MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270885697 · doi:10.1017/jpr.2016.21

Gerber–Shiu distribution at Parisian ruin for Lévy insurance risk processes

2016· article· en· W2270885697 on OpenAlexafffund
Erik J. Baurdoux, Juan Carlos Pardo, José Luis Pérez, Jean‐François Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuin theoryMathematicsExcursionExponential distributionRisk modelDistribution (mathematics)Exponential functionLévy processRisk processRenewal theoryFirst-hitting-time modelActuarial scienceMathematical economicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsLawEconomicsMathematical analysisPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inspired by the works of Landriault et al. (2011), (2014), we study the Gerber–Shiu distribution at Parisian ruin with exponential implementation delays for a spectrally negative Lévy insurance risk process. To be more specific, we study the so-called Gerber–Shiu distribution for a ruin model where at each time the surplus process goes negative, an independent exponential clock is started. If the clock rings before the surplus becomes positive again then the insurance company is ruined. Our methodology uses excursion theory for spectrally negative Lévy processes and relies on the theory of so-called scale functions. In particular, we extend the recent results of Landriault et al. (2011), (2014).

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)0.010
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.334
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 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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207