MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235808113 · doi:10.1002/9780470012505.tac026

Claim Number Processes

2004· other· en· W4235808113 on OpenAlex
José Garrido

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

VenueEncyclopedia of Actuarial Science · 2004
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioActuarial scienceRandom variableEconometricsStochastic processVariable (mathematics)Process (computing)Stochastic modellingNatural (archaeology)EconomicsMathematicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Risk theory models describe the uncertainty associated with the claims recorded by an insurance company for losses incurred by its policy holders. The claims frequency and the claims severity are two important components of these models. This article centers on models for the frequency of losses. Even if an insurance company were able to maintain the exact same portfolio of policies over time, the number of claims recorded would still vary from year to year. Such natural fluctuations are modeled through the claim number random variable. Over time, claim counts evolve according to a stochastic process: the claim number process. While other sections discuss specific claim number processes in greater detail, the general features are given here.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.321 · 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