FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3162671348> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3162671348 endingPage "831" @default.
• W3162671348 startingPage "808" @default.
• W3162671348 abstract "Écriture inclusive (EI) has long been the topic of public debates in France. These debates have become more intense in recent years, often focusing on the higher education system and culminating in the formulation of three separate laws banning it for public administration. In this paper, we investigate the foundations of these conflicts through a large quantitative corpus study of the (non)use of EI in Parisian undergraduate brochures. Our results suggest that Parisian university professors use EI not only to ensure gender neutral reference but also as a tool to construct their political identities. We show that both the use of EI and its particular forms are conditioned by how brochure writers position themselves on non gender-related-related issues within the French university's political landscape, which explains how conflicts surrounding a linguistic practice have become understood as conflicts about larger issues in French society. Our paper thus provides new information to be taken into account in the formulation and promotion of nonsexist language policies and sheds light on how feminist linguistic activism and its opposition are deeply intertwined with other kinds of social activism in present-day France. L'écriture inclusive (EI) fait depuis longtemps l'objet de débats publics en France. Ces débats, devenus plus intenses ces dernières années, se sont souvent concentrés autour de l'éducation supérieure et ont mené à la formulation de trois lois proscrivant l'EI pour les administrations. Dans cet article, nous analysons les raisons de ces conflits en présentant une étude de corpus quantitative sur l'utilisation ou la non-utilisation de l'EI dans les brochures de licence des universités parisiennes. Nos résultats montrent que les enseignants et enseignantes des universités parisiennes utilisent l'EI non seulement pour marquer une référence générale (neutre au niveau du genre), mais aussi pour construire leur identité politique. À travers cette étude, nous montrons que l'utilisation de l'EI et de ses formes est déterminée par le positionnement des personnes écrivant les brochures sur les problématiques non liées au genre dans le paysage politique des universités parisiennes. Notre article donne ainsi de nouvelles informations dont il faut tenir compte pour la formulation et la promotion des politiques linguistiques non sexistes, et met en lumière comment le militantisme linguistique féministe est profondément lié à d'autres formes de militantisme social dans la France actuelle. This article presents a corpus study of écriture inclusive in Parisian universities. The expression écriture inclusive (EI), lit. ‘inclusive writing’, has been used to refer to feminist language practices consisting of a wide variety of orthographic and discursive practices in France and across the Francophonie (see Abbou et al., 2018; Vachon L'Heureux, 1992; Vachon-L'Heureux et al., 2007, for discussion). In this paper, we use it to refer to a set of spellings that indicate inclusive or gender neutral reference, particularly as a way of shortening expressions like les étudiants et étudiantes ‘the studentsM and the studentsF’. This set includes the point médian ‘interpunct’ (les étudiant·e·s), the period (étudiant.e.s), the parenthesis (étudiant(e)s), the hyphen (étudiant-e-s), and the capital (étudiantEs), among others. Feminist language practices have a long history and are common crosslinguistically (see Hellinger & Motschenbacher, 2002; Sczesny et al., 2016). Although feminists have been working on changing their language since at least the 12th century (Weatherall, 2002), how language creates and sustains gender inequality has been a major focus for scholars and activists in the anglophone world, in francophone Canada, and in Sweden since the 1970s (see Pauwels, 1998 for English, see Vachon-L'Heureux, 1992; Arbour et al., 2014 for French Canada, and Hornscheidt, 2003 for Swedish) and since the 1980s and 1990s in countries such as Germany (Bussmann, 2003; Guentherodt et al., 1980), Belgium (Arbour et al., 2014), and France (Burr, 2003; Houdebine, 1998; Yaguello, 1979, among others). One of the main problems that most feminist language practices address is linguistic androcentrism (Cameron, 1985; Hellinger & Motschenbacher, 2002; Mucchi-Faina, 2005; Pauwels, 1998; Sczesny et al., 2016), especially the use of grammatically masculine words or words containing male morphology to refer to women, mixed groups, or generic humans. Since the 1970s, a wealth of psycholinguistic studies, beginning with Kidd (1971), Bem and Bem (1973), Schneider and Hacker (1973), Soto and Cole (1975), and Pincus and Pincus (1980), has shown that English speakers do not interpret words with male denoting morphology (such as chairman and fireman) or masculine pronouns (he, him, his) as completely gender neutral, even in a context in which gender neutrality is suggested, such as Every chairman brought his mallet to the meeting. Rather, English sentences with masculine marking have an interpretative bias that makes anglophones highly likely to interpret them as referring to men. Psycholinguistic research on the interpretation of gender marking in French is much more recent (see Gygax et al., 2013, for an overview). However, confirming literary and grammatical studies going back to Beauvoir (1949) and Yaguello (1979), Houdebine (1987), and Michard (1996), a large and growing body of work on this language has shown that French behaves similarly to English: It is almost impossible to refer both men and women in an equal way by using a masculine marked expression (Brauer & Landry, 2008; Chatard et al., 2005; Gabriel et al., 2008; Garnham et al., 2012; Gygax