SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892879265> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 82 of 82 with 100 items per page.

W2892879265 endingPage "31" @default.
W2892879265 startingPage "14" @default.
W2892879265 abstract "Despite available knowledge on appropriate psychosocial support for people confronted with death, loss, and severe stress in the context of major crises and disasters, it is crucial to understand what people affected expect from government officials and public leaders in the aftermath of an extreme event. Eight interviews with affected adult residents were conducted to explore their expectations and experiences in relation to government. This was done against the background of Park's (2016) model on meaning making. Findings revealed that interviewees expected the government to help them in a fair, compassionate, equal, and reliable manner. They also expected support in fulfilling event-related practical needs, and assumed that the government would use its capacity to align network partners and break down bureaucratic barriers. The affected individuals’ global beliefs and situational meaning may differ from the perceptions of the public leader who provides support. 尽管已有研究表明, 在大型危机和灾害背景下面对死亡、损失和严重压力的人群需要合适的心理支持, 但关键的是, (我们)需要明白上述人群对政府官员和公共领导的期望是什么。本文采访了8位成年居民, 探究他们对政府的期望和经历。采访在帕克(Park, 2016) 提出的意义建构(meaning making)模型背景下进行。调查结果发现, 被采访者期望政府以一种公平的、富有同情的、平等的和可信赖的方式帮助他们。他们还期望在满足与危机事件相关的实际需求方面得到支持, 并认为政府应该发挥能力动员其网络伙伴, 打破官僚障碍。受危机和灾害影响的个人和提供支持的公共领导相比, 二者对全球信仰和情景意义的看法可能存在差异。 A pesar del conocimiento disponible acerca del apoyo psicológico para la gente que enfrenta la muerte, las pérdidas y altos niveles de estrés en el contexto de crisis y desastres mayores, es crucial comprender lo que la gente afectada espera de los oficiales del gobierno y los líderes públicos después de un evento extremo. Ocho entrevistas con residentes adultos afectados fueron llevadas a cabo para explorar las expectativas y experiencias relacionadas al gobierno. Esto se hizo contra el fondo del modelo de Park (2016) para la creación de significado. Los hallazgos revelaron que los entrevistados esperaban que el gobierno los ayudara de una forma justa, compasiva, igualitaria y confiable. También esperaban apoyo para cubrir las necesidades relacionadas con los eventos y asumieron que el gobierno utilizaría su capacidad para alinear los socios de las redes y romper barreras burocráticas. Las creencias globales de los individuos afectados y el significado situacional podrían diferir de las percepciones del líder público que proporciona ayuda. In times of collective crisis, public leaders are supposed to give meaning to crises, often with the help of symbolism and public displays of compassion (Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius, 2005, 2016; Dückers et al., 2017). The leadership task of meaning making, or communicating the broader impacts of a crisis to citizens, media and other stakeholders, is regarded as one of the crucial tasks in crisis management (Boin et al., 2005, 2016). Their public acknowledgement might contribute to a collective sense of connectedness and hope (Dückers et al., 2017; Griffin-Padgett & Allison, 2010; Jong, Dückers, and van der Velden, 2016a). This collective meaning making can also have a positive effect on the individual's resilience and recovery from stressful events on a personal level (Park, 2016). One might feel supported by a society that shows understanding for the unique and difficult position of the affected (Maercker & Müller, 2004). Finding personal meaning in what happened may help to reduce people's feelings of vulnerability and fosters adjustment by restoring people's fundamental belief in a world that is benevolent, predictable, and meaningful (Updegraff et al., 2008). Of course, everyone experiences a crisis situation differently. The particular setting of private, personal, and public life influences the way in which people experience the impact of their crisis and the meaning they assign to the event. Hobfoll's (1998) “theory of the conservation of resources” suggests that people strive to retain, project, and build resources (e.g., a stable family life, a home, financial security, self-esteem) and people might be drawn into a downward spiral when they face the loss of such resources, while finding meaning helps to retain such resources. The meaning they assign to an event is not a stand-alone process, but is influenced by the meaning making of public leaders and others. Even though the bereaved are important stakeholders for government, little is known about their expectations and the interactions with government when confronted with major crises or disasters. Research on psychosocial support tends to focus on the support that survivors and next of kin receive from family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers—in other words, those who are in existing and close relationships with the recipients (Nurullah, 2012), or on the support provided by professional care providers like general practitioners, mental health professionals, and social workers (Bisson & Tavakoly, 2010; Suzuki & Kim, 2012). Others focus on the practicalities in relation to efforts to rebuild after crisis and the like (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2010). In their study, Maercker and Müller (2004) consider the support given by public figures (e.g., mayor, priest) as a building block in a construct for social acknowledgement on an individual level, but they do not specify the necessary depth and appearances of such support. Studies on the aftermath of the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 give some insight into such public