Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2273484
Denise Garcia
ABSTRACTAlong the line of exploring the implications of algorithmic decision-making for international law, Garcia highlights the growing dehumanization process in the military domain that reduces humans to mere data and pattern-recognizing technologies. ‘Immoral codes’ containing instructions to target and kill humans raise the likelihood of unpredictable and unintended violence. Compounding this challenge is a lack of international law that puts restraints on the pervasive use of algorithms in society and the ongoing military AI race. Garcia argues that current international mechanisms under international humanitarian law developed to regulate ‘hardware’ are not sufficient to withstand ‘software’ challenges posed by algorithmic-based weaponry. Instead, the human-centricity of international law is eroded by algorithmic decision-making and more violence and instability triggered by great power rivalry. International rules need to be updated to ensure the prohibition of killing that is outside human oversight.KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligencealgorithmsmilitaryinternational lawmachine learning Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 I am grateful to Stephen Alt, Gugan Kathiresan, and Jenia Browne for their research recommendations and assistance. I am also thankful to Shane Gravel.2 At this stage, an important qualification is warranted. “Autonomy” is a machine or software’s capacity to perform a task or function on its own. Recently, “autonomy” has also come to encompass a wide range of AI-enabled systems.3 See also: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/stop-killer-robots/emerging-tech-and-artificial-intelligence/ (accessed 02/25/2023).4 Thanks to Gugan Kathiresan for this insight.Additional informationNotes on contributorsDenise GarciaDenise Garcia, a Ph.D. from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of the University of Geneva, is a professor at Northeastern University in Boston and a founding faculty member of the Institute for Experiential Robotics. She is formerly a member of the International Panel for the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons (2017–2022), currently of the Research Board of the Toda Peace Institute (Tokyo) and the Institute for Economics and Peace (Sydney), Vice-chair of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, and of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. She was the Nobel Peace Institute Fellow in Oslo in 2017. A multiple teaching award-winner, her recent publications appeared at Nature, Foreign Affairs, and other top journals. Her upcoming book is The AI Military Race: Common Good Governance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence with Oxford University Press 2023.
{"title":"Algorithms and Decision-Making in Military Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Denise Garcia","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2273484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2273484","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTAlong the line of exploring the implications of algorithmic decision-making for international law, Garcia highlights the growing dehumanization process in the military domain that reduces humans to mere data and pattern-recognizing technologies. ‘Immoral codes’ containing instructions to target and kill humans raise the likelihood of unpredictable and unintended violence. Compounding this challenge is a lack of international law that puts restraints on the pervasive use of algorithms in society and the ongoing military AI race. Garcia argues that current international mechanisms under international humanitarian law developed to regulate ‘hardware’ are not sufficient to withstand ‘software’ challenges posed by algorithmic-based weaponry. Instead, the human-centricity of international law is eroded by algorithmic decision-making and more violence and instability triggered by great power rivalry. International rules need to be updated to ensure the prohibition of killing that is outside human oversight.KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligencealgorithmsmilitaryinternational lawmachine learning Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 I am grateful to Stephen Alt, Gugan Kathiresan, and Jenia Browne for their research recommendations and assistance. I am also thankful to Shane Gravel.2 At this stage, an important qualification is warranted. “Autonomy” is a machine or software’s capacity to perform a task or function on its own. Recently, “autonomy” has also come to encompass a wide range of AI-enabled systems.3 See also: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/stop-killer-robots/emerging-tech-and-artificial-intelligence/ (accessed 02/25/2023).4 Thanks to Gugan Kathiresan for this insight.Additional informationNotes on contributorsDenise GarciaDenise Garcia, a