MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Catastrophes and their Impact on Insurance Portfolios

2003· article· en· W2046879558 on OpenAlex
Hélène Cossette, Thierry Duchesne, Étienne Marceau

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

VenueNorth American Actuarial Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioActuarial scienceAggregate (composite)EconometricsPortfolio insuranceReinsuranceRisk modelCatastrophe theoryEconomicsComputer scienceReplicating portfolioPortfolio optimizationFinancial economicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors propose a general individual catastrophe risk model that allows damage ratios to be random functions of the catastrophe intensity. They derive some distributional properties of the insured risks and of the aggregate catastrophic loss under this model. Through the model and ruin probability calculations, they formally illustrate the well-known fact that the catastrophe risk cannot be diversified through premium collection alone, as is the case with the usual “day-to-day” risk, even for an arbitrary large portfolio. They also derive some risk orderings between different catastrophe portfolios and show that the risk level of a realistic portfolio falls between that of a portfolio of comonotonic risks and that of a portfolio of independent risks. Finally, the authors illustrate their findings with a numerical example inspired from earthquake insurance.

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)0.000
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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