MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974446217 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v1n3p2

Bad Faith Lawsuit in America and Improvement of Chinese Insurance Law

2008· article· en· W1974446217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qinghua Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawsuitLawBad faithObligationJurisprudenceChinaLegislationFaithGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceInsurance lawEconomic JusticeInsurance policyBusinessGeneral insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the main differences in dealing with insurers’ bad faith under American and Chinese insurance law, and recommends Chinese Government introducing the American bad faith lawsuit to China. For this purpose, the nature, essence, and the general and specific requirements of bad faith lawsuit in America is firstly presented. Then, the article states how insurers’ bad faith in China is handled in accordance with the Chinese insurance law: remedy for breach of the contractual obligation, and public law sanction. Further, new practices of legislation, justice, administration, and self-discipline of the insurance industry for preventing and handling insurers’ bad faith in China, are also represented. Finally, through the analysis of jurisprudence and comparative law, the article analyzes the necessity of introducing American bad faith lawsuit into China, and the requirements of the legal reform for the introduction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207