The Flip Side of the Coin: The Consequences of the European Budgetary Projections on the Adequacy of Social Security Pensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ageing Working Group (AWG) assesses the long-term sustainability of public finances by presenting a set of public expenditure projections for all Member States, including projections on pensions. These projections are based on demographic forecasts and agreed assumptions on key economic variables. The adequacy and sustainability of pensions are, however, two sides of the same coin and a full assessment of pensions therefore requires integration. This paper applies the dynamic micro-simulation model MIDAS to assess the consequences of the AWG projections and assumptions on the future adequacy of public pensions in Belgium, Germany and Italy. A comparison of the simulation results suggests that the impact of the parametric pension reform in Belgium and Germany and the systemic reform in Italy on (re) distribution and the risk of low-income go in the same direction, but that the magnitudes differ. Indeed, the impact is stronger in Italy than in Belgium and Germany. In the latter especially, important changes safeguarding the sustainability of the pension system seem to have had a relatively small impact on the risk of low-income among pension benefit recipients in particular.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".