MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344037936 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n2p201

Retirement Reconsidered: Labor Force Participation of Older Men in the United States

2016· article· en· W2344037936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph S. Falzone

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsSocial securityProbit modelDemographic economicsEconomicsProbitRetirement ageWifeHuman capitalLabour economicsPensionPolitical scienceEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The objectives of this article are two fold. Changes in older men’s labor force participation in the United States are first described focusing on human capital and demographic variables. A model of the labor/leisure choice and the retirement decision of older menare then estimated employing Maximum Likelihood Probit. While changes in Social Security Benefit rules are a significant factor in explaining the trend of rising retirement age among older men, the focus here is on additional factors that contribute to older men’s decision to forestall retirement. Probit coefficient estimates for three distinct age cohorts verify the effects of hypothesized determinants of the decision to retire. Specifically, the coefficient on estimated earnings is negative and hasthe largest marginal effect on the decision to retire followed by years of education and retired wife. The effects of wives’ retirement decision will likely influence and forestall the retirement decision of married men as more working women reach retirement age. The rise in labor force participation rates of older men may offset rather than reverse the decline in men’s labor force participation rates that began more than a half century ago.</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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207