and social acknowledgement (Jong, Dückers, and van der Velden, 2016b; Torenvlied et al., 2015), showing that individual support by representatives of government was appreciated. In this particular case, public leaders visited bereaved families at home and supported them in their material needs (Jong et al., 2016b). In this case, public leaders got into direct contact with people affected after the crises and can be regarded as the providers of psychosocial support. Still, little is known about the preferred nature of this support and what type of behavior by government officials the people confronted with loss and the stressful impact of major crises and disasters, would consider optimal. The importance of getting more insight into the role of representatives of government's specific role as providers of psychosocial support is grounded in the positive or negative influence they might have on the potential distress among affected people in a given crisis situation (Park, 2013, 2016). People confronted interpret the event within a larger global context that is part of their personal belief system. A mismatch between global meaning (people's global beliefs of the world, fundamental beliefs about themselves, and their place in the world) and assigned situational meaning of a major crisis or disaster by the individual leads to distress (Park, 2016). For example, when someone expressed that the government should be supportive to people in need (global belief), but experienced a lack of support when she was hit by a disaster herself (situational meaning), this might create a source of stress. The influence of meaning making by government on the situational meaning has a public and a more private route. First, when a crisis hits a community, public leaders attend public gatherings and give a public voice to the collective mourning, usually reflected in media coverage. They give meaning to a situation by providing hope and helping victims to make sense of what happened (Griffin-Padgett & Allison, 2010). Second, public leaders tend to visit bereaved families at home and support them in their material and practical needs directly (Jong et al., 2016b; Torenvlied et al., 2015). This is the more private route. When Park's framework (2016) is applied to this specific role of government in the meaning making of people in a disaster setting, we come to three categories that play a crucial role in the process of individual meaning making: (i) global meaning; (ii) situational meaning based on governmental support on collective level; and (iii) situational meaning based on governmental support on individual level. An analysis of expectations is a relevant route to explore in order to assess how meaning making by representatives of government contributes to the assigned meaning by the people confronted with crises. In this line of thought, living up to the expectations might prevent a potential and additional source of stress. Vice versa, when the expectations of the support by government in the case of the affected differ from the support offered, this might potentially lead to an increased level of stress and disappointment. Also, the insights into the expectations of people who were confronted with crises might help us to bring psychosocial support by government officials and public leaders forward. According to Hobfoll et al. (2007), there are five empirically supported intervention principles that should be used to guide and inform intervention. These are reflected in the extent to which one promotes a sense of safety, calmness, self- and community efficacy, connectedness to others, and hope. Benedek and Fullerton (2007) pledge to incorporate these principles into policy and practice, which requires acknowledgement, acceptance, and incorporation into the efforts of community leaders and others (Benedek & Fullerton 2007). Implementation of the principles enables government officials and public leaders to serve as a necessary “vehicle” for the provision of social acknowledgment toward affected people, and contribute to bringing the principles into practice (Benedek & Fullerton 2007; Dückers et al., 2017). The objective of this study is of an explorative nature. What do people confronted with major crises or disasters, expect from their government in general and public leaders in particular? Answering this research question might tell us how government representatives (civil servants) and public leaders can use their position and influence in order to live up to expectations, align their meaning making and lower distress, frustration, and disappointment among the bereaved. It is an indispensable first step in order to optimize the potential functioning of public leaders as a psychosocial support “vehicle” to remove such sources of distress. For this study we used an exploratory qualitative method with semi-structured interviews. It consists of an analysis of eight interviews with people who experienced a major crisis or disaster, or its aftermath. Since we focus on the meaning making aspects of the interaction between citizens who experienced a major crisis or disaster and civil servants or public leaders, this interaction is the main topic on which the sample of interviews is based. It is clear that every individual has his or her personal experiences during and in the aftermath of crises. Even within groups of affected individuals such experiences might differ. But to be able to analyze a broad scope of interactions between government and individuals, we chose to also vary in the role of government (local government vs. national government). As a result, only those interviewees were selected who had had a personal experience with