MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388439232 · doi:10.7202/1106239ar

Punitive Damage Effects on Post-Loss Bargaining and Settlement

2023· article· en· W4388439232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David L. Eckles

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesBargaining powerSettlement (finance)PaymentDamagesHuman settlementAffect (linguistics)EconomicsBusinessMicroeconomicsLawFinancePolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the theoretical effects of punitive damages and how they affect pretrial bargaining of insurers and insureds. We also seek to determine how the introduction of symmetric punitive damage awards could affect the bargaining, and by extension, the entire litigation process. We find that asymmetric punitive damage awards do tend to increase the bargaining power of insureds and by allowing for a symmetric system the bargaining power of insureds and insurers are more balanced. We also find that altering the mechanisms for court cost payments also can alter the probability of out of court settlements.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances et gestion des risquesSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207