et al., 2008, 2012, 2019, among many others). Grammatically masculine noun phrases have an interpretative bias in favor of men that goes above and beyond the particular stereotypes associated with the noun. The goal of EI is therefore to force reference to both men and women (and sometimes people of other genders), thereby eliminating, or at least reducing, linguistic androcentrism. Furthermore, given that the use of masculine grammatical gender with human nouns creates a male-biased interpretation, there is reason to believe that, through this bias, such language plays a role in the underrepresentation of women in positions of power in society (see Sczesny et al., 2016; Stahlberg et al., 2007, for reviews of the literature on this question). The link between linguistic androcentrism and gender inequality has been well documented from an experimental perspective. For example, studies on both French (Brauer & Landry, 2008) and German (Stahlberg et al., 2001) have shown that participants are more likely to think of women as successful politicians when presented with a gender inclusive form, rather than a masculine form. Likewise, studies on English (Ng, 2007; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011), Dutch, and German (Vervecken & Hannover, 2015; Vervecken et al., 2013) have shown that using masculine language instead of gender inclusive language in job ads and descriptions creates more negative emotions and a lower sense of efficacy in female adults and children. In the case of job ads, this even results in less motivation for applying to the position. Therefore, through how it counters linguistic androcentrism, users of EI aim to eliminate, or at least reduce, the contribution that language makes to the introduction and reproduction of gender inequality in francophone societies. As with most language policies aimed at addressing gender inequality, EI has been very controversial. This linguistic practice has given rise to debates between and within groups of feminists and antifeminists concerning whether EI should be used and, if so, which form should be preferred. In this paper, we focus on these debates in France, where they have become extremely virulent. The most recent phase of social conflict surrounding gender inclusive writing in France began in 2017, when, in March of that year, the scholastic publisher Hatier published an elementary school social science textbook (CE2 level: 8–9 years old) which had many occurrences of EI using the period. For example, the textbook had chapter names such as Les agriculteur.rice.s au fil du temps, Les savant.e.s au fil du temps, and Les puissant.e.s au fil du temps ‘The farmers/intellectuals/powerful ones throughout the ages’. This textbook was discovered by the right wing press in the fall through a short article in Le Figaro by Marie Estelle Puech,1 published on 22 September 2017. Puech criticized the use of EI with the period and announced that the publisher was further considering publishing a guide to EI favoring the point médian. Puech's article sparked a period of intense public discussion surrounding gender inclusive language: the Académie Française called EI a péril mortel ‘mortal peril’ for the French language,2 and the education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, stated that EI wasn't necessary, because ‘la France a comme emblème une femme: Marianne; l'un de ses plus beaux mots est féminin: la République’.3 In the same statement, Blanquer claimed that the French language has ‘qu'une seule grammaire’ ‘only one grammar’, suggesting that EI goes against the universality of the French language, one of the principles of the French Republic enshrined in article 2 of the French constitution.4 There were also rejoinders from the pro-EI side, such as the tribune in Slate on 7 November, signed by 300 elementary, high school, and university teachers.5 Note that while Hatier's manual uses EI with the period, and Puech's article accurately describes them as doing so, the form of EI that was most frequently at issue in articles and speeches at this time was, in fact, the point médian. The debate focused so much on the point médian that journalists were often unaware that the original scandal was about EI using the period. For example, a pro-EI article appearing in the left-wing newspaper Libération6 reports Hatier as using the forms agriculteur·rice·s and artisan·e·s, rather than agriculteur.rice.s and artisan.e.s which appear in the text. Finally, to clarify the government's position on this matter, the Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe, issued an official statement (circulaire) on 22 November, stating that gender inclusive/neutral reference should be accomplished using the repetition kind of EI (le ou la candidate ‘theM or theF candidate’) in official texts, outlawing any composite forms.7 Since 2017, the political dimensions of the conflict surrounding gender inclusive writing in France have continued to grow. In July 2020, deputees from the French National Assembly, majoritarily from the extreme right-wing party, proposed a law prohibiting ‘toute personne morale publique ou privée bénéficiant d'une subvention publique’8 from using EI. Then, in February 2021, deputees from the governing centrist party proposed a second law prohibiting ‘les personnes morales en charge d'une mission de service public’9 from using this feminist practice.10 This proposal was followed up by another one in March 202111 imposing harsher penalties. Thus, at the time of writing, France currently has three different pending legal proposals to ban most forms of EI in administrations and intense public debates that surround them. The way that opposition to gender inclusive writing has been gaining visibility and government support in recent years makes France stand alone, at least compared to other countries in Europe and in North America.12 As