Pension Coverage and Retirement Savings of Canadian Families, 1986 to 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the degree to which Canadian families are covered by private pension plans and document how their savings for retirement (made through contributions to tax-assisted retirement savings programs) have evolved over the last two decades. We find that two-parent families, lone-parent families and other individuals located in the bottom quintile of the earnings distribution are not better prepared for retirement than their counterparts were in the mid-1980s or the early 1990s. On the other hand, those located in the top quintile are better prepared than their counterparts were in the mid-1980s or the early 1990s. As a result, Canadian families' preparedness for retirement, which was fairly unequal in the mid-1980s, has become even more unequal over the last two decades. This finding has important implications for the future. Recent research has shown that the maturation of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (C/QPPs) has led to a substantial reduction in income inequality among the elderly between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s. In the absence of offsetting trends, the growing inequality in Canadian families preparedness for retirement implies that that the distribution of family income among seniors should become more unequal in the years to come.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".