MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893031497

Managing Longevity Risk in Defined Benefit Pension Plans

2012· article· en· W1893031497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Coughlan

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecial Issues · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityLongevity riskLife expectancyPensionActuarial scienceBusinessAsset (computer security)Risk managementInvestment (military)EconomicsFinanceGerontologyPolitical scienceMedicineComputer sciencePopulationEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longevity risk—the risk of unanticipated increases in life expectancy—has only recently been recognized as a significant risk facing defined benefit pensions plans. With many pension plans now having executed longevity hedges of various types, managing this risk has moved onto the agenda of a growing number of plans in different countries, including the U.S., U.K., Canada, and the Netherlands. This article discusses how longevity risk impacts defined benefit pension plans and presents a framework for managing this risk. The framework views the plan’s longevity exposure as an implicit leveraged investment in longevity risk that must be taken into account in the strategic asset allocation process.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpecial IssuesSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207