MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537181000 · doi:10.3138/cpp.34.4.s95

The Adequacy of Retirement Savings: Subjective Survey Reports by Retired Canadians

2008· article· en· W1537181000 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Şule Alan, Kadir Atalay, Thomas F. Crossley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyDemographic economicsEconomicsPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine retired Canadians’ subjective survey reports of satisfaction with finances, and with life, relative to the period before retirement. Many more retired Canadians report enjoying life more than before retirement than the converse, and in 2002 three-quarters of retired Canadians reported being either as satisfied or more satisfied with their finances than they were in the year prior to retirement. The most significant correlate of financial dissatisfaction that our analysis uncovers is involuntary retirement and, in particular, involuntary retirement associated with poor health.

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)0.009
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207