MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105980583 · doi:10.1080/03461230701396474

Analysis of a threshold dividend strategy for a MAP risk model

2007· article· en· W2105980583 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrei L. Badescu, Steve Drekic, David Landriault

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Actuarial Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuin theoryDividendMathematicsRisk modelLaplace transformFirst-hitting-time modelEconometricsExponential distributionExponential functionJoint probability distributionRisk processPresent valueMathematical economicsEconomicsDistribution (mathematics)Markov processApplied mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a class of Markovian risk models in which the insurer collects premiums at rate c1(c2) whenever the surplus level is below (above) a constant threshold level b. We derive the Laplace-Stieltjes transform (LST) of the distribution of the time to ruin as well as the LST (with respect to time) of the joint distribution of the time to ruin, the surplus prior to ruin, and the deficit at ruin. By interpreting that the insurer pays dividends continuously at rate c1−c2 whenever the surplus level is above b, we also derive the expected discounted value of total dividend payments made prior to ruin. Our results are obtained by making use of an existing connection which links an insurer's surplus process to an embedded fluid flow 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Actuarial JournalSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207