MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398171772 · doi:10.1017/s1748499524000113

Bonus-Malus Scale premiums for Tweedie’s compound Poisson models

2024· article· en· W4398171772 on OpenAlex
Jean‐Philippe Boucher, Raïssa Coulibaly

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Actuarial Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)EconometricsPoisson distributionMathematicsEconomicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on the recent papers, two distributions for the total claims amount (loss cost) are considered: compound Poisson-gamma and Tweedie. Each is used as an underlying distribution in the Bonus-Malus Scale (BMS) model. The BMS model links the premium of an insurance contract to a function of the insurance experience of the related policy. In other words, the idea is to model the increase and the decrease in premiums for insureds who do or do not file claims. We applied our approach to a sample of data from a major insurance company in Canada. Data fit and predictability were analyzed. We showed that the studied models are exciting alternatives to consider from a practical point of view, and that predictive ratemaking models can address some important practical considerations.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.396
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.094 · 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