Pub Date : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-25
Tamra J. Carpenter, R. Alterman
{"title":"A Taxonomy for Planned Reading","authors":"Tamra J. Carpenter, R. Alterman","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-25","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125417794","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-86
B. Kipper, A. Jameson
Two experiments assessed the membership functions that German speakers assign to 12 adverb phrases and 17 modal verb forms that express probability assessments. These expressions fall largely into three rather homogeneous classes. The membership functions are used as part of the semantic knowledge base of the natural language dialog system PRACMA, one of whose purposes is to model pragmatic and contextual influences on the use of vague expressions. The system’s normative model accounts for the role, in the selection and interpretation of vague probability expressions, of the listener’s prior expectations, the speaker’s dialog motivation, and the expressions that the speaker could have used but did not. In an old episode of the television series “L. A. Law”, adoption agent Ross tells Ann and Stuart that they may be forced to give up their adopted daughter, because her natural mother is suing to reclaim her. Ann: You never told us she might do that! Ross: I told you it can happen. I said it hardly ever happens. Stuart: No, no! What you said was that the chances were 1 in 100. Now this is the second damned time: Something that never happens is happening to us! This exchange illustrates several results that have emerged from extensive experimental studies of the use of verbal and numerical expressions of probability judgments. People tend to prefer verbal to numeric formulations when they express probability judgments, although this preference is markedly less strong when it comes to receiving the judgments (Wallsten, Budescu, Zwick, & Kemp, 1993). And the same probability (here, 1%) can be expressed verbally in quite different ways by different speakers, which makes the interpretation of such expressions a challenging and error-prone task.1 The example also illustrates two points that have received littleattention in research to date. First, in everyday discourse, probability assessments are often expressed using modal verbs (as in “it can happen”), as well as the adverbs whose meaning has usually been studied. Second, the motivation of the speaker influences his or her choice of a vague probability expression in important and predictable ways; for example, the different paraphrases by Ross and Stuart do not represent random interindividual variation. In experiments, to the extent to which speaker motivation has been identifiable at all, it has generally consisted in the desire to convey as accurate Zwick and Wallsten (1989, p. 72) discuss evidence that communication failures of this sort may have contributed to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Challenger space shuttle disaster. as possible an impression of the probability the speaker has in mind. The present paper aims to shed new light on both of these last two issues, as well as on some previously documented empirical phenomena. In the next section, we report on a pair of experiments in which the probability implications of adverb phrases and modal verb forms, respectively, are investigated with Ge
