MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225498430 · doi:10.4000/statsoc.550

L’équité de l’apprentissage machine en assurance

2022· article· fr· W4225498430 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Charpentier, Laurence Barry

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistique et société · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les assureurs sont réputés utiliser des données pour classer et tarifer les risques. À ce titre, dès la fin du 19e siècle, ils ont été confrontés aux problèmes d’équité et de discrimination associées aux données. Pourtant, si cette question est récurrente, elle connait un regain d’importance avec l’accès à des données de plus en plus granulaires, massives et comportementales. Nous verrons ici comment les biais de l’apprentissage machine en assurance renouvellent ou transforment ce questionnement pour rendre compte des technologies et des préoccupations sociétales actuelles : paradoxalement, alors que la plupart de ces biais ne sont pas nouveaux, la recherche d’une équité pour les contrer, elle, se transforme.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.411 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistique et sociétéSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207