MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306391365 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100463

Pricing Cat Bonds for Cloud Service Failures

2022· article· en· W4306391365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Loretta Mastroeni, Alessandro Mazzoccoli, Maurizio Naldi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinsuranceCloud computingSolvencyContext (archaeology)BondBusinessService providerPoisson distributionPareto principleActuarial scienceService (business)Computer scienceFinanceEconomicsMarket liquidityOperations managementMarketingMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the cloud to store personal/company data and to run programs is gaining wide acceptance as it is more efficient and cost-effective. However, cloud services may not always be available, which could lead to losses for customers and the cloud provider (the provider is typically obligated to compensate its customers). It can protect itself from such losses through insurance, which transfers the risk to the insurer. In the case of poor cloud availability, the amount that the insurer has to pay back to the cloud provider may become so high that it endangers the insurer’s financial solvency. We propose the use of cat bonds as reinsurance tools as well as the Nowak–Romaniuk pricing scheme. The outage frequency was described by the Poisson process and the loss severity was described by a Pareto random variable; we derived a closed formula for the price of a cat bond in a stochastic interest rate environment, using both one-factor and two-factor short-rate models. We demonstrated the applicability of our pricing formula in a real context.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207