one of the top 10 crisis or disasters which hit the Netherlands over the last 25 years and had, in some way or another, been in contact with officials from different levels within government (e.g., mayors, civil servants, ministers, members of Royal Family). Interviews were carried out according to QOREQ guidelines of qualitative studies (Tong et al., 2007). The 2008-interviews [1–7] were all conducted by the first author (male) and a fellow-researcher (female). Both were experienced in conducting depth interviews. Prior to the interviews, subjects were unknown to the interviewers. Interviewees were approached by a letter on behalf of Impact—the Dutch national knowledge center for post-disaster psychosocial support—in which the goal of the study and the background of the researchers were explained. After two weeks, the researchers contacted the subjects and arranged for the interviews. All subjects approached were motivated to participate. Interview [8] was solely conducted by the first author. The interviewee was approached after she had given a presentation on her experiences with Dutch government officials in the aftermath of an air crash. To obtain a heterogeneous sample, Dutch affected residents of different crises were selected (see Table 1). The sole criterion for inclusion was the personal experience of Dutch nationals with civil servants or public leaders during one of the top 10 major crises or disasters, which hit the Netherlands over the last 25 years. As such, we were able to analyze a wide variety in crisis experiences. Participants were selected on the basis of a desk research, as parts of their stories had been covered in the media. All interviews were conducted at the home of the participants, except for interview [7] which was conducted at work. One participant [3] was a farmer whose farm suffered from foot-and-mouth disease. This participant was included, based on his personal experiences with governmental regulation on preventing the spread of the disease. He lost his farm and went bankrupt as a result of the outbreak. He had strong opinions on the impact of the outbreak management procedures on his own cattle, which he perceived to be a “governmental case of animal abuse.” Interviewees [1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7] were directly involved in a major crisis or disaster themselves, or lost family members. Interviewee [8] lost her brother, sister-in-law and nephew, and became guardian of another nephew, who was the sole survivor of an airplane crash. In some cases, other family members joined the interview as well. All participants were aware that the aim of the interviews was their publication. In one case, parents told the researchers that they were hesitant in sharing their experiences, but that the aim of the study convinced them to cooperate, as it might help government to further improve its support in similar cases. All participants had the Dutch nationality. The single interviews were conducted in 2008 and 2017 and lasted 2 hours on average. Participants were specifically asked to describe their experiences in the aftermath of the major crisis or disaster. The interview protocol included a series of broad interview questions based on prior desk research about the crisis or disaster at hand. For convenience, the interviewees were asked to describe their situation in a chronological order. Additionally, they were asked to share their observations on the role of government in general as well as their personal expectations and experiences in relation to governmental actors. The interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory method (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012). All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts of the interviews were supplemented with field notes and then edited. After a factual check by the interviewees, the interviews were published online and used for publication (Jong & van der Post, 2008). The interview about the Tripoli air crash [8] was published by the Dutch Association of Mayors (Jong, 2017a). Both authors coded the narratives and compared their findings based on the model shown in Figure 1. The data were analyzed using the following three questions, based on the main research question of the study: (i) what were global beliefs of people affected concerning the values that should guide government as an institute (e.g., individuals’ global beliefs can refer to a fair world, where the government is always neutral, supportive, and transparent)?; (ii) what were their experiences with government as a representative body in the collective domain (e.g., how did individuals experience public remembrances and memorials)?; and (iii) what were their personal experiences with civil servants or public leaders (e.g., how did individuals experience the one-on-one interactions with representatives)? Whether or not the expectations of individuals were influenced by other affected people was not part of the study. In our explorative analysis, we use the part shown in Figure 1 (instead of Park's complete model) as a conceptual framework to categorize our findings on the relationship between the affected and the government. Information from the interviews was structured along these themes and can be found in the next paragraph. Numbers refer to the label of the interview. A summary of findings is provided at the end of the next paragraph. Detailed information from each interview is included in the online supplement. The respondents reflected on their experiences on an overarching level. They expressed strong expectations of government in general, where government has an obligation to protect people [1,8] and