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
Abstract In examining basis risk in index longevity hedges, it is important not to ignore the dependence between the population underlying the hedging instrument and the population being hedged. We consider four extensions to the Lee-Carter model that incorporate such dependence: Both populations are jointly driven by the same single time-varying index, the two populations are cointegrated, the populations depend on a common age factor, and there is an augmented common factor model in which a population-specific time-varying index is added to the common factor model with the property that it will tend toward a certain constant level over time. Using data from the female populations of Canada and the United States, we show the augmented common factor model is preferred in terms of both goodness-of-fit and ex post forecasting performance. This model is then used to quantify the basis risk in a longevity hedge of 65-year old Canadian females structured using a portfolio of q-forward contracts predicated on U.S. female population mortality. The hedge effectiveness is estimated at 56% on the basis of longevity value-at-risk and 81.61% on the basis of longevity risk reduction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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