The Fiscal Equality of Women: Proposed Changes to Legislation Governing Private Pension Plans in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008–9, expert pension panels that were established by four provinces, Alberta and British Columbia ( jointly), Ontario, and Nova Scotia produced three reports on provincial legislation governing private pension plans. The purpose of this article is to provide a gender-based analysis of the reports’ recommendations. The first part of the article examines how women’s role in the process of social reproduction makes their participation in private pension plans problematic. The article then explores public income supports for Canadian seniors, including Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan. This examination will provide background against which to view the recommendations of the reports on private pension plans. The final part of the article explores the recommendations of the pension panels that are of particular importance to women. They include the establishment of provinces-wide pension plans, an increase in contribution and benefit levels in private plans, and the question of vesting and inflation. Finally, some matters that require further investigation from a gender-based perspective are suggested, including the timing of retirement, the notion of phased retirement, and access to lump sum payments from pension funds at a particular age (unlocking).
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".