discussed above, governments in these other countries have increased official support of inclusive writing through time, not forbidden it. This includes countries like Canada, whose official languages are French and English. As discussed by Vachon-L'Heureux (1992); Arbour et al. (2014), among others, gender inclusive writing was introduced in francophone Canada in the 1970s in order to satisfy a new requirement imposed by the national work and immigration department that job ads be gender neutral in both official languages. Unlike in France, not only has EI never been officially outlawed in French Canada, such policies have been greatly expanded throughout the years within the context of national and provincial government agencies (see Ontario College of Teachers, 2005, for a summary). The sharp contrast between France and French Canada (among other places) raises the sociolinguistic question of why official opposition to gender inclusive writing seems to be growing in France, while it is fading elsewhere. In order to answer this question, we first need to know more about EI as a linguistic phenomenon. Despite how frequently it is discussed by politicians and in the media, we actually have very little corpus or experimental data on how speakers and writers of French use écriture inclusive. This paper therefore contributes to filling this empirical gap by presenting a large quantitative corpus study of the (non)use of EI in Parisian university brochures in 2019/2020. We believe that studying university brochures will allow us get a handle on the source(s) of the political conflicts surrounding French gender inclusive writing. This is because, as mentioned above, both opposition to and support of EI largely turns around its place in the education system. Thus, we need to understand why education occupies such a privileged place in current conflicts in France (rather than, e.g. employment or some other domain where there is gender inequality). Concern about the language used by educators also feeds into another concern about the source of gender inclusive writing. One of the main discourses advanced by opponents of EI is that it has been developed and is promoted by university professors, which (according to this view) makes it elitist. This idea was recently articulated by the Culture Minister13 and features prominently in the most recent legal proposal to ban EI.14 Proponents of this law link the claimed elitism of EI to cultural ‘separatism’, something that goes against Universality, one of the values of the French Republic.15 We therefore think that a corpus study of university brochures is the perfect entry point into this complex sociolinguistic phenomenon. In line with work on gender inclusive language in other countries, the results of our study suggest that people who work in the Parisian universities do use EI as a way to address the linguistic androcentrism and gender-equality problems discussed above. However, we also argue that the quantitative patterns we find reveal that the (non)use of EI has another important function: the construction of a political identity. In particular, we find that both the use of EI and the particular forms employed are conditioned by factors related to the writers orientations within the French university's political landscape on issues that do not, at least ostensibly, have to do with gender. We argue that the political conflicts surrounding EI turn around these political associations and their perceived consequences for French education and French society. Previous studies on the use of masculine versus feminine marking in expressions referring to women in Polish and French have shown that speakers' political orientations, either generally (conservative versus. progressive, Formanowicz et al., 2013) or on a particular issue (like gender quotas in politics, Burnett & Bonami, 2019) can influence how they interpret and use gender marking. Likewise, a study on Polish and German (Formanowicz et al., 2015) has shown that use of feminine forms rather than ‘generic’ masculines can affect how political initiatives themselves are perceived. This article furthers our understanding of the relation between language, gender and politics, through studying (as we will see) an eight-way system (masculine versus. seven inclusive forms). We will see that this much richer social signaling system allows for the construction of a wider range of political identities, and members of the Parisian university community make full use of this increased expressive power to navigate the broader social conflicts that EI has become associated with. More generally, we believe that our paper provides valuable information for individuals who wish to formulate and apply language policies promoting gender equality and sheds a light on how both feminist linguistic activism and its opposition can be deeply intertwined with other kinds of social activism. The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we review the previous corpus work on écriture inclusive. As far as we can see, the only research on EI from this perspective is Abbou (2011, 2017)'s study of EI in anarchist brochures. We describe Abbou's results and discuss what (if any) predictions can be made for EI in a university context. Then, in Section 3, we present the methodology of our study of EI in the brochures de licence ‘undergraduate brochures’ of 12 Parisian universities. We describe the constitution of our corpus and the extraction and coding of the data. In Section 4, we present our results. We show that there exist strong differences in both the use (versus. non-use) of EI across universities and academic disciplines and that the choice of whether to use EI is conditioned by gender balance of the discipline/university but also ideological properties like university/discipline prestige and political activism. Likewise, we show that, within the academic departments that use EI, prestige and activism also play a role conditioning which particular form is used. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the implications of our results for understanding the current political debates surrounding EI, as well as for language policy. To our knowledge, the only previous work on variation in écriture inclusive is by Julie Abbou (2011, 2017), who studied the ‘perturbations de genre’ ‘gender perturbations’ in anarchist pamphlets from 1990 to 2008. Abbou examined 280 pamphlets and found that over a third had some form of feminization or what she calls the double marquage du genre ‘double gender marking’, that is, what we have been calling the composite forms of écriture inclusive. She observes, however, that feminization/EI is not equally frequent: In the 1990s, less than a third of the texts in her corpus contain some feminization or EI; however, starting in the year 2000, the rate rises greatly and even attains almost 80% or 90% in some of the later years. To get a more detailed look at EI in an anarchist context, Abbou did a qualitative analysis of 6 brochures containing 15 texts. Her first result concerns the wide range of variation in the forms of EI found this corpus. She finds all the forms shown in Table 1; however, the most frequent variants are the hyphen and the capital. Most of the forms involve using some punctuation to make a composite representation of the masculine and feminine forms, resulting in a form that has no obvious pronunciation. In order to develop an understanding of the choices that underlay the patterns of variation that she found, Abbou conducted interviews with writers from the corpus, asking why they use the forms that they do. As is common in verbal hygiene discourses (see Cameron, 2012), the writers' reasons for preferring one variant of EI over another included a mixture of practical and esthetic considerations. One of the most important aspects that determine the use of different forms of EI, according to Abbou's participants, is what she calls the ‘sémiotique politique de la typographie’ ‘the political semiotics of the typography’ or what, in this paper, we will call its social meaning. For the anarchists interviewed by Abbou, some variants of EI signal something about the political views of their users, in addition to their views about gender. The two variants that the anarchists comment on in the interviews are the parenthesis and the capital. As explained in Abbou (2017, p. 65), the anarchists find the parenthesis unacceptable because it signals a pro-government, pro-institutional stance. For example, speaker E says that ‘la parenthèse pour moi c'est un peu associé aux formulaires euh style France Télécom ou l'État français qui t'envoie un truc et qui dit cher client cher clienTE et maintenant au lieu [… ] il mettent cher client[(e)]’16 (E65). This quotation also shows that repetition shares this social meaning. According to E, the parenthesis is used by nonactivists, and it can even go as far as signaling that the writer is right wing. Undoubtedly, both repetition and the parenthesis have acquired these social meanings because they have traditionally been the means through which the French state and its dependents have been gender inclusive. One of the most famous early examples of inclusive language is General de Gaulle's use of repetition in his first speech upon his return to politics in 1958: ‘Françaises, Français, aidez-moi’!.17 Although more recent than repetition, the parenthesis is also featured in reformist feminist texts supported by the government, such as the 1998 official guidelines for feminization: Femme, j'écris ton nom (Becquer et al., 1999). Thus, given their social meaning associated with older, governmental institutions, it is understandable that anarchists would avoid these variants. The capital variant has no particular association with the French state, but it is disfavored by the anarchists for different reasons. As Abbou mentions, her interviewees dislike the capital because they perceive it as having a social meaning that goes counter the radical political project of gender deconstruction in which they are engaged. As Abbou says (p. 65), the capital would be in line with differentialist feminism, now considered outdated. Abbou shows that for anarchists in the 2000s, not all variants of EI are equal: The people she interviewed preferred the hyphen and the period for readability reasons and also because these variants were not associated with any social meanings that the feminist anarchists found objectional, such as having a pro-institutional or pro-gender binary/hierarchy stance. The study that we will present in the next section asks the same questions as Abbou but in a very different temporal and social context. Therefore, we wonder to what extent the patterns Abbou found might carry over to university brochures in 2019 and 2020. On the one hand, we expect that there will be very many differences: Our study looks at texts produced over a decade later, which were written after EI when the point médian suddenly became very salient in the French media in 2017. Our study is also drastically different from Abbou's since we are studying university undergraduate program brochures, not anarchist ones. Obviously, we should expect university professors to have less of an anti-institutional stance, since universities are integral parts of the state's educational institution, and those who work there are participating in this institution. On the other hand, French universities are also sites of political and social conflict, and university faculty often participate in these conflicts. There is a long history of left-wing activism in Parisian universities, the most famous example being the student riots in May 1968. There is also a long history of right wing activism in Parisian universities, with the activities