A credibility-based Erlang mixture model for pricing crop reinsurance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address some of the fundamental issues surrounding crop insurance ratemaking, from the perspective of the reinsurer, through the development of a scientific pricing framework. Design/methodology/approach – The generating process of the historical loss cost ratio's (LCR's) are reviewed, and the Erlang mixture distribution is proposed. A modified credibility approach is developed based on the Erlang mixture distribution and the liability weighted LCR, and information from the observed data of the individual region/province is integrated with the collective experience of the entire crop reinsurance program in Canada. Findings – A comprehensive data set representing the entire crop insurance sector in Canada is used to show that the Erlang mixture distribution captures the tails of the data more accurately compared to conventional distributions. Further, the heterogeneous credibility premium based on the liability weighted LCR's is more conservative, and provides a more scientific approach to enhance the reinsurance pricing. Research limitations/implications – Credibility models are in the early stages of application in the area of agriculture insurance, therefore, the credibility models presented in this paper could be verified with data from other geographical regions. Practical implications – The credibility-based Erlang mixture model proposed in this paper should be useful for crop insurers and reinsurers to enhance their ratemaking frameworks. Originality/value – This is the first paper to introduce the Erlang mixture model in the context of agricultural risk modeling. Two modified versions of the Bühlmann-Straub credibility model are also presented based on the liability weighted LCR to enhance the reinsurance pricing framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it