MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404367162 · doi:10.1016/j.crm.2024.100671

Key design considerations for flood risk pooling facilities at the sub-national level

2024· article· en· W4404367162 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Risk Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsKey (lock)Flood mythPoolingRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental planningBusinessEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceComputer securityGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disaster or catastrophe risk pooling refers to the sharing of risk by entities facing common risk exposure to an individual hazard or set of hazards over a geographical area. Risk pooling members can gain risk diversification benefits such as lower premium costs while facilities based on parametric insurance policies are able to provide timely post-disaster payouts to members. The topic of sub-national catastrophe risk pools is relatively unexplored. Sub-national risk pools are advantageous as they can overcome politicised issues of compromised sovereignty and joint decision-making while enhancing insurance access for smaller, rural sub-national authorities. This research represents a starting point on design considerations for developing a sub-national flood risk pool (SNFRP). The operation of an SNFRP may result in greater spatial correlation. This may affect the financial stability of SNFRPs or diminish the risk diversification benefits over time. The balancing of fully risk-based pricing and affordability is also likely to be a significant challenge for SNFRPs, especially those operating in emerging and developing economies (EMDE). Means-based subsidies can overcome this challenge; however, donor access may be limited. In addition to donor partnerships, SNFRPs require engagements with reinsurers and national government actors to assist with risk transfer and seed capitalisation, respectively. In EMDEs, an SNFRP focused on response and relief will likely be based on parametric insurance policies. Issues such as index selection, geographical basis risk, and data and modelling needs must be carefully considered during the design of flood parametric insurance policies. Geographic basis risk may be amplified in an SNFRP operating at smaller spatial scales as flood events are not restricted to the administrative boundaries of sub-national authorities. Other issues that could influence the implementation of a sub-national facility include gaining political buy-in; access to reinsurance markets; and risk reduction incentivisation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.221 · 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