两个实验评估了德语使用者分配给表达概率评估的12个副词短语和17个情态动词形式的隶属函数。这些表达式大致可分为三个相当相似的类。隶属函数作为自然语言对话系统PRACMA语义知识库的一部分，其目的之一是模拟语用和语境对模糊表达使用的影响。该系统的规范模型解释了在选择和解释模糊概率表达式、听者的先前期望、说话者的对话动机以及说话者本可以使用但没有使用的表达式等因素的作用。在电视连续剧《L。A. Law，收养代理人Ross告诉Ann和Stuart，他们可能会被迫放弃他们的养女，因为她的生母正在起诉要回她。你从没告诉过我们她会那样做!我告诉过你会发生的。我说这种事很少发生。斯图尔特:不，不!你说的是几率是百分之一。这是该死的第二次了:从未发生过的事正在我们身上发生!这种交流说明了从使用概率判断的口头和数字表达的广泛实验研究中出现的几个结果。当人们表达概率判断时，他们倾向于使用语言而不是数字公式，尽管这种偏好在接受判断时明显不那么强烈(Wallsten, Budescu, Zwick， & Kemp, 1993)。同样的概率(这里是1%)可以由不同的说话者以完全不同的方式口头表达，这使得解释这些表达成为一项具有挑战性和容易出错的任务这个例子还说明了迄今为止在研究中很少受到关注的两点。首先，在日常话语中，概率评估通常使用情态动词(如“它可能发生”)以及含义通常被研究过的副词来表达。第二，说话人的动机以重要的、可预测的方式影响着他或她对模糊概率表达的选择;例如，罗斯和斯图尔特的不同解释并不代表随机的个体间差异。在实验中，说话者的动机在一定程度上是可识别的，它通常包括准确传达的愿望。Zwick和Wallsten (1989, p. 72)讨论了这种沟通失败可能导致猪湾事件和挑战者号航天飞机灾难的证据。尽可能是说话者心中的概率印象。本文旨在阐明这两个问题的新亮点，以及一些以前记录的经验现象。在下一节中，我们报告了一对实验，在这些实验中，分别用德语受试者调查了副词短语和情态动词形式的概率含义。这些实验是在一个中性的环境中进行的，旨在产生可以用来解释在不同的环境中表达的不同用法和解释的数据。在接下来的部分中，我们提出了一个模糊概率表达式的选择和解释的理想化计算模型，该模型考虑了说话人的动机(以及听者的感知)。在最后的讨论中，我们根据模型考虑了其他研究者报道的一些实证结果。虽然这些新实验中最新颖的方面是它们包含了情态动词，但为了确保可比性，第一个实验着眼于德语副词短语，例如以前(主要是英语)研究中使用的短语。这些短语在单独使用和与情态动词结合使用时都满足表达概率估计的条件副词实验法。研究对象为24名以德语为母语的研究生和本科生。受试者被要求想象自己是一场机会游戏的观众。在这个游戏中，11个幸运轮中的一个被旋转(参见Wallsten, Budescu, Rapoport, Zwick， & Forsyth, 1986)。轮子的黑色部分和白色部分的大小差别很大。当转盘停止时，如果转盘右侧的箭头指向黑色区域，则该玩家获胜。受试者被要求想象一个玩家在看到转盘停在哪里之前被主持人问到游戏结果。给定一个特定的转盘和一个特定的副词短语，受试者要指出他们在给定情况下判断这个短语作为玩家的答案有多“现实”;受试者通过在图形评定量表上打分来完成这项工作。 在写这篇文章的时候，我们正在分析一个进一步的实验的结果，这个实验观察了副词和情态动词的组合，看看如何根据其部分的意义来预测对这种表达的解释。考克斯,1987)。玩家的12个假设答案被呈现给受试者。每一个这样的陈述都使用了不同的副词短语，并具有与“Ich habe vermutlich gewonnen”(“我大概赢了”)相同的形式。在每一个这样的陈述中，都有11个轮子，分别代表5%，15%，…， 45%， 50%， 55%，…95%。轮子的顺序是不同的，一个纸板面具被用来防止受试者在给定时间内看到他们对多个轮子的评分。结果。对于每个主题，每个副词短语得到一条曲线，显示每个概率(对应于一个轮子)由主题分配的值。这些曲线被称为隶属函数(如在模糊集合理论中);它们与Wallsten, Budescu, Rapoport, Zwick, and Forsyth(1986)和Zwick, Budescu, and Wallsten(1988)对英语副词的实验得出的曲线相当。图1的上半部分通过给出每个副词短语的曲线来总结数据，该曲线显示了受试者分配给每个概率的平均隶属度值曲线显示，12个副词短语中约有一半具有单调递增的平均隶属函数，并且这些函数之间的差异相当小。图中前三个短语的隶属度值普遍较低，这表明它们只适用于非常高的概率(高于95%)。第二篇文章中的三个短语group-möglicherweise(可能)，vilelleicht(也许)和eventwell(也许)在与中等概率相关时主要被判断为现实。这些副词的隶属度值通常不太接近0和1的极值;由于中间隶属度值定义较差，这些副词在主语之间表现出更大的分歧(例如，在给定概率的隶属度值的平均标准偏差中反映出来)。所包含的一个低概率表达式(auf keinen Fall(不可能))的隶属度函数近似于相反的表达式(auf jeden Fall(在任何情况下))的隶属度函数。情态动词实验法。实验安排与副词实验相同，但使用情态动词形式代替副词短语。所提陈述的格式与“Es drte der Fall sein, dasich gewonnen habe”(“应该是我赢了”)相同。在17种情态动词形式中，有9种被否定。和以前一样，24名以德语为母语的研究生和本科生作为研究对象。结果。同样，对于每个情态动词，我们推导出一个平均隶属函数(参见图1的下半部分)。对于8种非否定情态动词形式，结果与副词实验的结果非常相似:在这些形式中，5显示单调递增的隶属函数，其主要区别在于两种形式- muss(必须)和wind(意志)-被认为通常比其他形式更不真实，因为probA平均隶属函数的形状可能与单个主体的隶属函数的形状不同;但是对单个函数的检查表明，尽管单个函数之间存在相当大的差异，但这里的情况并非如此。副词短语auf jeden Fall(在任何情况下)5 152535455565758595 sicher(肯定)5 152535455565758595 gewiß(无疑)5 152535455565758595 bestimmt(肯定)5 152535455565758595 höchstwahrscheinlich(很可能)5 152535455565758595 wahrscheinlich(可能)5 152535455565758595
{"title":"Semantics and Pragmatics of Vague Probability Expressions","authors":"B. Kipper, A. Jameson","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-86","url":null,"abstract":"Two experiments assessed the membership functions that German speakers assign to 12 adverb phrases and 17 modal verb forms that express probability assessments. These expressions fall largely into three rather homogeneous classes. The membership functions are used as part of the semantic knowledge base of the natural language dialog system PRACMA, one of whose purposes is to model pragmatic and contextual influences on the use of vague expressions. The system’s normative model accounts for the role, in the selection and interpretation of vague probability expressions, of the listener’s prior expectations, the speaker’s dialog motivation, and the expressions that the speaker could have used but did not. In an old episode of the television series “L. A. Law”, adoption agent Ross tells Ann and Stuart that they may be forced to give up their adopted daughter, because her natural mother is suing to reclaim her. Ann: You never told us she might do that! Ross: I told you it can happen. I said it hardly ever happens. Stuart: No, no! What you said was that the chances were 1 in 100. Now this is the second damned time: Something that never happens is happening to us! This exchange illustrates several results that have emerged from extensive experimental studies of the use of verbal and numerical expressions of probability judgments. People tend to prefer verbal to numeric formulations when they express probability judgments, although this