Foreign Experience in Improving Pension Provision for Civil Servants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of studying the forms, methods and ways of providing pension services to the population of different countries of the world is not weakening. The reason is constant changes occurring in various spheres of national economies, and primarily in the structure of the labor force and population, as well as the state of financial markets. Without monitoring of the ongoing changes and development of measures to control and overcome negative trends (such as the rapid aging of the labor force observed in South Korea), it is difficult to promptly prevent the growing imbalances of the national pension systems. The purpose of this article is to present the results of a study of civil servants pension models in a number of countries with developed pension systems, including the United States, South Korea, South Africa, Canada and the Netherlands. The study revealed that most of the countries reviewed have recently undergone pension system reforms that affected civil servants’ pensions. At the same time, there are more differences than commonalities in the models of organization of pension provision for civil servants in these countries. Thus, there is a different degree of integration of pension provision for public and private sector employees, the shares of civil servants in the total labor force vary greatly, the rates of replacement of labor income by pensions differ almost twice, etc. However, the government in these countries has not only found an adequate balance between the levels of the pension system, but also constantly improves them depending on external and internal conditions, trying to maintain the stability of the national pension system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".