Pooled Registered Pension Plans: Pension Saviour - Or a New Tax on the Poor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2012, the regulatory framework for a promising new retirement savings vehicle, Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs), was passed into Canadian federal legislation. The hope is that PRPPs will improve pension coverage and retirement-saving outcomes by reducing costs and improving investment returns through asset pooling and third-party administration. Since most employers under federal pension legislation are already providing pension coverage to their employees, PRPPs were introduced in the expectation that provincial governments would follow the federal lead and adopt PRPPs for the vast majority of Canadian workers under provincial pension jurisdiction. As of now, only the province of Quebec has announced its intention to create its own distinct version of PRPPs, branded Voluntary Retirement Savings Plans. Although the intentions behind PRPPs are commendable, PRPPs represent only a mild improvement over existing options such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) and defined-contribution (DC) pension plans. This is because tax rules for PRPPs – essentially identical to those that apply to RRSPs and similar to those for DC plans – will prevent many private-sector workers from saving enough for retirement and from receiving retirement income in the form of a life pension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".