MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851827384 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-032

On Removing “Age” and Especially “Old Age” as a Criterion in Social Programs

2015· article· en· W1851827384 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michel Grignon, Byron G. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentivePensionHealth careDemographic economicsWork (physics)LongevityGerontologyRest (music)Actuarial scienceEconomicsBusinessMedicineEconomic growthFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age, measured as years since birth, is a widely used criterion to determine eligibility for pension, health care and other social benefits. However, keeping age markers fixed ignores large and continuing gains in longevity and health, and can create work incentives (or disincentives) that become increasingly problematic over time; beyond that, age is a poor criterion for access to health care services. Removing age markers and introducing a guaranteed annual income would provide a base on which to rest policies that could be expected to lead to better social outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207