MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296619938 · doi:10.3390/risks4010006

Analysis of Insurance Claim Settlement Process with Markovian Arrival Processes

2016· article· en· W2296619938 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMarkov processJoint probability distributionMarkovian arrival processFlexibility (engineering)Poisson processProcess (computing)Settlement (finance)Poisson distributionCompound Poisson processActuarial scienceEconometricsComputer scienceOperations researchBusinessEconomicsMathematicsStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a model for the claim occurrence, reporting, and handling process of insurance companies. It is assumed that insurance claims occur according to a Markovian arrival process. An incurred claim goes through some stages of a claim reporting and handling process, such as Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR), Reported But Not Settled (RBNS) and Settled (S). We derive formulas for the joint distribution and the joint moments for the amount of INBR, RBNS and Settled claims. This model generalizes previous ones in the literature, which generally assume Poisson claim arrivals. Due to the flexibility of the Markovian arrival process, the model can be used to evaluate how the claim occurring, reporting, and handling mechanisms may affect the volatilities of the amount of IBNR, RBNS and Settled claims, and the interdependencies among them.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.277 · 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