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 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

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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