Bibliographic record
Abstract
As many countries consider mandatory individual retirement accounts as their answer to a secure social security system, the question arises as to whether all workers can get true “market value” annuities when they retire. It is clear today that private-sector life annuities are priced assuming that the applicant is healthy—very healthy. Very little underwriting or risk classification now exists in the individual annuity marketplace. However, if a large percentage of the population were looking to annuitize their social security accounts upon retirement, there would be strong pressure for more risk classes in the annuity-pricing structure. Even without the advent of individual accounts for social security, the authors of this paper feel there may be real market opportunities for more risk classification in the individual annuity market and the offering of “impaired life annuities.” Given that this pressure does or might soon exist, this paper reviews 45 recent research papers that look at factors that affect mortality after retirement. In particular, factors that seem to be important in predicting retirement mortality include age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, income, occupation, marital status, religion, health behaviors, smoking, alcohol, and obesity. for each factor, this paper gives highlights relative to the named factor of the impact expected from that variable as described in the 45 reviewed research papers. The authors believe there is a wealth of information contained in the summaries that follow, and it is our sincere hope that this paper will cause an increased interest in a more broadly based risk classification structure for individual annuities. Summaries of the 45 papers can be found at www.soa.org/sections/farm/farm.html.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".