± The Casad Lecture is named in honor of Professor Robert Casad, one of KU Law faculty’s brightest stars in the area of comparative law. Professor Casad became a college freshman at age sixteen, and by the age of twenty-one he had earned his undergraduate degree and a master’s degree from the University of Kansas. He then went on to earn a JD degree from the University of Michigan and an advanced law degree from Harvard. Before Professor and Mrs. Casad moved to Lawrence in 1959, they lived for a short time in Winona, Minnesota where Professor Casad practiced law at the practice of Streater and Murphy. During their long association with KU, Professor and Mrs. Casad worked and lived overseas several times, including forays to Spain, Vienna, London, Japan, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Munich, Augsberg, Frankfort, and many other places. In connection with some of those visits abroad, Professor Casad became fluent in Spanish and has undertaken extensive research and writing in that language—a sign of a true legal comparativist. Among Professor Casad’s most wellknown scholarly works in English are Res Judicata in a Nutshell (1976) and Jurisdiction in Civil Actions (1998). Professor Casad took emeritus status at the Law School in 1997 and has remained active in scholarship and faculty matters since that time. ∗ Professor at the University of Trento School of Law. Professor Toniatti is an expert in comparative constitutional law and has written widely on the judiciary, legal pluralism, European integration, minority and indigenous people’s rights, and cultural citizenship. In addition to his scholarly contributions, he has advised the European Union and the Venice Commission. Professor Toniatti is a member of the International Academy of Comparative Law. Editor’s Note: The following essay is drawn from the Casad Comparative Law Lecture presented in February 2019 by Professor Roberto Toniatti. The Casad Lecture, held regularly at the University of Kansas School of Law as a component of the School’s multi-faceted International and Comparative Law Program, is named after Robert C. Casad and Sarah Casad in recognition of the special contributions that both of them have made to the Law School over many years, particularly in the area of comparative law.
卡萨德讲座是为了纪念罗伯特·卡萨德教授而命名的，他是堪萨斯大学法学院在比较法领域最耀眼的明星之一。卡萨德教授16岁时成为一名大学新生，21岁时在堪萨斯大学获得了本科学位和硕士学位。随后，他在密歇根大学(University of Michigan)获得法学博士学位，在哈佛大学(Harvard)获得高级法律学位。在卡萨德教授和夫人于1959年搬到劳伦斯之前，他们在明尼苏达州的威诺纳住了很短的一段时间，卡萨德教授在斯特里特和墨菲律师事务所执业。在他们与KU的长期合作中，Casad教授和夫人多次在国外工作和生活，包括西班牙，维也纳，伦敦，日本，哥斯达黎加，危地马拉，慕尼黑，奥格斯堡，法兰克福和许多其他地方。在一些国外访问期间，卡萨德教授掌握了流利的西班牙语，并用西班牙语进行了广泛的研究和写作，这是真正的法律比较学家的标志。卡萨德教授最著名的英文学术著作是《果壳中的判例》(1976)和《民事诉讼中的管辖权》(1998)。Casad教授于1997年在法学院获得荣誉退休资格，从那时起一直积极参与奖学金和教职工作。特伦托大学法学院教授。Toniatti教授是比较宪法方面的专家，在司法、法律多元化、欧洲一体化、少数民族和土著人民的权利以及文化公民权方面著述颇丰。除了学术贡献外，他还为欧盟和威尼斯委员会提供咨询。Toniatti教授是国际比较法学院的成员。编者注:以下文章是由罗伯托·托尼亚蒂教授于2019年2月提出的卡萨德比较法讲座。Casad讲座定期在堪萨斯大学法学院举行，是该校多方面的国际法和比较法项目的一个组成部分，以Robert C. Casad和Sarah Casad的名字命名，以表彰他们多年来对法学院做出的特殊贡献，特别是在比较法领域。
{"title":",,,Comparing Constitutions in the Global Era: Opportunities, Purpose, Challenges","authors":"R. Toniatti","doi":"10.17161/1808.28083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.28083","url":null,"abstract":"± The Casad Lecture is named in honor of Professor Robert Casad, one of KU Law faculty’s brightest stars in the area of comparative law. Professor Casad became a college freshman at age sixteen, and by the age of twenty-one he had earned his undergraduate degree and a master’s degree from the University of Kansas. He then went on to earn a JD degree from the University of Michigan and an advanced law degree from Harvard. Before Professor and Mrs. Casad moved to Lawrence in 1959, they lived for a short time in Winona, Minnesota where Professor Casad practiced law at the practice of Streater and Murphy. During their long association with KU, Professor and Mrs. Casad worked and lived overseas several times, including forays to