MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514195042 · doi:10.29173/alr50

Subrogation in the Rear-View: Evaluating Alberta's Current Approach to Automobile Liability Insurance for Impaired Drivers

2014· article· en· W2514195042 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kendal Gummer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubrogationPaymentLiabilityLiability insuranceBusinessActuarial scienceReimbursementThird partyProperty insuranceInsurance policyEconomicsCasualty insuranceLaw and economicsLawFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Alberta, automobile insurers are required to indemnify an insured up to policy limits for injury or property damage to third parties for which the insured is liable. Prior to 1 June 1982, insurers could demand reimbursement for third party liability payments if the insured driver caused loss while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, the Insurance Amendment Act removed the right of insurers to recover these sums. This article evaluates this amendment by considering its impact on the public policy objectives ordinarily associated with subrogation, and argues that, compared to the previous approach, Alberta’s current system of third party liability coverage better serves the objectives of subrogation.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207