MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2064241137

Labour Market Matters - August 2013

2013· preprint· en· W2064241137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivian Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarQuarter (Canadian coin)RecessionAsset (computer security)DownloadEconomicsPensionPaymentPersonal incomePovertyDemographic economicsLabour economicsBusinessAgricultural economicsActuarial scienceGeographyFinanceEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) has contributed significantly to the reduction of senior poverty in Canada, but prospective GIS recipients should think twice at age 64 about making an RRSP contribution. In many cases, the best move may even be withdrawing the whole RRSP. This is because once GIS payments start, RRSP withdrawals are subject to a GIS phaseout of at least 50 cents on the dollar – as well as surprisingly frequently subject to personal income tax as well. Previous research1 has estimated that 32% of near-seniors have made Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP) contributions in error as their asset holdings are low enough that they will likely be Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) recipients and thus their RRSP contributions would likely be subject to GIS phaseout. A CLSRN study entitled “Estimating the Number of Guaranteed Income Supplement Recipients Who Have Mistakenly Saved in Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Pension Plans†(CLSRN Working Paper no. 119) by Michael Veall (McMaster University) reconsiders this estimate by analyzing anonymized taxfiler data to count the number of GIS recipients who actually were subject to phaseout on RRSP income. While his estimates are somewhat lower than those in the previous research, his main conclusion is that this issue clearly affects a very significant number of low-income seniors. The recession of 2008-2009 had a devastating effect on the Canadian economy.Between the second quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 the Toronto Stock Exchange (S&P TSX) composite index fell 51%. Over the same period house prices fell by 6%. By themselves, these and other asset price changes over the same period reduced the average wealth of Canadian families by 11% and average retirement assets by 14%. Without the subsequent recovery in prices, defined contribution (DC) plans would have lost 27% of their value, and registered retirement assets would have dropped 26%. While the economic recovery neutralized some of the losses, not everyone benefited equally. In a CLSRN paper entitled “Impacts of Cyclical Downturns on the Third Pillar of the RIS and Policy Responses†(CLSRN Working Paper no. 113) James B. Davies and Xiaoyu Yu (both of the University of Western Ontario) analyze unemployment and early retirement effects of recessions and find that some pension and retirement plans are more vulnerable than others in instances of cyclical downturns.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6240.502

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→