Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927
Kendall Robinson, Megan C. Kurlychek
Abstract For almost half a century, there has been an ongoing philosophical debate regarding the appropriateness of processing youth in adult courts. Since the juvenile system was theoretically designed to rehabilitate and the adult system to punish, one could assume that there should be key differences in both experiences and outcomes across systems. Yet empirical findings remain mixed. However, almost all existing studies are plagued by issues of selection bias and examine only sentencing or recidivism outcomes. This study overcomes these limitations by addressing both sentencing and recidivism as well as capitalizing on a legislative policy change that increased the age of criminal responsibility for all youth in Connecticut. Using a difference in difference modeling strategy, we find that the system of processing matters somewhat for sentencing outcomes with youth in the juvenile system being more likely to receive probation. However, youth processed in the juvenile court also recidivated at a slightly higher rate, which is contrary to expectation. We explore several possible meanings for these findings and end with a call for future research to include qualitative analysis of actual youth experience—regardless of the system of processing—as more probable indicators of later life outcomes.
{"title":"Differences in Justice, Differences in Outcomes: A DID Approach to Studying Outcomes in Juvenile and Adult Court Processing","authors":"Kendall Robinson, Megan C. Kurlychek","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For almost half a century, there has been an ongoing philosophical debate regarding the appropriateness of processing youth in adult courts. Since the juvenile system was theoretically designed to rehabilitate and the adult system to punish, one could assume that there should be key differences in both experiences and outcomes across systems. Yet empirical findings remain mixed. However, almost all existing studies are plagued by issues of selection bias and examine only sentencing or recidivism outcomes. This study overcomes these limitations by addressing both sentencing and recidivism as well as capitalizing on a legislative policy change that increased the age of criminal responsibility for all youth in Connecticut. Using a difference in difference modeling strategy, we find that the system of processing matters somewhat for sentencing outcomes with youth in the juvenile system being more likely to receive probation. However, youth processed in the juvenile court also recidivated at a slightly higher rate, which is contrary to expectation. We explore several possible meanings for these findings and end with a call for future research to include qualitative analysis of actual youth experience—regardless of the system of processing—as more probable indicators of later life outcomes.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"35 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89766989","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2019.1569475
D. Mears
Abstract Criminal justice cannot be highly effective or cost-efficient because of its fragmented design and the lack of research on systems operations and impacts. Substantial improvement to public safety and justice requires a systems approach that involves multiple stakeholder groups. This approach includes creation of an agency responsible for oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of criminal justice. It also includes reliance on systems analysis and evaluation research. The latter constitutes the easier task; the former requires political will and economic investment.
{"title":"Creating Systems That Can Improve Safety and Justice (and Why Piecemeal Change Won’t Work)","authors":"D. Mears","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2019.1569475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1569475","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Criminal justice cannot be highly effective or cost-efficient because of its fragmented design and the lack of research on systems operations and impacts. Substantial improvement to public safety and justice requires a systems approach that involves multiple stakeholder groups. This approach includes creation of an agency responsible for oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of criminal justice. It also includes reliance on systems analysis and evaluation research. The latter constitutes the easier task; the former requires political will and economic investment.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"274 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80006498","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2019.1597636
A. Piquero
Abstract This Bruce Smith, Sr. Award Address discusses the various types of public criminologies and highlights both advantages and disadavantages associated with public engagement. Two case studies are utilized as examples of public criminology, one focused on early childhood prevention and a second on immigration and crime. The crux of the argument advanced is that public policy can be smart on crime by being smarter on people. The common theme linking these two areas are the vulnerability of children and immigrants.
{"title":"Nothing Fake Here: The Public Criminology Case for Being Smart on Crime by Being Smarter on People","authors":"A. Piquero","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2019.1597636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1597636","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Bruce Smith, Sr. Award Address discusses the various types of public criminologies and highlights both advantages and disadavantages associated with public engagement. Two case studies are utilized as examples of public criminology, one focused on early childhood prevention and a second on immigration and crime. The crux of the argument advanced is that public policy can be smart on crime by being smarter on people. The common theme linking these two areas are the vulnerability of children and immigrants.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"73 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81823004","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 : 2018-10-26DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1548254
Daniel S. Lawrence, Nancy G. La Vigne, Margaret Goff, Paige S. Thompson
Abstract This article describes the experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of gunshot detection technology (GDT) in three US cities. Data were derived from stakeholder interviews, community focus groups, and review of firearm-related criminal case files. Findings indicate that stakeholders view GDT to generate valuable investigative information, that officers are compliant with GDT response and protocols, and that residents accept GDT despite low levels of trust and confidence in the police. This article concludes with recommendations for future GDT implementations.
