MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Investment Life Insurance in Russia

2020· article· en· W3129194571 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Baikal State University · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife insuranceEndowment policyInvestment (military)Key person insuranceGeneral insurancePopularityInsurance policyBusinessIncome protection insuranceCasualty insuranceLegislatureInsurance lawEconomicsFinanceActuarial scienceChinaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investment life insurance products appeared in the life insurance segment in the mid-70s of the last century and by the end of the decade, began to gain popularity in many countries (USA, Canada, Asia and Europe). Throughout its history of development, investment life insurance has experienced many ups and downs. Each financial crisis has had a negative impact on its development indicators. Despite this, interest in investment life insurance persists, as more and more potential policyholders want to use investments in various financial instruments in combination with insurance protection. At the same time, they agree to pay a higher insurance premium, being confident that they receive more for it than with traditional endowment life insurance. The article provides arguments in favor of the need for a legislative revision of restrictions on investment life insurance in order to increase its further attractiveness.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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