Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is based on most of the findings presented in a study of the Régie des rentes du Québec on the evaluation of the Quebec system of financial security in retirement as compared with that of other industrialized countries. However, it should be mentioned that the portrait presented in that study dates from the mid-1990s, which means that it does not reflect the effects of recent reforms undertaken in some countries, nor does it necessarily reflect the current situation regarding the economic well-being of older persons. The following facts nevertheless emerge: -despite the diversity of income security systems for retirement, the living standard of older persons was, in the mid-1990s, more or less equivalent to that of persons of working age; -the Canadian income security system for retirement is more oriented towards reducing the poverty of older persons, by the increase in income for the poorest, than towards reducing income inequalities. -in a comparison of the countries under study, the OECD considers that Canada, and, indirectly, Quebec, was, in the mid-1990s, the country which had the least difficultymaintaining the economic wellbeing of the retired and protecting the most vulnerable categories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".