Revenus de retraite des femmes et des hommes en France et au Québec : comment réduire les écarts ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In France and in Quebec, women’s retirement incomes are lower than men’s, mainly because women shoulder the major part of family responsibilities and, as a result, spend less time in the labor market before retirement. In addition, women continue to be victims of wage discrimination. Finally, because women earn less than men, they are unable to save as much for retirement. In this article, we compare women’s and men’s retirement incomes in France and Quebec and we examine measures that compensate for the fact that women’s careers are less continuous than those of men. Our analysis of the situation of the young women of today suggests that the gap between women’s and men’s pensions will continue to narrow but that significant inequality will persist. We conclude that in order to prevent deterioration of women’s economic situation after retirement, the measures designed to compensate for time devoted to caring for children should be expanded and that public pension plans or mandatory complementary plans should be reinforced, rather than weakened.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".