of the Groupe union défense ‘Union defense group’ (GUD), an extreme right-wing student organization, active predominantly at Université Paris 2-Assas and Université Paris 10-Nanterre in the 1970s to 1990s. Recent years have seen both kinds of activism continue: For example, the 2018 left-wing student protests against the university selection process (Parcoursup), student and faculty protests against proposed pension and research reforms (loi LPPR) in 2019–2020, and the reconsolidation of extreme right wing student groups at Paris 2-Assas in 2011 (GUD) and 2017 (Bastion Social ‘Social bastion’). Abbou shows that the anarchists' use of écriture inclusive played a role in constructing a right wing versus left-wing identity, so EI in Parisian universities may likewise be sensitive to this salient political distinction. Another difference between the anarchist context and the university context is that language in official university publications is much more regulated. This being said, when it comes to gender inclusive language, the official regulations are not uniform across the Parisian universities. Champeil-Desplats (2019) reviews the state of EI in legal and administrative contexts. She makes a distinction between universities, like Paris 10-Nanterre, who have taken major administrative action to promote EI (such as having a service devoted to gender equality whose official position is pro-EI) and other universities who take the directly opposite position and forbid it. The clearest case of such a university is Université Paris 2-Assas, whose president sent an email (cited in Champeil-Desplats, 2019) to all administrative staff on 17 December 2018, reminding that EI should not be used since it goes against the orthographic rules. These examples show that EI may be sensitive to similar dimensions in the current university context as in Abbou's anarchist context over 10 years ago. In this email, the president's office of Université Paris 2 makes a clear link between the (non)use of EI and the university's image, suggesting that EI also has an identity constructing function in the university context. Likewise, Champeil-Desplats attributes the recent rise in EI in the French university to another recent political conflict: the left-wing movement against Parcoursup in 2018. Very broadly speaking, Parcoursup is an initiative by the Macron government to institute a particular selection process in French universities. This initiative was highly controversial and was met with anger, blockades, and strikes from left-wing student and faculty activists, who hold the view that universities should be open to all students with high school diplomas. The conflicts surrounding Parcoursup are about education and economic policy, not gender; therefore, the existence of a link between protests about Parcoursup and EI suggests that, as with anarchists, the social meaning(s) of EI in the university could be related to left versus right, pro-government vs anti-government stances. To further explore these questions, we turn to our study of écriture inclusive in Parisian university brochures. As explained in the previous section, Parisian universities have a long history of different activism and occupy a special place in public discourses about EI. We constituted a corpus by collecting all undergraduate (licence) brochures available online in the 12 main Parisian universities (resulting from the 1970 scission of the Université de Paris) between August 2019 and February 2020. For our study, we selected undergraduate brochures because they are the documents that give us the most uniform coverage across the Parisian universities with respect to discipline. Since there are more undergraduate programs than graduate programs, studying undergraduate brochures provides us the most complete picture of use EI is used (or not used) in Parisian higher education. We also chose to study brochures because their function is to lay out the educational training program provided by the department. Because of this, they can be considered pedagogical actions, in the sense of Bourdieu and Passeron (1970), which give them a special role in the education system (to be described below). Although there may be punctual exceptions, brochures are generally written by departmental committees composed of faculty members, and they are generally published on the department's website. We chose to focus on brochures exclusively from universities and exclusively from Paris for practical reasons: The scission of the Université de Paris at the beginning of the 1970s groups the 12 universities that we studied together in a socially important, self-contained class as the heart of the Parisian (and also French) university system, and, as we will see, the size of the dataset that results from the corpus deliminated in this way is optimal for the mixture of automatic and manual coding that we had to do for the quantitative study. In the future, it would be desirable to see how EI is realized in universities outside Paris, as well as in other kinds of institutions of higher education within Paris, such as the public grandes écoles (École Normale Supérieure, Paris, Polytechnique, etc.) and private institutions like Epitech, Institut supérieur de gestion etc. The list of the universities whose undergraduate brochures make up our corpus is shown in (1) (more information about the criteria can be found in an OSF (Foster & Deardorff, 2017) repository (https://osf.io/wsdqx/)). (1) Although in the future it would be desirable to do a study of EI with all nouns in the corpus, in this paper, we present the results of variation in EI with the most frequent relevant noun: étudiant ‘student’. We used the Antconc software (Anthony, 2004) to extract all occurrences of the word étudiant from the 871 brochures. We searched for étudiant* and étudiant* (html symbol). We found in total 20,810 occurrences (after cleaning). Some occurrences were adjectives (vie étudiante ‘student life’, public étudiant ‘student audience’) or present participles (étudiant le rôle de la philosophie… ‘studying the role of philosophy’). We only retained nouns (i.e. words with gender neutral reference) for analysis, which left us with 19,343 occurrences and 810 brochures. The whole corpus and the annotation files are available on OSF. The first observation about our corpus one can make is that the number of files per university is uneven (the exact numbers by university are available on OSF). The most likely explanation for this is that universities differ in size (Paris 2 being a" @default.
