US dataswitch to UK
Sociologists
analyzing and interpreting data to increase the understanding of human social behavior, teaching sociology and presenting research findings at professional meetings. 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 data to increase the understanding of human social behavior. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, collecting data about the attitudes, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Study human society and social behavior by examining the groups and social institutions that people form, as well as various social, religious, political, and business organizations. May study the behavior and interaction of groups, trace their origin and growth, and analyze the influence of group activities on individual members. The job title says “sociologists”. The real job is the part underneath: collecting data about the attitudes. 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 sociologists is not one task. It is 15 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is collecting data about the attitudes, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 16%
- changing shape
- 33%
- staying human
- 51%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 40 out of 100 (34–46 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 15 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 sociologists 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.
- 2 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
2 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 data to increase the understanding of human social behavior
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Analyze and interpret data to increase the understanding of human social behavior.” (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: Analyzing and interpreting social data is statistical work software does well, with abundant documented methods behind it.
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 publications and reports containing research findings
This is reading one thing and writing another: publications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare publications and reports containing research findings.” (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 findings into papers and reports is structured writing software drafts to a standard researchers would edit lightly.
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.
Changing shape
5 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.
Developing, implementing and evaluating methods of data collection, such as questionnaires or interviews
The software now makes the first pass at methods of data collection, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop, implement, and evaluate methods of data collection, such as questionnaires or interviews.” (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: Questionnaire and interview design follows well-published method, though running the fieldwork involves real participants.
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.
Planning and conducting research to develop and test theories about societal issues
The software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan and conduct research to develop and test theories about societal issues such as crime, group relations, poverty, and aging.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Software can draft study designs and test ideas, but original theory-building still needs heavy expert rework.
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 4/4.
Explaining sociological research to the general public
The software now makes the first pass at sociological research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Explain sociological research to the general public.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Explaining research in plain language is writing software does well from the published work.
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.
Writing grants to obtain funding for research projects
The software now makes the first pass at grants, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Write grants to obtain funding for research projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (54–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Grant applications can be drafted, but shaping one to a particular funder takes serious expert editing.
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
8 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.
Teaching sociology
This work happens in the physical world: sociology, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach sociology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course content is easy to draft, but teaching a class is live work in front of students.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Collecting data about the attitudes
This work happens in the physical world: data, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collect data about the attitudes, values, and behaviors of people in groups, using observation, interviews, and review of documents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Collecting data by observing and interviewing people means being with them, even if document review is desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting research findings at professional meetings
This work happens in the physical world: research findings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Present research findings at professional meetings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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: Slides can be drafted quickly, but presenting to a conference means standing up and answering questions.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing problem intervention procedures, using techniques, interviews, consultations, role playing and participant observation of group interactions
This work happens in the physical world: problem intervention procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop problem intervention procedures, using techniques such as interviews, consultations, role playing, and participant observation of group interactions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Designing an intervention depends on interviews, role play and watching a specific group up close.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 5 tasks
Developing approaches to the solution of groups' problems
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at approaches, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop approaches to the solution of groups' problems, based on research findings in sociology and related disciplines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Software can propose approaches from published findings, though turning them into workable solutions needs an expert.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing work of statistical clerks
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles work of statistical clerks and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct work of statistical clerks, statisticians, and others who compile and evaluate research data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Directing statistical staff means managing people day to day, though the underlying tasks are well documented.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with and advising individuals
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles and advising individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with and advise individuals such as administrators, social workers, and legislators regarding social issues and policies, as well as the implications of research findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Advising officials on policy rests on an expert’s judgment and the confidence they build with the people deciding.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with research workers in other disciplines
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles research workers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with research workers in other disciplines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working across disciplines depends on colleagues choosing to work with you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Observing group interactions and role affiliations to collect data
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: group interactions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Observe group interactions and role affiliations to collect data, identify problems, evaluate progress, and determine the need for additional change.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Watching a group interact to spot problems and progress means being in the room with them.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $106,030a 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
- 2,260in 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: methods of data collection in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analyzing and interpreting data to increase the understanding of human social behavior and preparing publications and reports containing research findings. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where data 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
Start with what does not change: collecting data about the attitudes is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 16% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 33% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 51% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 15 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Analyzing and interpreting data to increase the understanding of human social behavior is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to methods of data collection, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether data is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near developing, implementing and evaluating methods of data collection, such as questionnaires or interviews. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. 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 sociologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was anthropologists and archeologists: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 33.3% less. Your own job splits about 16/84: 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 “develop, implement, and evaluate methods of data collection”, 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.
Anthropologists and Archeologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop problem intervention procedures, using techniques, and their equivalent is to develop intervention procedures, using techniques. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $70,770 against your $106,030, 33.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Epidemiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already present research findings at professional meetings, and their equivalent is to conduct research to develop methodologies, instrumentation, and procedures for medical application, analyzing data…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $87,220 against your $106,030, 17.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Social Science Research Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already present research findings at professional meetings, and their equivalent is to present research findings to groups of people. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 72% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (63/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $61,990 against your $106,030, 41.5% 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: 16% of its task weight, across 15 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like collecting data about the attitudes arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
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 Social and humanities 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 Social and humanities 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 sociologists, 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 16% 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 sociologists. 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 sociologists 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 Sociologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 15 official task statements scored for Sociologists (United States, SOC 19-3041), 16% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 40 out of 100 (range 34–46, 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 “Sociologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare publications and reports containing research findings” (83/100, very high); “Analyze and interpret data to increase the understanding of human social behavior” (83/100, very high); “Write grants to obtain funding for research projects” (58/100, partial). 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 “Sociologists” stay human?
- About 51% 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: “Observe group interactions and role affiliations to collect data, identify problems, evaluate progress, and determine the need for additional change” (7/100, minimal); “Develop problem intervention procedures, using techniques such as interviews, consultations, role playing, and participant observation of group interactions” (11/100, minimal); “Collect data about the attitudes, values, and behaviors of people in groups, using observation, interviews, and review of documents” (11/100, 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 “Sociologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 16% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 51% 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 Sociologists 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 15 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.
- 2 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.