핵의학 투고 논문 분류 및 방향성 고찰

조호연,우영란,서강록,홍건철,Ho-Yeon, Cho,Yeong-Ran, Woo,Kang-Rok, Seo,Gun-Chul, Hong 대한핵의학기술학회 2022 핵의학 기술 Vol.26 No.2

Purpose Since 1985, the Korean society of nuclear medicine technology (KSNMT) has been engaged in academic activities related to nuclear medicine imaging. From 2017 to 2021, the papers published in the journal were classified by the specific fields to examine the trends in the research and the direction of nuclear medicine in comparison with the papers submitted to the Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine (KSNM) during the same period. Materials and Methods From 2017 to 2021, papers submitted to KSNMT and KSNM were classified and databaseization using the Excel program by submission type, examination equipment, and examination field. Through this data, the number of papers published in journals by year, the number of papers submitted by detailed fields, and key words by era were analyzed and compared. Results The papers included by journal was 57 KSNMT and 280 KSNM. The major large classification of equipment, PET, Planar and SPECT was 26.3%, 21.1%, 19.3% in the KSNMT, KSNM was 49.6%, 6.4%, and 9.3%, with 66.7% and 65.3%, respectively. the major medium classification of equipment, industrial safety, urogenital system, nervous system, and quality control accounted for 54.4% of the total papers of the total ratio in the KSNMT, while the medium classification of oncology, endocrine system, urogenital system, therapy, and nervous system accounted for 61.1% of KSNM. In the major small classification of image acquisition, improvement effect, and exposure management accounted for 70.2% in KSNMT, while the items of image acquisition, report, and improvement effect accounted for 60.7% in KSNM. The major keywords except for equipment-related keywords such as PET/CT, PET/MR, and SPECT were SUV, Planar Image, and Respiration Gating Method in KSNMT and Ga68, Thyroid, and Lymphoma in the KSNM. Conclusion When checking the last 5 years of submissions, we can see that KSNMT is mainly concerned with image acquisition using existing radiotracers, while KSNM has focused on new radiotracers such as ⁶⁸Ga, ¹⁷⁷Lu, etc., and new medical technologies of theranostic. It has been confirmed that more PET-related papers than other examination equipment will account for a greater number of papers, and it is believed that future submissions will also account for a higher proportion of PET-related papers than other equipment.

균일성과 분산성이 향산된 BaTiO₃ 나노입자의 수열합성

조호연,박병남,Cho, Hoyeon,Park, Byoungnam 한국결정성장학회 2020 韓國結晶成長學會誌 Vol.30 No.3

본 연구는 BaTiO₃ 나노입자의 용액 공정의 분산성을 확보하기 위해 합성 시간과 온도 증가를 통한 입자들의 핵생성 속도 및 확산 속도를 동시에 증가시켜 수열합성을 진행하였다. 상대적으로 연구가 부족했던 20 nm 이하 균일한 크기의 BaTiO₃ 나노입자를 oleic acid 리간드를 매개로 180℃, 30시간의 조건에서 추가 공정 없이 합성하였다. 수열합성을 저온에서 짧은 시간 동안 진행하였을 시 입자의 응집과 크기의 불균일함을 확인하였으며, 고온에서 장시간 진행하였을 시 입자가 잘 분산되고 크기가 균일한 것을 확인하였다. 이는 고온에서 TiO₂ 입자의 핵 생성 속도와 Ba²⁺ 이온의 확산 거리 증가에 기인한다. 비극성 용매인 mesitylene에서 향상된 분산도를 보여준 BaTiO₃ 나노입자의 크기와 결정도 및 흡광도는 투과전자 현미경과 X-ray diffraction 및 자외/가시선 분광광도계를 통해 분석하였다. 본 연구 결과로 수열합성을 통한 BaTiO₃ 나노입자의 크기의 균일성과 분산성을 개선하고 다양한 전자소자에 응용 가능할 것이라 예상한다. In this study, we report a hydrothermal synthesis in which BaTiO₃ nanoparticles (NPs) with enhanced size uniformity and dispersibility are synthesized by increased time and temperature, increasing nucleation and diffusion rates. The formation process of an uniform size of 20 nm BaTiO₃ NPs, which has not been extensively researched, was optimized through hydrothermal synthesis at 180℃. Simultaneous increase in the nucleation rate of TiO₂ and diffusion length of Ba²⁺ ions, resulting from a higher temperature, allowed for the synthesis of BaTiO₃ NPs (20 nm) with significantly enhanced size-uniformity. The size and crystallinity of BaTiO₃ NPs which exhibit excellent dispersibility in hexane solvent were investigated using transmission electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. The results presented herein provide insights into improving the size uniformity and dispersibility of BaTiO₃ NPs by hydrothermal synthesis for applications to variety of electronic devices.