Ph.D. from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of the University of Geneva, is a professor at Northeastern University in Boston and a founding faculty member of the Institute for Experiential Robotics. She is formerly a member of the International Panel for the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons (2017–2022), currently of the Research Board of the Toda Peace Institute (Tokyo) and the Institute for Economics and Peace (Sydney), Vice-chair of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, and of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. She was the Nobel Peace Institute Fellow in Oslo in 2017. A multiple teaching award-winner, her recent publications appeared at Nature, Foreign Affairs, and other top journals. Her upcoming book is The AI Military Race: Common Good Governance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence with Oxford University Press 2023.","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"27 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134906571","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 : 2023-10-04DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2263886
Wasana S. Handapangoda
In this paper, I examine the process of migrant subject-making prior to departure based on the experiences of Sri Lankan women aspiring to become migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in the Arabian Gulf. Within a context of commodified, privatized and foreignized care migration regimes, women from developing countries have become “ideal” maids: cheap, docile and hardworking, they satisfy the growing social reproductive needs of more affluent countries. This image of the “ideal” MDW is re/produced, maintained and challenged through technologies of subject-making across the circuits of migration. In a combined public–private, local–transnational, and formal–informal thrust towards subject-making, different actors—including MDWs themselves—use different pre-departure technologies in a sociology of markets. Thus, passengers are carved out even before potential MDWs leave their home country; these passengers reflect different constructions, embodiments and connotations of “ideal” migrant subjects, where labour power is re/produced and exploited in the most intimate sphere.
{"title":"The Making of “ <i>Passengers”</i> : The Pre-Departure Subjectivation of Sri Lanka’s Aspiring Migrant Domestic Workers Heading to the Arabian Gulf","authors":"Wasana S. Handapangoda","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2263886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2263886","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I examine the process of migrant subject-making prior to departure based on the experiences of Sri Lankan women aspiring to become migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in the Arabian Gulf. Within a context of commodified, privatized and foreignized care migration regimes, women from developing countries have become “ideal” maids: cheap, docile and hardworking, they satisfy the growing social reproductive needs of more affluent countries. This image of the “ideal” MDW is re/produced, maintained and challenged through technologies of subject-making across the circuits of migration. In a combined public–private, local–transnational, and formal–informal thrust towards subject-making, different actors—including MDWs themselves—use different pre-departure technologies in a sociology of markets. Thus, passengers are carved out even before potential MDWs leave their home country; these passengers reflect different constructions, embodiments and connotations of “ideal” migrant subjects, where labour power is re/produced and exploited in the most intimate sphere.","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135646250","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 : 2023-10-03DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2261466
Lauren Gould, Marijn Hoijtink, Martine Jaarsma, Jack Davies
This article analyses how algorithmic innovation in contemporary warfare unfolds through new alliances and contestations among civil and military actors in the face of an overarching rhetoric around the need to lead in “information manoeuvre”. Drawing on assemblage thinking and applying it to the case of the Land Information Manoeuvre Centre (LIMC)—a data centre founded by the Dutch Army that unlawfully tracked and algorithmically predicted its citizen’s sentiment and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic—the authors identify three logics that held this centre together and helped ward off critique: entrepreneurialism, informality, and experimentation. Emulating innovation practices elsewhere, together, these logics have important political repercussions beyond the Dutch case, pushing the expansion of military surveillance, pattern-finding and targeting, while undermining the rule of law and democratic accountability within algorithmic warfare.
