MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955699687 · doi:10.1093/sf/soz101

Review of Dismantling Solidarity: Capitalist Politics and American Pensions Since the New Deal

2019· article· en· W2955699687 on OpenAlex
Barry Eidlin

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

VenueSocial Forces · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityDignityPensionLabour economicsPoliticsInvestment (military)Plan (archaeology)Service (business)EconomicsBusinessFinancePolitical scienceLawEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why is most Americans’ ability to live out their golden years in dignity so dependent on the vagaries of the market? As of 2018, a mere 17 percent of private sector workers had access to what is conventionally considered a pension, the kind known as a “defined benefit” (DB) plan that guarantees a certain monthly benefit after a certain number of years of service at a given age (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019). This is down from 35 percent in the early 1990s (Wiatrowski 2012). Roughly half only had access to a “defined contribution” (DC) plan, like a 401(k), where workers and their employers contribute to a fund on a regular basis during the worker’s time at the company, and the worker’s retirement benefit is based on the sum of those contributions, plus or minus any investment gains or losses they have accrued over time (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019).

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.231 · 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