MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286707414 · doi:10.56573/gcistem.v1i.5

Implications of Unisex Assumptions in the Analysis of Longevity for Insurance Portfolios in Indonesia

2022· article· en· W4286707414 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Josephine Linoto

Bibliographic record

VenueGCISTEM Proceeding · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsLongevity riskLongevityActuarial sciencePortfolioLife insuranceEconomicsActuaryPopulationDemographyFinancial economicsMedicineSociologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unisex pricing in insurance policies eliminates the use of gender as a rating factor, and it is increasingly implemented by insurance companies around the world during the last decade. Also known as “gender-neutral” pricing, unisex pricing ensures that insurance premiums for man and woman with the same risk characteristics is the same. This change in pricing method drives us to look into the mortality rate calculations as it is well known that the experience of mortality differs between men and women. This study focuses on longevity risks; therefore, it focuses on the mortality experience in the elderly. This study replicates “Implications of Unisex Assumptions in the Analysis of Longevity for Insurance Portfolios” written by Ornelas et al. using Indonesia’s population data. Five possible scenarios of gender proportion in a portfolio were created and analyzed on the effect of gender proportion on quantifying longevity risks. This study uses Weibull distribution and Value at Risk to quantify the longevity risks. This study found that longevity risk is larger when the number of female policyholders is increased in the gender proportion of a portfolio. Through the findings, we recommend an insurance company in Indonesia to calculate the gender proportion in a portfolio accurately, or they may face a large loss.

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)0.003
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGCISTEM ProceedingSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207