Mandatory Retirement: Termination at 65 is Ended, But Exceptions Linger on
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In employment law, mandatory retirement ("MR") is the compulsory termination of employment as a result of the employee having reached a specified age. In legal circles, MR is regarded as retirement rather than dismissal, though an individual who wishes to continue to work beyond a specified age might disagree. The elimination of MR in British Columbia resulted from the deletion of five little words in the definition of "age" in section 1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210 (BCHRC). Section 1 of the BCHRC formerly defined "age" as meaning "an age of 19 years or more and less than 65 years". Bill 31, later the Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007, SBC, c 21, s 1 [effective January 1, 2008] changed the definition to mean "an age of 19 years or more." The elimination of MR fell short of total and complete annihilation, however, because of the following four continuing exceptions: (1) age under 19 years; (2) operation of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan or a bona fide group or employee insurance plan; (3) bona fide occupational requirement; or (4) age-based distinction permitted or required by any Act or regulation. While other forms of prohibited discrimination in employment, such as race or sex, are absolute, human rights legislation prohibiting age discrimination invariably allows broad statutory exceptions because ageing is a fact of life that affects everyone. For this reason, human rights provisions abolishing MR permit age discrimination in employment to continue on relatively broad grounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".