ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Evaluation of using the SOCcer automated occupation auto-coding algorithm to assist expert coding of job descriptions.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveSystems to automatically code job descriptions to standardized occupations, such as SOCcer, reduce the burden of expert coding in occupational studies, but expert coding remains needed. We evaluated how frequently experts select a SOCcer-suggested code when using the SOCAssign platform, which shows SOCcer's top 10 scoring codes (Si, with i denoting results ranking, compared to independent coding).
methodsWe evaluated 2 protocols for SOCcer-assisted coding using the SOCAssign platform that we undertook when we had insufficient resources to employ the best practice of independent double-coding, with discordances resolved by consensus. Protocol 1 used a single coder, with a supervisor providing additional review for a subset based on features we identified that were more likely to indicate potential discordance between coders. Protocol 2 allocated jobs to be coded by 1 or 2 coders based on the SOCcer score (the probability an expert would have selected that code) for the highest scoring code (S1 score) and the score difference between the top 2 scoring codes. For comparison purposes, we included a third set of jobs that had previously undergone independent expert coding. For each job, we identified if the expert selected the top-scoring (S1) code, or one of the top 3 (S1-3) or top 10 (S1-10) scoring codes from SOCcer and compared findings across coding protocols, overall and by S1 score.
resultsIn Protocol 1, 25% of 6,824 jobs underwent supervisory review. In Protocol 2, jobs with an S1 score <0.2 or S1 - S2 score difference of <0.2 underwent coding by 2 experts (45% of 7,381 jobs); the remainder were coded by one expert. In both protocols and in independent coding, experts selected S1, one of S1-3 or one of S1-10 with similar prevalences (48% to 50%, 62% to 64%, and 73% to 74%, respectively). Expert coders were more likely to deviate from the SOCcer-suggested list for jobs with low score/score differences (39% to 44%) than high score/score differences (11% to 13%). In all evaluations, the frequency of selecting a SOCcer-suggested code increased with score, with some attenuation observed when the S1 - S2 score difference was <0.2.
conclusionsOur evaluations provide support for SOCcer-assisted expert coding. We provide recommendations for identifying jobs where multiple reviewers may be most needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.