A Federal Bill, With Commentary, to Allow Choice in Auto Insurance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
APPROACHES];(2) the coverage is optional, JOOST, supra , at 35; and (3) there are no restrictions on lawsuits in "add-on" states.Oregon and Delaware are different because they require motorists to purchase no-fault benefits and at reasonably high levels.The trial bar's rationale for add-on no-fault was that if people were properly treated by their insurers, they would not sue.Not surprisingly, in most of these states, the people just took the no-fault benefits and then sued, because the incentive to sue-the pain and suffering multiplier, see discussion in the commentary about section 2(1)(A)-was still there.In some respects, the nofault benefits helped finance lawsuits for some who otherwise would have settled because they could not have afforded to wait long enough to sue.As a result of these inherent defects, cost experience in the add-on states has generally been poor.4. Ten states mandate no-fault insurance, while three others-Kentucky, Pennsylvania and New Jersey-are actually choice states, in that they offer a choice between a no-fault system and a tort option with no restrictions on lawsuits.The District of Columbia also has a choice system under which, after an accident, a motorist can decide whether to use tort coverage or no-fault coverage.Unlike H.R. 1704, however, none of these state laws offers drivers a choice to forgo pain and suffering coverage entirely.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it