Spain, Vienna, London, Japan, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Munich, Augsberg, Frankfort, and many other places. In connection with some of those visits abroad, Professor Casad became fluent in Spanish and has undertaken extensive research and writing in that language—a sign of a true legal comparativist. Among Professor Casad’s most wellknown scholarly works in English are Res Judicata in a Nutshell (1976) and Jurisdiction in Civil Actions (1998). Professor Casad took emeritus status at the Law School in 1997 and has remained active in scholarship and faculty matters since that time. ∗ Professor at the University of Trento School of Law. Professor Toniatti is an expert in comparative constitutional law and has written widely on the judiciary, legal pluralism, European integration, minority and indigenous people’s rights, and cultural citizenship. In addition to his scholarly contributions, he has advised the European Union and the Venice Commission. Professor Toniatti is a member of the International Academy of Comparative Law. Editor’s Note: The following essay is drawn from the Casad Comparative Law Lecture presented in February 2019 by Professor Roberto Toniatti. The Casad Lecture, held regularly at the University of Kansas School of Law as a component of the School’s multi-faceted International and Comparative Law Program, is named after Robert C. Casad and Sarah Casad in recognition of the special contributions that both of them have made to the Law School over many years, particularly in the area of comparative law.","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67512902","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":",,,The Problem of Coerced Consent: When Voluntary Departure Isn’t So Voluntary","authors":"Nicolas A. Novy","doi":"10.17161/1808.29987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.29987","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67513063","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":",,,In Their Words: Critically Analyzing the Admission of \"Me Too\" Testimony in Kansas","authors":"","doi":"10.17161/1808.28087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.28087","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67513070","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}
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;1
{"title":",,,Reflections Upon Terrorism, Militias, Law, and the Judicial System: An Essay","authors":"M. Hoeflich","doi":"10.17161/1808.28084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.28084","url":null,"abstract":"(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;1","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67512914","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":",,,Front Matter, University of Kansas Law Review Vol. 67 Number 3","authors":"","doi":"10.17161/1808.27732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.27732","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67512596","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}
This Article seeks to surface and understand more than what is already known about Jean Hortense Norris as a lawyer, jurist, and feminist legal realist—as well as a woman for whom sex very much became part of her professional persona and work. This article analyzes the lack of legal protections provided to Norris and troubling nature of her removal from the bench given the evidence presented and standards applied. Finally, this Article seeks to provide further context for Jean Norris’s alleged misconduct charges to suggest that as a woman who dared to blur gender boundaries, embrace her professional power, and offer a unique vision of the “fairer sex,” she was held to a different standard than her male peers and made to pay the price with her career. In these ways, this Article provides a more complete picture of Jean Norris beyond a shamed and disrobed judge. And it begins to move Judge Norris out of legal history’s margins so that she may be remembered as more than mere mugshot in the American imagination.
