Category Archives: Research and Academia
This week, our students and faculty are involved in 17 presentations at the AAPM meeting in Denver, Colorado. This include Best In Physics (Therapy) Marie-Ève Delage. Overall 2 general poster presentations, 5 poster discussions (ePoster), 3 SNAP Oral, 5 oral presentations and two symposium presentations.
Use of 3D- transabdominal Ultrasound Imaging for Treatment Planning in Cervical Cancer Brachytherapy: Comparison to Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomography available for 50 days (free) – https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1VS4n5Tpjq36rD.
Beall’s list of predatory journals has found a “commercial” replacement. Let’s see how much it will cost to access.
Report home can be found here: Canada’s Fundamental Science Review. The download link for the report itself is prominently displayed.
“Luc Beaulieu, du même département, disposera de près de 440 000$ pour réaliser son projet Development of Novel Optic-based Dose Sensors and Dose-based Treatment Guidance. ”
Money to acquire new state-of-the-art equipment. Will expand our research program and enable new graduate student projects.
Systematic characterization of semiconductor colloidal quantum dots (cQDs) response to ionizing radiation must be performed to use them in radiation detection. In this study, the robustness of multi-shell (MS) and core/shell (CS) cQDs was investigated under irradiation. Radioluminescence (RL) measurements with kV and MV photon beams revealed a better resistance of MS cQDs to ionizing radiation, with their spectra fluctuating by barely ∼ 1 nm. A systematic signal recovery between subsequent irradiations was noticed for MS cQDs only. A beam energy dependence of the RL stability was detected between kV and MV energies. At the same point of dose cumulated, the RL signal loss for the kV beams was observed to be ∼6-7% smaller than that of the MV beam, for both types of cQDs. These results demonstrate that MS cQDs are better candidates as ionizing radiation sensors than CS cQDs, especially in the kV energy range.
Long time coming but totally worth it 😉
Clearly if you do not published, you can never be cited…However, interesting to see that the Natural sciences field seems to taper-off more quickly than the life science field.
Here is a BrachyTalk interview I gave during the 2016 ESTRO meeting in Torino, Italy. Get to know what I am working on and my (physics and biomedical technology) vision of the field.
Thanks to the peoples at BrachyAcademy for making me look good during that interview 😉
To present a scientific subject in an attractive and stimulating manner is an artistic task, similar to that of a novelist or even a dramatic writer. The same holds for writing textbooks.– Max Born
When a graduate student come to me with the big news that its abstract has been selected for an oral presentation, my first reaction is a big congratulations and the second is to already set a deadline for a first version of the talk. Because of the abstract, you already know the content, what needs to be presented. But crafting an effective 7, 8 or 10 minutes presentation is a complete new game.
Read the rest of this entry
It has been a few years in the making (from the first conceptual idea to publication) but the baby has been delivered and is now available at CRC Press.
The reality is simple, even if you do not want it, as a researcher you are something of a public figure. You are probably using public funds to do your research, you most probably train peoples (from undergrads to research assistants) and, sometimes, more than you think actually, you will be googled.
For all kinds of reasons you might not want to tell the world openly what kind of research you are doing (which is actually a shame) or even keep people for knowing your “at bat” scores (e.g. is your work actually being cited at all). Let me tell you a secret, unless you have never published anything, Google Scholar will find you… even if you do not want to.
So do not be shy and make your Google Scholar page public!
We came across your contribution entitled <name of your paper here> published in <journal name here> and thought your expertise would be an excellent fit for <name of this unrelated – to your specialty – congress>.
We invite you as speaker at <full name of congress with dates>.
It is becoming a new form of either spamming or phishing (I still haven’t decided yet) or actually maybe a combination of both, especially that most seem to come from meeting organizers on topics that are completely unrelated to my field of expertise for the said meeting. I now received 7-10 of such invitations per week.
I recently came across the following document by Professor Alan M Johnson, which appears to be distributed freely by Elsevier and entitled “Charting a Course for a Successful Research Career: A Guide for Early Career Researchers – 2nd edition“.
In a previous blog post, I suggested to my younger colleagues that while they should not care so much about the impact factor of the journals they published in (as long as these journals are well-read in their respective fields of research), they should care quite a lot about these papers being cited, and cited by others not self-cited!
A few months ago, I was listening to the introductory talk of for a prestigious award from our national organization when one statement hit me: a physicist with 2000 or more citations is part of the 1% most cited physicists worldwide. There might have been a bit more to that statement but let’s work with it.