{"title":"Autonomous Vehicles and the Law: Technology, Algorithms and Ethics. Lim, Y. H.","authors":"Veronika Zolnercíková","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-12","url":null,"abstract":"Lim, Y. H. (2018) Autonomous Vehicles and the Law: Technology, Algorithms and Ethics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 147 p.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44351927","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}
Personalization mechanisms in consumer e-commerce allow for the adjustment of the time, form and manner of contact, the way of concluding the contract and the availability and content of the offer. Subsequently concluded agreements can be seen as a new phase of development of the consumer transaction model – secondary individualization replaces standardization. The possibility of concluding contracts on a massive scale is retained, but with added granularity and flexibility that mimic the individualisation of transactions. Special provisions for personalized contracts are missing on the EU level and within the Polish legal system.The starting point is an analysis of the reaction of the traditional private instruments of Polish law towards the personalization of offers – case law and doctrinal approach towards the concept of a standard contract and an individually negotiated one are examined. Next, the pre-contractual stage is investigated – the personalization process is explored from the perspective of unfair practices regulation, and the legal basis for the personalization process in the context of the GDPR is discussed. While Polish national law focuses on combating the undesired results of personalization, the EU initiatives aim at granting ex-ante protection. The mechanism in directive 2005/29/EC is being supplemented with an information protection mechanism (consent requirement). The limitations of this model are identified and some alternative solutions are proposed.
{"title":"Consequences of the Use of Personalization Algorithms in Shaping an Offer – A Private Law Perspective","authors":"Katarzyna Południak-Gierz","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-2","url":null,"abstract":"Personalization mechanisms in consumer e-commerce allow for the adjustment of the time, form and manner of contact, the way of concluding the contract and the availability and content of the offer. Subsequently concluded agreements can be seen as a new phase of development of the consumer transaction model – secondary individualization replaces standardization. The possibility of concluding contracts on a massive scale is retained, but with added granularity and flexibility that mimic the individualisation of transactions. Special provisions for personalized contracts are missing on the EU level and within the Polish legal system.The starting point is an analysis of the reaction of the traditional private instruments of Polish law towards the personalization of offers – case law and doctrinal approach towards the concept of a standard contract and an individually negotiated one are examined. Next, the pre-contractual stage is investigated – the personalization process is explored from the perspective of unfair practices regulation, and the legal basis for the personalization process in the context of the GDPR is discussed. While Polish national law focuses on combating the undesired results of personalization, the EU initiatives aim at granting ex-ante protection. The mechanism in directive 2005/29/EC is being supplemented with an information protection mechanism (consent requirement). The limitations of this model are identified and some alternative solutions are proposed.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43448742","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 article builds on a pluralistic perspective on law and the understanding that legal research must take into account the procedural and institutional landscape where legal rights are enforced. In relation to online dispute resolution (ODR), two procedural mechanisms, namely the adversarial principle and the tendency toward settlements, are studied and discussed. The adversarial principle (argued to be integral to most ODR procedures) and tendencies toward settlements (also argued to be integral to most ODR procedures) are considered in relation to the overarching (and possibly contradictory) objectives of protecting individual consumer rights and the interest of increasing economic efficiency within the EU’s internal market.
{"title":"In the Procedural Surroundings of Consumer Protection: Online Dispute Resolution, the Adversarial Principle, and Tendencies toward Settlement","authors":"Erik Björling","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-7","url":null,"abstract":"The article builds on a pluralistic perspective on law and the understanding that legal research must take into account the procedural and institutional landscape where legal rights are enforced. In relation to online dispute resolution (ODR), two procedural mechanisms, namely the adversarial principle and the tendency toward settlements, are studied and discussed. The adversarial principle (argued to be integral to most ODR procedures) and tendencies toward settlements (also argued to be integral to most ODR procedures) are considered in relation to the overarching (and possibly contradictory) objectives of protecting individual consumer rights and the interest of increasing economic efficiency within the EU’s internal market.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46561812","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}
Cloud computing contracts are among the most frequently concluded contracts over the Internet. Until now, however, they have been considered mainly from the perspective of data protection and intellectual property laws. Although these analyses provide valuable insights, they do not fully cover an important area, i.e. consumer protection. The article focuses on the latter issue, taking Consumer Rights Directive as a reference point. The Directive is one of the latest acts concerning consumer protection in the European Union. It also introduces a new type of agreement that should cover cloud computing contracts. In addition, characteristically for European law, it provides for an information duty as a means of consumer protection. The article examines these two aspects by seeking an answer to the following questions: (1) do cloud computing contracts classify as contracts for the supply of digital content? And (2) do the provisions on information duty suit well cloud computing contracts? The analysis includes the results of empirical studies of these contracts. In the conclusion, the article states that the new type of contract may not significantly improve consumer protection, mainly due to the ambiguity resulting from recital 19 of the Directive. On the other hand, consumers may benefit from the provisions on information duty, though it does not directly address the main problems connected with cloud computing contracts.The article is divided into four parts. The first provides an introduction to the topic. The second discusses cloud computing contracts as contracts for the supply of digital content. The third analyses the provisions on information duty from the point of view of the contracts under consideration. Finally, the fourth summarises previous comments.
