MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

8274418 SOCcerNET: computer-based occupation coding that facilitates re-coding occupations to a unified system when pooling studies

2025· article· en· W4414964227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Russ, Pabitra R Josse, Leila Orszag, Jonas S. Almeida, Melissa C. Friesen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMidwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety
KeywordsPoolingCoding (social sciences)Set (abstract data type)Code (set theory)Source code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> Pooling studies increases the study power to evaluate occupational risk factors, but this often requires recoding them into a unified occupation coding system. Administrative crosswalks between classification systems may not directly exist and often have one-to-many relationships between codes. In this study, we describe a novel tool, SOCcerNET, that can use both the original free-text job description and occupation codes from other systems or versions to code jobs into US SOC2010. <h3>Methods</h3> SOCcerNET uses the free-text job title and job tasks and, if available, any previously assigned occupation code to classify English-language job descriptions to US SOC2010. Currently, SOCcerNET can utilize previously assigned US SOC1980 codes, Canadian NOC2011 and NOC2016 codes, and ISCO1988 codes. SOCcerNET incorporates administrative crosswalks and uses small language models that first converts (embeds) the free-text information to numbers; it then classifies using a dense classification neural network and provides a score for each of the 840 codes. We validated SOCcerNET using 11,943 jobs coded to SOC1980 (Set 1), 428 jobs coded to NOC2011 (Set 2), and 1500 jobs coded to ISCO1988 (Set 3); all sets were expert-coded to SOC2010. <h3>Results</h3> Compared to using only job title and task, incorporating the previous occupation coding improved SOCcerNET’s agreement (based on highest scoring code) with expert codes from 56.3% to 69.9% for Set 1, from 68.8% to 74.4% for Set 2, and from 44.7% to 46.5% for Set 3. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Using previously assigned occupation codes improved the ability of SOCcerNET to correctly identify the expert-assigned code versus using only the free-text responses, though the improvement was better for SOC1980 and NOC2011/2016 than for ISCO1988. In addition, the SOCcerNET score can help triage jobs for expert review. With additional training data, SOCcerNET can be extended to other coding systems. <h3>Funding</h3> This work is funded by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207