MANDATORY VS. FLEXIBLE RETIREMENT AND THE FUNCTIONS OF COUNSELLING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines and analyzes retirement, mandatory and flexible, as a complex social pattern and process in Canada and the United States. The paper first focuses on social forces and trends — demographic, financial, physical, attitudinal and legal — leading society away from mandatory retirement and toward more flexible retirement. Second, it examines viable arguments for mandatory retirement and empirical verification of its limited impact on the labour force. It also analyzes complexities involved in the issue, particularly organized labour's ambivalence about mandatory retirement. Third, it suggests four important functions that counsellors can perform in preparing people for the realities of retirement. Policy implications for Canada with respect to retirement are indi-cated. Résumé Cet article examine et analyse la retraite, obligatoire et flexible, comme patron et processus sociaux complexes au Canada et aux Etats-Unis. L'article vise d'abord aux forces et tendances sociales — démographiques, financières, physiques, d'attitude et
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".