MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410173054 · doi:10.1596/2847

Strengthening Caribbean Pensions : Improving Equity and Sustainability

2010· book· en· W4410173054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Bank eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)SustainabilityIntergenerational equityNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomicsDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report aims to provide additional insights to existing analyses of public pension and social security schemes in the Caribbean. Such analyses have been undertaken with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Economic Commission for Latin America, and the Caribbean and the International Social Security Association. By making cross-country comparisons within the region and across the world, this report will review fiscal vulnerability, sustainability, labor market efficiency, migration, financial market development, and other pension-related areas. Finally, governance and investment management should be strengthened by: (i) strengthening the governance structure, including authority and accountability of Board members; (ii) improving governance mechanisms with the assistance of external oversight and improved information disclosure; (iii) introducing codes of conduct for the governing body and management; and (iv) introducing a number of measures to strengthen the investment policies, investment strategy, asset allocation, and performance evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Bank eBooksSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207