Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/32J9-TAFG-HAX0-218G
Z. M. Leffakis, W. Doll
In the United States, organizations can be held legally liable when their employees create conditions for a hostile work environment by operating telecommunication systems for personal use in the workplace. Conventionally, many organizations implement acceptable telecommunication usage policies and electronic surveillance to prevent harassing situations from occurring and to protect themselves against costly liability lawsuits. However, these authoritarian methods have been criticized because of the apparent trade-offs they cause among employee privacy rights, productivity, and the need to safeguard the firm from harassment lawsuits. As an alternative approach, our analysis shows that the development of a High-Performance Work System (HPWS) will lower employees’ propensity to misuse telecommunication systems in the workplace, resulting in the reduction of employee rights lawsuits for the firm. Our analysis indicates that a HPWS creates a work environment that ensures telecommunication systems will be properly used and employees will not have to relinquish their expectation of privacy. We argue that organizations that manage their telecommunication systems by HPWS practices rather than bureaucratically controlling them will be in a better position to overcome the legal inadequacies of authoritarian methods.
{"title":"USING HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND DECREASE EMPLOYEE TELECOMMUNICATION VIOLATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE","authors":"Z. M. Leffakis, W. Doll","doi":"10.2190/32J9-TAFG-HAX0-218G","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/32J9-TAFG-HAX0-218G","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, organizations can be held legally liable when their employees create conditions for a hostile work environment by operating telecommunication systems for personal use in the workplace. Conventionally, many organizations implement acceptable telecommunication usage policies and electronic surveillance to prevent harassing situations from occurring and to protect themselves against costly liability lawsuits. However, these authoritarian methods have been criticized because of the apparent trade-offs they cause among employee privacy rights, productivity, and the need to safeguard the firm from harassment lawsuits. As an alternative approach, our analysis shows that the development of a High-Performance Work System (HPWS) will lower employees’ propensity to misuse telecommunication systems in the workplace, resulting in the reduction of employee rights lawsuits for the firm. Our analysis indicates that a HPWS creates a work environment that ensures telecommunication systems will be properly used and employees will not have to relinquish their expectation of privacy. We argue that organizations that manage their telecommunication systems by HPWS practices rather than bureaucratically controlling them will be in a better position to overcome the legal inadequacies of authoritarian methods.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"61 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115501108","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/KE8X-J7E8-RWD5-XMVQ
H. Findley, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram
This is a review article on the complex and often misunderstood topic of affirmative action. This article reviews the origin of affirmative action, the nature of the plans, and the surrounding legal network. A subsequent article will address contemporary problems and issues. Affirmative action has been with us for nearly 40 years. Interestingly, it was initially intended to be a temporary measure to redress past discriminatory practices [1]. However, like many government programs, it seems to have become a permanent fixture of public policy. But periodically, the nation revisits and debates the value of this divisive issue. This is just such a period, as affirmative action is once again near the foreground of the nation’s conscience, at least partially due to the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan’s controversial affirmative action plans (AAPs). In June 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Law School’s AAP and struck down its undergraduate AAP [2, 3]. The public interest and furore created by these decisions provides an opportunity to reexamine the legal principles that directly affect at least 190,000 establishments employing more than 22,000,000 workers [4]. This reexamination is of particular importance, since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion as to the definition and practice of affirmative action. Many wrongly believe that affirmative action involves only hiring quotas
{"title":"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE LAW","authors":"H. Findley, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram","doi":"10.2190/KE8X-J7E8-RWD5-XMVQ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/KE8X-J7E8-RWD5-XMVQ","url":null,"abstract":"This is a review article on the complex and often misunderstood topic of affirmative action. This article reviews the origin of affirmative action, the nature of the plans, and the surrounding legal network. A subsequent article will address contemporary problems and issues. Affirmative action has been with us for nearly 40 years. Interestingly, it was initially intended to be a temporary measure to redress past discriminatory practices [1]. However, like many government programs, it seems to have become a permanent fixture of public policy. But periodically, the nation revisits and debates the value of this divisive issue. This is just such a period, as affirmative action is once again near the foreground of the nation’s conscience, at least partially due to the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan’s controversial affirmative action plans (AAPs). In June 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Law School’s AAP and struck down its undergraduate AAP [2, 3]. The public interest and furore created by these decisions provides an opportunity to reexamine the legal principles that directly affect at least 190,000 establishments employing more than 22,000,000 workers [4]. This reexamination is of particular importance, since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion as to the definition and practice of affirmative action. Many wrongly believe that affirmative action involves only hiring quotas","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124434307","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/N82D-EYY9-98WG-UFWH
