Foreword Guest editors & Full Issue
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<br>Dear readers <br><br> It is a great pleasure to present you with this new issue of the peer-reviewed and open access Research and Review Journal of Nondestructive Testing (ReJNDT). ‘'Frontiers in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation: Academic Insights (2022/23)' is the first issue, which is dedicated explicitly to young talents graduating in the field of non-destructive testing and evaluation (NDT&E). The main goal is to present their work to a wider audience, both in academia and industry. When I came up with this idea less than one year ago, it was mostly triggered by the observation that we need to do much more to identify, attract and keep young talents – and there are many of them – in our field. Among others, one of the obvious gaps to do so is the rather poor support in particular at their early career. And undoubtedly much stronger interaction between academics and industry is needed to improve this situation. In this context, we developed a unique concept: Giving graduates an opportunity to publish their thesis work as corresponding author in an international, peer-reviewed journal, open access and free of charge. Another unique point beyond is the idea to bring together, respectively, one expert from academics and one from industry as reviewers. To address many of the challenges of the peer-review process, we chose to use an innovative approach in academic publishing Open peer review.<br> What did we achieve? From the beginning, we were impressed by the positive feedback from the NDT community worldwide. As a first result, this helped us to form a strong editorial board with members from seven countries, including the president of the WCNDT 2024. In the following months it was amazing to see how the initial idea of this issue was filled with life. Each new submission and the vivid open review solidified the conceptual frame and gave us more and more confidence that we were on the right way. Finally, we end up with eight contributions from five countries and authors originating from Canada, France, Germany, Iran, Italy and Poland. As we addressed the call to Master and PhD students, it is remarkable that we also ended up exactly with an equal number for both, respectively. Besides, the articles cover a wide range of NDT&E topics: From Ultrasonic testing, X-ray, magnetic flux and visual to NDT4.0 and structural health monitoring. Taking into account that we “started from zero”, these results are very encouraging. Therefore, I would like to make some acknowledgements. My and our first acknowledgment goes to the authors for their valuable work. This success is YOUR success! Undoubtedly, the quality of the papers was significantly improved by the careful and supportive reviews, which were thoroughly implemented in the final revisions. We are very grateful for the support of the reviewers, in particular as we know that all of them did it in their sparse free time and just based on the enthusiasm for this project. At the end, I would also like to thank all members of the editorial board for our very efficient cooperation.<br> Altogether, combining authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board we could unify NDT talents and experts from 14 countries, representing industry and academia and distributed over ALL (!) continents. The global acceptance of our concept just underlines that we, as NDT community, need to work together to tackle the future challenges. Therefore, we hope that the impressive outcome of this issue is just the beginning of a great journey. And we are looking forward to future contributions as a continuation of this first issue.<br> But for now: Clear the stage for the Master and PhD work of the academic year 2022-2023! The articles of our young talents shall be in the spotlight, giving a glimpse of the variety of interesting and excellent thesis out there. Each of them a little diamond. The presentation here may be just a little step for now, but hopefully a big step for their future and the NDT community in general. In that sense: Enjoy reading, like I did!<br> <br> Kind regards,<br> Dr. Thomas Würschig<br> In the name of the editorial board.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».