MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096478437

Follow Quebec’s Lead: Removing Disincentives To Work After 60 by Reforming the CPP/QPP

2014· article· en· W7096478437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomWork (physics)FellBoomPopulation ageingFalling (accident)PopulationPension
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue... Because of population aging and the soon-to-begin wave of retirements, Canadian policymakers should implement systems that encourage those who want to work beyond the normal retirement age to do so. Proposed changes to the Quebec Pension Plan point the way to achieving that objective. The Study in Brief The greying of Canada’s population poses a major economic challenge for the nation. The ratio of workers to retirees is expected to fall dramatically over the next 30 years. Exacerbating the demographic shift and the coming wave of baby boom retirement is a long-term shift to earlier retirement. In 1976, approximately 66 percent of Canadian men aged 60-to-64 participated in the labour force; in 2003, the ratio fell to 46.7 percent in Quebec and 54.7 percent in the rest of Canada. The ability of Canadians to raise their standard of living in the coming decades depends on how effective we are at tapping into a deepening pool of seniors ' capital. Success will depend on whether policies encourage older citizens to participate in productive activities. Recent economic research in many

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0160.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→