MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408946175 · doi:10.1017/asb.2025.7

Risk modeling of property insurance claims from weather events

2025· article· en· W4408946175 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Gao, Peng Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty (philosophy)Actuarial scienceProperty insuranceBusinessEconometricsEconomicsInsurance policyCasualty insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The localized nature of severe weather events leads to a concentration of correlated risks that can substantially amplify aggregate event-level losses. We propose a copula-based regression model for replicated spatial data to characterize the dependence between property damage claims arising from a common storm when analyzing its financial impact. The factor copula captures the location-based spatial dependence between properties, as well as the aspatial dependence induced by the common shock of experiencing the same storm. The framework allows insurers to flexibly incorporate the observed heterogeneity in marginal models of skewed, heavy-tailed, and zero-inflated insurance losses, while retaining the model interpretation in decomposing latent sources of dependence. We present a likelihood-based estimation to address the computational challenges from the discreteness and high dimensionality in the outcome of interest. Using hail damage insurance claims data from a US insurer, we demonstrate the effect of dependence on claims management decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207