MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047124907

AN EXAMINATION ON ONLINE LIFE INSURANCE PRICING: Differences between retaiers and financial services companies

2006· other· en· W7047124907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife insuranceGeneral insuranceFinancial servicesInsurance policyCover (algebra)The InternetTerm (time)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of the Internet has promoted the online purchase of life insurance. This dissertation attempt to examine the online quoting price of term life insurance from different insurance providers which include specialised insurance companies: Norwich Union, broker: The AA, banks: Halifax and Nationwide and supermarket retailers: Sainsburys and ASDA. The prices of term life insurance with Critical Illness Cover from three companies are also examined, which include The AA, Halifax and Norwich Union. The result indicates that the lowest price is offered by the broker (The AA), followed by supermarkets (ASDA and Sainsburys), then followed the specialised insurance company (Norwich Union), then the highest prices come from banks (Nationwide and Halifax). However, the elasticity of piece with respect to age is higher for supermarket than for banks. The AA offers the most expensive term life insurance with Critical Illness Cover among three companies. At the same time, there is relatively low price dispersion across the Internet.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207