Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266353
Katie Bales
Building upon insights from carceral geography, this article conceptualises the ‘carceral’ as permeating beyond the prison walls to other areas of life through law and policymaking that confines and incarcerates without necessarily ‘imprisoning’. 1 Utilising the case study of asylum applicants in the UK, this article traces the role of ‘work’ as a component of carceral circuitry which enmeshes asylum seekers’ lives. Outside of immigration detention, this includes work exclusions which hinder mobility, life choices and economic independence, as well as fuelling engagement in both ‘voluntary’ unpaid work arrangements, and/or unregulated ‘criminal’ labour practices which arise as a result of exclusionary laws intent on creating a hostile environment. Inside of immigration detention analysis extends to the practice of ‘paid activities’ in which immigration detainees undertake millions of hours of work at a rate of £1.00 per hour, ostensibly ‘for their own benefit’. Labour law and its explicit exclusions, as well as the social welfare framework, thereby intersect with immigration control and the criminal law to construct, shape and reproduce this carceral sphere which seeks to control and govern asylum seekers’ lives as well as entrenching their vulnerability as an easily exploitable workforce from which value can be extracted.
{"title":"Labour as a component of carceral circuitry: The case of asylum seekers","authors":"Katie Bales","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266353","url":null,"abstract":"Building upon insights from carceral geography, this article conceptualises the ‘carceral’ as permeating beyond the prison walls to other areas of life through law and policymaking that confines and incarcerates without necessarily ‘imprisoning’.<jats:sup> 1 </jats:sup> Utilising the case study of asylum applicants in the UK, this article traces the role of ‘work’ as a component of carceral circuitry which enmeshes asylum seekers’ lives. Outside of immigration detention, this includes work exclusions which hinder mobility, life choices and economic independence, as well as fuelling engagement in both ‘voluntary’ unpaid work arrangements, and/or unregulated ‘criminal’ labour practices which arise as a result of exclusionary laws intent on creating a hostile environment. Inside of immigration detention analysis extends to the practice of ‘paid activities’ in which immigration detainees undertake millions of hours of work at a rate of £1.00 per hour, ostensibly ‘for their own benefit’. Labour law and its explicit exclusions, as well as the social welfare framework, thereby intersect with immigration control and the criminal law to construct, shape and reproduce this carceral sphere which seeks to control and govern asylum seekers’ lives as well as entrenching their vulnerability as an easily exploitable workforce from which value can be extracted.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178110","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 : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241270268
Virginia Mantouvalou
Work opportunities in prison can be valuable for the incarcerated. However, prison labour presents significant challenges because of its location behind prison walls away from the public eye, where prison authorities exercise unprecedented power over individuals. Even though work is not part of prisoners’ punishment in Europe, it is often compulsory. What is also striking is that in many legal orders prisoners are excluded from labour rights that other workers have. Unlike work outside prison, the legal regulation of prison work constitutes it as an instrument of exclusion from life outside prison rather than a path towards reintegration in society, and creates structures of exploitation. In this article I examine the value of work in prison and consider the exclusion of working prisoners from labour rights that other workers have. I also scrutinise some typical justifications of these exclusions of working prisoners. I propose that work in prison should be regulated in line with the purpose of reintegration in society and according to European and international human rights standards on prisons.
{"title":"Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation?","authors":"Virginia Mantouvalou","doi":"10.1177/20319525241270268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241270268","url":null,"abstract":"Work opportunities in prison can be valuable for the incarcerated. However, prison labour presents significant challenges because of its location behind prison walls away from the public eye, where prison authorities exercise unprecedented power over individuals. Even though work is not part of prisoners’ punishment in Europe, it is often compulsory. What is also striking is that in many legal orders prisoners are excluded from labour rights that other workers have. Unlike work outside prison, the legal regulation of prison work constitutes it as an instrument of exclusion from life outside prison rather than a path towards reintegration in society, and creates structures of exploitation. In this article I examine the value of work in prison and consider the exclusion of working prisoners from labour rights that other workers have. I also scrutinise some typical justifications of these exclusions of working prisoners. I propose that work in prison should be regulated in line with the purpose of reintegration in society and according to European and international human rights standards on prisons.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178091","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 : 2024-09-02DOI: 10.1177/20319525241274686
M.A.N. Van Schadewijk
The transition to an environmentally sustainable economy raises Herculean challenges for labour law. From a labour law perspective, perhaps the biggest question is the extent to which the environment is an interest that is and should be recognised and protected by labour law. Although the answer to this question is different for each national legal system, the influence of international and European law cannot be ignored. Starting from this assumption, the author analyses to what extent international and European law may influence the recognition of the environment as an interest of national labour law. To this end, the author analyses the overarching principles that characterise the interrelation between labour and the environment in the hard and soft law of the UN, ILO and EU. Subsequently, three areas of national labour law which may be influenced by the supranational framework are identified and discussed: job transition, work-related mobility of employees and remuneration. The author finds that the supranational framework provides arguments to assert that the environment has a place in labour law and is a legitimate interest in the balancing exercise between employer and employee. Nevertheless, a substantive place for labour law in the supranational framework seems lacking. The supranational framework is primarily concerned with compensating employees for the negative effects of the green transition and offers limited support for a broader integration of the environment into the employment relationship. Consequently, it makes few connections with labour law and contains few (hard or soft) obligations for both employers and employees. In the view of the author, this is a missed opportunity.
