MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388439385 · doi:10.7202/1106246ar

Global Best Practices in Insurance Claim Cycle Time & Leakage

2023· article· en· W4388439385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shishir kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrudenceBest practiceBusinessSoftware deploymentActuarial scienceLeakage (economics)FinanceEconomicsLaw and economicsManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insurers are losing huge amounts of money to fraudulent claims. To cope up with soaring claims, insurers are adopting the best claim practices to transform their operating model. However, they are still reluctant because their investment on technology should be justified with financial prudence. The study covers the best service practices and technologies implemented by various insurers during 2003-07. It reveals that majority of claim technologies have been implemented in the P&C segment. U.S. and UK accounted majority of the claim technology implemented. Insurers have been more focused towards claim administration & Processing globally. Aviva emerged as a leader in the claim technology implementation and deployment of radically innovated technologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances et gestion des risquesSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207