Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Replication workbook demonstrates measurement errors in AI exposure across occupations, suggesting improved methods for accuracy.
Replication workbook and manuscript for the ITEA Framework. The study shows that most AI-exposure indices share a unit-of-measurement error —the occupation— and that 82–94% of the variance in task-level AI exposure and knowledge codifiability lives *within* occupations. Measurement is reframed onto the work *activity* (O\*NET DWA), graded by the AXI apparatus across three technologies (classic automation, generative AI, agentic AI), codifiability/expropriability and responsibility, and validated in its own unit against real AI use (Anthropic Economic Index; 88.8% match; Spearman +0.17 with GenAI, ≈0 with classic automation). The workbook (XLSX, 12 sheets) contains the 47,810 graded tasks, the AEI real-use table (17,426 tasks), the occupation master (784), the variance decomposition (Table 1), the incremental-validity regression (Table 2), the robustness battery, and the source tables for Figures 6–7.- **Version:** `v1.8`
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alberto García-Lluis Valencia (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: