Corrientes filosóficas y toma de decisiones en sistemas inteligentes de automatización industrial: un marco de capacidades para la Industria 4.0
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64439/cisai.v2i2.44Palabras clave:
Automatización industrial, sistemas inteligentes, toma de decisiones, positivismo, realismo crítico, hermenéuticaResumen
La incorporación de sistemas inteligentes en la automatización industrial transforma la supervisión y la toma de decisiones, exigiendo profesionales capaces de combinar dominio técnico, comprensión causal, interpretación contextual y responsabilidad ante sus consecuencias. En este contexto, el objetivo fue analizar la contribución del positivismo, el realismo crítico y la hermenéutica a la formación de capacidades y la toma de decisiones, para proponer un marco integrado orientado a la Industria 4.0. Se adoptó un enfoque transdisciplinario y una metodología filosófico-analítica documental, sustentada en una revisión de alcance realizada en Scopus, Web of Science y Google Scholar durante 2020–2026. Tras aplicar los criterios de selección, se conformó un corpus de 22 fuentes, analizado mediante codificación temática. Los resultados muestran que el positivismo sustenta la medición y el control, el realismo crítico amplía el diagnóstico mediante mecanismos causales y la hermenéutica incorpora la interpretación del contexto humano–tecnología. Esta articulación permitió construir un marco de capacidades organizado en niveles operativo, táctico y estratégico, con la filosofía ambiental como dimensión transversal y la supervisión humana ante decisiones mediadas por inteligencia artificial. Se concluye que esta integración podría fortalecer el juicio profesional frente a sistemas industriales progresivamente automatizados, aunque requiere validación posterior.
Citas
[1] E. Y. Nakagawa, P. O. Antonino, F. Schnicke, R. Capilla, T. Kuhn, and P. Liggesmeyer, “Industry 4.0 reference architectures: State of the art and future trends,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 156, p. 107241, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107241.
[2] V. Lysak, “A theoretical analysis of philosophical dimensions in engineering education,” Journal of Contemporary Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, 2024. doi: 10.59652/jcpas.v2i3.307.
[3] J. Laux, “Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: Towards a democratic design of AI governance under the European Union AI Act,” AI & Society, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 2853–2866, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z.
[4] M. Langer, K. Baum, and N. Schlicker, “Effective human oversight of AI-based systems: A signal detection perspective on the detection of inaccurate and unfair outputs,” Minds and Machines, vol. 35, no. 1, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11023-024-09701-0.
[5] A. Ferdman and E. Ratti, “What do we teach to engineering students: Embedded ethics, morality, and politics,” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00469-1.
[6] F. C. Mukumbang, “Retroductive theorizing: A contribution of critical realism to mixed methods research,” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 93–114, 2023. doi: 10.1177/15586898211049847.
[7] A. Rieder, S. Chakraborty, S. Goyal, and D. J. Berndt, “A critical realist approach to agent-based modeling: Unlocking prediction in non-positivist paradigms,” Journal of Information Technology, vol. 40, no. 2, 2025. doi: 10.1177/02683962241280657.
[8] A. Grunwald, A. Nordmann, and M. Sand, Eds., Hermeneutics, History, and Technology: The Call of the Future. London, UK: Routledge, 2023. doi: 10.4324/9781003322290.
[9] H. Nguyen Ngoc, G. Lasa, and I. N. Iriarte, “Human-centred design in Industry 4.0: Case study review and opportunities for future research,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 35–76, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10845-021-01796-x.
[10] M. Yaqot, B. Menezes, A. Mohammed, and K. Moloney, “A state-of-the-art review and framework for human-centric automation in Industry 5.0,” in Advances in Production Management Systems. Production Management Systems for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous Environments (APMS 2024), IFIP AICT, vol. 729. Springer, 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-65894-5_27.
[11] A. R. Gammon and L. Marin, “Learning to reframe problems through moral sensitivity and critical thinking in environmental ethics for engineers,” Teaching Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 97–116, 2022. doi: 10.5840/tej20221013120.
[12] S. Sterz, K. Baum, S. Biewer, H. Hermanns, A. Lauber-Rönsberg, P. Meinel, and M. Langer, “On the quest for effectiveness in human oversight: Interdisciplinary perspectives,” in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24), 2024, pp. 2495–2507. doi: 10.1145/3630106.3659048.
[13] S. Vallor and T. Vierkant, “Find the gap: AI, responsible agency and vulnerability,” Minds and Machines, vol. 34, no. 3, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11023-024-09674-0.
[14] M. D. J. Peters, C. Marnie, H. Colquhoun, C. M. Garritty, S. Hempel, T. Horsley, E. V. Langlois, E. Lillie, K. K. O’Brien, O. Tunçalp, M. G. Wilson, W. Zarin, and A. C. Tricco, “Scoping reviews: Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, p. 263, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3.
[15] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
[16] R. Kahlke, C. Poth, J. S. Young, and L. A. Maggio, “State of the methods for integrating qualitatively oriented critical review approaches with bibliometrics: A mixed critical bibliometric approach,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 25, 2026. doi: 10.1177/16094069261420676.
[17] E. M. Martinez, P. Ponce, I. Macias, and A. Molina, “Automation pyramid as constructor for a complete digital twin, case study: A didactic manufacturing system,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 14, p. 4656, 2021. doi: 10.3390/s21144656.
[18] M. Cristofaro, C. E. Helfat, and D. J. Teece, “Adapting, shaping, evolving: Refocusing on the dynamic capabilities–environment nexus,” Academy of Management Collections, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 20–46, 2025. doi: 10.5465/amc.2022.0008.
[19] F. J. Folgado, D. Calderón, I. González, and A. J. Calderón, “Review of Industry 4.0 from the perspective of automation and supervision systems: Definitions, architectures and recent trends,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 782, 2024. doi: 10.3390/electronics13040782.
[20] D. J. Teece, “The evolution of the dynamic capabilities framework,” in Artificiality and Sustainability in Entrepreneurship, ser. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, R. Adams, D. Grichnik, A. Pundziene, and C. Volkmann, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-11371-0_6.
[21] A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, O. M. Karagianni, and P. Stavropoulos, “A human–AI collaborative framework for additive manufacturing modeling and decision-making,” Processes, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 3877, 2025. doi: 10.3390/pr13123877.
[22] H. Demirtas, “AI responsibility gap: Not new, inevitable, unproblematic,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10676-024-09814-1.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 International Journal of Computational Innovations, Intelligent Systems and AI
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
