The Diversification and the Privatization of the Sources of Retirement Income in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent labour market developments in the context of population ageing have generated many changes concerning sources of retirement income. More precisely, this paper, which is based on two Statistics Canada surveys (Survey of Consumer Finances and Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, ) will look at the processes of diversification and privatisation of income sources of Canada’s retirees during the period 1980-2002. This study has used the concept of individualized income based on the economic family in order to consider economies of scale and revenue sharing. An appropriate assessment of the composition of retirement income sources has been realized, while discerning five distinct categories: net government transfer payments, CPP/QPP benefits, private pensions, investment income and employment income. The situation of older women living alone and of older immigrants has been more carefully analyzed in order to detect some particularities among those two vulnerable groups. The results of this study demonstrate that retirees’ income composition has undergone many changes. In addition, sources of retirement income have become substantially more diversified and privatized during the period under study. These adjustments are becoming essential in western societies in order to overcome the obstacles caused by population ageing that could disrupt pension systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".