House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance Executive Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial insecurity is a growing concern for older Canadians. Inadequate retirement savings, precarious employment, and poor investor protection combine to render too many older Canadians financially vulnerable to even minor economic shocks and unable to prepare for retirement. Nearly 6 % of seniors still live in poverty, amounting to almost 300,000 people. i One in six single seniors, most of whom are women, lives in poverty. Almost 12 million working Canadians do not have workplace pension plans and Canadians are increasingly unable to save sufficiently for their own retirement. ii The federal government has made economic and employment issues a priority. Recent initiatives aimed at helping older and senior Canadians have been widely welcomed, including the 2011 Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) increase, the non-refundable Caregiver Tax Credit, the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers (TIOW), and the elimination of mandatory retirement. But more needs to be done to ensure Canada’s aging population will be financially secure and able to prepare for retirement. The decision to change the Old Age Security (OAS) age of eligibility from 65 to 67 and the ongoing reluctance to meaningfully address pension reform will place many older
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.356 | 0.359 |
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".