MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W237903027

Preventing Disaster after a Disaster: Lessons for Canada from US Experience

2011· article· en· W237903027 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil Mohindra

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsFraser Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty insuranceLegislationQuake (natural phenomenon)Earthquake casualty estimationNatural disasterHurricane katrinaPopulationPaymentGeographyFlood mythGovernment (linguistics)Forensic engineeringBusinessPolitical scienceInsurance policyActuarial scienceEngineeringCasualty insuranceUrban seismic riskLawSeismologyFinanceSociologyDemographyArchaeologyCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a 30 percent chance that an earthquake strong enough to cause significant damage will strike southwestern British Columbia in the next 50 years, and a 5 to 15 percent chance that a major earthquake will strike southern Quebec or eastern Ontario. These quake zones encompass several population centers, including Vancouver, Victoria, Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec City. If a major quake ever strikes one of these regions, renters, homeowners, and businesses will count on insurance to help them recover and rebuild. However, in addition to the hardships caused by property loss and injury, policyholders may face major impediments to recovery when insurance coverage from a natural disaster is split — a harsh lesson many Americans learned in 2005, after the US Gulf Coast was struck by a series of major hurricanes, including Hurricane Katrina. The problems that occurred in the aftermath of Katrina demonstrate what can happen when distinctions are made in insurance coverage based on the cause of damage. Many of Katrina’s victims had insurance against wind damage, which was covered in standard insurance policies, but not flood damage, which was available only through a government program. The split in coverage resulted in costly payment delays and legal disputes. Provincial legislation makes a similar distinction between damage caused by an earthquake and damage caused by subsequent quake-related fires. Fire following an earthquake is covered in standard home insurance packages, while earthquake coverage must be purchased separately. Alberta and BC have signaled their intention to maintain this distinction. The US experience shows that this approach could cause unnecessary hardships for insurers and policyholders alike. The lesson from Hurricane Katrina is clear. Splitting natural disaster insurance coverage should be avoided wherever possible. Allowing insurers to offer comprehensive coverage against damage from a quake and any quake-related fires will prevent many of the problems policyholders faced following Katrina.

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)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207