Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pet insurance in North America continues to be a growing industry. Unlike in Europe, where some countries have as much as 50% of the pet population insured, very few pets in North America are insured. Pricing practices in the past have relied on market share objectives more so than on actual experience. Pricing still continues to be performed on this basis with little consideration for actuarial principles and techniques. Developments of mortality and morbidity models to be used in the pricing model and new product development are essential for pet insurance. This paper examines insurance claims as experienced in the Canadian market. The time-to-event data are investigated using the Cox’s proportional hazards model. The claim number follows a nonhomogenous Poisson process with covariates. The claim size random variable is assumed to follow a lognormal distribution. These two models work well for aggregate claims with covariates. The first three central moments of the aggregate claims for one insured animal, as well as for a block of insured animals, are derived. We illustrate the models using data collected over an eight-year period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".