The Emergence of Flood Insurance in Canada: Navigating Institutional Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood insurance has remained unavailable in Canada based on an assessment that it lacks economic viability. In response to Canada's costliest flood event to date in 2013, the Canadian insurance industry has started to develop a framework to expand existing property insurance to cover flood damage. Research on flood insurance has overlooked why and how insurance systems transition to expand insurance coverage without evidence of economic viability. This article will address this gap through a case study on the emergence of flood insurance in Canada, and the approach to its expansion. Between 2013 and 2016, insurance industry officials representing over 60% of premiums collected in Canada were interviewed. These interviews revealed that flood insurance is being expanded in response to institutional pressure, specifically external stakeholder expectations that the insurance industry will adopt a stronger role in managing flood risk through coverage of flood damage. Further evidence of this finding is explored by assessing the emergence of a unique flood insurance model that involves a risk-adjusted and optional product along with an expansion of government policy supporting flood risk mitigation. This approach attempts to balance industry concerns about economic viability with institutional pressure to reduce flood risk through insurance. This analysis builds on existing research by providing the first scholarly analysis of flood insurance in Canada, important "empirical" teeth to existing conceptual analysis on the availability of flood insurance, and the influence of institutional factors on risk analysis within the insurance sector.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".