ArticleSalud colectiva2025
[Narrative objects of science: From industrialization to the cobotization of the interpretive experience].
Article in Salud colectiva, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drawing on critical theory and philosophical hermeneutics, this essay examines the processes of industrialization and "cobotization" of scientific practice, understood as the incorporation of generative artificial intelligence into the production and validation of scientific knowledge. The text addresses, first, the narrative objects of science, understood as devices for building consensus within scientific communities; second, the effects of the industrialization of scientific practice, the expansion of the scientific-editorial industrial complex, and the loss of the social meaning of the text; and third, the shift from industrialization to cobotization, both in the interpretive experience of science and in the processes of scientific validation that technify communicative action. These processes, which erode and disarticulate language communities, highlight the need to recover the interpretive experience as an intrinsically human action and to revalue our own environments of scientific validation, in order to restore the relational, situated, and reflective character of communicative action that is intrinsic to the narrative objects of science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.