MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406303144 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18010028

Mineworkers’ Perspectives Towards Participating in Retirement Planning in South Africa

2025· article· en· W4406303144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Floyd Khoza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the individuals’ perspectives towards participating in retirement planning in the mining industry in South Africa. The study employed a quantitative research approach. The study sampled 172 mineworkers from the selected mining company. A self-administered questionnaire was tested for validity and reliability and was used to collect primary data from the respondents. This study employed the logistic regression model and performed the Hosmer–Lemeshow test to evaluate the fit of the logistic regression and the Chi-square to determine the significance of the results. In this study, the data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings revealed that some participants are satisfied with their involvement in the retirement funds and are contributing to the retirement funds provided by the company. Furthermore, this study found that the majority of the respondents will be financially independent after retirement; however, there is still a firm belief of uncertainty about not being financially independent. The study found a significant and positive relationship between age and participation in retirement planning. Furthermore, a positive and significant link was found between marital status and participation in retirement planning as well as between employment status and participation in retirement planning. The study was limited to the selected company based in Gauteng. The practical implication of this paper informs the companies, policymakers, and government to prioritise awareness of retirement planning based on demographical factors such as age, marital status, and employment status to prepare mineworkers for retirement. The findings are expected to persuade the mining sector to pay special attention to the awareness and understanding of retirement planning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207