MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206663582

Reforming the Disclosure Duty in Insurance Contracts - Online Applications Increase Risk of Inadvertent Disclosure Breaches

2011· article· en· W2206663582 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessIntermediaryDutyInsurance policyActuarial scienceGroup insuranceGeneral insuranceMarketingLawIncome protection insurance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New forms of marketing insurance products rely less on face to face dealings, and increasingly on impersonal interactions such as online applications. There is a corresponding increase in potential for breach of the disclosure duty when prospective insureds complete application forms without the assistance of intermediaries or the opportunity to ask questions before submitting proposals for insurance.This emerging reality for marketing insurance products, coupled with the insurer's right of nullification of the insurance contract in the event of breach of the disclosure duty, raises to the question of whether the prudent insurer test should still be used to determine materiality. Adoption of a prudent insured standard will not only facilitate access to insurance, but will also better reflect the reasonable expectations of consumers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · 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