{"title":"Innovating Algorithmic Warfare: Experimentation with Information Manoeuvre beyond the Boundaries of the Law","authors":"Lauren Gould, Marijn Hoijtink, Martine Jaarsma, Jack Davies","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2261466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2261466","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses how algorithmic innovation in contemporary warfare unfolds through new alliances and contestations among civil and military actors in the face of an overarching rhetoric around the need to lead in “information manoeuvre”. Drawing on assemblage thinking and applying it to the case of the Land Information Manoeuvre Centre (LIMC)—a data centre founded by the Dutch Army that unlawfully tracked and algorithmically predicted its citizen’s sentiment and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic—the authors identify three logics that held this centre together and helped ward off critique: entrepreneurialism, informality, and experimentation. Emulating innovation practices elsewhere, together, these logics have important political repercussions beyond the Dutch case, pushing the expansion of military surveillance, pattern-finding and targeting, while undermining the rule of law and democratic accountability within algorithmic warfare.","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135740085","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2263473
Ingvild Bode, Hendrik Huelss, Anna Nadibaidze, Guangyu Qiao-Franco, Tom F. A. Watts
ABSTRACTThis article takes stock of the ongoing debates on algorithmic warfare in the social sciences. It seeks to equip scholars in International Relations and beyond with a critical review of both the empirical context of algorithmic warfare and the different theoretical approaches to studying practices related to the integration of algorithms (including automated, autonomous, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies) into international armed conflict. The review focuses on discussions about (1) the implications of algorithmic warfare for strategic stability, (2) the morality and ethics of algorithmic warfare, (3) how algorithmic warfare relates to the laws and norms of war, and (4) popular imaginaries of algorithmic warfare. The article foregrounds a set of open research questions capable of moving the field toward a more interdisciplinary research agenda, as well as by introducing the contributions made by other articles in this Special Issue.KEYWORDS: Algorithmsartificial intelligence (AI)warsecurity Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Both automated and autonomous technologies denote systems that, once activated, can perform some tasks without human input. In robotics, automation implies less “sophistication” than autonomy because automated systems follow a pre-programmed sequence of actions (Winfield Citation2012, 12). However, integrating automated or autonomous technologies into military decision-making and targeting triggers similar problematic consequences for human control because such technologies increase system complexity.2 AWS are defined as systems that are able to make targeting “decisions” without immediate human intervention. They may or may not be based on AI technologies (Garcia Citationforthcoming).3 Such dynamics are not restricted to the study of algorithmic warfare as the study of remote warfare, for instance, demonstrates (Biegon, Rauta, and Watts Citation2021).4 These include, for example, the Realities of Algorithmic Warfare project (PI: Lauren Gould) at the University of Utrecht and the DILEMA project (PI: Berenice Boutin) at the Asser Institute in The Hague.5 Loitering munitions manufacturers hold that such systems require human assessment and authorisation prior to the release of force. But their marketing material also appears to point to a latent technological capability such systems may have to release the use of force without prior human assessment (Bode and Watts Citation2023).6 The Martens Clause first appeared in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention. It is said to “fill a gap” when existing international law fails to address a situation by referring the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience (Docherty Citation2018).7 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art 31/2, Art. 51/4 (b) and Art. 51/4 (c).8 Protocol Additi
{"title":"Algorithmic Warfare: Taking Stock of a Research Programme","authors":"Ingvild Bode, Hendrik Huelss, Anna Nadibaidze, Guangyu Qiao-Franco, Tom F. A. Watts","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2263473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2263473","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article takes stock of the ongoing debates on algorithmic warfare in the social sciences. It seeks to equip scholars in International Relations and beyond with a critical review of both the empirical context of algorithmic warfare and the different theoretical approaches to studying practices related to the integration of algorithms (including automated, autonomous, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies) into international armed conflict. The review focuses on discussions about (1) the implications of algorithmic warfare for strategic stability, (2) the morality and ethics of algorithmic warfare, (3) how algorithmic warfare relates to the laws and norms of war, and (4) popular imaginaries of algorithmic warfare. The article foregrounds a set of open research questions capable of moving the field toward a more interdisciplinary research agenda, as well as by introducing the contributions made by other articles in this Special Issue.KEYWORDS: Algorithmsartificial intelligence (AI)warsecurity Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Both automated and autonomous technologies denote systems that, once activated, can perform some tasks without human input. In robotics, automation implies less “sophistication” than autonomy because automated systems follow a pre-programmed sequence of actions (Winfield Citation2012, 12). However, integrating automated or autonomous technologies into military decision-making and targeting triggers similar problematic consequences for human control because such technologies increase system