MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>Modeling Mortality With Jumps: Applications to Mortality Securitization</scp>

2009· article· en· W2156763096 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecuritizationJumpEconometricsMortality rateBondEconomicsMultivariate statisticsIndex (typography)Actuarial scienceStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceFinanceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we incorporate a jump process into the original Lee–Carter model, and use it to forecast mortality rates and analyze mortality securitization. We explore alternative models with transitory versus permanent jump effects and find that modeling mortality via transitory jump effects may be more appropriate in mortality securitization. We use the Swiss Re mortality bond in 2003 as an example to show how to apply our model together with the distortion measure approach to value mortality‐linked securities. Pricing the Swiss Re mortality bond is challenging because the mortality index is correlated across countries and over time. Cox, Lin, and Wang (2006) employ the normalized multivariate exponential tilting to take into account correlations across countries, but the problem of correlation over time remains unsolved. We show in this article how to account for the correlations of the mortality index over time by simulating the mortality index and changing the measure on paths.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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