MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111804501 · doi:10.3138/cpp.34.4.s1

Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of Employer-Sponsored Pension Plans in Canada

2008· article· en· W2111804501 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
William B. P. Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionLuckCompensation (psychology)WorkforceAgency (philosophy)BusinessAsset (computer security)Workforce managementFace (sociological concept)Asset managementFinanceHuman resource managementFinancial compensationActuarial scienceEconomicsManagementEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than bad luck lies behind the plight of single-employer defined-benefit pension plans in Canada. Deals that purported to relieve employees of risk, while offering sponsors a powerful workforce-management tool and low current compensation costs, were attractive to the contracting parties—but key economic uncertainties and agency problems mean that these plans were not as good for participants and taxpayers. Pension-plans designers and policy-makers should foster new arrangements that will be more robust in the face of unexpected developments. Importantly, sponsors of plans in financial trouble should redirect their search for solutions from asset management to the human resource department.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0150.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.301
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207