Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public pension reform re-emerged as a key policy issue during the years leading up to the 2017 sesquicentennial anniversary of the Canadian confederation.This is the case in part because of the rise after the 2008 financial crisis of a political push to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plans (QPP), two closely-coordinated programs created in the mid-1960s, just before the country's centennial.In this short chapter I return to the initial debate leading to the advent of CPP and QPP, before turning to the recent debate about their expansion.Comparing and contrasting the debate over the creation of CPP and QPP in the mid-1960s with recent discussions over the expansion of these programs allows us to think about the future of public pension reform in Canada.Because of the multilayered nature of Canada's public pension system, we cannot study CPP and QPP in isolation from the evolution of other key components of this system.I start therefore by looking at the pension programs that existed in Canada before the mid-1960s.5 Half a Century of Pension Reform in Canada 1 daniel béland
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".