MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116134812 · doi:10.7202/019539ar

The HR Management Perspective on the Elimination of Mandatory Retirement in Ontario

2008· article· en· W2116134812 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew J. Templer, Marjorie Armstrong‐Stassen

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandatory retirementBusinessExploratory researchPerspective (graphical)AccountingDescriptive researchLabour economicsEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective as of December, 2006, an end to mandatory retirement was legislated in Ontario. Prior to this move, some employers and labour organizations were opposed to eliminating mandatory retirement and expressed concern about the negative impact such a move would have on business and on individual workers. This exploratory descriptive study examines HR managers’ (N = 415) perceptions of the impact of the elimination of mandatory retirement in Ontario. Compared with HR managers in organizations not practicing mandatory retirement, HR managers in organizations with a mandatory retirement policy reported their organization had significantly fewer HR practices in place tailored to older employees and would be significantly more likely to respond to the elimination of mandatory retirement by implementing new HR practices or by modifying existing HR practices.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207