{"title":",,,Fallen Woman (Re)framed: Judge Jean Hortense Norris, New York City - 1912-1955","authors":"Mae C. Quinn","doi":"10.17161/1808.27733","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.27733","url":null,"abstract":"This Article seeks to surface and understand more than what is already known about Jean Hortense Norris as a lawyer, jurist, and feminist legal realist—as well as a woman for whom sex very much became part of her professional persona and work. This article analyzes the lack of legal protections provided to Norris and troubling nature of her removal from the bench given the evidence presented and standards applied. Finally, this Article seeks to provide further context for Jean Norris’s alleged misconduct charges to suggest that as a woman who dared to blur gender boundaries, embrace her professional power, and offer a unique vision of the “fairer sex,” she was held to a different standard than her male peers and made to pay the price with her career. In these ways, this Article provides a more complete picture of Jean Norris beyond a shamed and disrobed judge. And it begins to move Judge Norris out of legal history’s margins so that she may be remembered as more than mere mugshot in the American imagination.","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67512627","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}
Since the 2016 Presidential election, discussions of immigration policy and enforcement have taken center stage in the public debate. In contrast to the Obama administration, which had articulated specific priorities for removal, the Trump administration has significantly expanded its enforcement targets. Indeed, high-level officials have confirmed that virtually anyone who is in the country without authorization is susceptible to removal. To make its case for enhanced immigration enforcement, the current administration has deployed familiar tropes regarding immigrant criminality and dangerousness. This rhetoric, operationalized through varied structures of criminalization, has shrunk the pool of individuals who can argue against removal, notwithstanding contributions or connections to the United States. The current political moment invites deeper reflection about the equities that should insulate undocumented noncitizens from removal, and how those equities should be assessed vis-a-vis allegations of criminality. Over the years, scholars have articulated a range of factors that justify protection from removal or even regularization of status. This article builds upon that literature, and presents a more nuanced typology of the societal contributions that should weigh against removal, along with the theories that undergird noncitizens’ claims in this context. A second purpose of this article is to expose how the powerful trend of criminalization has begun to infect even the limited space where discretion can be exercised, and has converted seemingly favorable conduct into undesirable criminal activity. This development, which is examined through the lens of several case studies, enables exclusion and expulsion, and disrupts the incentives that noncitizens have to contribute to and support the state.
{"title":",,,Equity in Contemporary Immigration Enforcement: Defining Contributions and Countering Criminalization","authors":"A. Al-Khatib, Jayesh Rathod","doi":"10.17161/1808.26697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.26697","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 2016 Presidential election, discussions of immigration policy and enforcement have taken center stage in the public debate. In contrast to the Obama administration, which had articulated specific priorities for removal, the Trump administration has significantly expanded its enforcement targets. Indeed, high-level officials have confirmed that virtually anyone who is in the country without authorization is susceptible to removal. To make its case for enhanced immigration enforcement, the current administration has deployed familiar tropes regarding immigrant criminality and dangerousness. This rhetoric, operationalized through varied structures of criminalization, has shrunk the pool of individuals who can argue against removal, notwithstanding contributions or connections to the United States. \u0000The current political moment invites deeper reflection about the equities that should insulate undocumented noncitizens from removal, and how those equities should be assessed vis-a-vis allegations of criminality. Over the years, scholars have articulated a range of factors that justify protection from removal or even regularization of status. This article builds upon that literature, and presents a more nuanced typology of the societal contributions that should weigh against removal, along with the theories that undergird noncitizens’ claims in this context. A second purpose of this article is to expose how the powerful trend of criminalization has begun to infect even the limited space where discretion can be exercised, and has converted seemingly favorable conduct into undesirable criminal activity. This development, which is examined through the lens of several case studies, enables exclusion and expulsion, and disrupts the incentives that noncitizens have to contribute to and support the state.","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43144779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) represented the crowning achievement of the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government’s political branches.1 President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress sold the Act as a tax cut that would benefit the middle class. In an apparently coordinated effort, President Trump, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued statements trumpeting the $2,000 tax cut that the median income household of four would receive in 2018.2 In opposing the tax bill, Democrats also tried to position themselves as champions of the middle class. Democrats blasted the bill as a giveaway to special interest groups and wealthy with little to no tax relief for the middle class.3 According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck
