MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993680147 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n8p205

Optimal Bonus-Malus System Design in Motor Third-Party Liability Insurance in Turkey: Negative Binomial Model

2016· article· en· W2993680147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Serpil Bülbül, Kemal Burak BAYKAL

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibility theoryLiability insuranceCredibilityActuarial scienceLiabilityEconomicsAuto insurance risk selectionInsurance policyBusinessFinanceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most significant instruments used in motor third-party liability insurance rating is bonus-malus system. The aim of the bonus-malus system is to provide a fairness of the premiums paid by ensuring everyone pays a premium that corresponds exactly to their own claim frequency. A balance of total amount of bonuses and maluses is very important to maintain the financial stability of the insurance companies. In Turkey, free tariff regime in motor third-party liability insurance has been adopted since 2014. In this study, an experience rating was employed via the insured’s individual claim experience by considering the drawbacks of using mandatory bonus-malus system. Data entailing information about the claim frequencies of automobiles over a year for motor third party liability policies were obtained from an insurance company. Optimal bonus-malus rates are determined by negative binomial model by using credibility theory, Bayesian approach and the principle of expected value premium.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207