MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232207761 · doi:10.5089/9781475523652.002

Canada: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Insurance Core Principles-Detailed Assessment of Observance

2014· article· en· W4232207761 on OpenAlex
International Monetary Fund

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

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAutorité des Marchés Financiers
KeywordsSolvencyBusinessAccountingInsurance industryFinancial sectorCapital requirementRisk assessmentFinanceCapital (architecture)Capital adequacy ratioActuarial scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Detailed Assessment report, a part of the 2013 Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) of Canada, assesses Canada’s regulatory regime and supervisory practices against the international standards. The IMF report suggests that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) should be empowered to take supervisory measures at the level of the holding company. It highlights that while OSFI requires Federally Regulated Insurers (FRI) FRIs to develop internal capital targets, requirements to develop an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment are scheduled to be implemented in 2014.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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