MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027279099

Retirement mutual aid associations - actors in social inclusion

2014· article· ro· W3027279099 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Stănilă

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Calitatea Vieții · 2014
Typearticle
Languagero
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Asian Studies Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityBeneficiaryWelfare stateSocial insuranceSocial policySocial WelfareWelfareMutual aidBusinessPensionInclusion (mineral)RomanianPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyFinanceSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the beneficiary categories of the social security systems is represented by the elderly/retired, who contributed to the state budget during their active period. For these categories of people, social policies must fulfil two roles, namely: the redistributive role and the non-discriminatory role (Titmuss, 1963). According to Titmuss, the redistributive role is divided into three sub-roles/processes, namely: social welfare (the social services), fiscal welfare (welfare distributed through the tax system – state pension), and occupational welfare (welfare distributed by industry as part of employment – health insurance, social services provided to employees). This paper aims to present the activity of Romanian retirement mutual aid associations (CARP), focusing on the social inclusion aspect that these entities provide to their members. The data presented are the results of the Prometheus project – promoting social economy in Romania through research, innovation and training at European standards, financed by the European Social Fund.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Calitatea ViețiiSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207