complexity.2 AWS are defined as systems that are able to make targeting “decisions” without immediate human intervention. They may or may not be based on AI technologies (Garcia Citationforthcoming).3 Such dynamics are not restricted to the study of algorithmic warfare as the study of remote warfare, for instance, demonstrates (Biegon, Rauta, and Watts Citation2021).4 These include, for example, the Realities of Algorithmic Warfare project (PI: Lauren Gould) at the University of Utrecht and the DILEMA project (PI: Berenice Boutin) at the Asser Institute in The Hague.5 Loitering munitions manufacturers hold that such systems require human assessment and authorisation prior to the release of force. But their marketing material also appears to point to a latent technological capability such systems may have to release the use of force without prior human assessment (Bode and Watts Citation2023).6 The Martens Clause first appeared in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention. It is said to “fill a gap” when existing international law fails to address a situation by referring the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience (Docherty Citation2018).7 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art 31/2, Art. 51/4 (b) and Art. 51/4 (c).8 Protocol Additi","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135458575","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 : 2023-09-11DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2251509
Mustafa Can Sati
The concepts of means of warfare and combatants are not comparable or on the same scale in IHL. Yet the human-like performances of AI technologies, such as independent decision-making, may blur the line between these two concepts. This may also lead one to compare the technology with a human combatant rather than with other means of warfare. In this context, this paper questions the attributability of combatant status to military AI technologies by concentrating on the scope of the combatant concept. Contrary to some existing studies that found combatant status insufficient for machines based on ethics or behavioural human-machine differences, this study examines why combatant status is unsuitable for military AI technologies from a legal conceptual perspective, even in their most intelligent and independent forms by visiting terms—membership to armed forces, armed forces and prisoners of war (POW)—that are relevant to disclose the scope of the term combatant.
{"title":"The Attributability of Combatant Status to Military AI Technologies under International Humanitarian Law","authors":"Mustafa Can Sati","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2251509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2251509","url":null,"abstract":"The concepts of means of warfare and combatants are not comparable or on the same scale in IHL. Yet the human-like performances of AI technologies, such as independent decision-making, may blur the line between these two concepts. This may also lead one to compare the technology with a human combatant rather than with other means of warfare. In this context, this paper questions the attributability of combatant status to military AI technologies by concentrating on the scope of the combatant concept. Contrary to some existing studies that found combatant status insufficient for machines based on ethics or behavioural human-machine differences, this study examines why combatant status is unsuitable for military AI technologies from a legal conceptual perspective, even in their most intelligent and independent forms by visiting terms—membership to armed forces, armed forces and prisoners of war (POW)—that are relevant to disclose the scope of the term combatant.","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136024612","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 : 2023-08-27DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2248179
Noriyuki Katagiri
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and Cross-Domain Warfare: Balance of Power and Unintended Escalation","authors":"Noriyuki Katagiri","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2248179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2248179","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44302657","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 : 2023-08-22DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2236129
Maïka Sondarjee
{"title":"Coloniality of Epistemic Power in International Practices: NGO Inclusion in World Bank Policymaking","authors":"Maïka Sondarjee","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2236129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2236129","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45187688","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 : 2023-08-17DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2246504
Enock Ndawana, F. Nganje
{"title":"Militarisation and State Capacity in Zimbabwe: The Limits of the Human Security Paradigm","authors":"Enock Ndawana, F. Nganje","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2246504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2246504","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48007607","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 : 2023-07-31DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2239859
V. Banerjee, Prashant Hosur Suhas
{"title":"The Client’s Principles: Explaining Israel and Taiwan’s Defense Ties with Central America","authors":"V. Banerjee, Prashant Hosur Suhas","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2239859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2239859","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47676747","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 : 2023-07-20DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2023.2237044
Gordon Mace
{"title":"Democratic Practices in MERCOSUR and the OAS: What Space for Transnational Civil Society?","authors":"Gordon Mace","doi":"10.1080/13600826.2023.2237044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2023.2237044","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46197,"journal":{"name":"Global Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44191740","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：