US dataswitch to UK
Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers
planning or conducting geological, locating and estimating probable natural gas and advising construction firms or government agencies on dam or road construction. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: analyzing and interpreting geological data. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Study the composition, structure, and other physical aspects of the Earth. May use geological, physics, and mathematics knowledge in exploration for oil, gas, minerals, or underground water; or in waste disposal, land reclamation, or other environmental problems. May study the Earth's internal composition, atmospheres, and oceans, and its magnetic, electrical, and gravitational forces. Includes mineralogists, paleontologists, stratigraphers, geodesists, and seismologists. The job title says “geoscientists”, “except hydrologists” or “geographers”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers is not one task. It is 32 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 31%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 47%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 44 out of 100 (39–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 32 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
8 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Analyzing and interpreting geological data
This is reading one thing and writing another: geological data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze and interpret geological data, using computer software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Interpreting geological datasets in software is exactly the kind of analysis these tools do well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing and interpreting geological, geochemical or geophysical information from sources
This is reading one thing and writing another: geological, geochemical or geophysical information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze and interpret geological, geochemical, or geophysical information from sources, such as survey data, well logs, bore holes, or aerial photos.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Well logs, survey data and aerial images are digital records software reads and interprets capably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Locating and reviewing research articles or environmental
This is reading one thing and writing another: research articles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Locate and review research articles or environmental, historical, or technical reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding and reviewing published reports and articles is one of the things software does fastest and best.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing geological maps, cross-sectional diagrams, charts or reports concerning mineral extraction, land use or resource management
This is reading one thing and writing another: geological maps, cross-sectional diagrams in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare geological maps, cross-sectional diagrams, charts, or reports concerning mineral extraction, land use, or resource management, using results of fieldwork or laboratory research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Maps, diagrams and reports are drawn from data already collected, which software turns into drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
9 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Communicating geological findings by writing research papers
The software now makes the first pass at geological findings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Communicate geological findings by writing research papers, participating in conferences, or teaching geological science at universities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up findings for publication is strong ground for software; presenting and teaching still needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Locating and estimating probable natural gas
The software now makes the first pass at probable natural gas, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Locate and estimate probable natural gas, oil, or mineral ore deposits or underground water resources, using aerial photographs, charts, or research or survey results.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Prospecting from survey data is partly computational, but calling a deposit still rests on expert interpretation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing strategies for more environmentally friendly resource extraction and reclamation
The software now makes the first pass at strategies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop strategies for more environmentally friendly resource extraction and reclamation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Extraction and reclamation strategies draw on published practice, though site-specific judgment shapes the answer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
15 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Planning or conducting geological, geochemical or geophysical field studies or surveys
This work happens in the physical world: geological, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan or conduct geological, geochemical, or geophysical field studies or surveys, sample collection, or drilling and testing programs used to collect data for research or application.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Survey and drilling programs can be planned on paper, but collecting the samples means being in the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains
This work happens in the physical world: the composition, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Investigate the composition, structure, or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement, or classification of soils, minerals, rocks, or fossil remains.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Examining and classifying rocks, soils and fossils means handling the actual material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Identifying risks for natural disasters
The ratings behind this row put risks well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify risks for natural disasters, such as mudslides, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Hazard models and mapped data are widely available, though local ground conditions still shape the judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 22 tasks
Developing applied software for the analysis and interpretation of geological data
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: applied software in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop applied software for the analysis and interpretation of geological data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing analysis software is among the strongest things these tools do, with plentiful reference material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing work plans to determine the effectiveness of activities for mitigating soil or groundwater contamination
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: work plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Review work plans to determine the effectiveness of activities for mitigating soil or groundwater contamination.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing a remediation plan against expected results is document analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing environmental, historical or technical reports and publications for accuracy
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: environmental, historical or technical reports and publications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review environmental, historical, or technical reports and publications for accuracy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking reports for accuracy against sources is careful document work software now handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching ways to reduce the ecological footprint of increasingly prevalent megacities
shifting to AIIt is the same call made over and over on ways, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Research ways to reduce the ecological footprint of increasingly prevalent megacities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: This is largely literature-based research, though turning it into workable proposals needs expert framing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Determining methods to incorporate geomethane or methane hydrates into global energy production or evaluating the potential environmental impacts of such incorporation
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at methods, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Determine methods to incorporate geomethane or methane hydrates into global energy production or evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such incorporation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Assessing methane hydrate options is research and modeling work software can substantially draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing ways to capture or using gases burned off as waste during oil production processes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at ways, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop ways to capture or use gases burned off as waste during oil production processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Flare gas capture options are documented engineering choices, though each field has its own constraints.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying new sources of platinum group elements for industrial applications
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at new sources of platinum group elements, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Identify new sources of platinum group elements for industrial applications, such as automotive fuel cells or pollution abatement systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Screening for platinum group sources uses documented survey data, though confirming a source needs fieldwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Locating potential sources of geothermal energy
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at potential sources of geothermal energy, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Locate potential sources of geothermal energy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Geothermal prospects can be narrowed from existing heat-flow and geology data before anyone visits.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching geomechanical or geochemical processes to be used in carbon sequestration projects
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at geomechanical, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Research geomechanical or geochemical processes to be used in carbon sequestration projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Modeling how rock and fluids react is documented science, but confirmation needs laboratory and field work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with medical or health researchers to address health problems related to geological materials or processes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at medical or health researchers, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Collaborate with medical or health researchers to address health problems related to geological materials or processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Cross-disciplinary health research depends on working relationships with medical researchers as much as on data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining ways to mitigate the negative consequences of mineral dust dispersion
