MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163744111 · doi:10.7202/000142ar

Social Investment by Union-Based Pension Funds and Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds in Canada

2002· article· en· W2163744111 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jack Quarter, Isla Carmichael, Jorge Sousa, Susan Elgie

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFund of fundsUmbrella fundInvestment (military)PensionGlobal assets under managementClosed-end fundOpen-ended investment companyPassive managementBusinessFinanceInstitutional investorDirectoryEuropean unionReturn on investmentLabour economicsEconomicsEconomic policyPolitical scienceProduction (economics)LawCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study has two objectives: first, to understand the extent of social investment among union-based pension funds as well as labour-sponsored investment funds in Canada; second, to understand the factors that affect social investment strategies among such funds. A national sample of 189 pension funds with assets of at least $50 million was drawn from the Canadian Pension Fund Investment Directory (Toronto: Maclean Hunter). The sample also included 10 labour-sponsored investment funds, half the number of such funds in Canada. The data indicate that pension funds in Canada have minimal social investment. There is somewhat higher social investment among labour-sponsored investment funds, and particularly labour-sponsored investment funds with genuine union sponsorship. The study also explored factors related to social investment by funds.

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)0.000
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 score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207