preference is markedly less strong when it comes to receiving the judgments (Wallsten, Budescu, Zwick, & Kemp, 1993). And the same probability (here, 1%) can be expressed verbally in quite different ways by different speakers, which makes the interpretation of such expressions a challenging and error-prone task.1 The example also illustrates two points that have received littleattention in research to date. First, in everyday discourse, probability assessments are often expressed using modal verbs (as in “it can happen”), as well as the adverbs whose meaning has usually been studied. Second, the motivation of the speaker influences his or her choice of a vague probability expression in important and predictable ways; for example, the different paraphrases by Ross and Stuart do not represent random interindividual variation. In experiments, to the extent to which speaker motivation has been identifiable at all, it has generally consisted in the desire to convey as accurate Zwick and Wallsten (1989, p. 72) discuss evidence that communication failures of this sort may have contributed to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Challenger space shuttle disaster. as possible an impression of the probability the speaker has in mind. The present paper aims to shed new light on both of these last two issues, as well as on some previously documented empirical phenomena. In the next section, we report on a pair of experiments in which the probability implications of adverb phrases and modal verb forms, respectively, are investigated with Ge","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126153148","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-140
P. Slezak
{"title":"Situated Cognition: Empirical Issue, Taradigm Shift' or Conceptual Confusion?","authors":"P. Slezak","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-140","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127554080","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-141
M. Spivey-Knowlton, M. Tanenhaus
{"title":"Immediate Effects of Discourse and Semantic Context in Syntactic Processing: Evidence from Eye-Tracking","authors":"M. Spivey-Knowlton, M. Tanenhaus","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-141","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121323262","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-143
S. Stevenson
{"title":"A Unified Model of Preference and Recovery Mechanisms in Human Parsing","authors":"S. Stevenson","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-143","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115667830","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-41
Richard Cox, K. Stenning, J. Oberlander
Hyperproof is a computer program created by Barwise and Etchemendy for teaching logic using multimodal graphical and sentential methods, inspired by their theories of heterogeneous reasoning (Barwise and Etchemendy 1994). Elsewhere, we have proposed a theory of the cognitive impact of assigning information to different modalities (Stenning and Oberlander 1992). Our view is that where diagrams are advantageous, it is because they enforce the representation of information, leading to weak expressiveness, thereby facilitating inference. The present study tests and develops these claims by comparing the effects of teaching undergraduate logic classes using Hyperproof and a control syntactic teaching method. Results indicate that there is significant transfer from the logic courses to logical and analytical reasoning problems. There are also significant interactions between theoretically motivated pre-course aptitude measures and teaching method; the interactions influence postcourse reasoning performance in transfer domains. Hyperproof boosts students previously weak on items which benefit from diagram use, whereas the syntactic course appears to degrade the same group of students’ graphical strategies. As well as being theoretically interesting, these results provide support for the important practical conclusion that individual differences in aptitude should be taken into account in choosing teaching
