high ethical standards, promote public understanding, and otherwise advance the interests of funds, their shareholders, directors, and advisers. Key Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results from the 2010:Q1 ICI Survey of DC Plan Recordkeepers generally indicated lower levels of participant-initiated changes among DC plan participants. DC plan withdrawal activity, which has always tended to be limited, fell to even lower levels in the first quarter of 2010. Only 1.2 percent of DC plan participants took withdrawals in the first quarter of 2010, compared with 2.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009. Already low levels of hardship withdrawal activity also moved even lower. Only 0.4 percent of DC plan participants took hardship withdrawals during the first quarter of 2010, compared with 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2009. The share of participants that stopped making contributions in the first quarter of 2010 was significantly lower than the share that stopped contributing in the first quarter of 2009. Only 1.1 percent of DC plan participants stopped contributing in the first quarter of 2010, compared with 2.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009. During a time of generally rising stock market values in the first quarter of 2010, most DC plan participants stayed the course with their asset allocations. Four percent of DC plan participants changed the asset allocation of their account balances and 4.5 percent changed the asset allocation of their contributions in the first quarter of 2010. » » The level of loan activity at the end of the first quarter of 2010 was in line with experience of the past several years. At the end of March 2010, 17.0 percent of DC plan participants had loans outstanding, compared with 16.5 percent at year-end 2009 and 17.0 percent at year-end 2004. 1
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 | 0.071 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.015 |
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".