MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910122686 · doi:10.3886/e135101

Data and Code for: How Much Are Public School Teachers Willing to Pay for Their Retirement Benefits? Comment

2022· dataset· en· W6910122686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarPensionQuarter (Canadian coin)AnnuityMerit payRetirement planningSchool teachersService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a widely-cited study, Fitzpatrick (2015) found that more than a quarter of Illinois teachers were unwilling to pay 19 cents for pension enhancements worth one dollar in present value. We revisit this finding by tracking the same cohort of teachers to retirement, which permits exact measurement of service years and the annuity received. The vast majority of teachers purchased the upgrade. Among most of the teachers who did not, the net benefit of the upgrade is negative given their retirement timing choices. The complex relationship between the timing of retirement and the potential gain in pension wealth in the Illinois experience makes it difficult to draw inferences about teachers' willingness to pay for an increase in retirement benefits.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0150.023
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsFrench-language works237,207