MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Aging Asia and Implications for Social Security Programs

2023· book-chapter· en· W4377232221 on OpenAlexaff
Joelle H. Fong, Thomas R. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityPensionPopulation ageingChinaDevelopment economicsPopulationEconomic growthNational PensionPublic policyPolitical scienceSocial pensionEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rapidly aging population in Asia, and in most regions of the world, necessitates the provision of social security for larger numbers of older people who are living longer than in the past while also balancing the interests of different generations. This chapter examines how population aging strains existing models of social support and public pension systems in Asia, including a discussion of recent policy responses. Specifically, the chapter analyzes the social security systems in Japan, China, and India as exemplars since these three countries will host a sizable share of the world’s population of oldest old (those 80 and over) in the next few decades. Findings reveal that each nation has pursued unique policy strategies to ensuring income security for its older citizens, but general trends are also apparent. India’s new National Pension is an example of an innovative public policy and administration response in a country without a national social security system. The general trends found in many countries in the region include increases to pension eligibility ages, and consolidating previously separate pension plans. Public administrators in Asia will more and more need to be creative and explore new options given limited resources, and in this regard have much to contribute to promising practices in other parts of the world in adjusting to population aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving→French-language works237,207→