Return migration is typically framed as migration back to familiar territory. In contrast, onward migration does not presume any type of prior connection that the emigrant has with their new destination. This article proposes a new category of migration—“halfway-return”—that sits between return and onward migrations. Halfway-return refers to an emigrant’s return to the broader geographical region from which they originated, rather than the specific country they were born or raised in. The ideal-typical halfway-return destination is a country that is more geographically proximate and also culturally similar to the emigrant’s birth country, compared to their previous overseas destination. But the halfway-return destination also offers lifestyle and/or career opportunities that are better than what is available in the emigrant’s birth country. In order to theorize the concept of halfway-return, this article draws from interview-based research conducted with thirty-four Asian-born, Western-trained bioscientists who, when they returned to Asia, chose to move to a different Asian country than their birth country. Most were Chinese- and Indian-born scientists who chose to move to Singapore rather than their birth country after spending several years training and working in the West. The concept of halfway-return helps shift the migration studies lexicon away from a methodological nationalism that assumes that an individual’s birth country is the only lens through which to determine what counts as return. It also acknowledges growing regionalization trends in Asia and elsewhere, within more-studied globalization patterns.
{"title":"A Home Away from Home: The Halfway-Return of Western-Trained Asian Scientists","authors":"A. Paul","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.70266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.70266","url":null,"abstract":"Return migration is typically framed as migration back to familiar territory. In contrast, onward migration does not presume any type of prior connection that the emigrant has with their new destination. This article proposes a new category of migration—“halfway-return”—that sits between return and onward migrations. Halfway-return refers to an emigrant’s return to the broader geographical region from which they originated, rather than the specific country they were born or raised in. The ideal-typical halfway-return destination is a country that is more geographically proximate and also culturally similar to the emigrant’s birth country, compared to their previous overseas destination. But the halfway-return destination also offers lifestyle and/or career opportunities that are better than what is available in the emigrant’s birth country. In order to theorize the concept of halfway-return, this article draws from interview-based research conducted with thirty-four Asian-born, Western-trained bioscientists who, when they returned to Asia, chose to move to a different Asian country than their birth country. Most were Chinese- and Indian-born scientists who chose to move to Singapore rather than their birth country after spending several years training and working in the West. The concept of halfway-return helps shift the migration studies lexicon away from a methodological nationalism that assumes that an individual’s birth country is the only lens through which to determine what counts as return. It also acknowledges growing regionalization trends in Asia and elsewhere, within more-studied globalization patterns.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73634384","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 paper posits a powerful mutuality of interests between global multilateralism and independent regionalism in the global South. The more-or-less liberal international order established following the Second World War struggles to retain political and financial support from advanced industrial countries. Since the underlying source of this tension reflects a structural shift in the interstate distribution of power capabilities toward rising global multipolarity, the only viable medium-term solution for peak multilateralism is achieving greater legitimacy among a wider field of countries. Greater innovativeness is a second benefit to central multilateralism of expanded regional access: important international policy challenges are not “seen” until those who experience them have sufficient voice. The counterpart challenge within the global South is the frustration of policy entrepreneurs from small and intermediate powers. Most recognize the need for prior interest-aggregation to exercise influence in peak international organizations where great powers dominate. However, effective regionalism, a perennial and obvious choice for non-great powers, in practice has been difficult, especially in Latin America. Yes, one explanation is vicious partisan squabbling in the neighborhood, but subtle, structural factors also undermine cooperation, as a quick comparison with Europe demonstrates. In this context, “regionalism” is best conceptualized as a mix of formal organizations and regionally-based transnational epistemic communities or activist networks. A case study of Latin America-focused policy entrepreneurship over several decades around the global financial governance of currency and sovereign debt illustrates these observations.
