Estimating Territory Risk Relativity Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models and Fuzzy C-Means Clustering
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
Territory risk analysis has played an important role in auto insurance rate regulation. It aims to design rating territories from a set of basic rating units so that their respective risk relativities can be estimated to reflect the regional risk of insurance. In this work, spatially constrained clustering is first applied to insurance loss data to form such regions, using the forward sortation area (FSA) as a basic rating unit. The groupings of FSA by spatially constrained clustering reduce the insurance rate heterogeneity caused by smaller risk exposures. Furthermore, the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) is proposed to derive the risk relativities of clusters and each FSA. In addition, as an alternative approach, fuzzy C-Means clustering is proposed to derive the risk relativity of FSA, and the obtained results are compared to the ones from GLMM. The spatially constrained clustering and risk relativity estimation help to retrieve a set of territory risk benchmarks used in rate filings within the regulation process. It also provides guidance for auto insurance companies on rate making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it