Du colporteur au conseiller financier : la professionnalisation des agents d’assurance-vie, 1930-19601
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comme l’assurance n’est pas une marchandise qui se vend mais qui s’achète, les agents d’assurance se doivent d’être particulièrement convaincants. Plusieurs d’entre eux possèdent une mauvaise réputation. Ce n’est pas étonnant si l’on considère le spectaculaire taux de roulement dans cette profession où l’on embauche par milliers des gens sans formation préalable. Cette industrie en pleine consolidation travaille pourtant à redorer son blason en soulignant, à qui veut bien l’entendre, que l’agent fait la promotion de la sécurité, de l’épargne, de la famille. L’objet de cet article est d’analyser les stratégies déployées afin de relever le niveau professionnel des agents au Québec durant la période 1930-1960. Ces stratégies s’articulent généralement autour de deux axes principaux, soit développer l’efficacité des agents et de l’industrie en général, et améliorer l’image de la profession.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".