Les retraités au Canada : portrait comparatif selon le statut d’immigrant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La retraite au Canada a fait l'objet de plusieurs recherches, mais peu d'études ont comparé le passage de la vie active à la retraite des natifs et des immigrants ainsi que leurs caractéristiques une fois à la retraite, une lacune importante compte tenu de l'augmentation de la part des immigrants parmi les futures cohortes canadiennes de retraités. Cette étude descriptive vise à pallier cette lacune à l'aide des données de l'Enquête sociale générale de 2016. Les résultats montrent, entre autres, que les femmes et les hommes natifs ont plus de chances de prendre leur retraite que les immigrants, quel que soit le groupe d'âge étudié, et que l'âge moyen à la retraite des femmes et hommes immigrants est de deux ans supérieur à celui des natifs. Cette étude suggère que le statut d'immigrant implique une transition vers la retraite différente de celle vécue par les natifs ; différence qui devrait être considérée dans la structure du système de revenus de retraite.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".