MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123344281

Ottawa’s Hidden Deficit: The Widening Gap between Federal Government Pension Liabilities and Assets

2014· article· en· W3123344281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionTaxpayerGovernment (linguistics)LiabilityBusinessActuarial scienceFinancePension planEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defined-benefit (DB) pension plans have been in trouble in recent years, largely because their sponsors have tended to underestimate their liabilities. As Canadians saving for retirement in registered retirement saving plans and defined-contribution pension plans have begun to realize, low yields on low-risk assets require more saving to achieve a given future income. Many DB plan sponsors, however, use inflated assumptions about returns – effectively presuming that risky investments will unfailingly pay off – to obscure the need for higher contributions. In Canada, the largest DB plans are those for federal government employees. Canadian taxpayers underwrite a promise that assumes a rate of return well in excess of current interest rates on federal government bonds – even on assets that do not exist. Although Ottawa has taken steps to rein in the growing cost of pension plans for public servants, uniformed personnel and MPs – arguably the largest and richest defined-benefit pensions in the country – these plans’ unfunded liabilities are massive, much larger than reported, and still growing. The contributions to these plans, even after the most recent reforms, come nowhere close to covering the rocketing cost of their taxpayer-guaranteed promises. An economically meaningful fair market value estimate of the unfunded liability of federal government employees’ pension plans puts it at $272 billion as at March 31st, 2013 – some $120 billion higher than reported. The same approach to determining the annual cost of benefits accruing in these plans shows it to be between 45 and 60 percent of pensionable pay – more than twice as high as reported, and a far higher rate of tax-deferred wealth accumulation than is available to other Canadians. The federal government should incorporate these numbers in the official measures of its net debt and annual budget balance. This would be a key first step toward reforms that would alleviate a burden that few taxpayers know they bear, and that would protect taxpayers from risks few know they run

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.249 · 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