A. Khan
Under the Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial rather than the federal government's responsibility. In the majority of Canadian universities, colleges, and schools, a mandatory retirement age of sixty-five for men and women is stipulated either by by-laws made under, or collective agreements facilitated by, provincial legislation. A majority of the provinces, in their individual rights or human rights acts/codes, while proscribing discrimination on the ground of, inter alia, age, provides an exception in that between certain ages the provisions against age discrimination do not apply. 1 One of the consequences is that compulsory retirement is not protected under human rights legislation. One of the principal ways the mandatory retirement of academics and others could be challenged was to use the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts lower than the Supreme Court of Canada could not agree whether compulsory retirement at a certain age was, under the equality section of the Charter, discriminatory or not. It was left to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide that important question. This article examines these recent developments. For example, the British Columbia Human Rights Act defines age as between forty-five and sixty-five; and the Ontario Human Rights Code limits the definition of age between eighteen and sixty-five. Thus, discrimination outside these ages is permissible. The Canadian (Federal) Human Rights Act also provides a defense to a complaint of age discrimination of an employee who is forced to retire at the "normal age of retirement." •This article originally appeared in Education and the Law, 4:, pp. 7-17, 1992, published by the Longman Group UK, Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
{"title":"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Mandatory Retirement of Academic Employees","authors":"A. Khan","doi":"10.2190/N82D-EYY9-98WG-UFWH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/N82D-EYY9-98WG-UFWH","url":null,"abstract":"Under the Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial rather than the federal government's responsibility. In the majority of Canadian universities, colleges, and schools, a mandatory retirement age of sixty-five for men and women is stipulated either by by-laws made under, or collective agreements facilitated by, provincial legislation. A majority of the provinces, in their individual rights or human rights acts/codes, while proscribing discrimination on the ground of, inter alia, age, provides an exception in that between certain ages the provisions against age discrimination do not apply. 1 One of the consequences is that compulsory retirement is not protected under human rights legislation. One of the principal ways the mandatory retirement of academics and others could be challenged was to use the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts lower than the Supreme Court of Canada could not agree whether compulsory retirement at a certain age was, under the equality section of the Charter, discriminatory or not. It was left to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide that important question. This article examines these recent developments. For example, the British Columbia Human Rights Act defines age as between forty-five and sixty-five; and the Ontario Human Rights Code limits the definition of age between eighteen and sixty-five. Thus, discrimination outside these ages is permissible. The Canadian (Federal) Human Rights Act also provides a defense to a complaint of age discrimination of an employee who is forced to retire at the \"normal age of retirement.\" •This article originally appeared in Education and the Law, 4:, pp. 7-17, 1992, published by the Longman Group UK, Ltd. Reprinted with permission.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128313927","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/C0D7-J2M6-RQQY-PFKY
Jeffrey Cohen
{"title":"Injured Customers Make Employers Pay Under the Negligent Hiring Doctrine: Evolution, Explanation, and Avoidance of Negligent Hiring Litigation","authors":"Jeffrey Cohen","doi":"10.2190/C0D7-J2M6-RQQY-PFKY","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/C0D7-J2M6-RQQY-PFKY","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127510070","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/QBAU-ENGV-V08T-J6YD
D. Rebne, R. Jarmon
This article examines the implications of U.S. individual employment rights for secondary employment under the contract labor mechanism. Based on an analysis of common law and regulatory agency tests and the evolving legal theory of co-employment, it is argued that employment rights management is fundamentally problematic for firms using contract labor. Factors which make it difficult to externalize employment management through contract labor agencies include 1) moral hazard problems associated with such agen cies, 2) costs of monitoring rights compliance, 3) rights violations involving third-party liability and 4) related problems associated with the extension of contract labor to professional occupations. Anticipated managerial responses (in terms of refinements to contract labor practice) are discussed, together with their limitations. Also considered are the implications of such refine ments for dual labor market configurations involving primary workers under the human resources or "salaried" model. Historically, secondary employment, with its key characteristics of market-based pricing and tenuous attachment to the firm, has been the norm in America. Its counterpart—rule-based primary employment via internal labor markets—is a phenomenon of this century [1]. As Jacoby [2] has documented, the development of internal labor markets (and personnel/administrative control over employment) is best understood as a response to legal-institutional support for collective organization and individual employment rights rather than limitations of marketbased employment, per se. While market forces and direct efficiency incentives identified by Doeringer and Piore [3] and others certainly play a role in the
{"title":"U.S. Employment Rights Legislation and the Legal Theory of Co-Employment as Constraints on the Use of Contract Labor","authors":"D. Rebne, R. Jarmon","doi":"10.2190/QBAU-ENGV-V08T-J6YD","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/QBAU-ENGV-V08T-J6YD","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the implications of U.S. individual employment rights for secondary employment under the contract labor mechanism. Based on an analysis of common law and regulatory agency tests and the evolving legal theory of co-employment, it is argued that employment rights management is fundamentally problematic for firms using contract labor. Factors which make it difficult to externalize employment management through contract labor agencies include 1) moral hazard problems associated with such agen cies, 2) costs of monitoring rights compliance, 3) rights violations involving third-party liability and 4) related problems associated with the extension of contract labor to professional occupations. Anticipated managerial responses (in terms of refinements to contract labor practice) are discussed, together with their limitations. Also considered are the implications of such refine ments for dual labor market configurations involving primary workers under the human resources or \"salaried\" model. Historically, secondary employment, with its key characteristics of market-based pricing and tenuous attachment to the firm, has been the norm in America. Its counterpart—rule-based primary employment via internal labor markets—is a phenomenon of this century [1]. As Jacoby [2] has documented, the development of internal labor markets (and personnel/administrative control over employment) is best understood as a response to legal-institutional support for collective organization and individual employment rights rather than limitations of marketbased employment, per se. While market forces and direct efficiency incentives identified by Doeringer and Piore [3] and others certainly play a role in the","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128832992","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/Q1KB-8WVE-86FA-TTVQ
D. Wyld
This article addresses the often-hidden accent discrimination issue in higher education. The article begins with an examination of the concept of just what an accent is. Next, the scope of Title VH's protection against discrimination due to national origin is analyzed. The rationale for equating accent and national origin discrimination under Title VH's umbrella is laid out. Then, court rulings in cases of alleged accent discrimination both within and outside of higher education are examined. This sets the stage for an analysis of the decision in Hassan v. Auburn University (1993), which offers important insights into the scope of administrative prerogative to deal with the language and accent issue in higher education. A concluding discussion of the ramifica tions of the Hassan court's ruling for higher education in a changing era is then offered. America's colleges and universities enjoy a competitive advantage versus the rest of the world. Around the globe, the quality of American higher education is regarded as unequaled. Higher education institutions in the United States thus stand in a unique position. They have the ability to attract the best and the brightest from countries all over the planet to come to the United States for their academic pursuits—both as students and professors. What is at the core of America's magnetism to attract the best scholars worldwide? Former Harvard University President Derek Bok answered quite clearly that the answer lay in the common currency of the English language. He wrote:
本文探讨了高等教育中经常隐藏的口音歧视问题。这篇文章首先考察了什么是口音的概念。其次，分析了第VH条对国籍歧视的保护范围。在标题VH的保护伞下，将口音和国籍歧视等同起来的理由被列出。然后，对高等教育内外涉嫌口音歧视的案件的法院裁决进行审查。这为哈桑诉奥本大学(Hassan v. Auburn University, 1993)一案的判决分析奠定了基础，该判决为处理高等教育中语言和口音问题的行政特权范围提供了重要见解。最后讨论了哈桑法院对高等教育在不断变化的时代中的影响。与世界其他地区相比，美国的学院和大学享有竞争优势。在全球范围内，美国高等教育的质量被认为是无与伦比的。因此，美国的高等教育机构处于独特的地位。他们有能力吸引世界各地最优秀、最聪明的人来美国从事学术研究——无论是学生还是教授。美国吸引全球最优秀学者的核心魅力是什么?前哈佛大学校长德里克·博克非常明确地回答说，答案就在英语这一通用语言中。他写道:
{"title":"The Hassan Case: An Analysis of the Issue of Accent Discrimination in American Higher Education","authors":"D. Wyld","doi":"10.2190/Q1KB-8WVE-86FA-TTVQ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/Q1KB-8WVE-86FA-TTVQ","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the often-hidden accent discrimination issue in higher education. The article begins with an examination of the concept of just what an accent is. Next, the scope of Title VH's protection against discrimination due to national origin is analyzed. The rationale for equating accent and national origin discrimination under Title VH's umbrella is laid out. Then, court rulings in cases of alleged accent discrimination both within and outside of higher education are examined. This sets the stage for an analysis of the decision in Hassan v. Auburn University (1993), which offers important insights into the scope of administrative prerogative to deal with the language and accent issue in higher education. A concluding discussion of the ramifica tions of the Hassan court's ruling for higher education in a changing era is then offered. America's colleges and universities enjoy a competitive advantage versus the rest of the world. Around the globe, the quality of American higher education is regarded as unequaled. Higher education institutions in the United States thus stand in a unique position. They have the ability to attract the best and the brightest from countries all over the planet to come to the United States for their academic pursuits—both as students and professors. What is at the core of America's magnetism to attract the best scholars worldwide? Former Harvard University President Derek Bok answered quite clearly that the answer lay in the common currency of the English language. He wrote:","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126516516","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/FDWX-QY36-FU3L-EQW9
