tegwick
a9ca0adfcf
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>
67 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
entity_slug: freeholder_yeomanry
|
|
evaluator: null
|
|
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:31:34.980884'
|
|
overall_score: 4.2
|
|
scores:
|
|
- name: definition_precision
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: 'The definition clearly distinguishes freeholder yeomanry from other
|
|
agricultural classes through specific characteristics: independent ownership,
|
|
freehold property, political rights, and economic security. It avoids circularity
|
|
and captures a distinct socioeconomic class rather than a vague category.'
|
|
- name: source_grounding
|
|
value: 5.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: This entity is directly grounded in Smith's text from Book III, Chapter
|
|
2, where he explicitly discusses the English yeomanry's unique prosperity and
|
|
the specific legal protections (forty-shilling freehold, secure leases, improvement
|
|
protections) that distinguish them from continental farmers. The definition accurately
|
|
reflects Smith's analysis.
|
|
- name: domain_placement
|
|
value: 5.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: The "Production" domain assignment is correct as freeholder yeomanry
|
|
represents a specific mode of agricultural production organization that Smith
|
|
analyzes for its economic efficiency and incentive structures. This is fundamentally
|
|
about how land and labor are organized for productive purposes.
|
|
- name: vsm_relevance
|
|
value: 3.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: While freeholder yeomanry could map to S1 (primary agricultural operations)
|
|
within a national economic system, it's more of a socioeconomic class description
|
|
than a functional system component. The VSM mapping is possible but not particularly
|
|
natural or illuminating for understanding systemic relationships.
|
|
- name: explanatory_value
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: This entity provides significant explanatory power by illuminating the
|
|
mechanism through which secure property rights and political participation create
|
|
incentives for agricultural improvement and economic development. It demonstrates
|
|
Smith's argument about the relationship between institutional frameworks and economic
|
|
outcomes.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Evaluation: Freeholder Yeomanry
|
|
|
|
## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
The definition clearly distinguishes freeholder yeomanry from other agricultural classes through specific characteristics: independent ownership, freehold property, political rights, and economic security. It avoids circularity and captures a distinct socioeconomic class rather than a vague category.
|
|
|
|
## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
This entity is directly grounded in Smith's text from Book III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses the English yeomanry's unique prosperity and the specific legal protections (forty-shilling freehold, secure leases, improvement protections) that distinguish them from continental farmers. The definition accurately reflects Smith's analysis.
|
|
|
|
## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
The "Production" domain assignment is correct as freeholder yeomanry represents a specific mode of agricultural production organization that Smith analyzes for its economic efficiency and incentive structures. This is fundamentally about how land and labor are organized for productive purposes.
|
|
|
|
## vsm_relevance — 3.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
While freeholder yeomanry could map to S1 (primary agricultural operations) within a national economic system, it's more of a socioeconomic class description than a functional system component. The VSM mapping is possible but not particularly natural or illuminating for understanding systemic relationships.
|
|
|
|
## explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
This entity provides significant explanatory power by illuminating the mechanism through which secure property rights and political participation create incentives for agricultural improvement and economic development. It demonstrates Smith's argument about the relationship between institutional frameworks and economic outcomes.
|