Acces a un regime de pension et taux de remplacement des gains des hommes retraites : observations resultant d'un examen detaille des distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En depit de l'importance des regimes de pension agrees (RPA) dans les discussions sur le systeme canadien de revenu de retraite, tres peu d'etudes au Canada ont porte sur les resultats financiers des cotisants et des non-cotisants a un RPA. Le present document propose une comparaison de la distribution des taux de remplacement des gains des hommes a la retraite qui cotisaient ou ne cotisaient pas a un RPA en 1991 et/ou 1992, fondee sur des donnees de la banque de Donnees administratives longitudinales (DAL). Les distributions des taux de remplacement des gains des hommes qui ne cotisaient pas a un RPA sont beaucoup plus dispersees que celles des hommes qui cotisaient. En outre, bien que les taux moyens de remplacement des gains des deux groupes sont generalement comparables, les taux de remplacement medians des gains des non-cotisants sont plus faibles que ceux des cotisants, du fait de l'asymetrie des distributions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".