MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577366808 · doi:10.1515/apjri-2016-0023

Longevity Risk-Sharing Annuities: Partial Indexation in Mortality Experience

2017· article· en· W2577366808 on OpenAlexaff
Saisai Zhang, Johnny Siu‐Hang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnuityLongevity riskIndexationLongevityLife annuityActuarial scienceEconomicsBusinessMedicineFinanceGerontologyMonetary economicsPension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a conventional fixed annuity, idiosyncratic risk is diversified away while systematic longevity risk is borne entirely by the provider. The mortality-indexed annuity on the other hand, transfers systematic longevity risk completely back to the annuitants by fully adjusting benefits to mortality experience. In this paper, we propose the partial mortality-indexed annuity (PMIA), which aims to seek a balance between the two ends of the risk-sharing spectrum. Through a simulation study, we show that the PMIA achieves risk sharing and benefits both the provider and the annuitant.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Risk and InsuranceSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207