{"title":"Lessons Learned Implementing Gunshot Detection Technology: Results of a Process Evaluation in Three Major Cities","authors":"Daniel S. Lawrence, Nancy G. La Vigne, Margaret Goff, Paige S. Thompson","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1548254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1548254","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article describes the experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of gunshot detection technology (GDT) in three US cities. Data were derived from stakeholder interviews, community focus groups, and review of firearm-related criminal case files. Findings indicate that stakeholders view GDT to generate valuable investigative information, that officers are compliant with GDT response and protocols, and that residents accept GDT despite low levels of trust and confidence in the police. This article concludes with recommendations for future GDT implementations.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"109 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82981530","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 : 2018-10-26DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1552083
T. Feucht, J. Tyson
Abstract Since the 1960s, research on crime, delinquency, and justice has achieved important milestones regarding program evaluation. The field has made significant strides in identifying and cataloging evidence-based programs, practices, and policies for juvenile and criminal justice. These efforts have helped refine our definition of “evidence-based programs.” Tracing the distinctive role that Federal science agencies have played in determining what works and in advancing evidence-based approaches to crime and justice, we highlight key milestones, distinctive features, and the changing landscape of justice research over the past half-century. We extend our examination of current efforts to discern future directions for evaluation and evidence work in our field. Our review of a half-century of justice evaluation to build evidence-based approaches in juvenile and criminal justice reveals an evolution in our field’s commitment to rigor, our standards of evidence, and our notions of “what works.” Our review suggests important directions for the future including the importance of program context, the trade-offs between implementation fidelity and experimentation, and the added value of supporting programs with decision-making tools and platforms. We close with some insights into how current approaches to evaluation may further evolve and grow, especially in the areas of implementation, program adaptation, and support for local capacity. The payoff is a deeper understanding of the potential and the limitations of evaluation evidence to determine what works and what doesn’t.
{"title":"Advancing “What Works” in Justice: Past, Present, and Future Work of Federal Justice Research Agencies","authors":"T. Feucht, J. Tyson","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1552083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1552083","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since the 1960s, research on crime, delinquency, and justice has achieved important milestones regarding program evaluation. The field has made significant strides in identifying and cataloging evidence-based programs, practices, and policies for juvenile and criminal justice. These efforts have helped refine our definition of “evidence-based programs.” Tracing the distinctive role that Federal science agencies have played in determining what works and in advancing evidence-based approaches to crime and justice, we highlight key milestones, distinctive features, and the changing landscape of justice research over the past half-century. We extend our examination of current efforts to discern future directions for evaluation and evidence work in our field. Our review of a half-century of justice evaluation to build evidence-based approaches in juvenile and criminal justice reveals an evolution in our field’s commitment to rigor, our standards of evidence, and our notions of “what works.” Our review suggests important directions for the future including the importance of program context, the trade-offs between implementation fidelity and experimentation, and the added value of supporting programs with decision-making tools and platforms. We close with some insights into how current approaches to evaluation may further evolve and grow, especially in the areas of implementation, program adaptation, and support for local capacity. The payoff is a deeper understanding of the potential and the limitations of evaluation evidence to determine what works and what doesn’t.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"120 1","pages":"151 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77435285","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 : 2018-10-26DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1502622
G. Duwe, KiDeuk Kim
Abstract Prevailing correctional practice holds that offenders should be assigned to interventions on the basis of assessments for risk, needs, and responsivity. Assessments of responsivity, however, typically consist of little more than a checklist of items such as motivation, gender, language, or culture. We introduce a new actuarial approach for assessing responsivity, which focuses on predicting whether individuals will desist after participating in an intervention. We assess responsivity by using multiple classification methods and predictive performance metrics to analyze various approaches for prioritizing individuals for correctional interventions. The results suggest that adding an actuarial responsivity assessment to the existing risk and needs assessments would likely improve treatment assignments and further enhance the effectiveness of an effective intervention. We conclude by discussing the implications of more rigorous responsivity assessments for correctional research, policy, and practice.
