MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123448449 · doi:10.1017/s1474747216000081

How much do means-tested benefits reduce the demand for annuities?

2016· article· en· W3123448449 on OpenAlex
Monika Bütler, Kim Peijnenburg, Stefan Staubli

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pensions Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionAnnuityIncentiveEconomicsAsset (computer security)CashActuarial scienceLongevity riskLife annuityMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Means-tested retirement benefits create incentives to cash out pension wealth. Individuals trade off the advantages from annuitization, receiving longevity risk insurance, to the disadvantages, giving up ‘free’ wealth in the form of means-tested supplemental income. We quantify the impact of means-tested benefits with a calibrated life-cycle model, demonstrating that they substantially reduce the desire to annuitize especially for low and intermediate levels of pension wealth. Using an administrative dataset on pension choices, we show that the model's predicted fraction of retirees choosing the annuity is able to match the annuitization pattern of occupational pension wealth observed in Switzerland. On the base of our model, we also assess alternative policies such as mandatory annutization and tougher asset tests.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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