Hyperproof是Barwise和Etchemendy为使用多模态图形和句子方法教授逻辑而创建的计算机程序，灵感来自他们的异质推理理论(Barwise和Etchemendy 1994)。在其他地方，我们提出了将信息分配给不同模式的认知影响理论(Stenning and Oberlander 1992)。我们的观点是，图表是有利的，这是因为它们加强了信息的表示，导致了弱表达性，从而促进了推理。本研究通过比较超证明法和控制句法法在本科逻辑学课堂教学中的效果来验证和发展这些观点。结果表明，从逻辑课程到逻辑和分析推理问题有明显的转移。理论激励的课前能力倾向测量与教学方法之间也存在显著的交互作用;交互作用影响迁移域的课后推理表现。“超证明”课程提高了学生以前在图表使用中受益的项目上的能力，而语法课程似乎降低了同一组学生的图形策略。这些结果不仅在理论上很有趣，而且为一个重要的实际结论提供了支持，即在选择教学时应考虑到个人能力的差异
{"title":"Graphical effects in learning logic: reasoning, representation and individual differences","authors":"Richard Cox, K. Stenning, J. Oberlander","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-41","url":null,"abstract":"Hyperproof is a computer program created by Barwise and Etchemendy for teaching logic using multimodal graphical and sentential methods, inspired by their theories of heterogeneous reasoning (Barwise and Etchemendy 1994). Elsewhere, we have proposed a theory of the cognitive impact of assigning information to different modalities (Stenning and Oberlander 1992). Our view is that where diagrams are advantageous, it is because they enforce the representation of information, leading to weak expressiveness, thereby facilitating inference. The present study tests and develops these claims by comparing the effects of teaching undergraduate logic classes using Hyperproof and a control syntactic teaching method. Results indicate that there is significant transfer from the logic courses to logical and analytical reasoning problems. There are also significant interactions between theoretically motivated pre-course aptitude measures and teaching method; the interactions influence postcourse reasoning performance in transfer domains. Hyperproof boosts students previously weak on items which benefit from diagram use, whereas the syntactic course appears to degrade the same group of students’ graphical strategies. As well as being theoretically interesting, these results provide support for the important practical conclusion that individual differences in aptitude should be taken into account in choosing teaching","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131462977","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-26
T. A. Cartwright, M. Brent
{"title":"Segmenting Speech without a Lexicon: Evidence for a Bootstrapping Model of Lexical Acquisition","authors":"T. A. Cartwright, M. Brent","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-26","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131580511","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-72
K. Hiraki
{"title":"Abstraction of Sensory-Motor Features","authors":"K. Hiraki","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-72","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131735309","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 : 2019-05-23DOI: 10.4324/9781315789354-123
J. Peterson, K. Mahesh, Ashok K. Goel, Kurt P. Eiselt
{"title":"KA: Situating Natural Language Understanding in Design Problem Solving","authors":"J. Peterson, K. Mahesh, Ashok K. Goel, Kurt P. Eiselt","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-123","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123872285","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}
{"title":"Causal Attribution As Mechanism-Based Story Construction: An Explanation Of The Conjunction Fallacy And The Discounting Principle","authors":"W. Ahn, J. Bailenson, B. Gordon","doi":"10.4324/9781315789354-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315789354-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":393936,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124715832","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：