MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing Mortality Improvement Formulas

2010· article· en· W1582278691 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSociety of Actuaries
KeywordsAnnuityActuarial scienceLife annuityPensionValuation (finance)Longevity riskLife insuranceEconomicsEconometricsHeuristicScale (ratio)PopulationMathematicsFinanceGeographyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Longevity improvements have contributed to widespread underfunding of pension plans and losses in insured annuity portfolios. Insurers might reasonably expect some upside from the effect of lower mortality on their life business. Although mortality improvement scales, such as the Society of Actuaries Scale AA, are widely employed in pension and annuity valuation, the derivation of these scales appears heuristic, leading to problems in deriving meaningful measures of uncertainty. We explore the evidence on mortality trends for the Canadian life insurance companies, data, using stochastic models. We use the more credible population data to benchmark the insured lives data. Finally, we derive a practical, model-based formula for actuaries to incorporate mortality improvement and the associated uncertainty into their calculations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.307 · 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