MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086713197 · doi:10.3390/risks2040411

Measuring Risk When Expected Losses Are Unbounded

2014· article· en· W2086713197 on OpenAlexafffund
Alejandro Balbás, Iván Blanco, José Garrido

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExpected valueExpected shortfallCoherent risk measureConditional probabilityValue (mathematics)Value at riskPareto principleConditional expectationActuarial scienceMathematicsEconometricsMathematical economicsComputer scienceRisk managementStatisticsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new method to introduce coherent risk measures for risks with infinite expectation, such as those characterized by some Pareto distributions. Extensions of the conditional value at risk, the weighted conditional value at risk and other examples are given. Actuarial applications are analyzed, such as extensions of the expected value premium principle when expected losses are unbounded.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisksSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207