MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064580487 · doi:10.2190/ag.74.2.b

Caregivers' Retirement Congruency: A Case for Caregiver Support

2012· article· en· W2064580487 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Nova ScotiaMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the concept of retirement congruency (RC), which takes into account greater variation in retirement decisions (low, moderate, or high RC) than a dichotomous conceptualization (forced versus chosen), multinomial logistic regression was conducted on a sample of caregivers from the 2002 Canadian General Social Survey who were retired from employment (n=700). Different variables increased the risk of having low and moderate RC, when both were compared to high RC. Factors predicting low RC (versus moderate RC), were similar but not identical to those predicting low RC (versus high RC). Retiring for health reasons and job problems were significant in all three comparisons. Retiring to give care only increased the probability of having moderate RC, compared to high RC, indicating that many employed caregivers who voluntarily retired because ofcaregiving responsibilities still expressed a desire to have remained in the labor force. Results raise questions about which policy domain-income security or labor-is most appropriate within this context.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.252 · 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