RSI-01: Protection against financial risks in retirement: An economic analysis of the risk of dependency / Protection contre les risques financiers à la retraite: analyse économique du risque de dépendance
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
ON RECOMMANDE AUX UTILISATEURS DE COMMENCER PAR LIRE LE FICHIER «READ ME» INCLUS DANS L’ARCHIVE, QUI CONTIENT DES INFORMATIONS IMPORTANTES ET PEUT ÊTRE OUVERT AU FORMAT TEXTE BRUT AVEC LA PLUPART DES LOGICIELS D’ÉDITION.<br> <p></p> <th> Résumé </th> <td> <ul> <li>Enquête déployée en novembre 2016 par le panel Web <i>Qu'en pensez-vous?</i> de la firme Delvinia, pour le compte de membres de l'Institut sur la retraite et l'épargne</li> <li>2 000 répondants de l'Ontario et du Québec âgés de 50 à 70 ans</li><li> Questions portant sur <ul><li>Les caractéristiques socioéconomiques</li> <li>Les raisons pour avoir (ou non) acheté de l'assurance soins de longue durée et les préférences pour le type de soins de longue durée</li> <li>Les probabilités de choix parmi des contrats d'assurance soins de longue durée comportant des prestations, prestations de survivant et commission attribuées aléatoirement</li> <li> La perception des risques</li> <li> La littératie financière et les connaissances</li> </ul> </ul></td> <br> USERS ARE ADVISED TO START BY READING THE “READ ME” FILE INCLUDED IN THE ARCHIVE, WHICH CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND CAN BE OPENED IN RAW TEXT FORMAT USING MOST TEXT EDITING SOFTWARES.<br> <p></p> <th> Summary </th> <td> <ul> <li>Survey fielded in November 2016 by Delvinia's <i>AskingCanadians</i> web panel, on behalf of members of the Retirement and Savings Institute</li> <li>2,000 respondents from Ontario and Quebec, aged 50 to 70 years old</li><li> Questions on <ul><li>Socioeconomic characteristics</li> <li>Reasons for having purchased (or not) long-term care insurance and preferences regarding type of long-term care</li> <li>Choice probabilities for long-term care insurance contracts with randomized benefit, payout to survivors in case of death, and premium load</li> <li> Risk perception</li> <li> Financial literacy and knowledge</li> </ul> </ul></td>
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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