Automated Coding of Job Descriptions From a General Population Study: Overview of Existing Tools, Their Application and Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Automatic job coding tools were developed to reduce the laborious task of manually assigning job codes based on free-text job descriptions in census and survey data sources, including large occupational health studies. The objective of this study is to provide a case study of comparative performance of job coding and JEM (Job-Exposure Matrix)-assigned exposures agreement using existing coding tools. METHODS: We compared three automatic job coding tools [AUTONOC, CASCOT (Computer-Assisted Structured Coding Tool), and LabourR], which were selected based on availability, coding of English free-text into coding systems closely related to the 1988 version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88), and capability to perform batch coding. We used manually coded job histories from the AsiaLymph case-control study that were translated into English prior to auto-coding to assess their performance. We applied two general population JEMs to assess agreement at exposure level. Percent agreement and PABAK (Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa) were used to compare the agreement of results from manual coders and automatic coding tools. RESULTS: The coding per cent agreement among the three tools ranged from 17.7 to 26.0% for exact matches at the most detailed 4-digit ISCO-88 level. The agreement was better at a more general level of job coding (e.g. 43.8-58.1% in 1-digit ISCO-88), and in exposure assignments (median values of PABAK coefficient ranging 0.69-0.78 across 12 JEM-assigned exposures). Based on our testing data, CASCOT was found to outperform others in terms of better agreement in both job coding (26% 4-digit agreement) and exposure assignment (median kappa 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that agreement on job coding was generally low for the three tools but noted a higher degree of agreement in assigned exposures. The results indicate the need for study-specific evaluations prior to their automatic use in general population studies, as well as improvements in the evaluated automatic coding tools.
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 | 0.060 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".