MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>S</scp><scp>OLVENCY</scp> A<scp>NALYSIS AND</scp> P<scp>REDICTION IN</scp> P<scp>ROPERTY</scp>–<scp>C</scp><scp>ASUALTY</scp> I<scp>NSURANCE</scp>: I<scp>NCORPORATING</scp> E<scp>CONOMIC AND</scp> M<scp>ARKET</scp> P<scp>REDICTORS</scp>

2013· article· en· W1485536751 on OpenAlexaff
Li Zhang, Norma Nielson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencySolvencyLeverage (statistics)BusinessCash flowMonetary economicsEconomicsActuarial scienceMarket liquidityFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article extends the insolvency prediction literature by incorporating macroeconomic conditions and state‐specific factors. The models achieve greater generalizability and predictive accuracy than earlier research while giving fewer false positives. At the firm level, we find insurers with less diversified business, sufficient cash flow, high return on equity, lower leverage, fewer failed Insurance Regulatory Information System ratio tests, and membership in a larger group are less likely to become insolvent. Our findings support the argument that insolvency likelihood increases for insurers domiciled in states with stricter solvency supervision and/or states with less favorable insurance market conditions, and during soft markets; insolvency risk is negatively related to the slope of the yield curve. Our findings also imply that insurers respond efficiently to changes in such market factors as market return, inflation, and catastrophic losses.

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)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.022

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Risk & InsuranceSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207