MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1945348177

국민연금의 지배구조와 기금운용체계

2007· article· ko· W1945348177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
전창환

Bibliographic record

Venue경제와사회 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPension planPensionBusinessPlan (archaeology)Investment (military)Pension fundFinancePolitical scienceGeographyLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

이 글의 핵심적인 분석 과제는 2006년 말 국민연금개혁안에서 빠져 재논의되지 못했던 국민연금의 지배구조(governance) 및 기금운용체계의 문제점을 살펴보는 것이다. 이를 위해 우선 국민연금의 지배구조 및 기금운용체계의 의의와 중요성을 명확히 할 것이다. 다음으로 현행 국민연금의 지배구조와 기금운용체계의 문제점을 살펴보고 이에 대한 정부 및 여당의 개편안을 비판적으로 검토하고자 한다. 논의의 준거가 되는 공적연금 지배구조의 두 대표적 유형으로 캐나다의 두 연기금, 즉 CPP(Canada Pension Plan)와 QPP(Quebec Pension Plan) 그리고 두 연기금 적립금의 운용기관인 캐나다연기금운용회사(CPPIB: Canada Pension Plan Investment Board)와 퀘벡저축투자금고(CDPQ: Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec)를 삼았다. 그 이유는 신자유주의자들 간에 CPPIB의 지배구조가 전 세계적으로 공적연금 지배구조 구조 중에서 가장 바람직하고 이상적이라고 알려져 있기 때문이며, 또한 흥미롭게도 CPPIB가 CDPQ를 반면교사로 해서 등장했기 때문이다.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.022

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue경제와사회Same topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207