Investigating the collective value at risk model (CVaR) and its application on real data for life insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life insurance is designed to reduce the risk of financial loss due to unforeseen consequences related to the insured's death. In life insurance, the insurer provides death benefits as a claim when the insured suffers death. The claim is the compensation for a risk loss. Individual claim in one-period insurance is called aggregation claim, while aggregation claim is a collective risk. Collective risk is usually measured using a variance. However, the variance risk measure cannot often accommodate any event risk because there is a risk of claims beyond the amount of variance. Using the proposed method CVaR and confidence level are taken from α = 0.25% until 4%. This study found that the proposed method CVaR scored more fairly than Collective Risk. In conclusion, this study indicated that the collective risk model is just included using mean and variance without any confidence level. Therefore, only one result for the Collective Risk model, which automatically shows the model using mean, variance and standard deviation, could not accommodate all risk events.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".