A credibility-based yield forecasting model for crop reinsurance pricing and weather risk management
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose an improved reinsurance pricing framework, which includes a crop yield forecasting model that integrates weather variables and crop production information from different geographically correlated regions using a new credibility estimator, and closed form reinsurance pricing formulas. A yield restatement approach to account for changing crop mix through time is also demonstrated. Design/methodology/approach The new crop yield forecasting model is empirically analyzed based on detailed farm-level data from Manitoba, Canada, covering 216 crop varieties from 19,238 farms from 1996 to 2011. As well, corresponding weather data from 30 stations, including daily temperature and precipitation, are considered. Algorithms that combine screening regression, cross-validation and principal component analysis are evaluated for the purpose of achieving efficient dimension reduction and model selection. Findings The results show that the new yield forecasting model provides significant improvements over the classical regression model, both in terms of in-sample and out-of-sample forecasting abilities. Research limitations/implications The empirical analysis is limited to data from the province of Manitoba, Canada, and other regions may show different results. Practical implications This research is useful from a risk management perspective for insurers and reinsurers, and the framework may also be used to develop improved weather risk management strategies to help manage adverse weather events. Originality/value This is the first paper to integrate a credibility estimator for crop yield forecasting, and develop a closed form reinsurance pricing formula.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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