The development of university-based actuarial education in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is aimed at figuring out the current state of actuarial education \nprovided by Canadian universities tracing the peculiarities of its development and \nconcentrating mainly on the process of the University accreditation program \nimplementation. The academic novelty of the article lies in the fact that in national \ncomparative pedagogy it is the first attempt to analyze Canada`s university-based \nactuarial education. Having studied the documents, we may conclude that the UAP \nis a set of the criteria and requirements having fulfilled which a university is granted \nthe right to provide its actuarial students with the opportunity of exemption from \nthe professional exams set by the SOA and the CAS on their way to the ACIA or \nFCIA designations. It is worth mentioning that in many ways Canada is the first \ncountry in North America which is now actively trying to bring the profession of an \nactuary into academic environment. The reasons for implementing such measures are \nobvious: university settings open wide prospects for research activities as well as \nprovide more predictable route for becoming a qualified actuary as compared to its \nalternative of going through the set of the exams established by the above mentioned \nbodies. By integration of formal and informal actuarial education into a single \nwhole it is possible to strengthen the profession. However, the main obstacle on the \nway to success of the UAP is the assumption that by shifting educational process to \nuniversities we are reducing professional standards. Under such circumstances the \nUAP policy is characterized by stringent selection criteria as for the syllabi, course \noutlines, faculty members, minimum exemption grades etc.. The main of them can be \nbroadly summarized as follows. In order to be accredited a university has to provide \n85 % coverage of the syllabus of the professional bodies, to have at least 4 full-time \nfaculties, one of them has to be a fellow of the CIA, rigid testing and examination \nprocedures are a must; for students to get the exemption, the grade on each of the \ncourses in question has to be not lower than «B» or higher. In order to figure out \nwhether a university satisfies the standards, lots of administrative bodies have been \ncreated or engaged: the Eligibility and Education Council, the CIA, the Accreditation \ncommittee, accreditation panels, appeal investigation panels etc. For the time being, \nthere are 11 universities which comply with the given requirements. Overall, the \nUAP can be considered as a successfully implemented experiment.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it