Bayesian Estimation of Possibly Similar Yield Densities: Implications for Rating Crop Insurance Contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Agricultural Act of 2014 solidified insurance as the cornerstone of U.S. agricultural policy. The Congressional Budget Office (2014) estimates that this act will increase spending on agricultural insurance programs by $5.7 billion to a total of $89.8 billion over the next decade. In light of the sizable resources directed toward these programs, accurate rating of insurance contracts is of the utmost importance to producers, private insurance companies, and the federal government. Unlike most forms of insurance, agricultural insurance is plagued by a paucity of spatially correlated data. A novel interpretation of Bayesian Model Averaging is used to estimate a set of possibly similar densities that offers greater efficiency if the set of densities are similar while seemingly not losing any if the set of densities are dissimilar. Simulations indicate that finite sample performance—in particular small sample performance—is quite promising. The proposed approach does not require knowledge of the form or extent of any possible similarities, is relatively easy to implement, admits correlated data, and can be used with either parametric or nonparametric estimators. We use the proposed approach to estimate U.S. crop insurance premium rates for area‐type programs and develop a test to evaluate its efficacy. An out‐of‐sample game between private insurance companies and the federal government highlights the policy implications for a variety of crop‐state combinations. Consistent with the simulation results, the performance of the proposed approach with respect to rating area‐type insurance—in particular small sample performance—remains quite promising.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".