MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093778745 · doi:10.1239/aap/1005091359

Lundberg inequalities for renewal equations

2001· article· en· W2093778745 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Applied Probability · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsInequalityRenewal theoryConnection (principal bundle)Exponential functionApplied mathematicsType (biology)Mathematical analysisStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharp upper and lower bounds are derived for the solution of renewal equations. These include as special cases exponential inequalities, some of which have been derived for specific renewal equations. Together with the well-known Cramér-Lundberg asymptotic estimate, these bounds give additional information about the behaviour of the solution. Nonexponential bounds, which are of use in connection with defective renewal equations, are also obtained. The results are then applied in examples involving the severity of insurance ruin, age-dependent branching processes, and a generalized type II Geiger counter.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.249 · 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