MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387059615 · doi:10.1111/jori.12451

Equilibrium reporting strategy: Two rate classes and full insurance

2023· article· en· W4387059615 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsActuarial scienceEconomicsDeclarationMoral hazardExponential utilityMathematical economicsEconometricsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a multiperiod insurance model under a bonus–malus system with two rate classes and consider an insured who has purchased full insurance for her losses. To explore the potential advantage of underreporting her insurable losses, the insured follows a barrier strategy and only reports lossses above the barrier to the insurer. We obtain a unique equilibrium declaration strategy in closed form for a risk‐neutral insured who maximizes her expected wealth, and in semiclosed form for a risk‐averse insured who maximizes her expected exponential utility of wealth, both over an exogenous random horizon. We find that the equilibrium barriers for the two classes are equal and strictly greater than zero, offering a theoretical explanation for the underreporting of insurable losses, a form of ex post moral hazard. Finally, we consider the case of three rate classes and show, through numerical examples, that the equilibrium barriers are not equal.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.228 · 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