{"title":"Labour, the Environment and International and European Law: One journey or worlds apart?","authors":"M.A.N. Van Schadewijk","doi":"10.1177/20319525241274686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241274686","url":null,"abstract":"The transition to an environmentally sustainable economy raises Herculean challenges for labour law. From a labour law perspective, perhaps the biggest question is the extent to which the environment is an interest that is and should be recognised and protected by labour law. Although the answer to this question is different for each national legal system, the influence of international and European law cannot be ignored. Starting from this assumption, the author analyses to what extent international and European law may influence the recognition of the environment as an interest of national labour law. To this end, the author analyses the overarching principles that characterise the interrelation between labour and the environment in the hard and soft law of the UN, ILO and EU. Subsequently, three areas of national labour law which may be influenced by the supranational framework are identified and discussed: job transition, work-related mobility of employees and remuneration. The author finds that the supranational framework provides arguments to assert that the environment has a place in labour law and is a legitimate interest in the balancing exercise between employer and employee. Nevertheless, a substantive place for labour law in the supranational framework seems lacking. The supranational framework is primarily concerned with compensating employees for the negative effects of the green transition and offers limited support for a broader integration of the environment into the employment relationship. Consequently, it makes few connections with labour law and contains few (hard or soft) obligations for both employers and employees. In the view of the author, this is a missed opportunity.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178112","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 : 2024-08-08DOI: 10.1177/20319525241261029
Achim Seifert
{"title":"Book Review: Employment Law and the European Convention on Human Rights – The Research of the Recent Jurisprudence of the ECtHR Related to Employment Law (2017–2021), Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations by Elena Sychenko & Adalberto Perulli","authors":"Achim Seifert","doi":"10.1177/20319525241261029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241261029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141928438","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 : 2024-06-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525241261027
Julie Ringelheim
OP v Commune d'Ans, handed down on 28 November 2023, is the fifth judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in employment, but the first to concern a public workplace. This article argues that the judgment does not help clarify the issue. It is ambiguous and provides only vague guidance to national courts. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly puzzling: firstly, the absence of any discussion on the very meaning and implications of the neutrality of the public service; and secondly, the recognition of a margin of discretion not only for states but also for sub-state entities, such as municipalities, in determining the concrete content of that principle.
2023 年 11 月 28 日宣判的 OP v Commune d'Ans 案是欧盟法院就禁止在工作中佩戴宗教标志发布的第五份判决，但却是第一份涉及公共工作场所的判决。本文认为，该判决无助于澄清问题。判决模棱两可，仅为各国法院提供了模糊的指导。其推理的两个方面尤其令人费解：首先，没有对公共服务中立的含义和影响进行任何讨论；其次，承认在确定该原则的具体内容时，不仅国家，而且市镇等次国家实体都有一定的自由裁量权。
{"title":"Headscarf bans in the public workplace before the Court of Justice: OP v. Commune d’Ans or the Art of Ambiguity","authors":"Julie Ringelheim","doi":"10.1177/20319525241261027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241261027","url":null,"abstract":"OP v Commune d'Ans, handed down on 28 November 2023, is the fifth judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in employment, but the first to concern a public workplace. This article argues that the judgment does not help clarify the issue. It is ambiguous and provides only vague guidance to national courts. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly puzzling: firstly, the absence of any discussion on the very meaning and implications of the neutrality of the public service; and secondly, the recognition of a margin of discretion not only for states but also for sub-state entities, such as municipalities, in determining the concrete content of that principle.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141506980","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 : 2024-06-11DOI: 10.1177/20319525241261030
Erica Howard
The social inclusion approach to EU anti-discrimination law, as set out by Ringelheim, is aimed at achieving inclusion and participation in employment and wider society of all groups, including the most disadvantaged. But is the CJEU using this social inclusion approach, especially in cases concerning religious discrimination? This article argues that the CJEU, in cases regarding racial and ethnic origin, disability and sexual orientation discrimination as well as in some cases regarding religion or belief discrimination, has indeed applied a social inclusion approach, but that the six judgments regarding the wearing of Islamic headscarves at work are an exception. In the latter cases, the CJEU did not appear to pay any attention to the effect of the judgments on the employment opportunities of Muslim women who want to wear religious symbols at work.
