A Digital Picture of the Actuarial Research Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of publication patterns in actuarial research is described through a survey of the contents of four peer-reviewed journals identified in several studies as the most influential in the field, including the North American Actuarial Journal. The research output of countries and institutions is compared over the 30-year period 1982–2011 on the basis of the number of articles and pages published, adjusted for journal page size. While simple counts such as these are only a cursory measure of productivity, and certainly not a measure of quality, they lead to rankings that broadly reflect the level of activity in actuarial research worldwide. Countries and institutions that are most active in the field are easily identified from these rankings. Such information is valuable to governmental funding agencies and administrators in academia or industry responsible for the quantitative assessment of research performance. Young researchers and prospective graduate students may also find it useful to acquaint themselves with the breadth of the actuarial research community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.024 |
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".