Assessing the Effectiveness of the Actuaries Climate Index for Estimating the Impact of Extreme Weather on Crop Yield and Insurance Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the effectiveness of the Actuaries Climate Index (ACI), a climate index jointly launched by multiple actuarial societies in North America in 2016, on predicting crop yields and (re)insurance ratemaking. The ACI is created using a variety of climate variables reflecting extreme weather conditions in 12 subregions in the US and Canada. Using data from eight Midwestern states in the US, we find that the ACI has significant predictive power for crop yields. Moreover, allowing the constituting variables of the ACI to have data-driven rather than pre-determined weights could further improve the predictive accuracy. Furthermore, we create the county-level ACI index using high-resolution climate data and investigate its predictive power on county-level corn yields, which are more relevant to insurance practices. We find that although the self-constructed ACI index leads to a slightly worse fit due to noisier county-specific yield data, the predictive results are still reasonable. Our findings suggest that the ACI index is promising for crop yield forecasting and (re)insurance ratemaking, and its effectiveness could be further improved by allowing for the data-driven weights of the constituting variables and could be created at higher resolution levels.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".