Les regimes de pension d'employeurs empietent-ils sur d'autres formes d'epargne pour la retraite? Donnees tirees des dossiers de l'impot sur le revenu canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present document vise a determiner si les regimes de pension agrees (RPA) aident les menages a se preparer financierement pour la retraite ou se substituent simplement a d'autres formes d'epargne privee. Cette question est abordee au moyen d'un panel de 1, 8 million de menages canadiens, qui figurent dans la Banque de donnees administratives longitudinales, pour la periode de 1991 a 2010. L'analyse controle les correlations entre l'epargne dans divers comptes qui est attribuable a des preferences non observees, en exploitant le fait que les taux de cotisation des employeurs augmentent de facon discontinue pour les gains superieurs au salaire moyen par activite economique, une caracteristique propre aux regimes de retraite professionnels au Canada, dont l'effet est estime dans un plan de regression coude.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".