MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789805918 · doi:10.1007/s10680-018-9467-3

Age of Retirement and Human Capital in an Aging China, 2015–2050

2018· article· en· W2789805918 on OpenAlexaff
Qiushi Feng, Wei‐Jun Jean Yeung, Zhenglian Wang, Yi Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaHuman capitalRetirement ageDemographic economicsGerontologyEconomicsBusinessGeographyMedicineEconomic growthFinancePension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As China continues to age rapidly, whether the country should adjust the official retirement age, and if so, when and how, are currently major policy concerns. We examine the impact of postponing the retirement age on the human capital of China in the next four decades. Two critical aspects of human capital-health and education-are incorporated to account for the quality of the work force. Our projections reveal the impact of nine scenarios on the Chinese labor force in the next few decades, highlighting the changes in "the high human capital workforce"-those with good health and education. We show substantial impact with added work force ranging from 28 to 92 million per year depending on which scenarios are implemented. Furthermore, the retained workers are increasingly better educated. The gain in female workers is particularly significant, reaping the benefits of the education expansion since the 1990s.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations94
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Population / Revue européenne de DémographieSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207