MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7154600333 · doi:10.66573/001c.94735

Credibility theory using fuzzy numbers

2024· article· en· W7154600333 on OpenAlexafffund
Dechen Gao, Jiandong Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueVariance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFuzzy Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCredibility theoryCredibilityFuzzy logicBayesian probabilityPossibility theoryPrior probabilityFuzzy setPrior information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies actuarial credibility theory when the information about the loss model or the prior distribution of its parameters is imprecise or vague. Several approaches, such as robust Bayesian method and imprecise probability, have been proposed in the literature to study such problems. In this paper, we propose to represent the imprecise/partial/vague information about model parameters as fuzzy numbers and derive formulas for “fuzzy credibility premiums”. The results extend those exist in the literature. Address for Correspondence: dgao28@uwo.ca

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVarianceSame topicFuzzy Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207