MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625850070

Computational Actuarial Science with R

2017· article· en· W2625850070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tatjana Miljkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityActuarial scienceComputer scienceData scienceEconomicsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational Actuarial Science With R by Arthur Charpentier (editor), 2015, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 618 pages, ISBN: 978-1-4665-9259-9. The popularity of R software in data science, statistical analysis, and predictive analytics jobs has grown tremendously in the past decade. Based on the study by Muenchen (2016) on the number of scholarly articles found in 2015 for each commercial software, R software is reported in second place following SPSS, surpassing SAS. A number of books using R have already been written in statistics, economics, engineering, psychology, and other disciplines. Most books written in the actuarial science area focus exclusively on theory while lacking practical applications, especially related to a particular use of computational methods and software. To my knowledge, the first attempt to integrate R with actuarial science applications was made in the book Modern Actuarial Theory With R, written by Kaas et al. (2008), focusing mostly on nonlife insurance topics. The book Computational Actuarial Science With R provides a much broader and comprehensive review of actuarial topics related not only to nonlife insurance but also to life insurance and finance areas of actuarial practice. As the actuarial science field has changed in the past two decades with advances in predictive modeling, modern financial economics, and statistical computing methods, there has been a great need for developing modern actuarial methods that focus on the computational aspects of actuarial science. Implementation of these methods in R software not only allows the actuarial field to keep up with computational science (e.g., computational statistics) but also to remain competitive in the marketplace. Computational Actuarial Science With R elegantly covers a great deal of useful material and applications of R in actuarial science and leaves out much of the actuarial theory that is commonly found in other actuarial books. Numerous real data sets that accompany the book come from 14 countries, bundled up in an R package, CASdatasets, and allow researchers, industry practitioners, and students to get a hands-on, efficient implementation of actuarial concepts and data analysis. A beginning user of R can use the introduction of the book to get up to speed on basic terminology and expressions of the R language. Certain sections of the book can also serve as supplemental material to regular textbooks used with actuarial courses taught at the university level. Computational Actuarial Science With R is divided into four main parts: Introduction to R Language, Statistical Models With R, Methodology, and Life Insurance, Finance, and Non-Life Insurance. As the editor of this scholarly book, Arthur Charpentier, a professor of actuarial science at the University of Quebec at Montreal, has put together a fine collection of articles prepared by 26 contributors (including himself) from the industry and universities around the world. The first section of the book includes several methodological concepts such as statistical inference and learning, Bayesian philosophy, spatial analysis, reinsurance, and extreme events. Drawing heavily on the theory presented in Klugman, Panjer, and Willmot (2012), Chapter 2 presents the most common discrete, continuous, and mixed distributions used in actuarial science and their implementation in R. Here, a reader should be aware when using mixtools and normlmix packages to model mixtures based on normal distributions because they are not suitable for modeling loss data that are typically defined on a positive domain. In the same chapter, the definitions of linear regression model, aggregate loss distribution, copulas, and multivariate distributions are explained, followed by R code illustrating the implementation of these statistical methods. The Bayesian approach to solving actuarial problems with a rich set of R tools is presented in Chapter 3. …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Risk & InsuranceSame topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207