The paper examines the relationships between population and household change, on the one hand, and labour market/employment change, on the other, and considers how these relationships have contributed to the growth of inequality. The perspective of the paper is sociological, although much of the work done in these areas has been carried out by demographers and economists. Areas where sociological research remains to be done are highlighted. Developments in patterns of fertility and in households are linked to the growth of individualism and to changes in the labour market, and shown to be implicated jointly in the marked growth of inequality in Britain. The paper argues that future research must link households and labour markets, and work towards understanding emerging new relationships between working and private lives, between living arrangements and labour supply, and between individual freedom and social integration.
{"title":"Household and labour market change: implications for the growth of inequality in Britain.","authors":"S. Mcrae","doi":"10.2307/591137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591137","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the relationships between population and household change, on the one hand, and labour market/employment change, on the other, and considers how these relationships have contributed to the growth of inequality. The perspective of the paper is sociological, although much of the work done in these areas has been carried out by demographers and economists. Areas where sociological research remains to be done are highlighted. Developments in patterns of fertility and in households are linked to the growth of individualism and to changes in the labour market, and shown to be implicated jointly in the marked growth of inequality in Britain. The paper argues that future research must link households and labour markets, and work towards understanding emerging new relationships between working and private lives, between living arrangements and labour supply, and between individual freedom and social integration.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126058003","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}
This paper examines popular understanding of class inequalities in opportunity using an experimental approach to assess implicit as well as explicit comprehension. Three competing representations of popular beliefs are compared: a 'class inequality' model, implying widespread belief in class-related inequalities of opportunity; a 'meritocratic' view of achievement, in which emphasis is placed on individual responsibility; and an 'ideological polarization' model, which assumes that beliefs emphasizing class inequality or merit vary with left-right ideology. Predictions derived from these ideas are tested using a national survey with an experimental design, in which respondents are presented with vignettes designed to elicit their beliefs as to how and why people from different class backgrounds obtain middle-class or working-class occupations. As predicted by the class inequality model, there is clear evidence of the impact of tacit assumptions about class structured inequality of opportunity on expectations, judgments of responsibility and explanations of occupational attainment. Even among right-wing respondents, who are more likely to endorse the rhetoric of individual responsibility, there remains an implicit awareness of social class influences on life-chances, suggesting the pervasive presence of these beliefs in popular understanding of social processes.
{"title":"Political ideology and popular beliefs about class and opportunity: evidence from a survey experiment.","authors":"Geoffrey Evans","doi":"10.2307/591140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591140","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines popular understanding of class inequalities in opportunity using an experimental approach to assess implicit as well as explicit comprehension. Three competing representations of popular beliefs are compared: a 'class inequality' model, implying widespread belief in class-related inequalities of opportunity; a 'meritocratic' view of achievement, in which emphasis is placed on individual responsibility; and an 'ideological polarization' model, which assumes that beliefs emphasizing class inequality or merit vary with left-right ideology. Predictions derived from these ideas are tested using a national survey with an experimental design, in which respondents are presented with vignettes designed to elicit their beliefs as to how and why people from different class backgrounds obtain middle-class or working-class occupations. As predicted by the class inequality model, there is clear evidence of the impact of tacit assumptions about class structured inequality of opportunity on expectations, judgments of responsibility and explanations of occupational attainment. Even among right-wing respondents, who are more likely to endorse the rhetoric of individual responsibility, there remains an implicit awareness of social class influences on life-chances, suggesting the pervasive presence of these beliefs in popular understanding of social processes.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125072631","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}
This paper is an analysis of the role of language in historical class formation in light of the recent developments in postmodern social theory and historiography. Revisionists from within this perspective have questioned if not abandoned E. P. Thompson's class struggle analysis, arguing that he fails to account for the constitutive character of language in the construction of collective identities. They oppose his account of the making of the English working class with alternative histories emphasizing populist and other non-class identities. Drawing on the Bakhtin Circle of literary studies, and returning to Thompson's own writings, I argue that we can incorporate language into class struggle analysis as a critical mediating force. I maintain that class struggle occurs largely within a hegemonic discursive formation, and that class consciousness and identity thus in part are formed through counter-hegemonic strategies of resistance to ideological domination. To illustrate this theory I analyse the role of language in the class struggles of the silk weavers of the Spitalfields district in London in the 1820s. I analyse how the silk weavers articulated a class consciousness through their counter-hegemonic struggles with the large capitalists and the language of political economy.