{"title":"Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Sovereign Debt: Observations from a Latin Americanist","authors":"Leslie Elliott Armijo","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.57547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.57547","url":null,"abstract":"The paper posits a powerful mutuality of interests between global multilateralism and independent regionalism in the global South. The more-or-less liberal international order established following the Second World War struggles to retain political and financial support from advanced industrial countries. Since the underlying source of this tension reflects a structural shift in the interstate distribution of power capabilities toward rising global multipolarity, the only viable medium-term solution for peak multilateralism is achieving greater legitimacy among a wider field of countries. Greater innovativeness is a second benefit to central multilateralism of expanded regional access: important international policy challenges are not “seen” until those who experience them have sufficient voice. The counterpart challenge within the global South is the frustration of policy entrepreneurs from small and intermediate powers. Most recognize the need for prior interest-aggregation to exercise influence in peak international organizations where great powers dominate. However, effective regionalism, a perennial and obvious choice for non-great powers, in practice has been difficult, especially in Latin America. Yes, one explanation is vicious partisan squabbling in the neighborhood, but subtle, structural factors also undermine cooperation, as a quick comparison with Europe demonstrates. In this context, “regionalism” is best conceptualized as a mix of formal organizations and regionally-based transnational epistemic communities or activist networks. A case study of Latin America-focused policy entrepreneurship over several decades around the global financial governance of currency and sovereign debt illustrates these observations.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89841969","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}
Francis Fukuyama, Liberalism and Its Discontents (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022) Stein Ringen, How Democracies Live: Power, Statecraft, and Freedom in Modern Societies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022) Reviewing two recent books, Francis Fukuyama’s Liberalism and Its Discontents and Stein Ringen’s How Democracies Live: Power, Statecraft, and Freedom in Modern Societies, this article explores their respective diagnoses of the current crisis of democracy and their proposed solutions. It shows that, while similar in method and intent, the two works diverge on crucial analytical and policy issues. By putting them in conversation, and bringing out these telling differences, the article seeks to clarify the urgent questions that face Western democracies today and the challenges of addressing them.
弗朗西斯·福山:《自由主义及其不满》(纽约:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022)斯坦·林根:《民主如何生存:现代社会中的权力、治国方略和自由》(芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版社，2022)评述最近出版的两本书:弗朗西斯·福山的《自由主义及其不满》和斯坦·林根的《民主如何生存》。在《现代社会中的权力、治国方略和自由》一书中，本文探讨了他们各自对当前民主危机的诊断以及提出的解决方案。它表明，虽然方法和意图相似，但这两部作品在关键的分析和政策问题上存在分歧。通过将他们置于对话中，并提出这些明显的差异，本文试图澄清当今西方民主国家面临的紧迫问题以及解决这些问题的挑战。
{"title":"How to Salvage Democracy: A Reading","authors":"Ewa Atanassow","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.70432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.70432","url":null,"abstract":"Francis Fukuyama, Liberalism and Its Discontents (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022) Stein Ringen, How Democracies Live: Power, Statecraft, and Freedom in Modern Societies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022) Reviewing two recent books, Francis Fukuyama’s Liberalism and Its Discontents and Stein Ringen’s How Democracies Live: Power, Statecraft, and Freedom in Modern Societies, this article explores their respective diagnoses of the current crisis of democracy and their proposed solutions. It shows that, while similar in method and intent, the two works diverge on crucial analytical and policy issues. By putting them in conversation, and bringing out these telling differences, the article seeks to clarify the urgent questions that face Western democracies today and the challenges of addressing them.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84926672","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}
Research and teaching about the state in Latin America have been under the strong influence of constitutional law and political philosophy since the nineteenth century. To this day, a formal constitutional understanding of the state dominates not only professional training and scholarly research in the fields of government and public administration but also, perhaps more significantly, public controversies about the design of state institutions. Such controversies do not happen often, but they have significant consequences when they do. We will illustrate the last point with a test case, the public controversy about the configuration of state institutions that took place during the past ten years in Mexico. The controversy had ample coverage in national media, and it contributed to a series of institutional conflicts—still ongoing—at the highest levels of the federal government in the country. Our analysis of this national debate, in section 2 of the article, shows that certain preconceived ideas about public life and the constitutional order are much more than just “technical” legal principles; they form a practical expectation of political and institutional life. Certain of these ideas, however, have been employed to support political positions that are hostile toward the consolidation of professional state bureaucracies. Only relatively recently, an alternative line of research on the state has begun to develop in Latin America, including contributions from political sociology and history, which systematically examines issues related to professional bureaucracies and political legitimacy.
