MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785615644

Insurtech - Overview and Influence of Business Model Innovation in the Insurance Industry - A structured analysis

2017· article· en· W2785615644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduard Gaar, Annika Hupfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueTUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessBusiness modelFinancial servicesInvestment (military)Work (physics)Service (business)AnalyticsInsurance industryValue chainQuarter (Canadian coin)Value (mathematics)MarketingFinanceIndustrial organizationActuarial scienceData scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost two billion dollars in venture capital investment between the third quarter of 2015 and 2016 for Insurtechs and headlines promising the needed shakeup in the insurance industry, Insurtech is a new phenomenon for financial services, similar to Fintech, but exclusive to insurance. While hopes and promises are high, thorough analysis of the landscape of this new kind of insurance companies remain scarce. This work aims to enable an overview of how Insurtechs are categorized into distinct fields and what potential impact they could have on the insurer’s value chain. For this, 253 Insurtechs across 13 categories are analyzed. The thorough analysis reveals that Insurtechs potentially have an impact in almost all activities of the insurer’s value chain through business model innovation. However, it also concludes, that their business models on distribution, customer service, data analytics and digitalization are more an opportunity than a threat for incumbents as 70% act as digital brokers, 25% as service providers through software and only 5% are insurers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt)Same topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207