Bibliographic record
Abstract
James E. Pesando looks at the 1998 package of reforms to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) that the federal government and the provinces implemented after extensive consultation. Most significantly, these reforms included: a sharp increase in the combined employer-employee contribution rate, from 5.85 per cent in 1997 to the steady-state rate of 9.9 per cent in the year 2003 and beyond, which will result in a much larger reserve fund — estimated to rise to about five years’ worth of benefits; and the establishment of an independent, trusteed CPP Investment Board with a mandate to invest in marketable securities, including equities, in order to obtain a higher rate of return on the enlarged CPP reserve fund. The benefit reductions in the 1998 package were relatively modest. Pesando argues that the case for the 1998 CPP reform was made entirely in terms of intergenerational equity. Surprisingly, efficiency arguments played virtually no role in the debate. Pesando questions whether the actuarial assumptions with respect to inflation and rates of return that underlie the reforms are overly optimistic and whether additional increases in premiums or reductions in benefits will be required. In his view, the next round of debate on the reform of public pension programs is already under-way in other countries like the United States. He expects that the issue will soon resurface in Canada and that policy options like benefit reductions, raising the retirement age, and partial privatization of benefits, which were dismissed in the last round, will once again be on the table.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".