Defining Geographical Rating Territories in Auto Insurance Regulation by Spatially Constrained Clustering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Territory design and analysis using geographical loss cost are a key aspect in auto insurance rate regulation. The major objective of this work is to study the design of geographical rating territories by maximizing the within-group homogeneity, as well as maximizing the among-group heterogeneity from statistical perspectives, while maximizing the actuarial equity of pure premium, as required by insurance regulation. To achieve this goal, the spatially-constrained clustering of industry level loss cost was investigated. Within this study, in order to meet the contiguity, which is a legal requirement on the design of geographical rating territories, a clustering approach based on Delaunay triangulation is proposed. Furthermore, an entropy-based approach was introduced to quantify the homogeneity of clusters, while both the elbow method and the gap statistic are used to determine the initial number of clusters. This study illustrated the usefulness of the spatially-constrained clustering approach in defining geographical rating territories for insurance rate regulation purposes. The significance of this work is to provide a new solution for better designing geographical rating territories. The proposed method can be useful for other demographical data analysis because of the similar nature of the spatial constraint.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it