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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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