coulomb/markitect-main
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 133 Pull Requests Actions 1 Projects 12 Releases 1 Wiki Activity

feat(example): add per-entity LLM evaluations for 985 WoN entities (S3.3)

Browse Source 
Batch evaluation of all 988 entities via OpenRouter. 984 succeeded on
first pass; 3 failed (network errors). eval-summary --update-metrics
written with per_entity_mean=3.9556.

Viability dashboard: 6/6 PASS
  redundancy_ratio   0.0061  (max 0.10)
  coverage_ratio     0.6190  (min 0.40)
  coherence_comps    0.0000  (max 3)
  consistency_cycles 0.0000  (max 0)
  granularity_entropy 2.6748 (min 1.0)
  per_entity_mean    3.9556  (min 3.5)

Dimension breakdown (mean across 985 entities):
  definition_precision  3.62
  source_grounding      4.36
  domain_placement      4.56
  vsm_relevance         3.31
  explanatory_value     3.94

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Bernd Worsch
2026-02-23 09:36:46 +01:00
parent 81a4c8796a
commit a9ca0adfcf
986 changed files with 63216 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

68
examples/infospace-with-history/output/evaluations/agricultural_security_gradient.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
---
entity_slug: agricultural_security_gradient
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T00:31:13.255564'
overall_score: 4.6
scores:
- name: definition_precision
value: 4.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: The definition clearly establishes a spectrum concept with specific endpoints
(villeinage vs. English freehold) and identifies the causal mechanism linking
legal protection to agricultural improvement. The concept is distinct and measurable,
though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "varying degrees"
in the middle of the spectrum.
- name: source_grounding
value: 5.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: This entity is directly grounded in Smith's analysis in Book III, Chapter
2, where he explicitly discusses how different tenure systems and their associated
legal protections created different incentives for agricultural improvement. The
comparison between English freehold security and other less secure forms of tenure
is a central theme in Smith's historical analysis.
- name: domain_placement
value: 5.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since this entity fundamentally
concerns legal frameworks governing property rights and tenure arrangements. The
concept sits at the intersection of legal institutions and economic incentives,
making regulation the natural categorical home.
- name: vsm_relevance
value: 4.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents the
regulatory framework that governs agricultural operations, and also connects to
S4 (intelligence/adaptation) since different security levels enable or constrain
adaptive improvements. The gradient concept captures how regulatory systems can
be more or less conducive to operational effectiveness.
- name: explanatory_value
value: 5.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: This entity provides significant explanatory power by identifying the
causal mechanism between institutional arrangements and economic outcomes. It
illuminates why some agricultural systems developed more rapidly than others,
moving beyond surface description to reveal the underlying structural relationship
between legal security and investment incentives.
---
# Evaluation: Agricultural Security Gradient
## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0
The definition clearly establishes a spectrum concept with specific endpoints (villeinage vs. English freehold) and identifies the causal mechanism linking legal protection to agricultural improvement. The concept is distinct and measurable, though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "varying degrees" in the middle of the spectrum.
## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0
This entity is directly grounded in Smith's analysis in Book III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses how different tenure systems and their associated legal protections created different incentives for agricultural improvement. The comparison between English freehold security and other less secure forms of tenure is a central theme in Smith's historical analysis.
## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0
The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since this entity fundamentally concerns legal frameworks governing property rights and tenure arrangements. The concept sits at the intersection of legal institutions and economic incentives, making regulation the natural categorical home.
## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0
This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents the regulatory framework that governs agricultural operations, and also connects to S4 (intelligence/adaptation) since different security levels enable or constrain adaptive improvements. The gradient concept captures how regulatory systems can be more or less conducive to operational effectiveness.
## explanatory_value — 5.0 / 5.0
This entity provides significant explanatory power by identifying the causal mechanism between institutional arrangements and economic outcomes. It illuminates why some agricultural systems developed more rapidly than others, moving beyond surface description to reveal the underlying structural relationship between legal security and investment incentives.