midst of a global pandemic posed great challenges for many aspects of our electoral process in 2020, including our presidential debates. Yet, as the empirical analyses found in several of the studies in this special issue reveal, it was actually the incumbent president, Donald J. Trump, who posed perhaps the greatest threat to the institution of presidential debates. In keeping with his usual strategy of seeking to circumvent, control or even destroy those entities that present rules he must follow or would in any way limit his power and ability to exert his will, such as his frequent attacks on the judiciary (Rosen 2017), the legislative branch (Wehle 2020), or the press (Cobus 2020), Donald Trump also “declared war” on the Commission on Presidential Debates","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74520886","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 : 2021-07-26DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949554
Robert S. Hinck, Edward A. Hinck, S. Hinck, William O. Dailey, Breanna Melton
Abstract This study applied politeness theory to the thirteen Democratic primary debates of the 2020 campaign with comparisons to previous findings regarding the 2012 and 2016 Republican primary debates, the 2016 Democratic primary debates, and general election debates from 1960-2016. Our results indicate that the 2020 Democrats were less aggressive in their attacks than Republicans in 2012 and 2016, and that primary debates from 2012-2020 featured less aggressive qualities, on average, than general election debates. Results of the 2020 Democratic primary debates in particular showed a three-phase process of initial low intensity disagreement among candidates, followed by a phase of directly attacking the incumbent, with a third phase focusing on the Democratic front runners with Moderate and Progressive candidates using more direct and indirect face threats than single-issue and fringe candidates. Finally, while polls predicted the amount of time and thought-units candidates were afforded in the debates, they had little influence on politeness strategies utilized by the candidates.
{"title":"The 2020 democratic presidential primary debates: exploring politeness strategies for facing an aggressive incumbent","authors":"Robert S. Hinck, Edward A. Hinck, S. Hinck, William O. Dailey, Breanna Melton","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949554","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study applied politeness theory to the thirteen Democratic primary debates of the 2020 campaign with comparisons to previous findings regarding the 2012 and 2016 Republican primary debates, the 2016 Democratic primary debates, and general election debates from 1960-2016. Our results indicate that the 2020 Democrats were less aggressive in their attacks than Republicans in 2012 and 2016, and that primary debates from 2012-2020 featured less aggressive qualities, on average, than general election debates. Results of the 2020 Democratic primary debates in particular showed a three-phase process of initial low intensity disagreement among candidates, followed by a phase of directly attacking the incumbent, with a third phase focusing on the Democratic front runners with Moderate and Progressive candidates using more direct and indirect face threats than single-issue and fringe candidates. Finally, while polls predicted the amount of time and thought-units candidates were afforded in the debates, they had little influence on politeness strategies utilized by the candidates.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78104566","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 : 2021-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543
F. J. Jennings, Josh C. Bramlett, K. Kenski, Isabel I. Villanueva
Abstract Presidential debates are a source of political learning for those who watch them. This study examines how learning from debates cultivates intentions for political engagement by increasing individuals’ opinion articulation. Using data from a study that involved participants (N = 543) who watched a nine-minute video from the first 2020 general election presidential debate in which the presidential candidates answered questions about the economy, we find that people who learned most from this segment had increased ability to articulate their opinions about the candidates. Opinion articulation, in turn, was associated with people’s intentions to discuss the economy with others and to engage in candidate advocacy. Ultimately, these effects were associated with increased intentions to seek additional information about the economy. The direct and indirect effects of political learning are explained.
{"title":"Presidential debate learning as a gateway to opinion articulation, communication intentions, and information seeking","authors":"F. J. Jennings, Josh C. Bramlett, K. Kenski, Isabel I. Villanueva","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949543","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Presidential debates are a source of political learning for those who watch them. This study examines how learning from debates cultivates intentions for political engagement by increasing individuals’ opinion articulation. Using data from a study that involved participants (N = 543) who watched a nine-minute video from the first 2020 general election presidential debate in which the presidential candidates answered questions about the economy, we find that people who learned most from this segment had increased ability to articulate their opinions about the candidates. Opinion articulation, in turn, was associated with people’s intentions to discuss the economy with others and to engage in candidate advocacy. Ultimately, these effects were associated with increased intentions to seek additional information about the economy. The direct and indirect effects of political learning are explained.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87114401","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：