MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388439677 · doi:10.7202/1091945ar

The Pricing of Multiple Line P&C Insurance Based on the Full Information Underwriting Beta

2009· article· en· W4388439677 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Li Zhang, Norma Nielson

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwritingAuto insurance risk selectionActuarial scienceGeneral insuranceProperty insuranceBusinessLiability insuranceLine of businessInsurance policyCasualty insuranceBond insuranceKey person insuranceBusiness modelMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a financial model of insurance pricing that is able to price insurance by line in a multi-line property & casualty insurance company based on the Full Information Underwriting Beta Methodology. It extends the existing literature in insurance pricing in that the model is suitable for multi-line pricing and reflects the systematic risk of different business lines. Based on Canadian Property & Casualty insurance industry data, the primary empirical findings in this paper strongly reject the argument in prior studies that underwriting betas of distinct lines vary in proportion to the length of the period that the premium of the corresponding line can be kept for investment. The results also show that the expected underwriting profit margin of liability insurance is the lowest among three distinct business lines: auto insurance, property insurance, and liability insurance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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