should help people under difficult circumstances [2,3,8] in an equal, reliable, and fair manner [3,4,6]. Assisting citizens in times of crisis is regarded as government's first obligation and also as something completely normal [1,2,5,8]. Government is perceived as an actor that should always offer solutions in times of crises, also when problem-solving by other actors fails [3]. The bereaved expressed the desirability of being heard. It was important to them to share their side of the story with politicians, investigation committees, and media. “The Investigation Committee did their work properly, but (…) the victims and their families had no voice in the report. You cannot find anything about how we were treated by the government” [1,2,3,4]. Generally speaking, they expected governments—including members of the Royal Family [3]—to understand their suffering [4,5]. In their relationship with people who experienced crises, government is supposed to show commitment. Whenever government made a promise, people affected expected government to stick to promises made [1,2]. They also expected clear and transparent communications in order to align their expectations and perceptions, and enable themselves to anticipate upon future steps [3]. Trust declined rapidly whenever government failed to offer what people affected expected [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Political games, based on the crisis at hand, were not appreciated, particularly in those cases where people were blamed for exaggeration. “Minister of Agriculture Brinkhorst blamed the farmers of crying crocodile tears. He had no idea of the impact in our sector” (…) According to the Minister of Agriculture, we were only interested in money and compensation. On TV, he said that farmers got compensated. According to him, there was no reason to moan [3]. In another instance, people felt they were used as pawns in a blame game when a Member of Parliament tweeted negatively about an embassy involved. According to the respondent, the tweet was used to fuel political blame games without knowing the details. “It wasn't fair” [8]. Often, the local community was involved in setting up remembrances [6,7,8] and sometimes in funding a memorial [6]. “The press was allowed in during the first few moments of the remembrance gathering and recorded the speech by our mayor. Afterwards, the more intimate ceremony began. It was all very balanced” [8]. The mayor is regarded as a representative toward the media and the community and sometimes asked media not to chase survivors or next of kin. It helped people to stay in relative anonymity [8]. Sometimes, mayors or aldermen even spoke at funerals but always on behalf of the municipality [5,8]. In cases where they attend public remembrances, an important reason for joining was the expectation that they would meet other survivors [1]. Family members expected to be informed when ministers attended wreath-laying ceremonies that were related to their own crisis [2]. When attending remembrances abroad, they also expect to be informed since they believed the minister attended the ceremony on their behalf as well [2]. When governmental representatives attended other memorials, people affected compared the attention for a certain crisis with their own tragedy [2]. Respondents differed in their appreciation of governmental investigation reports. On the one hand, they expected to get answers to burning questions on the cause of a crisis [4], but on the other hand, the bereaved knew or realized that it would never bring back the loved ones [7]. In three cases [4,5,6], the government carried a responsibility for the cause of the crisis. In one case [4], the government was fully responsible for the outbreak management after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Only in this latter case, the interviewee was fully disappointed with the way in which the government handled the crisis [4]. In the other cases, there was a certain understanding for the situation. “The municipality was overwhelmed by this crisis. They did what they could” [6]. In one case, where the local municipality was held responsible, an alderman even spoke at the funeral [5]. In the situation of the pub fire, which was caused by a negligence of fire regulations and a lack of control by the local municipality, the disappointment of the parents focused on the role of the national government in the aftermath, not on the role of the local government in the cause of the fire [4]. Right after crises happened, respondents are not very much interested in visits from government representatives [1,5], unless they offer practical support [5,7,8]. In other words, their first priority lies with solving the problems at hand. Afterwards, (personal) meetings with consuls, ambassadors, ministers, and members of the Royal Family were generally appreciated and regarded as social, warm, and kind [1,2,4,5,7,8]: “Queen Beatrix and princess Máxima were at the remembrance. They talked emotionally. They truly understood what had happened to us. That was a beautiful moment” [1]. Respondents provided examples of the harsh truth encountered when bureaucracy turns government into an impersonal organization, which sticks to existing regulations. They expected government to manage the exceptional situation they are in. After losing his child in the Thailand tsunami, a father was fined by the municipality because he lost his driving license [1]. Other parents were fined, because they forgot to apply for an exemption [2]. According to Dutch law, they should have buried the body of their son within six working days. That was practically impossible because the body was unidentified and