소련 초기의 기록관리제도와 그 변화

조호연,Cho, Ho-Yeon 한국기록학회 2004 기록학연구 Vol.0 No.10

This paper aims to research the historical development of the archival systems in the Soviet Union from 1917 to the 1920's. The Russian revolution was the turning point not only for the political and social changes but for the archival administration in Russia, as it provided the new Soviet regime with the chances to reorganize the archival institutions under Bolshevik rule. However, we must not forget the fact that the Russian Archival Workers' Union had taken part in the organization of the archival systems together with the Bolshevik revolutionaries. The Soviet government intended to transform the decentralized and poorly organized archival systems in the prerevolutionary years into the centralized and bureaucratized ones. In this meaning, the decree signed be V. I. Lenin on 1 June 1918 was estimated as the real basis for the Soviet archival centralization. Lenin's archival decree of 1918 encompassed the entire national documentary legacy, which was gradually extended to all types and categories of manuscripts and archival records by successive legislation. The concept of state proprietorship of all documentary records was designated "Single State Archival Fond"(Edinyi Gosudarstvennyi arkhivnyi fond), which was renamed as "Archival Fond of the Russian Federation" after the collapse of the USSR. The independent state administrative agency, that is, "Main Administration of Archival Affairs"(Glavnoe upravlenie arkhivnym delom) was charged with the management of the entire "Single State Archival Fond". While the Soviet Union reorganized its archival systems in the twenties, the archival institutions became under the severe control of the government. For example, M. N. Pokrovskii, the well-known Marxist historian and the political leader, headed the organizational work of archives in the Soviet Union, which resulted in the exclusion of the prerevolutionary specialists from the archival field in the Soviet Union. However, the discussions over the concept of "the Archival Fond" by B. I. Anfilov helped to develop the archival theories in the USSR in the twenties. In conclusion, the Soviet Union, having emphasized the centralization of the archives, developed its archival systems from the early period, which were the basis of the systematic archival institutions in Russia.

19세기말 20세기초 제정 러시아의 젬스트보 확대논쟁의 의미

조호연(Ho Yun Cho) 한국서양사연구회 1995 서양사연구 Vol.18 No.-

N/A

1-UI Pulse Generator를 이용한 4:1 Time-Multiplexing

조호연(Hoyeon Cho),정덕균(Deog-Kyoon Jeong) 대한전자공학회 2022 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.2022 No.6

러시아ㆍ東유럽

趙虎衍(Cho Ho-yeon) 역사학회 1999 역사학보 Vol.163 No.-

특집논문 : 역사인식 속에서의 냉전 -북한 역사학계의 러시아사 이해-

조호연 ( Ho Yeon Cho ) 한국서양사학회 2015 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.127

