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 OpenAlexaff
Barry Eidlin

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial ForcesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207