MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605872658 · doi:10.1017/s0714980817000083

Golden Years or Retirement Fears? Private Pension Inequality Among Canada’s Immigrants

2017· article· fr· W2605872658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josh Curtis, Naomi Lightman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationInequalityDemographic economicsPensionSociologyLabour economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, many immigrants are disqualified from Canada's public pension scheme because of residency requirements. In addition, decades of low income and labour market exclusion prohibit many Canadian immigrants from building adequate private pension savings throughout their working life. Together, these factors present serious concerns for immigrant seniors' economic well-being. Using Canadian census data spanning a twenty-year period (1991-2011), we find that income from personal savings plans and investments has declined sharply for both native-born and immigrant Canadians, with recent immigrant cohorts faring worst. However, since 1991, native-born and immigrant men living in Canada for 40-plus years had major gains in private employer pensions (Registered Pension Plans; [RPPs]). Yet RPP income for all other immigrant cohorts remained stable or declined during these decades. Thus, the data demonstrate a worrisome growing private savings gap between native-born men and all others in Canada, with newer immigrants and women faring worst.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207