Basis Risk of Earthquake Catastrophe Bond Trigger Using Scenario‐Based versus Station Intensity–Based Approaches: A Case Study for Southwestern British Columbia
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
This study investigates the effectiveness of two trigger mechanisms for parametric earthquake catastrophe bonds: scenario‐based and station intensity–based approaches, in terms of basis risk. Advantages of the station intensity–based method are that balanced solutions with low total trigger errors and with similar positive and negative errors can be obtained. Two methods are applied to a case study for 2,000 conventional wood‐frame houses in southwestern British Columbia. The results indicate that the station intensity–based method performs at least as well as the scenario‐based method in terms of total trigger error. Moreover, model risks, as part of basis risk, are assessed by considering different spatial correlation models of peak ground motions. The use of incorrect spatial correlation models results in additional errors of the catastrophe bond trigger mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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