Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its 2008 budget, the federal government became the most recent jurisdiction to introduce legislation to permit the “unlocking” of funds transferred from pension plans to locked-in retirement plans.\nThe funds are normally transferred on the termination or retirement of a pension plan member. Locked-in retirement plans limit the access of plan owners to the former pension funds in the plan, thereby preserving the funds to provide a future income stream over their anticipated lifetimes.\nOver the past five years, most provinces have also amended their pension legislation. In doing so, both the federal and provincial governments have attempted to strike a balance between safeguarding future income needs of seniors with present economic realities.\nMany of the baby boomers who want to retire still have mortgages to pay off. Others are short of money and may not be able to finance the activities of their near senior or “young” senior years even if they might eventually inherit from their more senior, but possibly more frugal, parents.\nWhile all locked-in retirement plans share the common characteristic of holding funds derived from pension plans, they have different names and slightly different attributes depending on the particular jurisdiction. Locked-in retirement plans differ fundamentally, however, from non-locked-in plans such as registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) and registered retirement income funds (RRIFs) in which the funds are normally derived from non-pension sources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.026 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".