A Scoping Review of The Oracle of Silicon: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Knowledge
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Advances in artificial intelligence have led to a growing body of academic literature that needs to be systematized in order to identify trends, predominant approaches, and knowledge gaps. The objective of this research was to conduct an exploratory review of the scientific book The Oracle of Silicon: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Knowledge, comprising 55 chapters, with the aim of organizing its main thematic strands, methodological approaches, and opportunities for future research. A qualitative-descriptive approach was adopted, supported by digital tools such as generative artificial intelligence and spreadsheets, which were used to classify chapters, group topics, construct conceptual clusters, and generate co-occurrence maps. The results show that most chapters are related to the social sciences, with a predominance of reflective essays, literature reviews, and theoretical analyses. The discussion reveals that AI acts as a catalyst for reflection on society, knowledge, education, and institutional transformation in Paraguay. We conclude that this study constitutes a systematic and innovative approach to the exploratory review of a scientific book, with potential methodological contributions for Latin America, particularly due to its incorporation of cluster analysis, thematic maps, and co-occurrence networks assisted by ChatGPT.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Aguilera-Eguía, R. A., Roco-Videla, Á., López-Soto, O. P., Fuentes-Barria, H., Inostroza-Reyes, G., & Melo-Lonconao, M. (2024). Revisión sistemática frente a “scoping review”: Guía para una elección informada en las investigaciones. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 41(5), 1126–1127. https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.05327 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.05327
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Benítez, M., & Parrado, E. (2024, 5 de septiembre). Tomarle el pulso al empleo en el nuevo mundo de la inteligencia artificial. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. https://www.iadb.org/es/blog/investigacion-para-el-desarrollo/tomarle-el-pulso-al-empleo-en-el-nuevo-mundo-de-la-inteligencia-artificial
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being “systematic” in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Chen, H., Tsang, Y. P., & Wu, C. H. (2023). When text mining meets science mapping in the bibliometric analysis: A review and future opportunities. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 15, Artículo 18479790231222349. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790231222349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790231222349
Codina, L. (2022, 24 de julio). Scoping reviews: Características, frameworks principales y uso en trabajos académicos. https://www.lluiscodina.com/scoping-reviews-guia/
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P. V., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A. K., Kizgin, H., Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., … Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Artículo 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
Fundación CYD. (2024, 15 de octubre). La inteligencia artificial nos obliga a adaptar el modelo educativo y repensar a quién, en qué y para qué educamos. https://www.fundacioncyd.org/la-inteligencia-artificial-nos-obliga-a-adaptar-el-modelo-educativo-y-repensar-a-quien-en-que-y-para-que-educamos/
Gálvez, C. (2018). Análisis de co-palabras aplicado a los artículos muy citados en Biblioteconomía y Ciencias de la Información (2007–2017). Transinformação, 30(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000300001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000300001
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
Hosseini, E., Taghizadeh Milani, K., & Sabetnasab, M. S. (2025). Development and maturity of co-word thematic clusters: The field of linked data. Library Hi Tech, 43(1), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2022-0488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2022-0488
Huang, Y., Liu, X., Li, R., & Zhang, L. (2023). The science of team science (SciTS): An emerging and evolving field of interdisciplinary collaboration. Profesional de la Información, 32(2), Artículo e320204. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.mar.04 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.mar.04
Klarin, A. (2024). How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: Guidelines and contributions of content co-occurrence or co-word literature reviews. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(2), Artículo e13031. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13031
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/content-analysis-4e/toc#_
Kwan Chung, C. K. K., & Dos Santos González, P. R. (Eds.). (2025). El oráculo de silicio: Inteligencia artificial y el porvenir del conocimiento. Editorial Chaux. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kmpKgAZPxm4qqV85mTRJW6-LuUya-se4
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Artículo 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Li, Y., Marier-Bienvenue, T., Perron-Brault, A., Wang, X., & Paré, G. (2018). Blockchain technology in business organizations: A scoping review. En Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4474–4483). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.565
Lockwood, C., Borges dos Santos, K., & Pap, R. (2019). Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping review methods. Asian Nursing Research, 13(5), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
Mak, S., & Thomas, A. (2022). Steps for conducting a scoping review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(5), 565–567. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1
Marzi, G., Balzano, M., Caputo, A., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2025). Guidelines for bibliometric-systematic literature reviews: 10 steps to combine analysis, synthesis and theory development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 27(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12381
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El Profesional de la Información, 29(1), Artículo e290103. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, Artículo 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development (7th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
Oosthuizen, R. M. (2022). The Fourth Industrial Revolution—smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and algorithms: Industrial psychologists in future workplaces. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, Artículo 913168. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.913168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.913168
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (versión GPT-5) [Modelo de lenguaje de gran tamaño]. https://chatgpt.com/
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Colquhoun, H., Garritty, C. M., Hempel, S., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., Lillie, E., O’Brien, K. K., Tunçalp, Ö., Wilson, M. G., Zarin, W., & Tricco, A. C. (2021). Scoping reviews: Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews, 10, Artículo 263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Pottier, P., Lagisz, M., Burke, S., Drobniak, S. M., Downing, P. A., Macartney, E. L., Martinig, A. R., Mizuno, A., Morrison, K., Pollo, P., Ricolfi, L., Tam, J., Williams, C., Yang, Y., & Nakagawa, S. (2024). Title, abstract and keywords: A practical guide to maximize the visibility and impact of academic papers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 291(2027), Artículo 20241222. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1222
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C. M., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
UNESCO. (2022). Recomendación sobre la ética de la inteligencia artificial. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137_spa
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Voyant Tools. (2025). Voyant Tools. https://voyant-tools.org/
World Health Organization. (2021). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/341996