{"title":"Cloud Computing Contracts as Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content: Classification and Information Duty","authors":"Krzysztof Żok","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-1","url":null,"abstract":"Cloud computing contracts are among the most frequently concluded contracts over the Internet. Until now, however, they have been considered mainly from the perspective of data protection and intellectual property laws. Although these analyses provide valuable insights, they do not fully cover an important area, i.e. consumer protection. The article focuses on the latter issue, taking Consumer Rights Directive as a reference point. The Directive is one of the latest acts concerning consumer protection in the European Union. It also introduces a new type of agreement that should cover cloud computing contracts. In addition, characteristically for European law, it provides for an information duty as a means of consumer protection. The article examines these two aspects by seeking an answer to the following questions: (1) do cloud computing contracts classify as contracts for the supply of digital content? And (2) do the provisions on information duty suit well cloud computing contracts? The analysis includes the results of empirical studies of these contracts. In the conclusion, the article states that the new type of contract may not significantly improve consumer protection, mainly due to the ambiguity resulting from recital 19 of the Directive. On the other hand, consumers may benefit from the provisions on information duty, though it does not directly address the main problems connected with cloud computing contracts.The article is divided into four parts. The first provides an introduction to the topic. The second discusses cloud computing contracts as contracts for the supply of digital content. The third analyses the provisions on information duty from the point of view of the contracts under consideration. Finally, the fourth summarises previous comments.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46822779","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}
Although digitalization and the emergence of the Internet has caused a long-term crisis for copyright law, technology itself also seems to offer a seemingly ideal solution to the challenges of digital age: copyright has been a major use case for algorithmic enforcement from the early days of digital rights management technologies to the more advanced content recognition algorithms. These technologies identify and filter possibly infringing content automatically, effectively and often in a preventive fashion. These methods have been criticized for their shortcomings, such as the lack of transparency, bias and the possible impairment of fundamental rights. Self-learning machines and semi-autonomous AI have the potential to offer even more sophisticated and expeditious enforcement by code, however, they could also aggravate the aforementioned issues. As the EU legislator envisions to make the use of such technologies essentially obligatory for certain online content sharing service providers (via the infamous Article 17 of the directive on copyright in the digital single market), the assessment of the situation in light of future technological development has become a current topic.This paper aims to identify the main issues and potential long-term consequences of creating legislation that practically requires the employment of such filtering algorithms as well as their solutions. This paper focuses on the potential role a broad copyright exception for text and data mining could play in counterbalancing the issues associated with algorithmic enforcement.
{"title":"Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement and AI: Issues and Potential Solutions through the Lens of Text and Data Mining","authors":"Andrea Katalin Tóth","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-9","url":null,"abstract":"Although digitalization and the emergence of the Internet has caused a long-term crisis for copyright law, technology itself also seems to offer a seemingly ideal solution to the challenges of digital age: copyright has been a major use case for algorithmic enforcement from the early days of digital rights management technologies to the more advanced content recognition algorithms. These technologies identify and filter possibly infringing content automatically, effectively and often in a preventive fashion. These methods have been criticized for their shortcomings, such as the lack of transparency, bias and the possible impairment of fundamental rights. Self-learning machines and semi-autonomous AI have the potential to offer even more sophisticated and expeditious enforcement by code, however, they could also aggravate the aforementioned issues. As the EU legislator envisions to make the use of such technologies essentially obligatory for certain online content sharing service providers (via the infamous Article 17 of the directive on copyright in the digital single market), the assessment of the situation in light of future technological development has become a current topic.This paper aims to identify the main issues and potential long-term consequences of creating legislation that practically requires the employment of such filtering algorithms as well as their solutions. This paper focuses on the potential role a broad copyright exception for text and data mining could play in counterbalancing the issues associated with algorithmic enforcement.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42465468","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}
To investigate how people form their identity on social networks and control the impressions they invoke in their audiences, we analyzed personal profiles of 50 university student Facebook users using Erving Gofmann´s dramaturgical theory. We identified five basic forms through which users create and present their identities: The Public diary, The Influencer, The Entertainer, Job and education and Hobby, as well as the appropriate secondary roles performed by users who interact with them.These findings are corroborated by 8 semi-structured interviews with respondents, which enable a more in-depth exploration of the way they use Facebook, the social interactions they participate in, their motivation for posting contributions, and how they engage in impression management, perceive privacy and resolve issues caused by multiple audiences.A better understanding of how privacy is conceived and what motivates users to share their personal information online is essential for public authorities’ cooperation on shaping company privacy policies and creation of appropriate legal regulations.The key results confirm the presence of conscious effort to make a desired impression and prove Goffman’s theory of face-to-face interactions to be relevant in the context of online social networks.