{"title":"'A way of struggle': reformations and affirmations of E. P. Thompson's class analysis in the light of postmodern theories of language.","authors":"M. Steinberg","doi":"10.2307/591141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591141","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is an analysis of the role of language in historical class formation in light of the recent developments in postmodern social theory and historiography. Revisionists from within this perspective have questioned if not abandoned E. P. Thompson's class struggle analysis, arguing that he fails to account for the constitutive character of language in the construction of collective identities. They oppose his account of the making of the English working class with alternative histories emphasizing populist and other non-class identities. Drawing on the Bakhtin Circle of literary studies, and returning to Thompson's own writings, I argue that we can incorporate language into class struggle analysis as a critical mediating force. I maintain that class struggle occurs largely within a hegemonic discursive formation, and that class consciousness and identity thus in part are formed through counter-hegemonic strategies of resistance to ideological domination. To illustrate this theory I analyse the role of language in the class struggles of the silk weavers of the Spitalfields district in London in the 1820s. I analyse how the silk weavers articulated a class consciousness through their counter-hegemonic struggles with the large capitalists and the language of political economy.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127215723","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}
As many now recognize, fear of crime is an inadequately theorized concept. In particular, it is premissed on rational, calculating individuals who routinely miscalculate their 'true' risk of crime. Hence the repeatedly found paradox that the least at risk group (elderly females) are most fearful. The risk literature has adopted a cultural/anthropological rather than an individual perspective, but, in so doing has not succeeded in retheorizing the notion of the rationally calculating subject it critiques (Douglas), even if rational calculations are no longer possible in today's 'risk society' (Beck). We develop these cultural perspectives in a way which is founded on a post-structuralist theory of individuals wherein inter-subjective defending against anxiety replaces rational calculation as central to the understanding of fear. Not only does this re-link the concepts of fear and anxiety, currently divorced in the fear of crime debate, but it offers the prospect of understanding the paradoxical mismatch between risk and fear at both the level of the individual and of society.
{"title":"The risk society in an age of anxiety: situating fear of crime.","authors":"W. Hollway, T. Jefferson","doi":"10.2307/591751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591751","url":null,"abstract":"As many now recognize, fear of crime is an inadequately theorized concept. In particular, it is premissed on rational, calculating individuals who routinely miscalculate their 'true' risk of crime. Hence the repeatedly found paradox that the least at risk group (elderly females) are most fearful. The risk literature has adopted a cultural/anthropological rather than an individual perspective, but, in so doing has not succeeded in retheorizing the notion of the rationally calculating subject it critiques (Douglas), even if rational calculations are no longer possible in today's 'risk society' (Beck). We develop these cultural perspectives in a way which is founded on a post-structuralist theory of individuals wherein inter-subjective defending against anxiety replaces rational calculation as central to the understanding of fear. Not only does this re-link the concepts of fear and anxiety, currently divorced in the fear of crime debate, but it offers the prospect of understanding the paradoxical mismatch between risk and fear at both the level of the individual and of society.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132236803","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}
This paper analyses the accounts constructed by 60 gay male Christians in partnership as stigma management strategies at the level of cognition and rhetoric. Four strategies are identified: (i) attacking the stigma; (ii) attacking the stigmatizer; (iii) use of positive personal experience; and (iv) use of the ontogeneric argument. These strategies are interchangeably and collectively used to dismiss the credibility of the institutionalized Church and the validity of its unfavourable official position on the issue of homosexuality. The effective use of these strategies demonstrates the positive personal identity these gay Christians have developed in this advanced stage of their moral career.
{"title":"Attacking the attacker: gay Christians talk back.","authors":"A. Yip","doi":"10.2307/591913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591913","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the accounts constructed by 60 gay male Christians in partnership as stigma management strategies at the level of cognition and rhetoric. Four strategies are identified: (i) attacking the stigma; (ii) attacking the stigmatizer; (iii) use of positive personal experience; and (iv) use of the ontogeneric argument. These strategies are interchangeably and collectively used to dismiss the credibility of the institutionalized Church and the validity of its unfavourable official position on the issue of homosexuality. The effective use of these strategies demonstrates the positive personal identity these gay Christians have developed in this advanced stage of their moral career.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127927032","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 urban environment represents an important social and geographical focus for the international new urban public health movement in general and the World Health Organization's 'Healthy Cities' project in particular. Existing and new policies of relevance to urban health are however infused with notions of cause, effect and ideas of appropriate intervention that reflect highly malleable and more or less conscious expressions of rationality, self-interest and organizational purpose--factors central to sociological analysis of the political discourse and objectives associated with the new urban public health movement. This article begins to develop a research agenda in this respect through consideration of the 'language' of policy and reference to Habermas' idea of 'communicative reason'. It is argued that case-study based research into the discourse of the new urban public health movement has to balance empirical accounts with analysis of the 'policy ontologies' that confront and underpin the mobilizations and has, secondly, to consider the 'communicative capacity and orientation' of such initiatives.