{"title":"Religious discrimination at the CJEU and the social inclusion approach","authors":"Erica Howard","doi":"10.1177/20319525241261030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241261030","url":null,"abstract":"The social inclusion approach to EU anti-discrimination law, as set out by Ringelheim, is aimed at achieving inclusion and participation in employment and wider society of all groups, including the most disadvantaged. But is the CJEU using this social inclusion approach, especially in cases concerning religious discrimination? This article argues that the CJEU, in cases regarding racial and ethnic origin, disability and sexual orientation discrimination as well as in some cases regarding religion or belief discrimination, has indeed applied a social inclusion approach, but that the six judgments regarding the wearing of Islamic headscarves at work are an exception. In the latter cases, the CJEU did not appear to pay any attention to the effect of the judgments on the employment opportunities of Muslim women who want to wear religious symbols at work.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141359511","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 : 2024-06-07DOI: 10.1177/20319525241260869
Tamás Gyulavári
The Hungarian Supreme Court passed the first platform work decision in Central and Eastern Europe in December 2023. The court classified the food delivery platform worker of a delivery platform as self-employed, based on interpretation of the Labour Code, and case law on employment relationships. The reasoning of the decision calls for a critique.
{"title":"The first platform work judgment in Central and Eastern Europe","authors":"Tamás Gyulavári","doi":"10.1177/20319525241260869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241260869","url":null,"abstract":"The Hungarian Supreme Court passed the first platform work decision in Central and Eastern Europe in December 2023. The court classified the food delivery platform worker of a delivery platform as self-employed, based on interpretation of the Labour Code, and case law on employment relationships. The reasoning of the decision calls for a critique.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141371712","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 : 2024-05-25DOI: 10.1177/20319525241255564
Niklas Selberg, Erik Sjödin
The EU Directive 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages has been welcomed by many stakeholders, but Sweden (together with Denmark), with its historically good track record regarding labour rights, is opposing it on both political and legal grounds. The Directive, the Swedish Government argues, will not fulfil its goals, and concerns, in any instance, matters that are excluded from the competence of the EU. This article describes and analyses the implementation measures in a system whose wage-setting mechanism – at least according to its own opinion – needs no support, and in which legal and political objections have been raised against the Directive.
{"title":"The Directive (EU) 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union: Much ado about nothing in Sweden?","authors":"Niklas Selberg, Erik Sjödin","doi":"10.1177/20319525241255564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241255564","url":null,"abstract":"The EU Directive 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages has been welcomed by many stakeholders, but Sweden (together with Denmark), with its historically good track record regarding labour rights, is opposing it on both political and legal grounds. The Directive, the Swedish Government argues, will not fulfil its goals, and concerns, in any instance, matters that are excluded from the competence of the EU. This article describes and analyses the implementation measures in a system whose wage-setting mechanism – at least according to its own opinion – needs no support, and in which legal and political objections have been raised against the Directive.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141148067","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 : 2024-05-23DOI: 10.1177/20319525241255601
Marta Lasek-Markey
This article addresses the issue of effective enforcement of EU labour law by looking at the case study of the enforcement of the EU framework on the posting of workers. While recent years have seen a revival of Social Europe in the form of the European Pillar of Social Rights, scholars have also expressed concern over the effectiveness in practice of transnational labour law, and EU labour law in particular. Rasnača (2022) argues that ineffective enforcement creates a ‘justice gap’ between formal rights on paper and access to these rights in practice. One example of an area of EU labour law plagued by enforcement issues is the posting of workers. It is a peculiar type of intra-EU labour mobility, where posted workers, despite often being EU citizens, cannot benefit from the protection afforded by the EU's fundamental principle of the free movement of workers. As the original Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers proved manifestly inadequate to safeguard the rights of posted workers, the EU enacted Directive 2014/67 to improve the framework's enforcement. This article offers an evaluation of the Enforcement Directive based on data collected from 29 qualitative interviews. The effectiveness of the Enforcement Directive will be assessed based on the theoretical framework of precarious work. It will be argued that while the Enforcement Directive has contributed to narrowing the justice gap, posted workers continue to be exposed to precarity.
