Work and income instability and retirement financial wellbeing for women and men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial wellbeing in retirement is contingent on realizations of financial expectations developed earlier in life and may differ substantially by gender. People's standard of living in retirement is tied to stability in work and income trajectories during working years along with retirement benefits and savings. Women have a greater overall income disadvantage relative to men, including reduced life course labor force exposure that may restrict retirement savings and benefits. Using the Canadian Longitudinal and International Study of Adults (LISA) and 20 years of linked tax record data (N = 2,353), we explore the association between instability in work and income histories and lower perceived retirement standard of living (PRSOL), net of retirement benefits, for women and men in Canada. Results show that for women, life course effects shaping PRSOL are driven by cumulative disability exposure and bouts of social assistance. For men, PRSOL is influenced more by cumulative unemployment. Although retirement benefits do not offset histories of work and income instability for either gender, income assistance is protective for women in retirement while personal investments are protective for men. Overall, our findings suggest that despite Canada's relatively generous pension program in later life, life course instability in work and income have persisting, gendered effects on financial wellbeing in retirement that underscore financial and health disadvantage for women across the life course.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".