{"title":"The Neglected “R” in the Risk-Needs-Responsivity Model: A New Approach for Assessing Responsivity to Correctional Interventions","authors":"G. Duwe, KiDeuk Kim","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1502622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1502622","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Prevailing correctional practice holds that offenders should be assigned to interventions on the basis of assessments for risk, needs, and responsivity. Assessments of responsivity, however, typically consist of little more than a checklist of items such as motivation, gender, language, or culture. We introduce a new actuarial approach for assessing responsivity, which focuses on predicting whether individuals will desist after participating in an intervention. We assess responsivity by using multiple classification methods and predictive performance metrics to analyze various approaches for prioritizing individuals for correctional interventions. The results suggest that adding an actuarial responsivity assessment to the existing risk and needs assessments would likely improve treatment assignments and further enhance the effectiveness of an effective intervention. We conclude by discussing the implications of more rigorous responsivity assessments for correctional research, policy, and practice.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"130 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87977022","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 : 2018-10-26DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1528849
Christopher M. Campbell, Mia J. Abboud, Z. Hamilton, Jacqueline vanWormer, Brianne M. Posey
Abstract As policy makers require more detail justifying rehabilitation expenditures, officials must take inventory on available programming and extant evidence. Unfortunately, little research can be drawn from to aid contextualizing and guiding this process. Using one state example, we report a legislative proviso which sought to investigate current and future use of correctional services. Through the lens of Risk-Needs-Responsivity, this article describes packaging research into digestible ways for policy discussions, and concludes with policy implications and guiding principles for other jurisdictions.
{"title":"Evidence-Based or Just Promising? Lessons Learned in Taking Inventory of State Correctional Programming","authors":"Christopher M. Campbell, Mia J. Abboud, Z. Hamilton, Jacqueline vanWormer, Brianne M. Posey","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1528849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1528849","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As policy makers require more detail justifying rehabilitation expenditures, officials must take inventory on available programming and extant evidence. Unfortunately, little research can be drawn from to aid contextualizing and guiding this process. Using one state example, we report a legislative proviso which sought to investigate current and future use of correctional services. Through the lens of Risk-Needs-Responsivity, this article describes packaging research into digestible ways for policy discussions, and concludes with policy implications and guiding principles for other jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"21 9 1","pages":"188 - 214"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87991300","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 : 2018-09-28DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1517584
Anne Hobbs, Marijana M. Kotlaja, Lindsey E. Wylie
Abstract Chronic absenteeism is related to poor academic performance, delinquency, and other high-risk behaviors. Although research has found some promising interventions to reduce absenteeism, the literature lacks clarity on operationalizing absenteeism and when programs should intervene with youth who have varying absenteeism patterns. Using the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework to classify youth into tiers based on their degree of absenteeism, the present study evaluated 12 absenteeism programs, across 137 schools, with a sample of 1,606 youth as part of a statewide evaluation in which programs provided attendance data using a common measurement system. The findings indicated that youth with the highest rates of absenteeism (Tier 3) showed significant improvement in attendance during intervention, whereas youth with fewer absences (Tiers 1A, 1B, and 2) did not significantly improve attendance. Using a mixed repeated measures analysis to compare attendance prior to the program to attendance while in the program, results revealed that tier classification and school explained change in attendance for both excused and unexcused absences. Using common measurement for absenteeism and tier classifications is a useful framework for comparing attendance patterns and program success across programs within different schools, school districts, and states whose measurement of attendance may vary.
