El análisis didáctico-tecnológico del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la Matemática/ The didactic-technological analysis of the teaching-learning process of Mathematics

El proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la Matemática en la actualidad se encuentra en constantes cambios y transformaciones producto del desarrollo alcanzado por las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, lo cual reconocen organizaciones internacionales como la UNESCO en sus objetivos priorizados de la agenda para la Educación 2030. No obstante, este proceso en las carreras universitarias de la Universidad de Camagüey “Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz”, aún no satisface tales exigencias y aspiraciones, dado por algunas deficiencias, alguna de las cuales están dadas, entre otras causas, por la insuficiente formación de los docentes de Matemática en los contenidos didáctico-tecnológicos ante la ausencia de un marco teórico de referencia desde la Didáctica de la Matemática, lo que se constató, a través de la aplicación de entrevistas y encuestas donde las autoras evaluaron la formación didáctico-tecnológica; de igual forma emplearon el análisis-síntesis y la revisión bibliográfica sobre los marcos teóricos que forman el Enfoque Ontosemiótico (EOS) del conocimiento y la  instrucción matemática de Godino et al., el Modelo Teórico del Conocimiento del Contenido Pedagógico Tecnológico (TPACK)de Mishra y Koehler, y el Modelo Teórico del Conocimiento Tecnológico Pedagógico-Práctico Disciplinar (TPACK-PRÁCTICO) de Yeh et al., para construir el marco teórico de referencia que ofrecen las autoras y que  sirve de fundamento para el análisis didáctico-tecnológico del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la Matemática en el siglo XXI. Abstract The teaching-learning process of Mathematics is currently undergoing constant changes resulting from the achievements of Information and Communication Technologies, that UNESCO has recognized a priority of the agenda for the Education 2030. However, majors at the University of Camagüey "Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz” still fails to satisfy such demands and expectations. This fact, among other causes, is due to insufficient Mathematics teachers’ training on the didactic-technological contents, and in the absence of a didactics of mathematics theoretical framework Mathematics Didactics. The authors assessed teachers’ the didactic-technological training by given interviews and surveys, as well making use of analysis-synthesis and studying current theoretical frameworks from Godino’s Onto-semiotic Approach of knowledge and mathematical instruction, the Theoretical Model of Technological Pedagogical Contents Knowledge of Mishra and Koehler and the Theoretical Model of Technological Pedagogical Disciplinary Knowledge-Practical Disciplinary of Yeh. The study of this framework leads the authors to construct the theoretical frame of reference for the didactic-technological analysis of Mathematics teaching-learning process in the 21st century

El análisis didáctico-tecnológico del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la Matemática/ The didactic-technological analysis of the teaching-learning process of Mathematics

The teaching-learning process of Mathematics is currently undergoing constant changes resulting from the achievements of Information and Communication Technologies, that UNESCO has recognized a priority of the agenda for the Education 2030. However, majors at the University of Camagüey "Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz” still fails to satisfy such demands and expectations. This fact, among other causes, is due to insufficient Mathematics teachers’ training on the didactic-technological contents, and in the absence of a didactics of mathematics theoretical framework Mathematics Didactics. The authors assessed teachers’ the didactic-technological training by given interviews and surveys, as well making use of analysis-synthesis and studying current theoretical frameworks from Godino’s Onto-semiotic Approach of knowledge and mathematical instruction, the Theoretical Model of Technological Pedagogical Contents Knowledge of Mishra and Koehler and the Theoretical Model of Technological Pedagogical Disciplinary Knowledge-Practical Disciplinary of Yeh. The study of this framework leads the authors to construct the theoretical frame of reference for the didactic-technological analysis of Mathematics teaching-learning process in the 21st century

Current Status of the Build Systems of Packages in Different Distributions of GNU/Linux Estado actual de los sistemas de construcción de paquetes en diferentes distribuciones de GNU/Linux

