Career Endings: Perspectives on the Retirement Transition Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The irreversible global trend of population aging and its critical implications for labor supply have led to a significant increase of scholarly interest in the areas of aging, transition, and retirement (Froidevaux, 2024). Although research efforts have enhanced our understanding of retirement and its antecedents and outcomes (Wang & Shi, 2014), current knowledge about aging and retirement is far from complete (Wang & Huang, 2023). This symposium consists of four papers, each addressing important research questions at one or more of the retirement phases according to the temporal process model of retirement (Shultz & Wang 2011; Froidevaux, 2024): retirement planning and decision making, bridge employment, retirement transition, and retirement adjustment. To first provide an overview on the entire retirement process, we start with Paper 1 on how the self and life structure interact during the four phases of the retirement process, followed by three papers that look into a specific phase. Digging into the retirement planning and decision-making phase, Paper 2 explores the challenges aging leaders are facing before retirement so that they anticipate (retaining) losing relevance in the organization, followed by Paper 3 that discusses how spirituality fosters sustainable careers so that the decision to retire fully may no longer be necessary for psychological reasons only. Finally, addressing the retirement adjustment phase, Paper 4 examines how emeriti professors enact their lives after retirement and what factors contribute to their life satisfaction. The Interplay between Self and Life Structure in the Retirement Transition Author: Teresa M. Amabile; Harvard U. Author: Lotte Bailyn; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Author: Laura M. Crary; Professor emerita Author: Douglas T. Hall; Boston U. Author: Kathy E. Kram; Boston U. Questrom School of Business What older leaders talk about when they are (not) primed with workplace age stereotypes Author: Laura Guillén; U. Ramon Llull, ESADE Business School Author: Yuqi Liu; U. Ramon Llull, ESADE Business School Author: Sarah Wittman; George Mason U. From “Retirement as a Compensatory Mechanism” to “Enjoying Retirement Psychological Benefits
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".