Capacity accumulation in three natural resource-based industries in Chile: the shifting roles and positions of doctoral graduates

Understanding technical change in late industrialised economies is the general area of this thesis. There is a lack of research and policy advice on how industry sectors develop active technological learning, particularly in economies based on natural resources and in contexts of poverty and inequality. The thesis is framed by the challenges related to production and economic performance. This thesis compares three natural resource-based industries in Chile - copper mining, fruit growing and salmon farming – focusing on the participation of doctoral graduates, taking a historical perspective. Doctoral graduates represent a small fraction of the population, but their importance in the advancement of knowledge and technological change is considered strategic. The thesis research questions are: how do doctoral graduates participate in the accumulation of producer capabilities in industry sectors; what factors are important for their participation; and what are the implications for public policy? The thesis adopts the concept Sectoral Learning Systems (SLS) (adapted from Viotti, 2001) and applies the producer capability approach (von Tunzelmann and Wang, 2007; von Tunzelmann, 2009), which is an alternative approach to conventional production theory, to understand the practice of doctoral graduates in relation to technological change. Policy analysis and recommendations are based on the concept of system alignment (von Tunzelmann, 2010), which offers possibilities for governing systems in which agents may have contradictory views and positions. Throughout, the thesis is underpinned by Bourdieu’s (2005) economic anthropological approach. His notions of field, habitus and capital are reinterpreted within the more specific science, technology and innovation studies literature. This thesis constitutes an interdisciplinary endeavour that integrates approaches from different academic traditions such that all are essential for achieving the research findings. In terms of methodology, the thesis draws on a historical study of coevolution of technology and governance for each of the three industries, complemented by in depth individual case studies. Through analytical inference, I locate doctoral graduates in the history of each field. The analysis is illustrated by the case studies of doctoral graduates’ careers. By applying the producer capability approach, I deduce the likely accumulation of scientific capabilities by doctoral graduates in each field. The results of the comparison show that copper mining, fruit growing and salmon farming display similar patterns of development in relation to their respective incorporations into the technological revolutions in each industry field. In all three cases, the state played an important role in the emergence of these industries at the national and international levels. The establishment of these industries was succeeded by periods of high profits, adoption of new technologies and low levels of innovation, followed by intense process innovation and increasing competition, and finally a period of concentration and re-structuring characterized by the development of networks of suppliers and oligopolistic industry structures. Product diversification in the dominant technological paradigm appeared towards the last period. Doctoral graduates emerged as scientific suppliers to the industries, when these industries embarked on the phase of intense process innovation, which increased demand for scientific possibilities supplied by doctoral graduates. The level of demand often was related to industry subsidies, particularly important in the fruit and salmon farming sectors. Doctoral graduates participated in active technological learning in less mature technology contexts, and in systems where the dominant producers had the capabilities for improvement and innovation. Once doctoral graduates had a position as scientific suppliers, they actively maintained and enhanced their participation in the field. Doctoral graduates also participated in shaping the structure of the fields, and in influencing policy. The thesis derives policy recommendations to strengthen active learning, particularly in relation to new product development, based on the understandings and the lessons drawn from history

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Costos Y Presupuestos-CA62-201002

El curso de Costos y Presupuestos brinda al alumno las herramientas necesarias para entender el comportamiento de los costos e interpretar el lenguaje de los mismos con el fin de contribuir en la gestión de la empresa resaltando la importancia del planeamiento y control a través de la elaboración de presupuestos. Servirá de base para quienes lleven un segundo curso de costos

Costos Y Presupuestos-CA62-201101

El curso de Costos y Presupuestos brinda al alumno las herramientas necesarias para entender el comportamiento de los costos e interpretar el lenguaje de los mismos con el fin de contribuir en la gestión de la empresa resaltando la importancia del planeamiento y control a través de la elaboración de presupuestos. Servirá de base para quienes lleven un segundo curso de costos

Costos Y Presupuestos-CA62-201102

El curso de Costos y Presupuestos brinda al alumno las herramientas necesarias para entender el comportamiento de los costos e interpretar el lenguaje de los mismos con el fin de contribuir en la gestión de la empresa resaltando la importancia del planeamiento y control a través de la elaboración de presupuestos. Servirá de base para quienes lleven un segundo curso de costos

Costos y Presupuestos - CA62 - 202101

Descripción: El curso de Costos y Presupuestos estudia la estructura de costos, su clasificación y aplicación mediante un sistema de acumulación de costos de acuerdo a las características de la empresa para luego elaborar el presupuesto maestro que le sirva como herramienta de gestión. Todo ello con el fin de identificar la inversión que realizan las empresas en la elaboración de sus productos o servicios e identificando la utilidad o pérdida que podamos hallar al final de un periodo determinado. Propósito: El curso de Costos y Presupuestos tiene el propósito de desarrollar habilidades que le permitan identificar la adecuada estructura de costos y una eficiente toma de decisiones en búsqueda de una gestión eficiente en el ejercicio profesional. El curso contribuye directamente al desarrollo de las competencias generales de Razonamiento cuantitativo (general - UPC) y como la Toma de decisiones (específica - UPC), ambos a un nivel 2

Costos y Presupuestos - CA62 - 202102

Descripción: El curso de Costos y Presupuestos estudia la estructura de costos, su clasificación y aplicación mediante un sistema de acumulación de costos de acuerdo a las características de la empresa para luego elaborar el presupuesto maestro que le sirva como herramienta de gestión. Todo ello con el fin de identificar la inversión que realizan las empresas en la elaboración de sus productos o servicios e identificando la utilidad o pérdida que podamos hallar al final de un periodo determinado. Propósito: El curso de Costos y Presupuestos tiene el propósito de desarrollar habilidades que le permitan identificar la adecuada estructura de costos y una eficiente toma de decisiones en búsqueda de una gestión eficiente en el ejercicio profesional. El curso contribuye directamente al desarrollo de las competencias generales de Razonamiento cuantitativo (general - UPC) y como la Toma de decisiones (específica - UPC), ambos a un nivel 2

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health