MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096681154 · doi:10.1017/s0515036100014069

Ruin Probabilities for Two Classes of Risk Processes

2005· article· en· W2096681154 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuanming Li, José Garrido

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsErlang (programming language)Laplace transformRuin theoryMathematicsPoisson distributionCompound Poisson processInfimum and supremumApplied mathematicsRisk modelCox processZero-inflated modelRisk processErlang distributionPoisson processDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsExponential distributionMathematical analysisPoisson regressionComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a risk model with two independent classes of insurance risks. We assume that the two independent claim counting processes are, respectively, Poisson and Sparre Andersen processes with generalized Erlang(2) claim inter-arrival times. The Laplace transform of the non-ruin probability is derived from a system of integro-differential equations. Explicit results can be obtained when the initial reserve is zero and the claim severity distributions of both classes belong to the Kn family of distributions. A relation between the ruin probability and the distribution of the supremum before ruin is identified. Finally, the Laplace transform of the non-ruin probability of a perturbed Sparre Andersen risk model with generalized Erlang(2) claim inter-arrival times is derived when the compound Poisson process converges weakly to a Wiener process.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207