still in Indonesia [2]. In another interview, parents discussed the regulation with regard to a fundraising campaign. “After a fund-raising campaign, taxes had to be paid. In another fire, the tax authorities made an exception. I cannot explain why” [4]. Similar regulatory burdens are met when parents want to enter a disaster zone. “We were not allowed to lay flowers at the spot where Nick died. We were not allowed to get back into the disaster zone, while the Queen visited the same zone” [5]. As crises usually overwhelm and impress the respondents, they found it hard to act against governmental decisions [2,4]. “We were too kind. If we would have had a bigger mouth, our daughter might possibly have survived,” two parents concluded [4]. Respondents confronted with major crises or disasters hardly ever looked for financial support; only the farmer whose farm suffered from foot-and-mouth disease asked for financial compensation, which he did not receive [3]. Saddened, he came to the conclusion that he can “only trust animals, not government” [3]. More than anything else, interviewees confronted with personal loss expect a listening ear, an understanding for their situation and support [1,2,3,4,5] partly because they usually did not know what the aftermath of crises would bring [8]. When government did not provide adequate social acknowledgement, they felt like they easily became the “victims of a forgotten disaster” [4,6]. In crises where acknowledgement was provided, government became a “tower of strength” [8]. “In a symbolic sense, the support by the mayor gave us an enormous sense of safety,” one respondent said [8]. Sometimes, when people affected were disappointed in the relationship with government, they looked for alternatives. “We received more support from our priest, pastor Berkhout, who set up sessions for the parents who lost their child in the fire. That relation still exists” [4]. Respondents trusted the government officials who supported them practically [1,2,8]. “As a relative, you do not know what you need and what the future will bring. Support by someone who is professionally involved gives you the support you need. It helps you to even rise above yourself. Even though the mayor does not know everything himself, he has the network and knowledge to help you” [8]. Practically speaking, support by communications professionals to help them manage the media, was appreciated as well [8]. As such, they did not have clear expectations, but feel supported whenever the government anticipated on the pressure from media and helped them with practical issues. The main findings are summarized in Table 2. • Government is obligated to protect people [1,8]. • Government should help under difficult circumstances [2,3,8]. • Government should enable people to be heard [1,2,3,4]. • Government should understand the suffering of affected people [4,5]. • The Royal Family is supposed to show commitment to those who suffer [3]. • Government should be reliable and stick to promises [1,2,3,4,5,6]. • Government should not use the crisis situation for politically [3,8]. • The central role of public leaders (mayors) during crises is important as a representative toward the media and community and helps the affected to stay in relative anonymity [8]. • When governmental representatives act on behalf of affected people, they want to be taken into account and notified [2]. • When governmental representatives attend other memorials, affected people might compare this with their own tragedy [2]. • Representatives are sometimes invited to speak at funerals [5]. • Enabling to meet others is an important purpose of attending public remembrances [1]. • Investigation reports may be useful when it helps to understand what happened [1,7]. • Responsibility and accountability of government in the cause of a crisis do not necessarily lead to disappointment [3,4,5,6]. • When survivors and bereaved are still in the heat of a crisis, their priority does not lie with meeting government representatives [1,5]. • Personal meetings with representatives of the Royal Family are usually highly appreciated [1,4]. • Governmental help with organizing remembrance gatherings is appreciated [1, 5,6,7,8]. • Whenever representatives start to talk about bureaucratic procedures, affected people do not regard it as “their” problem [1,2,4]. • Personal meetings with mayors are appreciated and regarded as social, warm, and kind [1,2,5,8]. • The affected appreciate practical support [8]. • Governmental spokespersons can support the family in media management [8]. In the previous section, we explored the experiences and expectations of people confronted with major crises or disasters. Based on this study we conclude that a convincing “caring government” approach depends on expectations raised before a crisis hits a community—these expectations are embedded in long-term global beliefs of citizens about what governments should do when disaster strikes. The interviews shed a light on many expectations in terms of global and situational meaning. Ideally, taking care of such expectations should be the driver in a governmental philosophy of the “caring government.” One could argue that the themes that were mentioned by the interviewees are universal themes and cover more generally governmental support. In particular, the findings on the level of global meaning, such as “provide support” and “be transparent,” do not seem to be exclusively related to the domain of crisis management. That said, the interviewees shared moments of disappointment and stress. Apparently, government is not always capable to live up to the expectations of the bereaved. Those who felt support got the