<p class="Textbody">In this paper, the various systems and tools for building package repositories used by the different distributions of GNU/Linux are analyzed, with the aim of studying features that may be useful given the need for an own system. This will divide these into two groups: the tools for the construction of individual packages and the build systems of package repositories. The first group was studied because they are part of the components of the second group. The tools and systems that are discussed are those used by the distributions Fedora, openSUSE, Debian and Ubuntu have these stable development cycles and be among the most widespread in the field of free operating systems. The tools studied in the first group are: Mock, sbuild and pbuilder. The build systems of packages studied and grouped in the second group are: Koji, Open Build Service, buildd and Soyuz. From each system are studied the architecture, components, programming languages used, security and distinctive features. Closure is met by selecting the best characteristics these systems present that can be imitated, proposing components to be re-used and some other aspects not implemented in studied systems but which are of great interest for the new own system to be developed.</p><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; page-break-before: auto } P.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 11pt } P.cjk { font-size: 10pt } A:link { so-language: zxx } --><p class="western"><span style="font-weight: normal;">En este trabajo se analizan los varios sistemas y herramientas de construcción de repositorios de paquetes usados por las distintas distribuciones de GNU/Linux con el objetivo de estudiar características que puedan ser útiles dada la necesidad de contar con un sistema propio. Para ello se dividen estos en dos grupos: las herramientas para la construcción de paquetes individuales y los sistemas de construcción de repositorios de paquetes. Las herramientas y sistemas que se analizan son los utilizados por las distribuciones Fedora, openSUSE, Debian y Ubuntu por contar estas con ciclos de desarrollo estables y estar entre las más difundidas en el ámbito de los sistemas operativos libres. Las herramientas estudiadas en el primer grupo son: Mock, sbuild y pbuilder. Los sistemas de construcción de paquetes estudiados y agrupados en el segundo grupo son: Koji, Open Build Service, buildd y Soyuz. De cada sistema se estudia su arquitectura, componentes, lenguajes de programación empleados, seguridad y características distintivas. Se concluye haciendo una selección de las mejores características presentes en estos sistemas que pudieran imitarse, proponiendo componentes para su reutilización, así como algunos aspectos que no son implementados en los sistemas estudiados pero que son de gran interés para el sistema propio que se desea desarrollar.</span></p&gt

Estado actual de los sistemas de construcción de paquetes en diferentes distribuciones de GNU/Linux Current Status of the Build Systems of Packages in Different Distributions of GNU/Linux

En este trabajo se analizan los varios sistemas y herramientas de construcción de repositorios de paquetes usados por las distintas distribuciones de GNU/Linux con el objetivo de estudiar características que puedan ser útiles dada la necesidad de contar con un sistema propio. Para ello se dividen estos en dos grupos: las herramientas para la construcción de paquetes individuales y los sistemas de construcción de repositorios de paquetes. Las herramientas y sistemas que se analizan son los utilizados por las distribuciones Fedora, openSUSE, Debian y Ubuntu por contar estas con ciclos de desarrollo estables y estar entre las más difundidas en el ámbito de los sistemas operativos libres. Las herramientas estudiadas en el primer grupo son: Mock, sbuild y pbuilder. Los sistemas de construcción de paquetes estudiados y agrupados en el segundo grupo son: Koji, Open Build Service, buildd y Soyuz. De cada sistema se estudia su arquitectura, componentes, lenguajes de programación empleados, seguridad y características distintivas. Se concluye haciendo una selección de las mejores características presentes en estos sistemas que pudieran imitarse, proponiendo componentes para su reutilización, así como algunos aspectos que no son implementados en los sistemas estudiados pero que son de gran interés para el sistema propio que se desea desarrollar.In this paper, the various systems and tools for building package repositories used by the different distributions of GNU/Linux are analyzed, with the aim of studying features that may be useful given the need for an own system. This will divide these into two groups: the tools for the construction of individual packages and the build systems of package repositories. The first group was studied because they are part of the components of the second group. The tools and systems that are discussed are those used by the distributions Fedora, openSUSE, Debian and Ubuntu have these stable development cycles and be among the most widespread in the field of free operating systems. The tools studied in the first group are: Mock, sbuild and pbuilder. The build systems of packages studied and grouped in the second group are: Koji, Open Build Service, buildd and Soyuz. From each system are studied the architecture, components, programming languages used, security and distinctive features. Closure is met by selecting the best characteristics these systems present that can be imitated, proposing components to be re-used and some other aspects not implemented in studied systems but which are of great interest for the new own system to be developed.</p

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)

Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUN