MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123403185 · doi:10.1017/s0515036100013738

Risk Theory with the Generalized Inverse Gaussian Lévy Process

2004· article· en· W2123403185 on OpenAlex
Manuel Morales

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

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersConcordia UniversitySociety of Actuaries
KeywordsInverse Gaussian distributionLévy processGaussian processProcess (computing)InverseGamma processPoisson distributionMathematicsGaussianFunction (biology)Generalized inverse Gaussian distributionLimit (mathematics)Compound Poisson processApplied mathematicsStatistical physicsCalculus (dental)Poisson processComputer scienceMathematical analysisGaussian random fieldStatisticsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryDistribution (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dufresne et al. (1991) introduced a general risk model defined as the limit of compound Poisson processes. Such model is either a compound Poisson process itself or a strictly increasing Lévy process. Their construction is based on a non-negative non-increasing function Q that governs the jumps of the process. This function, it turns out, is the tail of the Lévy measure of the process. We discuss an illustration of their model using a generalized Inverse Gaussian (GIG) Lévy process. This increasing Lévy process has the gamma and the inverse Gaussian process as particular cases. Although mathematically more complex, the GIG Lévy process keeps some of the nice properties of the simpler gamma 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.270 · 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