MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022110659 · doi:10.1017/s147474721700004x

The financial feasibility of delaying Social Security: evidence from administrative tax data

2017· article· en· W3022110659 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gopi Shah Goda, Shanthi Ramnath, John B. Shoven, Sita Slavov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pensions Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityHealth and Retirement StudySample (material)Quarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsPublic economicsPanel dataActuarial scienceBusinessFinanceEconometricsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the large and growing returns to deferring Social Security benefits, most individuals claim Social Security before the full retirement age. In this paper, we use a panel of administrative tax data on individuals likely to financially benefit from delaying Social Security claiming to explore the relationship between Social Security claiming and distributions from tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts. We find that the majority of our sample claim Social Security prior to taking distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). We also find that a third of our sample have IRA balances equivalent to at least two additional years of Social Security benefits, and a quarter have IRA balances equivalent to at least 4 years of Social Security benefits. We complement our analysis with data from the Health and Retirement Study and find that these percentages are considerably higher when other financial assets are taken into account.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pensions Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207