• W3162671348 created "2021-05-24" @default.
• W3162671348 creator A5021038072 @default.
• W3162671348 creator A5064208829 @default.
• W3162671348 date "2021-05-15" @default.
• W3162671348 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W3162671348 title "Political dimensions of gender inclusive writing in Parisian universities" @default.
• W3162671348 cites W1514479869 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W1972578825 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W1982018783 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W1987090026 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2003969480 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2018540071 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2044274548 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2054172522 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2058271572 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2058392152 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2065339455 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2067920599 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2072257140 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2078076576 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2085121953 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2087202903 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2115351096 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2125307698 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2133484991 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2147732133 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2151457327 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2151798091 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2168845442 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2178434580 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2299921203 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2331459107 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2497436990 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2500516455 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2502347422 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2505375252 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2604448873 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2903104993 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W2947082190 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W3123791892 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W4234337799 @default.
• W3162671348 cites W4301112505 @default.
• W3162671348 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12489" @default.
• W3162671348 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35915842" @default.
• W3162671348 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3162671348 type Work @default.
• W3162671348 sameAs 3162671348 @default.
• W3162671348 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W3162671348 countsByYear W31626713482022 @default.
• W3162671348 countsByYear W31626713482023 @default.
• W3162671348 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3162671348 hasAuthorship W3162671348A5021038072 @default.
• W3162671348 hasAuthorship W3162671348A5064208829 @default.
• W3162671348 hasBestOaLocation W31626713486 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C107993555 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C138885662 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C144024400 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C17744445 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C199539241 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C41895202 @default.
• W3162671348 hasConceptScore W3162671348C94625758 @default.
• W3162671348 hasFunder F4320320883 @default.
• W3162671348 hasFunder F4320338335 @default.
• W3162671348 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713481 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713482 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713483 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713484 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713485 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713486 @default.
• W3162671348 hasLocation W31626713487 @default.
• W3162671348 hasOpenAccess W3162671348 @default.
• W3162671348 hasPrimaryLocation W31626713481 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W1971609662 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2051195583 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2054135106 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2138218016 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2144643708 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2322233747 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W3014293527 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W3120495150 @default.
• W3162671348 hasRelatedWork W2227307105 @default.
• W3162671348 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W3162671348 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3162671348 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3162671348 magId "3162671348" @default.
• W3162671348 workType "article" @default.