{"title":",,,A Constitutional Path to Fair Representation for the Poor","authors":"I. L. Ross","doi":"10.17161/1808.26696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.26696","url":null,"abstract":"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) represented the crowning achievement of the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government’s political branches.1 President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress sold the Act as a tax cut that would benefit the middle class. In an apparently coordinated effort, President Trump, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued statements trumpeting the $2,000 tax cut that the median income household of four would receive in 2018.2 In opposing the tax bill, Democrats also tried to position themselves as champions of the middle class. Democrats blasted the bill as a giveaway to special interest groups and wealthy with little to no tax relief for the middle class.3 According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46334038","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}
Inequity permeates law and legal systems. “[Y]ou can’t really understand,” explained Spencer, “For me the law is all over. I am caught, you know; there is always some rule that I’m supposed to follow, some rule I don’t even know about that they say.”1 Spencer is “welfare poor;” he experiences law as “power and domination.”2 Not Bob. Bob is wealthy. For him, law is instrumental. He deploys it as a shield and a sword. He has faith that, in general, it will not interfere with his life, unless he wants it to. And, not Becky. Becky manages a popular coffeehouse in a relatively diverse metropolis. For Becky, law is mostly invisible, but it is also emboldenment. When two black men enter the coffeehouse, Becky feels uncomfortable. She wants the men to leave, but she does not want to confront them. She calls on the law. 911: “Help! There are two men here. They won’t leave my store. They are black.” The police arrest the men for trespass. Becky feels courageous as they are escorted away.3 Spencer recognizes this difference. “‘For me
{"title":",,,Inequity as a Legal Principle","authors":"L. Yuille","doi":"10.17161/1808.26694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.26694","url":null,"abstract":"Inequity permeates law and legal systems. “[Y]ou can’t really understand,” explained Spencer, “For me the law is all over. I am caught, you know; there is always some rule that I’m supposed to follow, some rule I don’t even know about that they say.”1 Spencer is “welfare poor;” he experiences law as “power and domination.”2 Not Bob. Bob is wealthy. For him, law is instrumental. He deploys it as a shield and a sword. He has faith that, in general, it will not interfere with his life, unless he wants it to. And, not Becky. Becky manages a popular coffeehouse in a relatively diverse metropolis. For Becky, law is mostly invisible, but it is also emboldenment. When two black men enter the coffeehouse, Becky feels uncomfortable. She wants the men to leave, but she does not want to confront them. She calls on the law. 911: “Help! There are two men here. They won’t leave my store. They are black.” The police arrest the men for trespass. Becky feels courageous as they are escorted away.3 Spencer recognizes this difference. “‘For me","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49384771","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}
For most Americans, religion and politics are like oil and water. They do not, and should not, mix. The tension between the two topics is evident, even from a cursory view at the news. The Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer has highlighted this conflict once again. Due to the constant public debate regarding the relationship between religion and politics, Trinity Lutheran will have a substantial impact on the religious freedom landscape for decades to come. Locally, this decision impacts Kansas’s constitution. Article 6, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution describes how education funding will occur in Kansas. Recently, this topic has been a battleground between the Kansas courts and the Kansas Legislature.2 At the end of this section is clause (c). This clause is short, only containing fourteen words, yet it sets the stage for potential litigation in Kansas under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran. Due to its simplicity, clause (c) is very clear: “No religious sect or sects shall control any part of the public educational funds.”3 This section is one of many sections in various state constitutions prohibiting state funding from going to
{"title":",,,Blaines Beware: Trinity Lutheran and the Changing Landscape of State No-Funding Provisions","authors":"Matthew Sondergard","doi":"10.17161/1808.26578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.26578","url":null,"abstract":"For most Americans, religion and politics are like oil and water. They do not, and should not, mix. The tension between the two topics is evident, even from a cursory view at the news. The Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer has highlighted this conflict once again. Due to the constant public debate regarding the relationship between religion and politics, Trinity Lutheran will have a substantial impact on the religious freedom landscape for decades to come. Locally, this decision impacts Kansas’s constitution. Article 6, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution describes how education funding will occur in Kansas. Recently, this topic has been a battleground between the Kansas courts and the Kansas Legislature.2 At the end of this section is clause (c). This clause is short, only containing fourteen words, yet it sets the stage for potential litigation in Kansas under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran. Due to its simplicity, clause (c) is very clear: “No religious sect or sects shall control any part of the public educational funds.”3 This section is one of many sections in various state constitutions prohibiting state funding from going to","PeriodicalId":83417,"journal":{"name":"University of Kansas law review. University of Kansas. School of Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44226904","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：