Reflexive Planning for Later Life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by Giddens' (1991) concept of reflexive life planning and the notion of later life as a time of increasing social and financial risk, this research explores the idea of reflexive planning for later life. We utilize a conceptual model that incorporates three types of planning for later life: public protection, self-insurance, and self-protection. Drawing on qualitative, life-history data from a study of 51 mid-life and older Canadians, we examined whether individuals recognized the risks associated with later life, and if so, how far these recognitions entered into the preparations people made for their futures. We also considered how social circumstances facilitate and/or constrain an individual's planning for later life. Overall, most participants recognized risks and engaged in reflexive planning. On the other hand, there was a small group of non-planners, or day-by-dayers who were getting by with little preparation. We suggest that what distinguishes these groups is that the former have a future time perspective, which is associated with certain socio-demographic characteristics, including high household incomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it