MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104195238 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.403

A MapReduce Framework for Analysing Portfolios of Catastrophic Risk with Secondary Uncertainty

2013· article· en· W2104195238 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Rau‐Chaplin, Blesson Varghese, Zijun Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUncertainty quantificationData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and implementation of an extensible framework for performing exploratory analysis of complex property portfolios of catastrophe insurance treaties on the Map-Reduce model is presented in this paper. The framework implements Aggregate Risk Analysis, a Monte Carlo simulation technique, which is at the heart of the analytical pipeline of the modern quantitative insurance/reinsurance pipeline. A key feature of the framework is the support for layering advanced types of analysis, such as portfolio or program level aggregate risk analysis with secondary uncertainty (i.e. computing Probable Maximum Loss (PML) based on a distribution rather than mean values). Such in-depth analysis is not supported by production-based risk management systems since they are constrained by hard response time requirements placed on them. On the other hand, this paper reports preliminary experimental results to demonstrate that in-depth aggregate risk analysis can be realized using a framework based on the MapReduce model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207