{"title":"Reason and protest in the new urban public health movement: an observation on the sociological analysis of political discourse in the 'healthy city'.","authors":"T. Milewa, E. de Leeuw","doi":"10.2307/591078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591078","url":null,"abstract":"The urban environment represents an important social and geographical focus for the international new urban public health movement in general and the World Health Organization's 'Healthy Cities' project in particular. Existing and new policies of relevance to urban health are however infused with notions of cause, effect and ideas of appropriate intervention that reflect highly malleable and more or less conscious expressions of rationality, self-interest and organizational purpose--factors central to sociological analysis of the political discourse and objectives associated with the new urban public health movement. This article begins to develop a research agenda in this respect through consideration of the 'language' of policy and reference to Habermas' idea of 'communicative reason'. It is argued that case-study based research into the discourse of the new urban public health movement has to balance empirical accounts with analysis of the 'policy ontologies' that confront and underpin the mobilizations and has, secondly, to consider the 'communicative capacity and orientation' of such initiatives.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126695173","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}
Important methodological questions are raised by the act of researching disablement. Disability research has attracted much methodological criticism from disabled people who argue that it has taken place within an oppressive theoretical paradigm and within an oppressive set of social relations. These issues are of heightened significance for non-disabled researchers and bear many similarities to those faced by researchers investigating barriers to the social inclusion of women, Black and 'Third World' peoples. Such challenges have led to the development of an 'emancipatory' research paradigm. Six principles of emancipatory research are identified and the authors own research projects are critically examined within this framework. A number of contradictions are identified and an attempt made to balance the twin requirements of political action and academic rigour.
{"title":"Parasites, pawns and partners: disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers.","authors":"E. Stone, M. Priestley","doi":"10.2307/591081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591081","url":null,"abstract":"Important methodological questions are raised by the act of researching disablement. Disability research has attracted much methodological criticism from disabled people who argue that it has taken place within an oppressive theoretical paradigm and within an oppressive set of social relations. These issues are of heightened significance for non-disabled researchers and bear many similarities to those faced by researchers investigating barriers to the social inclusion of women, Black and 'Third World' peoples. Such challenges have led to the development of an 'emancipatory' research paradigm. Six principles of emancipatory research are identified and the authors own research projects are critically examined within this framework. A number of contradictions are identified and an attempt made to balance the twin requirements of political action and academic rigour.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126951897","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}
This paper begins with the Jamie Bulger murder in Britain in late 1993 and sets out to examine the sociological contexts of the waves of shock and reaction that were manifested in the public perceptions of this event. Traditional conceptions of the child through modernity and their social and moral implications for generating a particular view of innocence and dependency are considered as providing the baseline from which childhood today appears to drift. Public reaction is analysed in terms of mass media content, against a general ignorance of the actual child's point of view. The paper concludes with the broader idea that images of childhood have become closely aligned with expectations of social integration and any fracture of one subsequently threatens the other.
{"title":"Public perceptions of childhood criminality.","authors":"A. James, C. Jenks","doi":"10.2307/591729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591729","url":null,"abstract":"This paper begins with the Jamie Bulger murder in Britain in late 1993 and sets out to examine the sociological contexts of the waves of shock and reaction that were manifested in the public perceptions of this event. Traditional conceptions of the child through modernity and their social and moral implications for generating a particular view of innocence and dependency are considered as providing the baseline from which childhood today appears to drift. Public reaction is analysed in terms of mass media content, against a general ignorance of the actual child's point of view. The paper concludes with the broader idea that images of childhood have become closely aligned with expectations of social integration and any fracture of one subsequently threatens the other.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134555520","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}
J. Ginn, S. Arber, J. Brannen, A. Dale, S. Dex, P. Elais, P. Moss, J. Pahl, C. Roberts, J. Rubery
Les AA. s'efforcent de repondre aux affirmations de C. Hakim selon lesquelles la sociologie feministe en repliquant aux analyses patriarcales a cree de nouveaux mythes concernant l'emploi des femmes et s'est ecartee de l'evidence. Ils estiment que ces theses sont provocantes. Ils presentent une refutation de chacune d'entre elles. Ils affirment que Hakim a mesinterprete les donnees concernant les attitudes des femmes envers le travail et montrent que les emplois a temps partiel ne sont pas choisis volontairement par ces dernieres
