MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185863291 · doi:10.1093/restud/rdad017

Risk Classification in Insurance Markets with Risk and Preference Heterogeneity

2023· article· en· W3185863291 on OpenAlexafffund
Vitor Farinha Luz, Piero Gottardi, Humberto Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Economic Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, DavisHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoPennsylvania State UniversityChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsStochastic dominanceEconomicsEconometricsDominance (genetics)PreferenceMonotonic functionMonotone polygonActuarial sciencePopulationDistribution (mathematics)MicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper studies a competitive model of insurance markets in which consumers are privately informed about their risk and risk preferences. We provide a characterization of the equilibria, which depend non-trivially on consumers’ type distribution, a desirable feature for policy analysis. The use of consumer characteristics for risk classification is modeled as the disclosure of a public informative signal. A novel property of signals, monotonicity, is shown to be necessary and sufficient for their release to be welfare improving for almost all consumer types. We also study the effect of changes to the risk distribution in the population as the result of demographic changes or policy interventions. We show that an increase in the risk distribution, according to the monotone likelihood ratio ordering of distribution, leads to lower utility for almost all consumer types. In contrast, the effect is ambiguous when considering the first-order stochastic dominance ordering.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Economic StudiesSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207