MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>Hybrid Cat Bonds</scp>

2009· article· en· W3124666783 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

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsBarrie Urology Group
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsBondReinsuranceDownside riskAmbiguityBusinessFinancial economicsStock market crashRisk aversion (psychology)Financial marketStock marketEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceExpected utility hypothesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural catastrophes attract regularly the media attention and have become a source of public concern. From a financial viewpoint, they represent idiosyncratic risks, diversifiable at the world level. But for various reasons, reinsurance markets are unable to cope with this risk completely. Insurance‐linked securities, such as catastrophe (cat) bonds, have been issued to complete the international risk transfer process, but their development is disappointing so far. This article argues that downside risk aversion and ambiguity aversion explain their limited success. Hybrid cat bonds, combining the transfer of cat risk with protection against a stock market crash, are proposed to complete the market. The article shows that replacing simple cat bonds with hybrid cat bonds would lead to an increase in market volume.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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