{"title":"Goffman's Theory as a Framework for Analysis of Self Presentation on Online Social Networks","authors":"Lucie Merunková, J. Slerka","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2019-2-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2019-2-5","url":null,"abstract":"To investigate how people form their identity on social networks and control the impressions they invoke in their audiences, we analyzed personal profiles of 50 university student Facebook users using Erving Gofmann´s dramaturgical theory. We identified five basic forms through which users create and present their identities: The Public diary, The Influencer, The Entertainer, Job and education and Hobby, as well as the appropriate secondary roles performed by users who interact with them.These findings are corroborated by 8 semi-structured interviews with respondents, which enable a more in-depth exploration of the way they use Facebook, the social interactions they participate in, their motivation for posting contributions, and how they engage in impression management, perceive privacy and resolve issues caused by multiple audiences.A better understanding of how privacy is conceived and what motivates users to share their personal information online is essential for public authorities’ cooperation on shaping company privacy policies and creation of appropriate legal regulations.The key results confirm the presence of conscious effort to make a desired impression and prove Goffman’s theory of face-to-face interactions to be relevant in the context of online social networks.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42269081","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}
Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.
{"title":"The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings","authors":"Maria Dymitruk","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-2","url":null,"abstract":"Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43778187","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 prevalence of using email as a communication tool for personal and professional purposes makes it a significant attack vector for cybercriminals. Consensus exists that phishing, i.e. use of socially engineered messages to convince recipients into performing actions that benefit the sender, is widespread as a negative phenomenon. However, little is known about its true extent from a criminal law perspective. Similar to how the treatment of phishing in a generic manner does not adequately inform the relevant law, a case-by-case legal analysis of seemingly independent offences would not reveal the true scale and extent of phishing as a social phenomenon. The current research addresses this significant gap in the literature. To study this issue, a qualitative text analysis was performed on (N=42) emails collected over a 30-day period from two email accounts. Secondly, the phishing emails were analysed from an Estonian criminal law perspective. The legal analysis shows that in the period of only one month, the accounts received what amounts to 3 instances of extortion, 29 fraud attempts and 10 cases of personal data processing related misdemeanour offences.
{"title":"Living in a Spamster's Paradise: Deceit and Threats in Phishing Emails","authors":"Kristjan Kikerpill, A. Siibak","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-3","url":null,"abstract":"The prevalence of using email as a communication tool for personal and professional purposes makes it a significant attack vector for cybercriminals. Consensus exists that phishing, i.e. use of socially engineered messages to convince recipients into performing actions that benefit the sender, is widespread as a negative phenomenon. However, little is known about its true extent from a criminal law perspective. Similar to how the treatment of phishing in a generic manner does not adequately inform the relevant law, a case-by-case legal analysis of seemingly independent offences would not reveal the true scale and extent of phishing as a social phenomenon. The current research addresses this significant gap in the literature. To study this issue, a qualitative text analysis was performed on (N=42) emails collected over a 30-day period from two email accounts. Secondly, the phishing emails were analysed from an Estonian criminal law perspective. The legal analysis shows that in the period of only one month, the accounts received what amounts to 3 instances of extortion, 29 fraud attempts and 10 cases of personal data processing related misdemeanour offences.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45983598","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}
Currently the question about the possibility of including a screenshot of a web-page to the base of evidence in civil procedure of Ukraine remains open. The problem is a lack of systematic rules for determining procedures for obtaining electronic evidence, in particular, screenshots, in Ukrainian legislation, as well as possibilities for their use while considering civil cases. Various electronic evidence should correspond various admissibility criterias, and therefore the admissibility of electronic evidence should be examined separately according to each type of evidence.Separate issues of investigation, fixation and certification of web-screenshots as evidence in civil procedure of Ukraine are considered in this article. The analysis of legal regulation and problems of the practical implementation of use of web-pages screenshots in Ukrainian civil procedure are carried out. The ways of implementation of recommendation rules for registration and fixation of web-screenshots in civil procedure, which can be applied for all European states, are proposed.
{"title":"Web-page Screenshots as an Evidence in Civil Procedure of Ukraine","authors":"N. Golubeva, K. Drogoziuk","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-5","url":null,"abstract":"Currently the question about the possibility of including a screenshot of a web-page to the base of evidence in civil procedure of Ukraine remains open. The problem is a lack of systematic rules for determining procedures for obtaining electronic evidence, in particular, screenshots, in Ukrainian legislation, as well as possibilities for their use while considering civil cases. Various electronic evidence should correspond various admissibility criterias, and therefore the admissibility of electronic evidence should be examined separately according to each type of evidence.Separate issues of investigation, fixation and certification of web-screenshots as evidence in civil procedure of Ukraine are considered in this article. The analysis of legal regulation and problems of the practical implementation of use of web-pages screenshots in Ukrainian civil procedure are carried out. The ways of implementation of recommendation rules for registration and fixation of web-screenshots in civil procedure, which can be applied for all European states, are proposed.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48911665","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}
Mendis, D.; Lemley, M.; Rimmer, M. (eds.). (2018) 3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 432 p.
{"title":"3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. Mendis, D.; Lemley, M.; Rimmer, M. (eds.).","authors":"Pavel Loutocký","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2019-1-7","url":null,"abstract":"Mendis, D.; Lemley, M.; Rimmer, M. (eds.). (2018) 3D Printing and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 432 p.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42844957","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：