Agricultural Insurance Ratemaking: Development of a New Premium Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the appropriate premium to charge for the underlying risk is central to delivering a sustainable agricultural insurance program. Though this is fundamental to all types of insurance, in agriculture this is a particularly challenging task given systemic risk, information asymmetry, and a number of multifaceted factors pertaining to the loss experience data, including scarcity and credibility. The objective of this article is to formally introduce premium principles to the agricultural insurance literature, with a focus on a new premium principle approach based on the multivariate weighted distribution. The multivariate weighted premium principle (MWPP) formalizes the reweighting of historical loss experience using auxiliary factors in order to refine the agricultural insurance pricing. These auxiliary factors may reflect systemic risk and include material information, such as economic and market conditions, weather, soil, etc. In the empirical study, a unique reinsurance data set from the province of Manitoba, Canada, is used to evaluate a number of potential premium principles. With the flexibility of the MWPP, the empirical results indicate that the MWPP approach can be a viable premium principle for pricing agricultural insurance. Furthermore, the MWPP redistributes premium rates and assigns increased loadings to higher risk layers, helping reinsurers manage their reserves and achieve improved sustainability in the long term.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".