MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166421576 · doi:10.7202/000030ar

What Kind of Commitment Does a Final-Earnings Pension Plan Elicit?

2002· article· en· W2166421576 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew A. Luchak, Ian R. Gellatly

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational commitmentEarningsSeniorityPensionContinuanceWageAccrualIncentiveBusinessBiddingLabour economicsEconomicsAccountingFinancePsychologyMarketingSocial psychologyManagementMicroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a sample of 427 employees in a large, unionized public utility company, we examined the incentive effects of a final-earnings pension plan on employees’ commitment to the organization. Two types of organizational commitment, affective and continuance commitment were measured using scales described by Meyer and Allen (1997). We found evidence that higher accruals under the pension plan increased continuance commitment but reduced affective commitment. Organizational commitment was also found to vary by job satisfaction, specific training, seniority, wage premia, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods. Implications for pension theory, research, and policy are discussed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.107 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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