Income Adequacy in Retirement: Accounting for the Annuitized Value of Wealth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions of pension adequacy for elderly Canadians have used the rate at which income falls with age; the income replacement rate or the ratio of post-retirement income to pre-retirement income. Use of income streams to assess post-retirement welfare requires a standard against which adequacy of the replacement rates can be judged. Because some expenditures (for example, work-related expenses) can be expected to fall after retirement, a declining income stream does not necessarily signal financial problems for seniors. More importantly, income as normally measured captures only part of what is available to seniors if households possess assets, which in retirement are not being used to generate measured income. This paper uses a different metric, referred to as "potential" income. Potential income is the sum of realized income and the income that could be realized from owned assets such as mutual funds and housing. Households prepare for retirement by saving and borrowing and investing the proceeds. The assets accumulated over a lifetime may or may not be drawn down in later years. If they are not, income streams underestimate the "potential" income available to support retirement. This paper takes this potential into account when comparing the pre- and post-retirement financial status of Canadian households.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".