本文通过对欧盟派驻工人框架执行情况的案例研究，探讨欧盟劳动法的有效执行问题。近年来，社会欧洲以欧洲社会权利支柱（European Pillar of Social Rights）的形式复兴，但学者们也对跨国劳动法，尤其是欧盟劳动法在实践中的有效性表示担忧。Rasnača (2022) 认为，执法不力造成了纸面上的正式权利与实际享有这些权利之间的 "正义差距"。欧盟劳动法中受执法问题困扰的一个领域是工人的派驻。这是欧盟内部劳动力流动的一种特殊类型，在这种情况下，派驻工人尽管往往是欧盟公民，但却不能享受欧盟工人自由流动基本原则所提供的保护。由于最初关于派驻工人的第 96/71/EC 号指令被证明明显不足以保障派驻工人的权利，欧盟颁布了第 2014/67 号指令，以改善该框架的执行情况。本文基于从 29 个定性访谈中收集的数据，对《执行指令》进行了评估。本文将基于不稳定工作的理论框架来评估《执行指令》的有效性。文章认为，虽然《执行指令》有助于缩小司法差距，但派驻工人仍然面临不稳定的工作。
{"title":"Effective enforcement of the EU framework on the posting of workers: Empirical evidence","authors":"Marta Lasek-Markey","doi":"10.1177/20319525241255601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241255601","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of effective enforcement of EU labour law by looking at the case study of the enforcement of the EU framework on the posting of workers. While recent years have seen a revival of Social Europe in the form of the European Pillar of Social Rights, scholars have also expressed concern over the effectiveness in practice of transnational labour law, and EU labour law in particular. Rasnača (2022) argues that ineffective enforcement creates a ‘justice gap’ between formal rights on paper and access to these rights in practice. One example of an area of EU labour law plagued by enforcement issues is the posting of workers. It is a peculiar type of intra-EU labour mobility, where posted workers, despite often being EU citizens, cannot benefit from the protection afforded by the EU's fundamental principle of the free movement of workers. As the original Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers proved manifestly inadequate to safeguard the rights of posted workers, the EU enacted Directive 2014/67 to improve the framework's enforcement. This article offers an evaluation of the Enforcement Directive based on data collected from 29 qualitative interviews. The effectiveness of the Enforcement Directive will be assessed based on the theoretical framework of precarious work. It will be argued that while the Enforcement Directive has contributed to narrowing the justice gap, posted workers continue to be exposed to precarity.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141148001","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 : 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1177/20319525241252987
Anna Kwiatkiewicz
The 2023 Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union is a very special document. It brings social dialogue into the spotlight, while respecting national social dialogue practices. Employers believe that the right balance was struck and perceive the Recommendation as a useful instrument in promoting social dialogue and strengthening capacity of social partners both the EU and national levels. The meaningfulness of this Recommendation depends now on its implementation in Member States. Granting sufficient time for implementing the Recommendation – five years with reporting to the Council on evaluation of taken actions planned for December 2029 – and involving social partners are important success factors.
{"title":"A commentary on the Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union","authors":"Anna Kwiatkiewicz","doi":"10.1177/20319525241252987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241252987","url":null,"abstract":"The 2023 Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union is a very special document. It brings social dialogue into the spotlight, while respecting national social dialogue practices. Employers believe that the right balance was struck and perceive the Recommendation as a useful instrument in promoting social dialogue and strengthening capacity of social partners both the EU and national levels. The meaningfulness of this Recommendation depends now on its implementation in Member States. Granting sufficient time for implementing the Recommendation – five years with reporting to the Council on evaluation of taken actions planned for December 2029 – and involving social partners are important success factors.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141110359","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：