Many Happy Returns: Guarding the Integrity of the CPP Investment Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost a decade after the reforms that partially pre-funded the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), the Plan is evolving much as their designers had hoped. Among the many features of the package negotiated in 1996/97 and implemented in 1998, the most critical was a ramping up of contribution rates faster than would have occurred under the old pay-as-you-go structure. Income from the resulting provident fund was intended to prevent contribution rates from continuing to rise as the aging baby-boom generation drove up the ratio of pensioners to contributors, instead containing rates at 9.9 percent. This change, and parallel changes to the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), played a key role in the restoration of Canada’s fiscal health after the mid-1990s. The ratio of the CPP’s unfunded liability to GDP declined with the reforms, and currently looks likely to hold steady at around 40 percent for the next decade (Figure 1). The CPP’s last actuarial evaluation as at year-end 2003 (OCA 2004) showed that the 9.9 percent contribution rate should be sustainable through the lifetimes of current plan participants.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 | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".