Gender, work and retirement for the baby-boomer cohort in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, women have had fewer opportunities than men to contribute to the labour force mainly due to their domestic labour, which place women at a disadvantage during their retirement years compared to men. The aim of this study is to evaluate gender differences while also taking other factors into account in planning for retirement, age at retirement, returning to work after retirement, and the current socio-economic situation of retirees. The 2009 Canadian Community Health Survey – Healthy Aging is the source of data used, and this confidential master file was accessed in a secure location, the Research Data Centre (the Quebec Interuniversity Center for Social Statistics, QICSS). \nResults can be summarized along two main themes. First, they show that gender roles do intersect with the process and the decision-making process of retirement. Level of education and financial situation are intertwined with gender roles such that the socio-economic situation of retirees is largely determined by their marital status and level of education, and retired females are still at a financial disadvantage due to their more limited exposure to the labour force. Moreover, the greater attachment to the labour force for men is apparent as they are more likely to retire later and return to work. Second, the study provides clear evidence that the process of retirement is complex, can vary according to many factors and can also follow a non-linear trend that must be better acknowledged in work about retirement issues. For example, some individuals have no plans to retire either because they cannot afford it or want to continue to work and, in other situations, retirement is not a single life event because some return to work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".