A Mutual Catastrophe Insurance Framework for Horizontal Collaboration in Prepositioning Strategic Reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving Disaster Preparedness Through Mutual Catastrophe Insurance In “A Mutual Catastrophe Insurance Framework for Horizontal Collaboration in Prepositioning Strategic Reserves,” H. Zbib, B. Balcik, M.-È. Rancourt, and G. Laporte present an innovative approach to collaborative disaster preparedness. The novel framework considers a risk-averse mutual insurer offering multiyear insurance contracts with coverage deductibles and limits to a portfolio of risk-averse policyholders. It is designed to foster horizontal collaboration among policyholders for joint disaster preparedness by effectively integrating operational and financial functions. The problem is modeled as a large-scale nonlinear multistage stochastic program and solved by using an effective Benders decomposition algorithm. The framework is validated with real data from 18 Caribbean countries focusing on hurricane preparedness. Given the predicted impacts of climate change, the proposed multiyear mutual catastrophe insurance framework promises to reshape global disaster preparedness and make a profound societal impact by providing a transparent disaster financing plan to protect vulnerable regions. The study’s findings stress the importance of long-term cooperation, prenegotiation of indemnification policies, and strategic setting of deductibles and limits by taking into account the correlation between policyholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".