{"title":"Feminist fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women's employment.","authors":"J. Ginn, S. Arber, J. Brannen, A. Dale, S. Dex, P. Elais, P. Moss, J. Pahl, C. Roberts, J. Rubery","doi":"10.2307/591122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591122","url":null,"abstract":"Les AA. s'efforcent de repondre aux affirmations de C. Hakim selon lesquelles la sociologie feministe en repliquant aux analyses patriarcales a cree de nouveaux mythes concernant l'emploi des femmes et s'est ecartee de l'evidence. Ils estiment que ces theses sont provocantes. Ils presentent une refutation de chacune d'entre elles. Ils affirment que Hakim a mesinterprete les donnees concernant les attitudes des femmes envers le travail et montrent que les emplois a temps partiel ne sont pas choisis volontairement par ces dernieres","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116033166","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 cornments by Bruegel and by Ginn et al. (hereafter the Eleven) on my article4Five feminist myths about female employment' (Hakim 1995b) do not constitute a step forward in research and debate on female employment. Bruegel agrees with me on all main issues; herdisagreements are on points of detail rather than fundamental substance and are presented too briefly to be clear. The Eleven provide a catalogue of selective evidence of the kind that characterizes advocacy research rather than detached and dispassionate social science. What they say is generally arguable. The problem is that they do not give the comptete story and the parts they leave out change our conclusions fundamentally. To take just one example, the Eleven quote a paper by Rubery et al. showing that women part-timers are 'overqualified' for theirjobs, but fail to mention that the paper also shows full-timers to be similarly 'overqualified' for theirjobs. The paper also shows that it is full-time workers, men and women, who most often wish to change their employer if they could, not part-timers. This is hardly consistent with the notion that employers exploit part-timers in particular. They also fail to note that in the same paper part-timers report theirjobs to bejust as secure and permanent as full-timejobs so this can hardly be the cause of higher turnover among part-timers (Rubery et al. 1994: 214, 225, 227). There is agreatdeal of valuable research evidence in this source and other recent publications that the Eleven similarly ignore. On balance, the research evidence shows that part-time work does not change a woman's primary self-identity as a housewife, does not change her bargaining power and weight in decision-making and does not change her role in the household. From a sociological perspective, part-timers can be grouped with housewives rather than with wage workers in aggregate data. We cannot expect the expansion of part-time work to be the catalyst for social and economic change, and this is the key point about the myth of rising female employment, which the Eleven do not even address. It will not do for social scientists to be economical with the truth, giving one half of the story but failing to mention the inconvenient evidence. Social scientists are supposed to take account of all the evidence rather than relying on sample selection bias and selective perception to support
{"title":"The sexual division of labour and women's heterogeneity.","authors":"Catherine Hakim","doi":"10.2307/591124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591124","url":null,"abstract":"The cornments by Bruegel and by Ginn et al. (hereafter the Eleven) on my article4Five feminist myths about female employment' (Hakim 1995b) do not constitute a step forward in research and debate on female employment. Bruegel agrees with me on all main issues; herdisagreements are on points of detail rather than fundamental substance and are presented too briefly to be clear. The Eleven provide a catalogue of selective evidence of the kind that characterizes advocacy research rather than detached and dispassionate social science. What they say is generally arguable. The problem is that they do not give the comptete story and the parts they leave out change our conclusions fundamentally. To take just one example, the Eleven quote a paper by Rubery et al. showing that women part-timers are 'overqualified' for theirjobs, but fail to mention that the paper also shows full-timers to be similarly 'overqualified' for theirjobs. The paper also shows that it is full-time workers, men and women, who most often wish to change their employer if they could, not part-timers. This is hardly consistent with the notion that employers exploit part-timers in particular. They also fail to note that in the same paper part-timers report theirjobs to bejust as secure and permanent as full-timejobs so this can hardly be the cause of higher turnover among part-timers (Rubery et al. 1994: 214, 225, 227). There is agreatdeal of valuable research evidence in this source and other recent publications that the Eleven similarly ignore. On balance, the research evidence shows that part-time work does not change a woman's primary self-identity as a housewife, does not change her bargaining power and weight in decision-making and does not change her role in the household. From a sociological perspective, part-timers can be grouped with housewives rather than with wage workers in aggregate data. We cannot expect the expansion of part-time work to be the catalyst for social and economic change, and this is the key point about the myth of rising female employment, which the Eleven do not even address. It will not do for social scientists to be economical with the truth, giving one half of the story but failing to mention the inconvenient evidence. Social scientists are supposed to take account of all the evidence rather than relying on sample selection bias and selective perception to support","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124321885","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：