MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985802201 · doi:10.1111/1468-2443.00024

Investing Public Pensions in the Stock Market: Implications for Risk Sharing, Capital Formation and Public Policy in the Developed and Developing World

2001· article· en· W1985802201 on OpenAlex
Deborah Lucas

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 Review of Finance · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionPopulation ageingCapital marketEconomicsPublic policyStock marketStock (firearms)Government (linguistics)PopulationBusinessDeveloped countryDeveloping countryLatin AmericansFinanceEconomic policyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns that existing public pension systems will be unable to pay benefits to a rapidly ageing population without sharp tax increases, and the prospect of higher average returns on stocks than on government securities, are drawing the attention of policy–makers worldwide to the option of investing public pension assets in stocks. Including stock market investments in public pension plans could improve risk sharing within and between generations, and could perhaps lead to faster market development in some countries. It could also result in excessive risk–taking, higher transactions costs and a false sense of increased financial security. This paper assesses these issues, with an emphasis on the considerations that are of special importance to developing markets. A contrast is drawn between the demographic outlook in East Asia and the major industrialized countries. Some lessons are drawn from the reform experience in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.254 · 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