MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pension reform in China

2008· article· en· W1982863360 on OpenAlex
Felix Salditt, Peter Whiteford, Willem Adema

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Security Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityChinaScope (computer science)PensionBusinessPopulationPopulation ageingEconomic growthNational PensionOld Age SecurityFinanceActuarial scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceBirth rateMarket economySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article analyses China's progress in creating a national old‐age insurance system, providing a detailed description of the system and an assessment of the degree to which it has so far realised its primary goal of social security for more people. Since 1997, there have been many reforms, but despite progress, the scope of the system is limited, with the coverage rate among urban employees being below 50 per cent. The rural population largely remains outside the system, and it seems likely that the majority of the population will be dependent on family support for many years to come. There is a “demographic window” until around 2015 to address these shortcomings. Extending coverage through improved compliance by employees and companies as well as the continuing financial commitment towards the National Social Security Fund are crucial to create the financial and institutional basis that can cushion the effects of a much older population in the years ahead.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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