Évolution de la composition du revenu des personnes âgées au Canada entre 1980 et 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment une société vieillissante peut-elle supporter financièrement un accroissement important du nombre de ses citoyens âgés ? L’OCDE a souligné l’importance de la diversité des sources de revenu à la retraite. Or on connaît mal l’évolution récente des sources de revenu des retraités au Canada. Cette étude, basée sur deux enquêtes de Statistique Canada, porte sur l’évolution de la composition du revenu des personnes âgées au Canada pendant la période 1980-2002. Plus précisément, l’auteur vérifie s’il existe une tendance à la diversification et à la privatisation des sources de revenu à la retraite. Il observe l’ensemble de la population âgée, puis prête une attention spéciale aux femmes âgées vivant seules et aux immigrants âgés. Des mesures de diversification et de privatisation des sources de revenu sont proposées. L’étude met en lumière l’évolution « tranquille » mais considérable de la société canadienne relativement à la composition du revenu des aînés au cours des deux dernières décennies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".