MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of the Automatic Balancing Mechanism for the Public Pension in Japan on the Extreme Elderly

2012· article· en· W1514003801 on OpenAlexafffund
Yosuke Fujisawa, Johnny Siu‐Hang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety of Actuaries
KeywordsSocial securityPensionDependency ratioGovernment (linguistics)Mechanism (biology)Affect (linguistics)DemographicsOld Age SecurityEconomicsFinancial securityFertilityBusinessDemographic economicsFinanceDemographyBirth ratePsychologySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most developed countries are seeking ways to maintain a sustainable social security system. Japan is no exception. The old-age dependency ratio in Japan is currently 35% and is expected to be 74% in 2050. Recently the Japanese government has adopted an automatic balancing mechanism, which gradually reduces the real price of the public pension through a reduction of inflation adjustments. The reduction, depending on future demographics, is a random process, so the elderly, in particular the extreme elderly, have to take the risk of receiving an inadequate public pension. The objectives of this paper are threefold. First, we review the recent trends in Japanese mortality and explain the underlying longevity issues that led to the automatic balancing mechanism. Second, by means of stochastic mortality and fertility modeling, we analyze how demographic changes will affect the future of public pensions in Japan. Third, we demonstrate, on the basis of the stochastic projections we made, how the automatic balancing mechanism will affect the financial security for people who live beyond age 100.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Actuarial JournalSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207