Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the 1970s and 1980s, policy investments in German, U.S., and Canadian public pension financing had unraveled. While policy investment in the U.S. quickly proved defenseless against political attack, the German financing regime buckled after three decades under the combined strain of economic distress and political temptation. Canadian policy investment in pensions, on the other hand, was allowed to die of benign neglect as provincial and federal policy makers left contribution rates untouched as expenses rose. Though the timing varied, each of these three countries eventually converged with Britain on a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) path. In the decades of rapid wage and population growth following World War II, PAYGO financing could support a comfortable political and social equilibrium. As contributory pension programs matured, expenditures automatically rose, but so too did the flow of revenues from an expanding and increasingly affluent workforce. Governments could even raise benefit and payroll tax rates without undue impact on workers' take-home pay. And in an era of relatively easy fiscal choices, political conflict over the basic principles of retirement security was supplanted by a broad consensus in support of existing programs – even, in some instances, with competition between parties of right and left to promise the elderly ever-more-generous pensions. This fiscal and political dynamic, however, relied on a transient set of economic and demographic conditions. Payroll tax rates in a PAYGO scheme depend heavily on trends in aggregate real wages, and by the mid-1970s aggregate wages would suffer a double blow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.289 | 0.137 |
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".