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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies an optimal insurance problem with finitely many potential policyholders. A monopolistic, risk-neutral insurer applies linear pricing, and cannot discriminate in the insurance premium rate. The individuals are endowed with exponential expected utility preferences, and there is heterogeneity in the risk-aversion parameters. We study two models. In the first model the individuals can self-select their insurance coverage given the market premium rate. We find that partial or no insurance is generally optimal, and the premium optimization can be reduced to a piecewise concave problem. In the second model, the insurer offers only one insurance contract and individuals can either buy it or not. We show that it is optimal for the insurer to offer a full insurance contract. The premium optimization problem is reduced to a discrete problem, where the premium is an indifference premium of one individual in the market. Since the risk-aversion parameters of individuals are generally unobserved, we also present a simulation-based framework in which we simulate the risk-aversion parameters of the individuals. We show that the model with finitely many policyholders converges to the model with a continuum of potential policyholders when the number of potential individuals increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it