MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106821327

Developing Principles for the Regulation of Microinsurance: Philippine Case Study

2008· preprint· en· W2106821327 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gilberto Llanto, Maria Piedad Geron, Joselito Almario

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreDepartment for International DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMicroinsuranceBusinessNatural disasterActuarial sciencePublic economicsBusiness interruption insuranceInsurance policyInsurance lawIncome protection insuranceGeneral insuranceRisk managementFinanceEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Illness or injury, death of a family member, man-made calamities and natural disasters have a devastating effect on those poor households cash flow, liquidity and earning capacities and thus, on household welfare. Demand for micro-insurance products is growing in view of continuing risks to household welfare and the seeming inability of the government to address this issue. This study seeks to provide a better understanding of the micro-insurance market in the Philippines and to draw certain principles for micro-insurance regulation from a review of the Philippine experience with micro-insurance. The study describes how policies, legal, regulatory and supervisory framework governing insurance have shaped the development of the market and vice versa. The Philippine experience on the provision of micro-insurance services and the interaction between the insurance providers and the regulator may help inform the development of certain principles for micro-insurance regulation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicGlobal Health and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207