MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236329373 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n1p30

Retirement Planning & Job Satisfaction: Cushion to Avoid Bridge Employment?

2015· article· en· W2236329373 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zaiton Osman, Grace Phang Ing, Azaze-Azizi Abdul Adis, Izyanti Awg Razli, Mohd Rizwan Abd Majid, Imbarine Bujang

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Job satisfactionPsychologyLife satisfactionDemographic economicsLabour economicsSocial psychologyEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Retirement forces older workers to disconnect with their previous behavioural patterns and economic position. Transition and adjustment from working life to retirement places great psychological pressure and financial distress on older workers, especially those with dependent children. Bridge employment provides a solution for older workers to continue working after retirement while transitioning into retirement slowly and smoothly. As losing the job role has a significant impact on the psychological well-being of retirees, engaging in bridge employment helps to fulfil the important psychological functions of older workers by providing an adaptive style to retirement. This study investigates the influence of retirement planning and job satisfaction on bridge employment. A self-administered questionnaire was used in this study and a total of 523 samples were collected for nine major districts in Sabah. Data were analysed using Partial Least Square (PLS) method version 2.0. The result showed a significant relationship between retirement planning and job satisfaction on bridge employment, explaining 4.7% the variance in bridge employment and job satisfaction was found to be the strongest predictor of bridge employment.</p>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.463
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.

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207