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put ways well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Determine ways to mitigate the negative consequences of mineral dust dispersion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Dust mitigation methods are documented, but choosing what works needs knowledge of the specific operation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying possible sites for carbon sequestration projects
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put possible sites well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Identify possible sites for carbon sequestration projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Candidate storage sites can be screened from existing geological data before drilling confirms them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying deposits of construction materials suitable for use as concrete aggregates
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put deposits of construction materials suitable well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Identify deposits of construction materials suitable for use as concrete aggregates, road fill, or other applications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Screening survey data for usable aggregate is desk analysis, though confirming it needs a site visit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing ground or surface water movement to provide advice on issues
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for ground, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Assess ground or surface water movement to provide advice on issues, such as waste management, route and site selection, or the restoration of contaminated sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Groundwater modeling is well documented, though advice on a contaminated site is signed by a qualified professional.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying historical climate change indicators found in locations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: historical climate change indicators found, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Study historical climate change indicators found in locations, such as ice sheets or rock formations to develop climate change models.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Building climate models is computational, but the ice and rock records behind them are collected in the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising construction firms or government agencies on dam or road construction
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for construction firms, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise construction firms or government agencies on dam or road construction, foundation design, land use, or resource management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Advice on foundations or dams follows published practice, but a qualified professional puts their name to it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting geological or geophysical studies to provide information for use in regional development
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: geological, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct geological or geophysical studies to provide information for use in regional development, site selection, or development of public works projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Site studies for public works need field data gathered on the ground before any analysis happens.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing geological mine maps, monitor mine structural integrity or advising and monitoring mining crews
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: geological mine maps, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Design geological mine maps, monitor mine structural integrity, or advise and monitor mining crews.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Mine maps can be drafted digitally, but monitoring ground stability and crews happens underground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing advice on the safe siting of new nuclear reactor projects or methods of nuclear waste management
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Provide advice on the safe siting of new nuclear reactor projects or methods of nuclear waste management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Nuclear siting advice rests on specialist judgment and formal responsibility, not just published data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring characteristics of the Earth
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: characteristics of the earth, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Measure characteristics of the Earth, such as gravity or magnetic fields, using equipment such as seismographs, gravimeters, torsion balances, or magnetometers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking gravity, magnetic or seismic readings means setting instruments up in the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing industrial diamonds or abrasives
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: industrial diamonds, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Test industrial diamonds or abrasives, soil, or rocks to determine their geological characteristics, using optical, x-ray, heat, acid, or precision instruments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Laboratory testing of rocks and minerals means handling samples and instruments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting construction projects to analyze engineering problems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: construction projects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Inspect construction projects to analyze engineering problems, using test equipment or drilling machinery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Inspecting a construction site with test equipment means being on the site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $101,920a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 23,470in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: geological data in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analyzing and interpreting geological data and analyzing and interpreting geological, geochemical or geophysical information from sources. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where the composition gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Analyzing and interpreting geological data is going; investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains is not.
So, given all that: 31% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 47% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 32 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles investigating the composition, structure or history of the Earth's crust through the collection, examination, measurement or classification of soils, minerals, rocks or fossil remains, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was geological technicians, except hydrologic technicians: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 47.7% less. Your own job splits about 31/69: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “plan or conduct geological, geochemical, or geophysical field studies or surveys, sample…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Geological Technicians, Except Hydrologic Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan or conduct geological, geochemical, or geophysical field studies or surveys, sample collection…, and their equivalent is to participate in geological, geophysical, geochemical, hydrographic, or oceanographic surveys, prospecting field trips, exploratory…. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $53,350 against your $101,920, 47.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Historians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already review environmental, historical, or technical reports and publications for accuracy, and their equivalent is to prepare publications and exhibits, or review those prepared by others, to ensure their…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $76,750 against your $101,920, 24.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 3,450 of those jobs against 23,470 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 15% as many seats.
Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already study historical climate change indicators found in locations, and their equivalent is to make legislative recommendations related to climate change or environmental management, based on climate…. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $82,220 against your $101,920, 19.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 31% of its task weight, across 32 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Physical scientists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Physical scientists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for geoscientists / except hydrologists / geographers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 31% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for geoscientists / except hydrologists / geographers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for geoscientists / except hydrologists / geographers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 32 official task statements scored for Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers (United States, SOC 19-2042), 31% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 44 out of 100 (range 39–50, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Develop applied software for the analysis and interpretation of geological data” (83/100, very high); “Locate and review research articles or environmental, historical, or technical reports” (83/100, very high); “Analyze and interpret geological, geochemical, or geophysical information from sources, such as survey data, well logs, bore holes, or aerial photos” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers” stay human?
- About 47% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inspect construction projects to analyze engineering problems, using test equipment or drilling machinery” (7/100, minimal); “Test industrial diamonds or abrasives, soil, or rocks to determine their geological characteristics, using optical, x-ray, heat, acid, or precision instruments” (8/100, minimal); “Measure characteristics of the Earth, such as gravity or magnetic fields, using equipment such as seismographs, gravimeters, torsion balances, or magnetometers” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 31% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 47% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 32 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.