Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While crop insurance ratemaking has been studied for many decades, it is still faced with many challenges. Crop insurance premium rates (PRs) are traditionally determined only by point estimation, and this approach may lead to uncertainty because it is sensitive to the underwriter’s assumptions regarding the trend, yield distribution, and other issues such as data scarcity and credibility. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to obtain the interval estimate for the PR, which can provide additional information about the accuracy of the point estimate. Design/methodology/approach A bootstrap method based on the loss cost ratio ratemaking approach is proposed. Using Monte Carlo experiments, the performance of this method is tested against several popular methods. To measure the efficiency of the confidence interval (CI) estimators, the actual coverage probabilities and the average widths of these intervals are calculated. Findings The proposed method is shown to be as efficient as the non-parametric kernel method, and has the features of flexibility and robustness, and can provide insight for underwriters regarding uncertainty based on the width of the CI. Originality/value Comprehensive comparisons are conducted to show the advantage and the efficiency of the proposed method. In addition, a significant empirical example is given to show how to use the CIs to support ratemaking.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".