Structure, Principles and Effectiveness of Insurance Regulation in the 21st Century: Insights from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2007–2009 financial crisis resulted in failures of many large financial institutions and among the G8 countries, only Canada did not have to provide financial support to distressed financial institutions. We first examine the existing Canadian regulatory architecture in relationship to underlying principles arising from the public theory of regulation. Elements of the Canadian regulatory framework that contributed to the success of the insurance industry in weathering the crisis include the presence of a federal regulator who monitors system-wide issues also ensures consistent solvency standards; investment guidelines that encourage prudent risk-taking; and a holistic approach to insurer monitoring. A comparison of the Canadian experience with that of other jurisdictions highlights the importance of a holistic risk management approach to firm viability, especially in light of the inherent risks arising from complex group structures. A lesson from the crisis is the need for effective ex ante and ex post cross-border and holistic supervision as most distressed institutions belonged to large complex groups operating in multiple regulatory jurisdictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".