Bibliographic record
Abstract
What Happened… In the Anglo-Saxon Countries In the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, the traditional pension's coverage of the workforce has suffered a serious decline, albeit less in Canada than in the other two countries. The decline has been underway for several decades, but in the United Kingdom its pace quickened alarmingly after 2005. As of 2007, the coverage of the traditional pension plan is only 17 percent in the United States, 30 percent in the United Kingdom (15 percent if only private-sector coverage is considered), and 34 percent in Canada (20 percent if only private-sector coverage is considered). High rates of coverage in the public sector help sustain overall coverage in all three countries, even in the United States, where the traditional pension plan's share of private-sector coverage is estimated to be only 10 percent. The diminished standing of the traditional plan is associated with a decline in the overall rate of coverage of employer-provided plans in both Canada and the United Kingdom. In the United States, the overall rate of coverage has remained at about one in two workers despite the growing importance of 401(k) plans. Nonetheless, the role of annuitized pension benefits at the second tier has declined in all three countries. It is doubtful whether this decline in the role of annuitization at the second tier is compensated or offset by an increase at the third tier. The balances of voluntary private saving plans are typically not converted into annuities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.231 | 0.105 |
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".