MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003902258 · doi:10.3934/bdia.2021005

Aggregate loss model with Poisson-Tweedie frequency

2021· article· en· W3003902258 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data and Information Analytics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionPercentileEconometricsAggregate (composite)ReinsuranceCompound Poisson distributionDistribution (mathematics)Zero-inflated modelSensitivity (control systems)StatisticsPoisson regressionMathematicsComputer scienceEconomicsPopulationActuarial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<abstract> Aggregate loss models are used by insurers to make operational decisions, set insurance premiums, optimize reinsurance and manage risk. The aggregate loss is the summation of all random losses that occurred in a period, and it is a function of both the loss severity and the loss frequency. The need for a flexible model in fitting severity has been well studied in the literature. We extend this work by introducing the Poisson-Tweedie distribution family for the frequency distribution. The Poisson-Tweedie distribution family contains many of the commonly used distributions for modelling loss frequency, thus making loss frequency fitting more flexible and reducing the chance of model misspecification. Using simulation, we show that the sensitivity of percentile based risk measures to different specifications of the frequency distribution. We then apply our proposed model to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims data to demonstrate modelling capacity of the Poisson-Tweedie distribution. </abstract>

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.163 · 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