MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136153010 · doi:10.1787/3ed32d94-en

Demand for AI skills in jobs

2021· paratext· en· W3136153010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariagrazia Squicciarini, Heike Nachtigall

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD science, technology and industry working papers · 2021
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkWork (physics)CreativityBusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceMarketingPsychologyEngineeringManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents new evidence about occupations requiring artificial intelligence (AI)-related competencies, based on online job posting data and previous work on identifying and measuring developments in AI. It finds that the total number of AI-related jobs increased over time in the four countries considered – Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States – and that a growing number of jobs require multiple AI-related skills. Skills related to communication, problem solving, creativity and teamwork gained relative importance over time, as did complementary software-related and AI-specific competencies. As expected, many AI-related jobs are posted in categories such as “professionals” and “technicians and associated professionals”, though AI-related skills are in demand, to varying degrees, across almost all sectors of the economy. In all countries considered, the sectors “Information and Communication”, “Financial and Insurance Activities” and “Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities” are the most AI job-intensive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD science, technology and industry working papersSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207