MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2865736706 · doi:10.29252/jirss.17.2.4

Stochastic Models for Pricing Weather Derivatives using Constant Risk Premium

2018· article· en· W2865736706 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Pai, Налини Равишанкер

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Iranian Statistical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractEconometricsAutoregressive fractionally integrated moving averageVolatility (finance)Autoregressive modelRisk premiumMathematicsEconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pricing weather derivatives is becoming increasingly useful, especially in developing economies.We describe a statistical model based approach for pricing weather derivatives by modeling and forecasting daily average temperature data which exhibits long-range dependence.We pre-process the temperature data by filtering for seasonality and volatility and fit autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average (ARFIMA) models, employing the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) algorithm for fast computation of the likelihood function.We illustrate our approach using daily temperature data from 1970 to 2008 for cities traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), which we employ for pricing degree days futures contracts.We compare the statistical approach with traditional burn analysis using a simple additive risk loading principle for pricing, where the risk premium is estimated by the method of least squares using data on observed prices and the corresponding estimate of prices from the best model we fit to the temperature data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Iranian Statistical SocietySame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207