{"title":"State Theory and Public Administration in Latin America: Research Traditions and a Test Case","authors":"Agustin E. Ferraro, Gustavo Fondevila","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.74947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.74947","url":null,"abstract":"Research and teaching about the state in Latin America have been under the strong influence of constitutional law and political philosophy since the nineteenth century. To this day, a formal constitutional understanding of the state dominates not only professional training and scholarly research in the fields of government and public administration but also, perhaps more significantly, public controversies about the design of state institutions. Such controversies do not happen often, but they have significant consequences when they do. We will illustrate the last point with a test case, the public controversy about the configuration of state institutions that took place during the past ten years in Mexico. The controversy had ample coverage in national media, and it contributed to a series of institutional conflicts—still ongoing—at the highest levels of the federal government in the country. Our analysis of this national debate, in section 2 of the article, shows that certain preconceived ideas about public life and the constitutional order are much more than just “technical” legal principles; they form a practical expectation of political and institutional life. Certain of these ideas, however, have been employed to support political positions that are hostile toward the consolidation of professional state bureaucracies. Only relatively recently, an alternative line of research on the state has begun to develop in Latin America, including contributions from political sociology and history, which systematically examines issues related to professional bureaucracies and political legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88079204","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}
In this interview, Helmut K. Anheier and Michael Mann first discuss Mann’s work on the sociology of power, especially the types and sources of power. They then focus on the rise and fall of empires and his analysis of wars, as well as current international tensions, especially US-China relations and a revisionist Russia. Throughout, they focus on longer-term economic and sociopolitical developments that may affect the future of the liberal order.
{"title":"Interview: Michael Mann and Helmut K. Anheier","authors":"M. Mann, H. Anheier","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.68340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.68340","url":null,"abstract":"In this interview, Helmut K. Anheier and Michael Mann first discuss Mann’s work on the sociology of power, especially the types and sources of power. They then focus on the rise and fall of empires and his analysis of wars, as well as current international tensions, especially US-China relations and a revisionist Russia. Throughout, they focus on longer-term economic and sociopolitical developments that may affect the future of the liberal order.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75541333","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}
My argument is that while enormous progress has been made during the post–World War II “development era” during which there was substantial multilateral and bilateral development cooperation, or “foreign aid,” that era is coming to a close. The main driving forces of the end of the relevance of development cooperation to the overall development endeavor is that the politics of the rich Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries has shifted such that the broad development agenda of interest to the leaders (and citizens) of the “recipient” countries can no longer muster support. Instead, the mainstream, legacy development organizations supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (e.g., the World Bank) are caught in a cycle of increasing irrelevance and decline, and I argue that both the external political and the internal organizational dynamics of development organizations are past the point of no return.
{"title":"Multilateralism and Development Cooperation: The End of an Interesting Era?","authors":"L. Pritchett","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.72711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.72711","url":null,"abstract":"My argument is that while enormous progress has been made during the post–World War II “development era” during which there was substantial multilateral and bilateral development cooperation, or “foreign aid,” that era is coming to a close. The main driving forces of the end of the relevance of development cooperation to the overall development endeavor is that the politics of the rich Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries has shifted such that the broad development agenda of interest to the leaders (and citizens) of the “recipient” countries can no longer muster support. Instead, the mainstream, legacy development organizations supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (e.g., the World Bank) are caught in a cycle of increasing irrelevance and decline, and I argue that both the external political and the internal organizational dynamics of development organizations are past the point of no return.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75641433","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 review and application of Degenerations of Democracy, by Craig Calhoun, Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, and Charles Taylor (hereafter, CGT); Liberalism and Its Discontents, by Francis Fukuyama; and How Democracies Live, by Stein Ringen. A strengthened liberal democratic culture is essential for the health and vitality of democracy. This culture is made up of three components: a cluster of liberal values (rule of law, freedom, equality, and reason), a democratic governing system grounded in popular sovereignty, and a collective experience of shared respect for liberal values and democratic institutions. Has this culture lost its strength? Is the collective experience and belief in democratic legitimacy disappearing? Are liberal values increasingly contested? All of the theorists under review address these questions. And for all, the answer is “yes, but….” They make strikingly similar arguments about the sources of this culture’s strength, the causes of its current weakness, and how it can be strengthened. The general thrust of these books is this: a strong liberal democracy rests on three cultural foundations: the strength of social bonds, the level of deliberative civil discourse, and the level of economic equality. The main challenge to this threefold foundation’s strength is neoliberalism, which all authors agree has led to liberal democracy’s decline. I draw on this argument as a guide to assess the strength of liberal democracy in a small population living in rural Alpine County, California. I find that although it is relatively small and isolated, the drivers of democratic decline have found their way into this tiny community. Some aspects of liberal democratic culture have remained strong (voter turnout and volunteerism are high, and many citizens serve in elected office and on government committees); others, however, have weak roots that were never cultivated and continue to weaken further (equality, inclusion, open debate). Finally, I suggest that to strengthen liberal democracy, citizens must participate in it and leaders must work for the good of the entire community, not just the few.
