Acces a un regime de pension et taux de remplacement des gains chez les couples canadiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present document propose une comparaison des taux de remplacement des gains obtenus a la retraite par un echantillon de couples maries et en union libre, dont le mari etait age de 55 a 57 ans en 1991. Cette comparaison se fonde sur des donnees de la banque de Donnees administratives longitudinales (DAL). L'accent est mis sur les resultats des couples dont un ou les deux conjoints avaient un regime de pension agree (RPA) et des couples sans RPA. Les taux de remplacement des gains obtenus par les couples sans RPA sont davantage disperses que ceux des couples ayant un RPA. Lorsque observes au point median de la distribution des gains avant la retraite, on constate que les taux medians de remplacement des gains des couples sans RPA sont de 3 a 6 points de pourcentage plus faibles que ceux des couples ayant un RPA. Par contre, les taux moyens de remplacement des gains des couples sans RPA sont generalement de 6 a 12 points de pourcentage plus eleves que ceux des couples ayant un RPA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".