MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986517588

Platinum-Plated Pensions: The Retirement Fortunes of CEOs Who Want to Cut Your Social Security

2013· report· en· W6986517588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2013
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityDebtGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)WorryRetirement ageInflation (cosmology)Social policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current budget debate, the loudest calls for Social Security cuts are coming from two lobby groups led by CEOs who will never have to worry about their own retirement security.Fix the Debt is a PR and lobby machine launched in 2012 and led by more than 135 CEOs of major corporations. Seeking broad public support, this campaign has publicly couched their calls for reduced spending in vague euphemisms like "protecting and strengthening Social Security."The Business Roundtable, a 40-year-old association made up of about 200 CEOs of America's largest corporations, has not attempted to sugarcoat their draconian agenda. They are calling for an increase in the Social Security retirement age to 70 and a change in inflation calculations that would further reduce benefits.Meanwhile, Business Roundtable and Fix the Debt CEOs are sitting on massive nest eggs of their own. This report, co-published by the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies, focuses on the retirement funds of Business Roundtable members, but the two groups have considerable overlap. More than half of the Roundtable's Executive Committee members and a quarter of their total members are affiliated with Fix the Debt.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)French-language works237,207