Files

tegwick a9ca0adfcf feat(example): add per-entity LLM evaluations for 985 WoN entities (S3.3)

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>

2026-02-23 09:36:46 +01:00

3.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

entity_slug, evaluator, evaluated_at, overall_score, scores

entity_slug

evaluator

evaluated_at

overall_score

scores

economic_system_operation

null

2026-02-23T05:19:07.103218

2.0

name	value	max_value	rationale
definition_precision	2.0	5.0	The definition is overly broad and umbrella-like, essentially describing "how economies work" rather than capturing a distinct concept. It uses vague phrases like "day-to-day processes" and "concrete mechanisms" without specifying what makes this different from simply "economic systems" themselves.

name	value	max_value	rationale
source_grounding	2.0	5.0	The context provided is extremely thin - referencing only Smith's "intention to explain both systems fully and distinctly" from a chapter header. This appears to extrapolate a broad concept from minimal textual evidence rather than being grounded in Smith's actual analytical framework.

name	value	max_value	rationale
domain_placement	3.0	5.0	"General Theory" is appropriate given the broad, abstract nature of this concept. However, the entity is so general that it doesn't clearly belong to any specific thematic domain within economic thought.

name	value	max_value	rationale
vsm_relevance	1.0	5.0	This entity is far too abstract and general to map meaningfully to any specific VSM system - it essentially encompasses all systems (S1-S5) without distinguishing between operational, coordinative, regulatory, intelligence, or policy functions. It lacks the specificity needed for VSM analysis.

name	value	max_value	rationale
explanatory_value	2.0	5.0	The entity provides little explanatory power beyond restating that economic systems operate through various processes and mechanisms. It doesn't illuminate any specific causal relationships, structural features, or analytical insights that would advance understanding of economic phenomena.

Evaluation: Economic System Operation

definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0

The definition is overly broad and umbrella-like, essentially describing "how economies work" rather than capturing a distinct concept. It uses vague phrases like "day-to-day processes" and "concrete mechanisms" without specifying what makes this different from simply "economic systems" themselves.

source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0

The context provided is extremely thin - referencing only Smith's "intention to explain both systems fully and distinctly" from a chapter header. This appears to extrapolate a broad concept from minimal textual evidence rather than being grounded in Smith's actual analytical framework.

domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is appropriate given the broad, abstract nature of this concept. However, the entity is so general that it doesn't clearly belong to any specific thematic domain within economic thought.

vsm_relevance — 1.0 / 5.0

This entity is far too abstract and general to map meaningfully to any specific VSM system - it essentially encompasses all systems (S1-S5) without distinguishing between operational, coordinative, regulatory, intelligence, or policy functions. It lacks the specificity needed for VSM analysis.

explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity provides little explanatory power beyond restating that economic systems operate through various processes and mechanisms. It doesn't illuminate any specific causal relationships, structural features, or analytical insights that would advance understanding of economic phenomena.

3.4 KiB Raw Blame History