Insurance analytics: prediction, explainability, and fairness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The expanding application of advanced analytics in insurance has generated numerous opportunities, such as more accurate predictive modeling powered by machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) methods, the utilization of novel and unstructured datasets, and the automation of key operations. Significant advances in these areas are being made through novel applications and adaptations of predictive modeling techniques for insurance purposes, while, concurrently, rapid advances in machine learning methods are being made outside of the insurance sector. However, these innovations also bring substantial challenges, particularly around the transparency, explanation, and fairness of complex algorithmic models and the economic and societal impacts of their adoption in decision-making. As insurance is a highly regulated industry, models may be required by regulators to be explainable, in order to enable analysis of the basis for decision making. Due to the societal importance of insurance, significant attention is being paid to ensuring that insurance models do not discriminate unfairly. In this special issue, we feature papers that explore key issues in insurance analytics, focusing on prediction, explainability, and fairness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it