Inception Residual RNN-LSTM Hybrid Model for Predicting Pension Coverage Trends Among Private-Sector Workers in the USA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pensions are fundamental to financial security in retirement, especially in the U.S., where they play a critical role in ensuring stability for retirees and fostering broader economic benefits. However, predicting pension coverage trends poses significant challenges due to the complexity of labor markets, demographic shifts, and economic variabilities. Traditional statistical models, though foundational, often fail to handle the nonlinear patterns inherent in pension data. To address these limitations, we propose the Inception residual RNN-LSTM hybrid model, which combines the strengths of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks with residual connections. This model captures diverse temporal patterns while mitigating vanishing gradient issues, delivering superior performance in predicting pension coverage trends. Experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms traditional machine learning models and standalone deep learning architectures like RNN and LSTM. Its robust performance across key metrics highlights its potential as a reliable tool for forecasting complex pension trends and aiding policymakers, employers, and financial institutions in effective 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it