CARP- A New Vision of Aging for Canada | www.CARP.ca | 1-888-363-2279 Nov 2014 Eliminating Mandatory RRIF Withdrawals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RRIF Rules undermine retirement security Canadians are not saving enough for their own retirement and there is growing concern that many will face considerable income insecurity in retirement.i Current rules mandating minimum yearly withdrawals from Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) compound the problemii since Canadians who have retirement savings in Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) are compelled under the current rules to drawdown their savings starting at age 71- when RRSPs must be converted to Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs). These rules are designed to virtually empty out the RRIF by age 92, thereby placing many Canadians at risk of outliving their retirement savings given today’s longevity rates. RRIF rules have not kept pace with increasing lifespans and time spent in retirement, declines in personal savings rates, and reduced access to workplace pension plans. When the original RRIF rules and withdrawal rates were introduced in 1978 and then increased in 1992, lifespans and time spent in retirement were much shorter than today and Canadians on average spent less time in retirement. RRIF holders now face considerable likelihood of running out of money in late stages of retirement. CARP calling for an elimination of mandatory RRIF withdrawals
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.143 | 0.036 |
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".