MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Pricing of Mortality‐Linked Securities: A Tâtonnement Approach

2013· article· en· W1716309778 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationEconomicsSupply and demandArbitrageFinancial economicsProcess (computing)Work (physics)Rational pricingBusinessActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsCapital asset pricing modelComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In previous research on pricing mortality‐linked securities, the no‐arbitrage approach is often used. However, this approach, which takes market prices as given, is difficult to implement in today's embryonic market where there are few traded securities. In this article, we tackle the pricing problem from a different angle by considering methods that are more related to fundamental economic concepts. Specifically, we treat the pricing work as aWalrasian tâtonnement process, in which prices are determined through a gradual calibration of supply and demand. We illustrate the proposed pricing framework with a hypothetical mortality‐linked security and mortality data from the U.S. population.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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