{"title":"Democracy for the Few","authors":"B. Crawford","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.70346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.70346","url":null,"abstract":"A review and application of Degenerations of Democracy, by Craig Calhoun, Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, and Charles Taylor (hereafter, CGT); Liberalism and Its Discontents, by Francis Fukuyama; and How Democracies Live, by Stein Ringen. A strengthened liberal democratic culture is essential for the health and vitality of democracy. This culture is made up of three components: a cluster of liberal values (rule of law, freedom, equality, and reason), a democratic governing system grounded in popular sovereignty, and a collective experience of shared respect for liberal values and democratic institutions. Has this culture lost its strength? Is the collective experience and belief in democratic legitimacy disappearing? Are liberal values increasingly contested? All of the theorists under review address these questions. And for all, the answer is “yes, but….” They make strikingly similar arguments about the sources of this culture’s strength, the causes of its current weakness, and how it can be strengthened. The general thrust of these books is this: a strong liberal democracy rests on three cultural foundations: the strength of social bonds, the level of deliberative civil discourse, and the level of economic equality. The main challenge to this threefold foundation’s strength is neoliberalism, which all authors agree has led to liberal democracy’s decline. I draw on this argument as a guide to assess the strength of liberal democracy in a small population living in rural Alpine County, California. I find that although it is relatively small and isolated, the drivers of democratic decline have found their way into this tiny community. Some aspects of liberal democratic culture have remained strong (voter turnout and volunteerism are high, and many citizens serve in elected office and on government committees); others, however, have weak roots that were never cultivated and continue to weaken further (equality, inclusion, open debate). Finally, I suggest that to strengthen liberal democracy, citizens must participate in it and leaders must work for the good of the entire community, not just the few.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73720641","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 Review Essay of Towards a New Enlightenment: The Case for Future-Oriented Humanities, by Markus Gabriel, Christoph Horn, Anna Katsman, Wilhelm Krull, Anna Luisa Lippold, Corine Pelluchon, and Ingo Venzke. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2022 (published simultaneously in both German and English).
{"title":"“An Enlightened Twenty-First Century?”","authors":"Stanley N. Katz","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.89322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.89322","url":null,"abstract":"A Review Essay of Towards a New Enlightenment: The Case for Future-Oriented Humanities, by Markus Gabriel, Christoph Horn, Anna Katsman, Wilhelm Krull, Anna Luisa Lippold, Corine Pelluchon, and Ingo Venzke. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2022 (published simultaneously in both German and English).","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"216 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135502292","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}
In this interview, Helmut K Anheier and Andreas Wimmer discuss his work on methodological nationalism, nation building, democracy, war, and longer-term economic, socio-political developments. They also explore the post-colonial debate and the decolonization movement in the academy. They touch upon foresight methods and review the state of the social sciences, in particular anthropology and sociology.
{"title":"Interview: Andreas Wimmer and Helmut K. Anheier","authors":"A. Wimmer, H. Anheier","doi":"10.1525/gp.2022.38287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2022.38287","url":null,"abstract":"In this interview, Helmut K Anheier and Andreas Wimmer discuss his work on methodological nationalism, nation building, democracy, war, and longer-term economic, socio-political developments. They also explore the post-colonial debate and the decolonization movement in the academy. They touch upon foresight methods and review the state of the social sciences, in particular anthropology and sociology.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"196 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75796594","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 short piece discusses the historical-sociological relationship between neoliberalism and quantification of data during the corona pandemic crisis.
这篇短文讨论了新自由主义与冠状病毒大流行危机期间数据量化之间的历史社会学关系。
{"title":"Neoliberalism, the COVID-19 Crisis, and the Quantification of Data","authors":"L. David","doi":"10.1525/gp.2022.31087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2022.31087","url":null,"abstract":"This short piece discusses the historical-sociological relationship between neoliberalism and quantification of data during the corona pandemic crisis.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83501414","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：