MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361000484 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2021-095

Risk Shifting Versus Risk Management—Canadian Pension Plan Liability Discount Rates

2023· article· fr· W4361000484 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sally Shen, Serguei Zernov

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsGlobal Risk Institute in Financial Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article étudie le choix des paramètres dans la conception du régime de retraite et dans les stratégies de placement en tenant compte de la règlementation et de l’organisation institutionnelle. Notre objectif est de déterminer si ces choix sont motivés par les préférences des participant·es au régime de retraite ou par la possibilité d’un transfert de risques injuste favorisé par une règlementation incitative aux effets pervers. Les résultats empiriques indiquent que les taux d’actualisation choisis par les régimes de retraite canadiens tant publics que privés reflètent les préférences en matière de risque plutôt que le cadre règlementaire ou les politiques incitatives

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207