MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038897542 · doi:10.7208/9780226309989-004

Micro-modeling of retirement in Belgium

2002· article· en· W2038897542 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Déllis, Raphaël Desmet, Alain Jousten, Sergio Perelman

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)Social securityIncentiveEconomicsProbit modelPensionProbitEconometricsEstimationOrdered probitEconometric modelActuarial scienceEmpirical evidenceMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper studies the retirement incentives for elderly people in Belgium. We model the incentive structure built into the various public retirement and early retirement systems. First, we compute indicators of benefit entitlement such as the social security wealth. Then, we use three different incentive measures based on the notion of social security wealth. In a third step, we perform an empirical estimation of micro-econometric probit and option value models. From our exceptionally rich and broad database, we are able to compute rather accurate measures of all individuals’ pension wealth, as well as of the implicit tax rates the elderly workers face in case of delayed retirement. We find strong evidence of social security based financial incentives inducing most workers to retire at the earliest possible stage. Finally, we use the derived parameter estimates from the probit models to simulate the responses to various policy changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207