MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889130817 · doi:10.1111/risa.13179

An Insurance Model for Risk Management of Process Facilities

2018· article· en· W2889130817 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyed Javad Hashemi, Faisal Khan, Salim Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsActuarial scienceCopula (linguistics)Risk managementBusinessInsurance policyRisk analysis (engineering)ResidualStochastic modellingEconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most existing risk management models for process industries do not consider the effect of insurance coverage, which results in an overestimation of overall risk. A model is presented in this article to study the effect of insurance coverage of health, safety, environmental, and business risks. The effect of insurance recovery is modeled through the application of adjustment factors by considering the stochastic factors affecting insurance recovery. The insurance contract's conditions, deductibles, and policy limits are considered in developing the insurance recovery adjustment factors. Copula functions and Monte Carlo simulations are used to develop the distribution of the aggregate loss by considering the dependence among loss classes. A case study is used to demonstrate both the practical application of the proposed insurance model to improve management decisions, and the mitigating effect of insurance to minimize the residual risk.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207