Supporting decision-making in retirementplanning: do diagrams on pension benefitstatements help? ESRI Research Bulletin 2019/09
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a controlled experiment to test whether explanatory diagrams can improve comprehension of pensions and increase willingness to contribute to a pension. The study was undertaken by the ESRI’s Behavioural Research Unit in collaboration with the Pensions Authority. Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures show that just 36% of 25-34 year-olds in employment have a pension plan. Even workers who do have a plan face replacement rates (income after retirement as a proportion of income before retirement) well below the recommended 70%. International research suggests that failure to understand how pensions work contributes to this picture. Meanwhile, evidence from educational psychology shows that, across multiple areas of learning, comprehension can be improved by diagrams. We therefore tested whether the inclusion of explanatory diagrams on a pension benefit statement (PBS) could, first, improve understanding of how pensions work and, second, increase willingness to contribute to a pension.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".