북한에 대한 우리의 지식은 점점 더 축적되고 있지만, 북한 역사학계가 러시아사를 어떻게 이해하고 있는지에 대해서는 그 동안 본격적인 연구가 시도되지 않았다. 그 대신 우리나라의 많은 학자들, 특히 한국사를 전공한 역사학자들은 주로공개된 자료를 바탕으로 하여 북한 역사학이 마르크스주의-레닌주의에 토대를 두고 성립되었다가 주체사관으로 전환되었다고 주장하고 있다. 그렇지만 우리가 보기에, 북한 역사학의 토대가 마르크스주의-레닌주의라기보다는 정확히 말해 스탈린주의 역사학이라고 말할 수 있는데, 이 점은 북한 역사학이 표방하고 있는 ‘당성의 원칙’과 ‘역사주의의 원칙’에서 명확히 드러나 있다. 역사의 동력이라는 측면에서 전자는 주관적인 요인을 가리키는 것이고 후자는 객관적인 요인을 지칭하는 것이지만, 스탈린 시대에 스탈린이 역사해석의 권한을 독점했듯이 이 두 요소를 결합시킬 수 있는 권한은 주체사관의 핵심인 수령에게 있다. 따라서 북한 역사학은 스탈린주의 역사학에 그 근본을 두고 있고, 주체사관이 표방되고 있는 요즈음도 스탈린주의 역사학의 중요한 측면들을 그대로 간직하고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 『력사사전』과 몇 종의 고등중학교 세계사 교과서를 통하여 북한 역사학계가 소련사를 포함한 러시아역사를 어떻게 이해하고 있는지 살펴본다면, 이 점은 명확히 확인된다. 그 내용을 러시아 혁명 이전과 이후로 나누어 보자면, 북한 역사학은 러시아 혁명과 직접 관련이 없는 주제나 인물에 대해서는 과거 스탈린시대처럼 민족주의적인 기준들을 부분적으로 적용하여 심지어 일부 차르들에 대해서도 긍정적인 서술을 포함하고 있다. 그러나 러시아 혁명과 관련해서는 사회주의의 승리로서 기술되고 있으며, 특히 혁명 전후의 모든 사건들이나 인물들이 스탈린과의 관련성을 통하여 평가되고 있다. 현재 북한에서는 스탈린이 시도한 공업화와 농업집단화는 아주 긍정적으로 기술되고 있는 반면에, 흐루쇼프가 시도한 정책 혹은 고르바초프의 개혁과 개방은 강력한 비판의 대상이 되고 있다. 냉전 성립의 한 축이 스탈린주의라고 한다면, 세계사적 틀에서는 냉전이 종식되었지만 북한의 러시아사 인식 속에서는 여전히 냉전적 요소를 무시할 수 없다고 말할 수 있다. It has been supposed that the historiography of North Korea was established on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. And most historians think that after the stability of North Korean government in the middle of 1950’s the historiography of North Korea came under the strong influences of Juche Idea, that is, the official ideology of North Korea. However, to be more precise, the North Korean historiography in the initial stage did not derive from Marxism-Leninism, but from Stalinism. As J. V. Stalin had the absolute power in North Korea in the late 1940’s and in the beginning of 1950’s, the motto “Learn by the Soviet Union” means the imitation of Stalinism. Moreover, the foundations of the historiography in North Korea has retained its characteristics, which mean both the principle of party spirit(in Russian, партийность) and the principle of historicism. The main characteristics of the historiography of North Korea has been reflected in the perceptions of Russian history, which could be found in the school textbooks and historical dictionaries published in North Korea. First of all, the periodization of Russian history has been continuously understood through the social formation theory in North Korea. In addition, the North Korean historians has highly estimated the Russian Revolution as the great socialist revolution. In North Korea, the policies of Stalin has been positively thought, while his political opponents like L. D. Trotsky have been written in the extremely negative ton. Nikita Khrushchov and Mikhail Gorbachev are called as the revisionists and the traitors to the socialist cause. Considering that Stalinism constituted one of the main components of the cold war, it might be concluded that the cold war is ongoing in the perceptions of historiography in North Korea.

봉건제를 둘러싼 소련 시대의 시대구분 논쟁

조호연(Hoyeon Cho) 한국슬라브유라시아학회 2021 슬라브학보 Vol.36 No.2

The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the issues related to the periodization surrounding the feudal system in Russian history were arranged before and after the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution, like other historical subjects, raised a fundamental task in the field of periodization. The periodization theories of the Tsarist Russia period before the revolution were denied, and a new period periodization theory had to be established according to Marxism. However, even by M. N. Pokrovskii, who had the most weight in the history of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Soviet Union, a satisfactory periodization theory was not presented. Rather, through the debate that developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Pokrovskii"s historiography was criticized for being anti-Marxism and anti-scholarship. In the Soviet Union, with the establishment of Stalin"s historiography in the 1930"s, a new periodization theory surrounding feudalism could be organized. In this process, Stalin"s books and articles played a significant role. As a professional scholar, B. D. Grekov"s works coexisted with Stalinist history and made an important contribution to resolving the controversy surrounding feudalism. His research established the position that the period of feudalism started from Kiev Rus, and that feudalism did not go through slavery in Russian history. Grekov"s position was highly praised for not only using the results of archaeological excavations and various historical sources, but also for using a comparative historical method. The periodization debates that developed from the end of 1940’s to the beginning of 1950’s developed over the basic nature of feudalism. K. B. Bazilevich tried to define the feudal period in terms of socioeconomic history, and his critics, N. M. Druzhnin and I. Smirnov, in terms of the political superstructure, whereas V. Pashto and L. Cherepnin synthesized socioeconomic history and political historical factors. In my opinion, Soviet historians were able to reach a certain level of agreement in terms of timing and nature on the issue of feudal periodization. However, issues such as the basic laws of feudalism and the origins of capitalism were still unsolved and caused a lot of controversy, and in the subsequent period, Soviet historians argued a lot about various issues related to the periodization.