Ahmad R. Karim, Lawrence J. Haber
The approach taken in this study is to regard substance abuse discharge cases as specific instances of discharge cases in general. Consequently, in trying to model arbitrators' decisions, the possible predictors of the outcome of arbitra tion hearings are derived from those factors found to significantly affect the outcome in earlier discharge studies. Discriminant analysis is used to deter mine those factors that significantly affected the outcomes of substance-abuse discharge cases in the period 1985-1993. While most of the predictors thought to influence arbitral decision making operated in the anticipated manner, there were some surprises. In particular, neither management's concern for safety nor the grievant's prior work record affected the outcome of the cases. Over the past thirty years, the abuse of drugs, both licit and illicit, has increasingly pervaded the consciousness of American society in general and, more recently, of American industry. According to a recent survey undertaken by the Conference Board, business and industry in the United States loses approximately $20.6 billion annually because of alcoholism alone [1]. When the losses of nonbusiness organizations are included, the figure swells to a staggering $100 billion [1, 2]. While initially employers were reluctant to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem, they have responded with a combination of both corrective and deter rent measures [3-4]. Management in many businesses has either negotiated or unilaterally promulgated drug policies that have become part of the work rules at these firms. As a result of the sanctions inherent in these measures, penalties and other actions taken against employees who are alleged by their employers to have
{"title":"Arbitrator Decision Making in Substance Abuse Cases","authors":"Ahmad R. Karim, Lawrence J. Haber","doi":"10.2190/FDWX-QY36-FU3L-EQW9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/FDWX-QY36-FU3L-EQW9","url":null,"abstract":"The approach taken in this study is to regard substance abuse discharge cases as specific instances of discharge cases in general. Consequently, in trying to model arbitrators' decisions, the possible predictors of the outcome of arbitra tion hearings are derived from those factors found to significantly affect the outcome in earlier discharge studies. Discriminant analysis is used to deter mine those factors that significantly affected the outcomes of substance-abuse discharge cases in the period 1985-1993. While most of the predictors thought to influence arbitral decision making operated in the anticipated manner, there were some surprises. In particular, neither management's concern for safety nor the grievant's prior work record affected the outcome of the cases. Over the past thirty years, the abuse of drugs, both licit and illicit, has increasingly pervaded the consciousness of American society in general and, more recently, of American industry. According to a recent survey undertaken by the Conference Board, business and industry in the United States loses approximately $20.6 billion annually because of alcoholism alone [1]. When the losses of nonbusiness organizations are included, the figure swells to a staggering $100 billion [1, 2]. While initially employers were reluctant to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem, they have responded with a combination of both corrective and deter rent measures [3-4]. Management in many businesses has either negotiated or unilaterally promulgated drug policies that have become part of the work rules at these firms. As a result of the sanctions inherent in these measures, penalties and other actions taken against employees who are alleged by their employers to have","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126525164","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/W28X-AAFM-6YR1-M48K
M. Levine
In an effort to overcome the historically low priority place upon employee training efforts, many American firms and the unions they deal with have recently negotiated joint union-management training programs. These endeavors prove to be essential in the face of complex world competition, shifting markets, strategic alliances among corporations, changing demographics and rapidly changing technological developments. They enhance present skills training for employees and prepare them to take advantage of future employment opportunities when they arise. However, the numerous benefits of joint training are counterbalanced by a number of issues threatening the future of such undertakings and need to be jointly resolved by labor
{"title":"Joint Union-Management Training Programs","authors":"M. Levine","doi":"10.2190/W28X-AAFM-6YR1-M48K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/W28X-AAFM-6YR1-M48K","url":null,"abstract":"In an effort to overcome the historically low priority place upon employee training efforts, many American firms and the unions they deal with have recently negotiated joint union-management training programs. These endeavors prove to be essential in the face of complex world competition, shifting markets, strategic alliances among corporations, changing demographics and rapidly changing technological developments. They enhance present skills training for employees and prepare them to take advantage of future employment opportunities when they arise. However, the numerous benefits of joint training are counterbalanced by a number of issues threatening the future of such undertakings and need to be jointly resolved by labor","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121214852","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：