MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2225304967

Protecting Survivors of Domestic Violence within the Insurance Regime: Opportunities to Seek Termination or Variation of Insurance Contracts

2014· article· en· W2225304967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeneficiaryInsurance policyBusinessLegislationHarmCasualty insuranceLiability insuranceActuarial scienceIncentiveLawEconomicsPolitical scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A person whose life is insured under a life insurance contract for the benefit of another person does not have a contractual or common law right to terminate or otherwise affect the terms of the contract. As well, such contracts remain valid even after termination of the relationship that provided an insurable interest at the commencement of the contract. The existence of a life insurance contract might provide an incentive for the policy owner/beneficiary to cause harm to the insured person in order to collect the insurance money. Recovery of the insurance money is precluded on grounds of public policy if the beneficiary is found liable for the death of the insured person. However, this is no comfort for the victim; indeed, this situation has the potential to create or exacerbate the vulnerability of victims of domestic violence, who are mostly women and children. Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta have enacted provisions entitling persons whose lives are insured to seek judicial remedies aimed at alleviating the safety concerns in specified circumstances, notwithstanding the applicant's lack of privity of contract. This paper examines the bases and nature of the remedial options and explores how they can effectively protect persons whose lives are insured for the benefit of the policy owner and the appropriate threshold for granting remedies. Applicants may seek remedies under the insurance legislation in conjunction with protection orders in the family or criminal context. Courts are likely to assess similar factors when considering appropriate remedies under the insurance and family law regimes. Although these remedies are not a panacea for domestic violence, they may be significant in preventing violence against women and children whose lives are insured by other family members and where the latter's motivation for violence may include recovery of insurance money.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicLegal Issues in South Africa→French-language works237,207→