북한 역사학과 소련 역사학의 관련성 ―봉건제 개념과 국가성립 문제를 중심으로―

조호연 ( Hoyeon Cho ) 한림과학원 2021 개념과 소통 Vol.- No.27

1980년대 후반부터 우리나라에서 북한 역사학의 성과들이 합법적으로 출판될 수 있게 된 이후, 북한 역사학을 소개하는 많은 연구들이 발표되었다. 그렇지만 북한 역사학이 성립된 배경으로서 소련 역사학에 대한 본격적인 분석은 이루어지지 못한 형편이다. 이 글에서는 봉건제 개념과 국가성립 문제를 중심으로 하여 소련 역사학에서 논의된 내용이 북한 역사학에서도 비슷한 방식으로 반영되었음을 살펴보았다. 봉건제라는 개념 자체는 소련에서 1917년의 볼셰비키 혁명 이후인 1930년대에 그레코프에 의하여 정립된 바 있다. 국가성립의 문제도 소련에서 노르만 학설에 대한 비판으로서, 키예프 루시 이전의 동슬라브 족에게서 사회경제적으로 국가성립의 전제가 갖추어졌음이 확인된 바 있다. 북한에서도 삼국시대가 노예제 사회냐 봉건제 사회냐의 논란을 거쳐 1960년대에 봉건제라고 획정되었으며, 그 이전 시기인 고조선 사회에 대해서도 그 발전 정도가 규명된 바 있다. 그렇지만 1960년대 이후에 북한의 역사학과 소련의 역사학은 정치적 이유와 학문적인 이유로 갈등관계에 접어든다. 정치적인 이유란 김일성의 권력이 공고해짐에 따라 소련에 대한 의존도가 낮아진 것을 의미한다. 학문적인 이유란 역사발전 단계에서 북한은 자국 역사에서 노예제 시기와 봉건제 시기를 공히 인정한 반면, 소련에서는 키예프 루시 시대로부터 봉건제로 본 것을 의미한다. 이런 차이가 있기는 하지만, 북한 역사학의 논의구조는 소련 역사학의 문제 의식과 유사한 구도로 전개되었다고 말할 수 있다. The concept of feudalism, as discussed in Soviet history, should be understood in the context of the social problems of the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. N. P. Pavlov-Silvanskii, in particular, tried to explain Russian history since the 13th century with the concept of feudalism. Then after the Russian Revolution, the issue of feudalism began to be discussed within a Marxist-Leninist framework. In the early years of the Soviet Union, however, even M. N. Pokrovskii, a very eminent historian, could not clearly define the feudal system, but from the mid-1930s onwards, the Soviet Union, through the studies of D. N. Grekov, defined the society of Kievan Rus’ as a feudal system. Moreover, the so-called Norman theory, which has long been controversial, was firmly rejected by Soviet historians. In the historiography of North Korea, the first scholar who proposed a theory of feudalism was Nam-un Baek, who was attempting to overcome colonial historical studies which underestimated the significance of Korean history. Since Nam-un Baek became active as a scholar and politician in North Korea, his feudal theory was widely recognized in the early days of the North Korean regime. However, just as the Soviet historians experienced confusion over feudalism, the same happened in North Korea. There were heated discussions about feudalism, in particular over whether the Three Kingdoms era should be characterized as a slave society or a feudal society. Regarding the establishment of the earliest state, by the early 1960s there was a consensus among North Korean historians to define Gojoseon as a slave society with a high level of development. During the 1950s there were practical exchanges between the historians of North Korea and the Soviet Union. North Korean historians carefully examined the Marxist-Leninist historical studies of Stalin's Soviet Union; and Soviet scholars like Mikhail Pak, who led the Soviet study of Korean history at the time, paid close attention to Korean discussions of feudalism and the founding of a state in North Korea. When North Korea and the Soviet Union fell out in the early 1960’s the fundamental reason was, of course, political, but this quickly resulted in academic dissension. North Korean criticism of Mikhail Pak's thesis written by Kim Seok-hyung in 1961 ultimately resulted in a breakdown of friendly academic exchanges between the two countries. Thus, we can see that although the historians of North Korea and the Soviet Union were in conflict in the early 1960s, the development of North Korean historiography after liberation, which was primarily concerned with feudalism and the founding of a state, resembled that of Soviet historiography following the Russian Revolution of 1917.

1890년대 러시아의 젬스트보 자유주의 운동

조호연 ( Ho Yeon Cho ) 한국서양사학회 1997 西洋史論 Vol.52 No.1