MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anglo-Saxon Occupational Pensions in International Perspective

2006· book-chapter· en· W2501700876 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Academy eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionEarningsState (computer science)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessLabour economicsWork (physics)Perspective (graphical)PopulationAccountingEconomicsFinanceEngineeringMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational pensions are today a major ‘second tier’ in Anglo-Saxon retirement income systems, providing benefits to a significant portion of the elderly population atop the basic ‘first tier’ benefits provided by the state. In the United States, for example, employer plans provide one-fifth of the income of the elderly — one-quarter if earnings from work are excluded — half the amount provided by public plans. By the end of the 1930s, employer pension plans had become standard in governments and mature big businesses throughout the industrial world. They had become critical tools for strengthening, then severing, relationships with workers. Britain took a different tack to strengthening employer plans. It primarily leveraged the contracting-out provisions in the State Earnings-related Pension Scheme (SERPS), introduced in 1978.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.240 · 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