MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131523051 · doi:10.1093/geront/45.1.26

Who Foregoes Survivor Protection in Employer-Sponsored Pension Annuities?

2005· article· en· W2131523051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wayne Johnson, Cori E. Uccello, Joshua H. Goldwyn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtlantic PhilanthropiesRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsPensionSpouseAnnuityLife annuityActuarial scienceHealth and Retirement StudyPaymentQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsBusinessLabour economicsDemographic economicsFinanceGerontologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Retirees in traditional pension plans must generally choose between single life annuities, which provide regular payments until death, and joint and survivor annuities, which pay less each month but continue to make payments to the spouse after the death of the retired worker. This article examines the payout decision and measures the share of married retirees with pension annuities who forego survivor protection. DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis consists of a probit model of the pension payout decision, based on data from the 1992-2000 waves of the Health and Retirement Study. RESULTS: More than one quarter (28%) of married men and two thirds of married women receiving employer-sponsored retirement annuities declined survivor protection. Men with small pensions and limited household wealth, men in better health than their spouses, and men whose spouses have pension coverage from their own employers are more likely than other men to reject survivor protection. IMPLICATIONS: Most workers appear to make payout decisions by rationally balancing the costs and benefits of each type of annuity, suggesting that existing measures to encourage joint and survivor annuities are adequate. However, the growth in 401(k) plans, which are generally not covered by existing laws protecting spousal pension rights, may leave widows vulnerable.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207