MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1875256428 · doi:10.2143/ast.42.2.2182804

Key Q-Duration: A Framework for Hedging Longevity Risk

2012· article· en· W1875256428 on OpenAlexaff
Johnny Siu‐Hang Li, Ancheng Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevity riskHedgeLongevityKey (lock)Duration (music)Extension (predicate logic)Actuarial scienceMatching (statistics)Basis riskMeasure (data warehouse)Construct (python library)PopulationEconometricsEconomicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsMedicineData miningBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When hedging longevity risk with standardized contracts, the hedger needs to calibrate the hedge carefully so that it can effectively reduce the risk. In this article, we present a calibration method that is based on matching mortality rate sensitivities. Specifically, we introduce a measure called key q-duration, which allows us to estimate the price sensitivity of a life-contingent liability to each portion of the underlying mortality curve. Given this measure, one can easily construct a longevity hedge with a small number of q-forward contracts. We further propose an extension for hedging the longevity risk associated with multiple birth cohorts, and another extension for accommodating population basis risk.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
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

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207