MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046781594 · doi:10.1080/17486830902789731

Can private pension funds be socially responsible? The US experience

2009· article· en· W2046781594 on OpenAlexaff
Tessa Hebb, Larry Beeferman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Social Welfare · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionBusinessPrivate pensionFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For much of the relevant literature, the “Anglo-liberal” model is the least satisfactory approach to the provision of retirement pensions. This article addresses a particular aspect of the Anglo-liberal model, the investment of retirement savings in equities and other interest-bearing assets, to augment retirement benefits. The management of such investment pays insufficient attention to the externalities that may arise from corporate decision-making. Nevertheless, several US pension funds have embraced labour-friendly investment practices, which are vital to the well-being of employees, as well as the maintenance of sustainable and vibrant communities. In this respect, the Anglo-liberal model is not necessarily at variance with the demands of social justice and inclusion.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Social WelfareSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207