L'obligation de divulgation en assurances (Mandatory Disclosure in Insurance Transactions)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article fait un survol de l'obligation de divulgation en assurances dans les provinces de common law. L'auteur divise le texte en quatre parties, lesquelles correspondent aux quatre questions que doit se poser un tribunal saisi d'une allegation de non-divulgation. Premierement, la personne assuree avait-elle l'obligation de divulguer les renseignements qui font l'objet de l'allegation ? Deuxiemement, la personne assuree a-t-elle manque a son obligation de divulgation ?Troisiemement, l'assureur a-t-il ete induit a conclure le contrat d'assurance en raison de ce manquement ? Quatriemement, quelles sont les repercussions de cette non-divulgation sur les droits des parties ? L'auteur examine la jurisprudence cle en la matiere, ainsi que les dispositions pertinentes de Ia Loi sur les assurances de l'Ontario. Les dispositions ontariennes sont representatives de la legislation qui existe a travers les provinces de common law.English Abstract: In this article, the author reviews howCommon Law jurisdictions approach the topic of mandatory disclosure in insurance transactions.The article is divided into four parts, one for each question that must be addressed when a failure to disclose is alleged by an insurer.The first part deals with duty: did the insured owe a duty to disclose the information that was allegedly withheld from the insurer? The second part deals with breach: did the insured breach his or her duty to disclose? The third part deals with inducement: was the insurer induced into signing the insurance contract, because of this breach? Part four addresses the consequences of a failure to disclose: what are rights of each party following a breach of the duty to disclose? The main case law is reviewed, as well as the relevant provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act. The Ontario statute was chosen because it is representative of the legislation in place in all Common Law provinces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".