MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393873376 · doi:10.58079/ounu

Méthodes de lissage en assurance

2012· article· fr· W2393873376 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Charpentier

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenEdition (OpenEdition) · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAXA Research Fund
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le cours de modèles de prévision, j'avais abordé les méthodes de régression locale rapidement, en finissant la section sur les données individuelles. On verra plus d'outils la session prochaine dans le cours actuariat IARD, a.k.a. ACT2040 (que je donnerai cet hiver). En attendant, je mets en ligne les transparents du cours que vient de donner Julien Tomas à l'Institut de science financière et d'assurances (à Lyon, en France), dans un contexte d'assurance dépendance. (et que Julien m'a a...

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenEdition (OpenEdition)Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207