Returns to work after retirement: a prospective study of unretirement in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the complexity of the retirement process, most research treats it as an abrupt and one-way transition. Our study takes a different approach by examining retirement reversals (unretirement) and their predictors. Using the British Household Panel Survey (1991–2008), and following participants into Understanding Society (2010–2015), we undertake a survival analysis to investigate retirement reversals among Britons aged 50–69 years who were born in 1920–1959 (N = 2,046). Unretirement was defined as: (a) reporting being retired and subsequently recommencing paid employment, or (b) beginning full-time work following partial retirement (the latter defined here as reporting being retired and working fewer than 30 hours per week). A cumulative proportion of around 25 per cent of participants experienced a retirement reversal after reporting being retired; about half of these reversals occurred within the first five years of retirement. Unretirement was more common for participants who were male, more educated, in better health, owned a house with a mortgage (compared to owning it outright) and whose partner was in paid work. However, unretirement rates were not higher for participants in greater financial need, whether measured as subjective assessment of finances or household income quintiles. These results suggest that unretirement is a strategy more often used by those who are already advantaged and that it has the potential to exacerbate income inequalities in later life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".