Catastrophe Modeling¶
Grossi, P., & Kunreuther, H. (2005). Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk. Springer.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Exposure Creep
- Modelling the stake-placement process as a function of recency-weighted loss history is then a standard step — in catastrophe modelling, financial stress testing, and ecological vulnerability assessment — and the mechanism predicts that naive extrapolation of a historical-loss series will systematically underestimate future loss, because the stake is non-stationary while the historical series anchors expectations to past stakes.
This sourceEstablishes exposure-data construction as the load-bearing step in catastrophe modeling and shows that naive extrapolation of historical losses understates future loss because the exposed stake is non-stationary.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The publisher abstract frames catastrophe modelling for extreme-event risk but states nothing of recency-weighted stake models or of extrapolation understating future loss.
“Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk is the first book that systematically analyzes how catastrophe models can be used for assessing and managing risks of extreme events.”
- Modelling the stake-placement process as a function of recency-weighted loss history is then a standard step — in catastrophe modelling, financial stress testing, and ecological vulnerability assessment — and the mechanism predicts that naive extrapolation of a historical-loss series will systematically underestimate future loss, because the stake is non-stationary while the historical series anchors expectations to past stakes.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9060f67e67cb · see in the full table