confidence to cope with the situation. A next of kin of the Tripoli air crash [8] said that the support gave her the feeling that she was capable of rising above herself. Others were disappointed for various reasons, from bureaucratic burdens [1,2,4], to their neglected role in public remembrances [1,2]. A possible explanation why not all expectations were met, might lie in the focus of government and its institutions in the aftermath of crises. Public leaders have, of course, more and other interests than the sole interests of the people who are directly confronted with the impact of major crises and disasters. While individuals are not always interested in the political and collective dimensions, media, and politics are examples of stages on which public leaders and government are evaluated (Boin & Smith, 2006). Those are stages with a focus on the collective dimensions of public leadership. Moreover, leaders are evaluated on how they solved the crisis at hand, while the role that followers play, is generally overlooked (Oc, 2017). As such, actors in government might focus on their contribution on (situational) meaning making on a collective level. Unless the bereaved are in direct contact with their leaders or raise their voices in the media, their expectations will not be heard in the collective domain. Another explanation can be found in existing bureaucracy within government. The bereaved possibly underestimate its bureaucratic burdens. Their expectations of the discretion public leaders possess for shaping their situational behavior (Lipsky, 1980) might be too high. The bereaved might underestimate the importance of procedures and regulations. Even though the outcome of bureaucracy might be unintended, such procedures also facilitate democratic control of far-reaching crisis management policies (Rosenthal, ‘t H" @default.
W2892879265 created "2018-10-05" @default.
W2892879265 creator A5007940626 @default.
W2892879265 creator A5010238413 @default.
W2892879265 date "2018-06-30" @default.
W2892879265 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
W2892879265 title "The Perspective of the Affected: What People Confronted With Disasters Expect From Government Officials and Public Leaders" @default.
W2892879265 cites W1980840282 @default.
W2892879265 cites W1984500346 @default.
W2892879265 cites W1985918752 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2017724434 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2087170389 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2101111140 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2118589815 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2120396238 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2120783508 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2132284923 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2138664283 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2152524752 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2293781422 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2477836584 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2581396731 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2624804261 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2754801908 @default.
W2892879265 cites W2777422578 @default.
W2892879265 cites W3123476953 @default.
W2892879265 cites W4244248008 @default.
W2892879265 cites W761267035 @default.
W2892879265 cites W843036887 @default.
W2892879265 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12150" @default.
W2892879265 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
W2892879265 type Work @default.
W2892879265 sameAs 2892879265 @default.
W2892879265 citedByCount "18" @default.
W2892879265 countsByYear W28928792652019 @default.
W2892879265 countsByYear W28928792652020 @default.
W2892879265 countsByYear W28928792652021 @default.
W2892879265 countsByYear W28928792652022 @default.
W2892879265 countsByYear W28928792652023 @default.
W2892879265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2892879265 hasAuthorship W2892879265A5007940626 @default.
W2892879265 hasAuthorship W2892879265A5010238413 @default.
W2892879265 hasBestOaLocation W28928792651 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
W2892879265 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C12713177 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C138885662 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C154945302 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C17744445 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C2778137410 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C3116431 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C39549134 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C41008148 @default.
W2892879265 hasConceptScore W2892879265C41895202 @default.
W2892879265 hasIssue "1" @default.
W2892879265 hasLocation W28928792651 @default.
W2892879265 hasOpenAccess W2892879265 @default.
W2892879265 hasPrimaryLocation W28928792651 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2153572981 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2334333338 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2356155627 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2766891105 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2903550807 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2966429657 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W2988378020 @default.
W2892879265 hasRelatedWork W3010644153 @default.
W2892879265 hasVolume "10" @default.
W2892879265 isParatext "false" @default.
W2892879265 isRetracted "false" @default.
W2892879265 magId "2892879265" @default.
W2892879265 workType "article" @default.