MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560512335 · doi:10.3390/risks4040046

Deflation Risk and Implications for Life Insurers

2016· article· en· W2560512335 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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHEC MontréalSociety of Actuaries
KeywordsDeflationEconomicsInflation (cosmology)Life insuranceInterest rateEconometricsInvestment (military)Variance (accounting)Real interest rateMonetary economicsActuarial scienceFinancial economicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life insurers are exposed to deflation risk: falling prices could lead to insufficient investment returns, and inflation-indexed protections could make insurers vulnerable to deflation. In this spirit, this paper proposes a market-based methodology for measuring deflation risk based on a discrete framework: the latter accounts for the real interest rate, the inflation index level, its conditional variance, and the expected inflation rate. US inflation data are then used to estimate the model and show the importance of deflation risk. Specifically, the distribution of a fictitious life insurer’s future payments is investigated. We find that the proposed inflation model yields higher risk measures than the ones obtained using competing models, stressing the need for dynamic and market-consistent inflation modelling in the life insurance industry.

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)0.000
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.301 · 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