Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42510185›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Multi-Agent LLMs for Occupational Profiling: Psychometric Validation on 1636 Chinese Occupations.

Yuting Han, Xiaoyang Luo, Feng Ji, Xiang Kong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yuting HanCognitive Science and Allied Health School, Institute of Life and Health Sciences, Key Laboratory of Language and Cognitive Science (Ministry of Education), Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing 100083, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7604-9802
Xiaoyang LuoSchool of Information Science, Speech Acquisition and Intelligent Technology Laboratory (SAIT), Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing 100083, China.ORCID 0009-0005-7104-3272
Feng JiDepartment of Applied Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2051-5453
Xiang KongSchool of Linguistics and Language Resources, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing 100083, China.

Funding

Beijing Federation of Social Science Circles 23JYC019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occupation-level psychological profiles, such as RIASEC interests and Big Five personality, underpin career counseling, person-job matching, and workforce research, but building them at scale has been expensive and limited to a few national taxonomies. The O*NET Interest Profiler, the largest operationalization of RIASEC, took more than two decades of worker surveys, expert ratings, and iterative empirical calibration to construct, and the 2022 Chinese Occupational Classification has no comparable psychological database. Large language models (LLMs) offer a scalable alternative, but using them as raters raises issues that single-model designs do not resolve: inter-rater reliability, calibration to external benchmarks, and systematic psychometric validation. We propose a multi-agent LLM framework in which three LLMs serve as separate expert raters, in-context anchors align the rating scale, and a separate arbitrator resolves rater disagreements. We applied the framework to all 1636 occupations in the 2022 Chinese Occupational Classification, producing six RIASEC and five Big Five scores per occupation. RIASEC dimensions showed uniformly excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC [2,1] = 0.87 to 0.98) and high convergent correlations with O*NET (r = 0.84 to 0.96); structural validity received weak support (Tracey's C = 0.653, ns), though the dimensions differentiated occupational categories as theory predicts, and the profile space recovered the administrative taxonomy (adjusted Rand index, ARI = 0.418). Big Five absolute agreement was uniformly high, although ICC(2,1) values for Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were attenuated by variance compression and model-level calibration offsets rather than rater disagreement. The Big Five scores are, therefore, suited to broad occupational differentiation, particularly on Openness and Extraversion, rather than to fine-grained rank ordering on Conscientiousness or Neuroticism. The framework also yields the first occupation-level RIASEC and Big Five database for the 2022 Chinese Occupational Classification, openly available for applied use.

Indexed as

inter-rater reliabilityLLM-as-ratermulti-agent LLMoccupational profilingpsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID42510185
PMCPMC13405925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.