Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602311›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

From the logic of coordination to goal-directed reasoning: the agentic turn in artificial intelligence.

Tsehaye Haidemariam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tsehaye HaidemariamBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rise of agentic artificial intelligence (Agentic AI) marks a transition from systems that optimize externally specified objectives to systems capable of representing, evaluating, and revising their own goals. Whereas earlier AI architectures executed fixed task specifications, agentic systems maintain recursive loops of perception, evaluation, goal-updating, and action, allowing them to sustain and adapt purposive activity across temporal and organizational scales. This paper argues that Agentic AI is not an incremental extension of large language models (LLMs) or autonomous agents in the sense we know it from classical AI and multi-agent systems, but a reconstitution of agency itself within computational substrates. Building on the logic of coordination, delegation, and self-regulation developed in early agent-based process management systems, we propose a general theory of synthetic purposiveness, where agency emerges as a distributed and self-maintaining property of artificial systems operating in open-ended environments. We develop the concept of synthetic teleology-the engineered capacity of artificial systems to generate and regulate goals through ongoing self-evaluation-and we formalize its dynamics through a recursive goal-maintenance equation. We further outline design patterns, computational semantics, and measurable indicators of purposiveness (e.g., teleological coherence, adaptive recovery, and reflective efficiency), providing a foundation for the systematic design and empirical investigation of agentic behaviour. By reclaiming agency as a first-class construct in artificial intelligence, we argue for a paradigm shift from algorithmic optimization toward goal-directed reasoning and purposive orchestration-one with far-reaching epistemic, societal, and institutional consequences.

Indexed as

Agentic AIartificial agencyautonomous systemsdistributed intelligencegoal-directed reasoning

Identifiers

PMID41602311
PMCPMC12833085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.