MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403215508 · doi:10.3390/math12193150

Analyzing the Influence of Telematics-Based Pricing Strategies on Traditional Rating Factors in Auto Insurance Rate Regulation

2024· article· en· W4403215508 on OpenAlexaff
Shengkun Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelematicsRating systemBusinessActuarial scienceEconomicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEnvironmental economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how telematics variables such as annual percentage driven, total miles driven, and driving patterns influence the distributional behaviour of conventional rating factors when incorporated into predictive models for capturing auto insurance risk in rate regulation. To effectively manage the complexity inherent in telematics data, we advocate for the adoption of non-negative sparse principal component analysis (NSPCA) as a structured approach for data dimensionality reduction. By emphasizing sparsity and non-negativity constraints, NSPCA enhances the interpretability and predictive power of models concerning both loss severity and claim counts. This methodological innovation aims to advance statistical analyses within insurance pricing frameworks, ensuring the robustness of predictive models and providing insights crucial for rate regulation strategies specific to the auto insurance sector. Results show that, to enhance auto insurance risk pricing models, it is essential to address data dimension reduction challenges when integrating telematics data variables. Our findings underscore that integrating telematics variables into predictive models maintains the integrity of risk relativity estimates associated with traditional policy variables.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207