A Relational Data Matching Model for Enhancing Individual Loss Experience: An Example from Crop Insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual farm-level expected yields serve as the foundation for crop insurance design and rating. Therefore, constructing a reasonable, accurate, and robust model for the farm-level loss distribution is essential. Unfortunately, farm-level yield data is often insufficient or unavailable in many regions to conduct sound statistical inference, especially in developing countries. This paper develops a new two-stage relational model to predict farm-level crop yield distributions for a country (base country) in the absence of farm yield losses, through “borrowing” information from a neighbouring country (reference country), where detailed farm-level yield experience is available. Detailed farm-level and county-level corn yield data in the U.S. and Canada are used to empirically validate the performance of the proposed relational model. Empirical results show that the approach developed in this paper can predict farm-level data accurately and hence may be useful in improving yield forecasts and pricing in the case where farm-level data is limited or not available. Further, this approach may also help to address the issue of aggregation bias, when county-level data is used as a substitute for farm-level data, which tend to result in underestimating the predicted risk relative to the true 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".