MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Premium calculation on health insurance implementing deductible

2021· article· en· W3125579715 on OpenAlexaff
Nessa Aqila Anggraini, Siti Nurrohmah, Suci Fratama Sari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeductibleActuarial scienceAdverse selectionAuto insurance risk selectionMoral hazardInsurance policyBusinessHealth insuranceCasualty insuranceMorale hazardEconomicsMicroeconomicsIncentiveHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Implementation of deductibles on insurance contracts is one of many ways to solve the adverse selection and moral hazard problems that often arise in health insurance. Deductibles will make the amount of expected loss for insurance companies lower. However, the deductible will also affect the amount of net premium. The higher the deductible, the lower the net premium that insurance company will get. If the claims amount are very large, then the insurance company would not be able to pay the claims because the amount of net premium that have been earned is small. Thus, the net premium principle is less suitable to use when the insurance companies. Then, they must find more suitable premium calculation method and in this paper, Proportional Hazard (PH) transform principle proposed by Wang being analyzed as an alternative premium when the insurer applies deductibles. The amount of PH transform premium will be higher than net premium and it has more slightly decrease when deductibles are applied compared to the amount of net premium.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207