O-331 Understanding age differences in retirement expectations using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The proportion of the labour market comprised of older-aged workers has increased in many high-income countries. In this changing arena of aging and work, retirement expectations are of renewed interest because they can impact organizational planning and potential worker health and well-being. However, large variations in retirement outcomes have been noted across age groups. Objectives This study aimed to examine: 1) the overall association between age and retirement expectations using a large population health survey; 2) the degree of variation in functional, psychosocial, organizational and life-stage factors across age groups; 3) the extent to which these factors explain the overall association between age and retirement expectations; and 4) whether there is a remaining association not mediated by these factors. Methods We used cross-sectional data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (N= 17,938), focusing on working, non-retired adults aged 45–64 years. Data were collected via telephone and in-person interview over the 2011–2015 period. Functional, psychosocial, organizational and life-stage factors were measured using existing variables to create composite index scores. Path models examined the relationship between age and retirement expectations, and the proportion of the relationship explained via each factor. Results Age was associated with functional, psychosocial, organizational and life-stage scores in expected directions. Older age also was associated with earlier retirement expectations. Path models found that 25–30% of the total relationship between older age and retirement expectations was mediated through life-stage and organizational factors. Conclusion Our study demonstrates the feasibility of measuring functional, psychosocial, organizational and life-stage concepts via existing data to better understand age-related inequalities in retirement expectations. Future research should focus on measuring additional items for psychosocial and organizational factors, followed by validation of the extent to which each item explains age differences in other work outcomes.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".