{"title":"Absenteeism Interventions: An Approach for Common Definitions in Statewide Program Evaluations","authors":"Anne Hobbs, Marijana M. Kotlaja, Lindsey E. Wylie","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1517584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1517584","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Chronic absenteeism is related to poor academic performance, delinquency, and other high-risk behaviors. Although research has found some promising interventions to reduce absenteeism, the literature lacks clarity on operationalizing absenteeism and when programs should intervene with youth who have varying absenteeism patterns. Using the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework to classify youth into tiers based on their degree of absenteeism, the present study evaluated 12 absenteeism programs, across 137 schools, with a sample of 1,606 youth as part of a statewide evaluation in which programs provided attendance data using a common measurement system. The findings indicated that youth with the highest rates of absenteeism (Tier 3) showed significant improvement in attendance during intervention, whereas youth with fewer absences (Tiers 1A, 1B, and 2) did not significantly improve attendance. Using a mixed repeated measures analysis to compare attendance prior to the program to attendance while in the program, results revealed that tier classification and school explained change in attendance for both excused and unexcused absences. Using common measurement for absenteeism and tier classifications is a useful framework for comparing attendance patterns and program success across programs within different schools, school districts, and states whose measurement of attendance may vary.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"215 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85005567","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 : 2018-05-24DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1478442
Jack R. Greene
Abstract Over two decades the police have adopted more the trappings of science than its substance. Efforts to understand the police have taken queues from advocates of random controlled trials as the “gold standard” to judge the police, often ignoring the qualitative and symbolic roles and functions of the police. In an era emphasizing police legitimacy, revisiting Pirsig’s (1974) call for better linking broad theoretical discourse with practical application suggests rethinking police evaluative frameworks. Measuring all that the police do, without being driven singularly by deterrence ideas, can more clearly explore this important social institution. This paper argues for examining the social facilitation role of the police, acknowledging the subtleties of social context for policing, and improving implementation assessment of police interventions, which are often lacking today in police research. Linking “Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance” brings us closer to understanding how the police actually work and why it matters.
{"title":"Rethinking Police Evaluation Research: Balancing “Zen” with the “Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”*","authors":"Jack R. Greene","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1478442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1478442","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over two decades the police have adopted more the trappings of science than its substance. Efforts to understand the police have taken queues from advocates of random controlled trials as the “gold standard” to judge the police, often ignoring the qualitative and symbolic roles and functions of the police. In an era emphasizing police legitimacy, revisiting Pirsig’s (1974) call for better linking broad theoretical discourse with practical application suggests rethinking police evaluative frameworks. Measuring all that the police do, without being driven singularly by deterrence ideas, can more clearly explore this important social institution. This paper argues for examining the social facilitation role of the police, acknowledging the subtleties of social context for policing, and improving implementation assessment of police interventions, which are often lacking today in police research. Linking “Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance” brings us closer to understanding how the police actually work and why it matters.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"32 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80878001","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 : 2018-05-24DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1478236
S. J. Listwan, Jennifer L. Hartman, Ashleigh LaCourse
Abstract Homeless individuals involved in the criminal justice system often have needs that translate into a significant human and financial cost to society. As a result, there has been an interest in developing intervention strategies to aid the homeless with the intent to reduce antisocial behavior. One of these strategies, the Frequent User Systems Engagement (FUSE) model, has garnered support nationwide over the last decade; however, few empirical evaluations of its efficacy exist. The current study utilizes a quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes between a sample of FUSE program participants (n = 42) with a similar group not receiving services (n = 42). Over the course of the 4-year study period, the FUSE group had fewer arrests and remained “arrest free” in the community for a longer of time, even after controlling for associated risk factors. Recommendations for improvement outcomes utilizing this model are provided.
{"title":"Impact of the MeckFUSE Pilot Project: Recidivism Among the Chronically Homeless","authors":"S. J. Listwan, Jennifer L. Hartman, Ashleigh LaCourse","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1478236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1478236","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Homeless individuals involved in the criminal justice system often have needs that translate into a significant human and financial cost to society. As a result, there has been an interest in developing intervention strategies to aid the homeless with the intent to reduce antisocial behavior. One of these strategies, the Frequent User Systems Engagement (FUSE) model, has garnered support nationwide over the last decade; however, few empirical evaluations of its efficacy exist. The current study utilizes a quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes between a sample of FUSE program participants (n = 42) with a similar group not receiving services (n = 42). Over the course of the 4-year study period, the FUSE group had fewer arrests and remained “arrest free” in the community for a longer of time, even after controlling for associated risk factors. Recommendations for improvement outcomes utilizing this model are provided.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"108 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82418694","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：