MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020056487 · doi:10.2190/ag.75.1.e

Gender Differences in How Retirees Perceive Factors Influencing Unretirement

2012· article· en· W2020056487 on OpenAlexaff
Marjorie Armstrong‐Stassen, Sara Staats

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PsychologyHuman resourcesGender diversityGerontologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Returning to paid employment after retirement is occurring in many developed countries and can be expected to increase in the future. This study compared how women (n = 202) and men (n = 347) who had retired from a managerial or professional career occupation perceived factors associated with unretirement. Retired professional women perceived reasons to unretire, age-friendly human resource practices, and re-entry barriers to have greater influence on retirees' decision to unretire than retired managerial women and retired men. Both groups of retired women perceived training and development opportunities to have more influence than retired men. A major contribution of this study is the identification of pre-retirement career occupation as having an important effect on how female, but not male, retirees perceived the various factors. The findings suggest that researchers and employers need to consider the diversity that exists among retirees, not only gender differences but also differences among retired career women.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207