Faits saillants de l'Enquete canadienne sur les capacites financieres de 2009 dans le domaine de la retraite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'Enquete canadienne sur les capacites financieres (ECCF), dont les donnees ont ete diffusees par Statistique Canada en decembre 2009, a ete concue pour recueillir de l'information concernant les connaissances, les capacites et les comportements des Canadiens en ce qui a trait a la prise de decisions financieres. Outre les donnees sur les approches de gestion de l'argent et de planification financiere, l'ECCF a recueilli des donnees sur des questions pertinentes dans le contexte des discussions actuelles concernant le systeme de revenu de retraite du Canada. Par exemple, on a interroge les repondants retraites au sujet de leur niveau de vie financier a la retraite et on leur a demande si leur revenu de retraite etait suffisant pour payer confortablement leurs factures et respecter leurs obligations financieres. On a demande aux Canadiens en age de travailler comment ils se preparaient financierement en vue de la retraite. Le present compte rendu de recherche presente les faits saillants concernant les questions liees a la retraite, a partir de l'ECCF.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".