MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982289166 · doi:10.1017/s0714980813000202

Health and Disability as Determinants for Involuntary Retirement of People with Disabilities

2013· article· fr· W1982289166 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret Denton, Jennifer Plenderleith, James Chowhan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth and Retirement StudyPsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The association of health and disability factors on the perception of involuntary retirement in Canada was investigated with a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey data. The study investigated the role that choice or control plays in the decision to retire. Study participants were adults, with disabilities, aged 45 to 74 and who retired during the period 2001-2006. The analysis revealed that health at the time of retirement was not significantly associated with the perception of involuntary retirement, whereas disability characteristics were strongly associated with the type of retirement when health and other characteristics were controlled. Further, persons with disabilities who had to permanently retire because of their condition were eight times more likely to retire involuntarily than those whose conditions did not force involuntary retirement, suggesting the importance that control over the retirement decision has on the perception of involuntary retirement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207