MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906566517 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/3ekqu

Retirement Experiences of Immigrants in Western Countries: A Scoping Review

2025· other· en· W6906566517 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationLife course approachEmpirical researchConceptual frameworkCultural diversityEmpirical evidenceThe Conceptual Framework

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retirement is a major life stage that involves psychological, social, financial, and health-related changes. For immigrants living in Western countries, retirement is often shaped by intersecting factors such as migration history, acculturation, language proficiency, systemic barriers, and cultural values around aging. These experiences are complex and vary widely depending on pre-migration background, reasons for migration, age at immigration, and access to social and institutional supports. While existing research has examined issues such as immigrant aging, health disparities, or labor force participation, no comprehensive synthesis currently exists on how immigrants experience retirement as a whole. This scoping review aims to systematically map the empirical literature on retirement experiences among immigrants residing in Western countries (e.g., North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand). Guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework, the review will include studies exploring meaning-making, well-being, economic and social adjustment, and cultural dimensions of retirement across pre-, during-, and post-retirement phases. The findings will help identify conceptual frameworks, knowledge gaps, and implications for future research, policy, and culturally responsive support services.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0080.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.376 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207