Retraite anticipée ou extension de la vie professionnelle? Les aspirations des professionnels syndiqués de 50 ans et plus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Two opposing retirement options--early retirement or prolonged working life--are being presented in the burgeoning literature related to the ineluctable ageing of the work force. Both are allegedly proposed for economic reasons and claim to meet the expectations and needs of ageing workers. But what in reality are the retirement goals of older workers and which factors, individual and organizational, affect the decision to retire? In tackling this question, the article draws on a survey conducted among workers from 15 unions, mostly affiliated with the Quebec Council of Managers and Professionals. Based on data from 1,319 respondents, the findings indicate that the majority of professionals would prefer to retire earlier, that 60 is much more considered a normal retirement age than 65, and that only 8% of the respondents wish to continue working after 65--and this mostly out of economic necessity, not choice. The factors that underlie this preference for early retirement are then identified and discussed." (SUMMARY IN ENG AND SPA)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".