Automation index
How much of a Anthropologist’s job can AI already do?
A transcript and a code come earlier. Being in the field and not projecting too much do not.
This percentage does not predict how many people will lose their jobs.
Task comparison
IS WORK OVER?
Anthropologist
23%
AI can already do 23% of this job.
#292 / 643
View rankingAnthropologist
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Transcribe, code and write.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 40% | +7.2 |
Field, interviews and observation.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
Archive, literature and research design.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
Ethics, consent and communities.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Teaching, projects and outreach.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 16% | +2.6 |
Not extracting from people without giving anything back.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 14% | +2.2 |
| Total | 100% | 23% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- Transcribe, code and write
- Field, interviews and observation
- Archive, literature and research design
- Ethics, consent and communities
- Teaching, projects and outreach
- antropologo
- anthropologist
Sources for this job· O*NET 19-3091.00· ESCO/ISCO 2632
IS WORK OVER?
Clinical research associate
27%
#172 / 643
View rankingClinical research associate
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Protocol, CRF and the monitoring visit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 48% | +8.6 |
Source, the gap and the one that does not fit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 40% | +6.4 |
Adverse event, the deadline and not delaying.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Consent, the signature and the one who did not understand.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
The sponsor, the audit and not dressing the figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
Audit, and not leaving a made-up figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 12% | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 27% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- CRF
- monitoring
- adverse events
- informed consent
- source data
- trial audits
- clinical protocols
- site visits
Sources for this job· O*NET 11-9121.00· ESCO/ISCO 2131