MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496420080 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107709393

Granularity Theory with Applications to Finance and Insurance

2014· book· en· W1496420080 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Gagliardini, Christian Gouriéroux

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranularityActuarial scienceRisk managementPortfolioBasel IICredit riskVariety (cybernetics)Modern portfolio theorySystemic riskDerivative (finance)Computer scienceFinanceEconomicsBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Capital requirementFinancial crisisMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent financial crisis has heightened the need for appropriate methodologies for managing and monitoring complex risks in financial markets. The measurement, management, and regulation of risks in portfolios composed of credits, credit derivatives, or life insurance contracts is difficult because of the nonlinearities of risk models, dependencies between individual risks, and the several thousands of contracts in large portfolios. The granularity principle was introduced in the Basel regulations for credit risk to solve these difficulties in computing capital reserves. In this book, authors Patrick Gagliardini and Christian Gouriéroux provide the first comprehensive overview of the granularity theory and illustrate its usefulness for a variety of problems related to risk analysis, statistical estimation, and derivative pricing in finance and insurance. They show how the granularity principle leads to analytical formulas for risk analysis that are simple to implement and accurate even when the portfolio size is large.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207