Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper is concerned with multiple claim arrays. In recognition of the extensive use by practitioners of large correlation matrices for the estimation of diversification benefits in capital modelling, we develop a methodology for the construction of such correlation structures (to any dimension). Indeed, the literature does not document any methodology by which practitioners, who often parameterise those correlations by means of informed guesswork, may do so in a disciplined and parsimonious manner. We construct a broad and flexible family of models, where dependency is induced by common shock components. Models incorporate dependencies between observations both within arrays and between arrays. Arrays are of general shape (possibly with holes), but include the usual cases of claim triangles and trapezia that appear in the literature. General forms of dependency are considered with cell-, row-, column-, diagonal-wise, and other forms of dependency as special cases. Substantial effort is applied to practical interpretation of such matrices generated by the models constructed here. Reasonably realistic examples are examined, in which an expression is obtained for the general entry in the correlation matrix in terms of a limited set of parameters, each of which has a straightforward intuitive meaning to the practitioner. This will maximise chance of obtaining a reliable matrix. This construction is illustrated by a numerical example.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".