Computer-based coding of free-text job descriptions to efficiently identify occupations in epidemiological studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mapping job titles to standardised occupation classification (SOC) codes is an important step in identifying occupational risk factors in epidemiological studies. Because manual coding is time-consuming and has moderate reliability, we developed an algorithm called SOCcer (Standardized Occupation Coding for Computer-assisted Epidemiologic Research) to assign SOC-2010 codes based on free-text job description components. METHODS: Job title and task-based classifiers were developed by comparing job descriptions to multiple sources linking job and task descriptions to SOC codes. An industry-based classifier was developed based on the SOC prevalence within an industry. These classifiers were used in a logistic model trained using 14 983 jobs with expert-assigned SOC codes to obtain empirical weights for an algorithm that scored each SOC/job description. We assigned the highest scoring SOC code to each job. SOCcer was validated in 2 occupational data sources by comparing SOC codes obtained from SOCcer to expert assigned SOC codes and lead exposure estimates obtained by linking SOC codes to a job-exposure matrix. RESULTS: For 11 991 case-control study jobs, SOCcer-assigned codes agreed with 44.5% and 76.3% of manually assigned codes at the 6-digit and 2-digit level, respectively. Agreement increased with the score, providing a mechanism to identify assignments needing review. Good agreement was observed between lead estimates based on SOCcer and manual SOC assignments (κ 0.6-0.8). Poorer performance was observed for inspection job descriptions, which included abbreviations and worksite-specific terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Although some manual coding will remain necessary, using SOCcer may improve the efficiency of incorporating occupation into large-scale epidemiological studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".