MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118692006 · doi:10.23925/cafi.62.62590

Analysis of the knowledge of young people in the São Paulo metropolitan region about pension plans

2023· article· pt· W7118692006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paloma Firmo Oliveira, Vytoria Ribeiro Santos, Sandra Joyce Silva de Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueRepositorio UNIREMINGTON · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaSocial securityPensionPopulationSubject (documents)Quarter (Canadian coin)Field researchDescriptive research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the number of people aged 60 years or older in Brazil exceeded 31.23 million in 2021. Projections suggest that this number may exceed 58 million by 2060, which means that the elderly population may represent more than 25.5% of Brazilian society (IBGE, 2022). Thus, this study aims to investigate the knowledge of young residents of the metropolitan region of São Paulo on Social Security and Private, as well as to analyze whether they are preparing financially for the future. Bibliographical research was carried out conceptualizing the two types of social security existing in Brazil, as well as conducting the field research addressing the main topics. The methodology was carried out through the preparation and application of a questionnaire composed of 12 questions related to the theme, directed to an audience of the metropolitan region of São Paulo aged between 18 and 25 years, the research was carried out on-line between the 13th and 20th of April. Through the questionnaire, we obtained 150 answers and 136 considered valid for being part of the established sample. Thus, it was noted that most respondents do not have knowledge about the subject related to social security, as well as do not have planning for retirement or investments in other roles, significant part justified by not having enough knowledge to invest. It was possible to prove these arguments from the answers obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepositorio UNIREMINGTONSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207