MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771201187 · doi:10.1111/ajag.12486

Ageing and the economic life cycle: The National Transfer Accounts approach

2017· article· en· W2771201187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeromey Temple, James Mahmud Rice, Peter McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDepartment of Social Services, Australian Government
KeywordsAgeingConsumption (sociology)Demographic economicsUnit (ring theory)Private consumptionCohortNational accountsEconomicsTransfer (computing)Age structureLife-cycle hypothesisGeographyDemographyPopulationSociologyPsychologyMedicineMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the use of National Transfer Accounts (NTA) for understanding ageing and the economic life cycle in Australia. METHODS: The NTA methodology is applied utilising a range of unit record, demographic and administrative data sets from 1981 to 2010. RESULTS: During early and later life, total consumption (public and private) is greater than labour income. On a time series and cohort basis, we show that each successive generation has improved their level of well-being (as measured by consumption) relative to the previous years or previous cohorts from 1981 to 1982 onwards. We also show a substantial increase in labour income earned by mature age workers over this period. International comparisons show Australia to have consumption and labour income age profiles very similar to those of Canada but dissimilar to many other countries, driven by differences in demographic and policy settings. CONCLUSION: The NTA approach provides a powerful framework to track differences in the economic life cycle across age groups, across time, across cohorts and across countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal on AgeingSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207