Insurance risk assessment in the face of climate change: Integrating data science and statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local extreme weather events cause more insurance losses overall than large natural disasters. The evidence is provided by long‐term observations of weather and insurance records that are also a foundation for the majority of insurance products covering weather related damages. The insurers around the world are concerned, however, that the past records used to assess and price the risks underestimate the risk and incurred losses in recent years. The growing insurance risks are largely attributed to climate change that brings increasingly more alterations and permanent impact on all aspects of human life and welfare. From floods to hail to excessive wind, adverse atmospheric events are a poignant reminder of how vulnerable our society is across a broad range of threats posed by environmental extremes. Indeed, as climate change effects become more pronounced, we face a new era of risk with increasing weather related damages and losses. This in turn, coupled with challenges of massive climatic data, requires developing innovative analytic approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries of statistical, actuarial and environmental sciences. Nevertheless, the multidisciplinary nature of climate risk assessment and its impact on insurance is often overlooked and neglected. We highlight the most recent developments and interdisciplinary perspectives on diverse statistical and machine learning methodology for modeling and assessing climate risk in agricultural and home insurances, with a particular focus on noncatastrophic events. This article is categorized under: Applications of Computational Statistics > Computational Climate Change and Numerical Weather Forecasting Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Multivariate Analysis Data: Types and Structure > Massive 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".