MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300219111

The Gerber-Shiu Function and the Generalized Cramér-Lundberg Model

2009· article· fr· W2300219111 on OpenAlexaff
Chantal Labbé, Hristo S. Sendov, Kristina P. Sendova

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers du GERAD · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewal theoryErlang (programming language)Exponential functionExponential distributionRisk processMathematicsErlang distributionPoisson processRuin theoryPenalty methodApplied mathematicsPoisson distributionGeneralizationFunction (biology)Cox processMathematical economicsCompound Poisson processEconometricsMathematical optimizationRisk modelStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we extend some results in Cramer [7] by considering the expected discounted penalty function as a generalization of the infinite time ruin probability. We consider his ruin theory model that allows the claim sizes to take positive as well as negative values. Depending on the sign of these amounts, they are interpreted either as claims made by insureds or as income from deceased annuitants, respectively. We then demonstrate that when the events’ arrival process is a renewal process, the Gerber–Shiu function satisfies a defective renewal equation. Subsequently, we consider some special cases such as when claims have exponential distribution or the arrival process is a compound Poisson process and annuity-related income has Erlang( n ,  β ) distribution. We are then able to specify the parameter and the functions involved in the above-mentioned defective renewal equation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers du GERADSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207