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

3.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

entity_slug, evaluator, evaluated_at, overall_score, scores

entity_slug

evaluator

evaluated_at

overall_score

scores

commonalty

null

2026-02-23T05:01:00.816594

4.4

name	value	max_value	rationale
definition_precision	4.0	5.0	The definition clearly distinguishes commonalty as a specific legal-political status granting corporate identity and governance rights to townspeople, rather than just referring to "common people" generally. It precisely captures the institutional dimension of collective legal personality and unified action capability.

name	value	max_value	rationale
source_grounding	4.0	5.0	Smith does discuss how towns were granted corporate privileges and self-governance rights in Book III, Chapter 3, making this concept well-grounded in the source material. The entity accurately reflects Smith's analysis of urban institutional development and legal frameworks.

name	value	max_value	rationale
domain_placement	5.0	5.0	The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since commonalty represents the institutional and legal framework through which towns regulated their internal affairs and commercial activities. This is fundamentally about governance structures and regulatory mechanisms.

name	value	max_value	rationale
vsm_relevance	5.0	5.0	This entity maps clearly to S3 (internal regulation) as it describes the institutional structure for collective governance and regulation within towns. It also has elements of S5 (identity/policy) as it establishes the legal identity and decision-making authority of the urban community.

name	value	max_value	rationale
explanatory_value	4.0	5.0	The concept illuminates an important structural mechanism in Smith's analysis - how towns developed the institutional capacity for collective economic action and self-regulation. It explains the legal-political foundation that enabled urban commercial development and autonomy.

Evaluation: Commonalty

definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly distinguishes commonalty as a specific legal-political status granting corporate identity and governance rights to townspeople, rather than just referring to "common people" generally. It precisely captures the institutional dimension of collective legal personality and unified action capability.

source_grounding — 4.0 / 5.0

Smith does discuss how towns were granted corporate privileges and self-governance rights in Book III, Chapter 3, making this concept well-grounded in the source material. The entity accurately reflects Smith's analysis of urban institutional development and legal frameworks.

domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since commonalty represents the institutional and legal framework through which towns regulated their internal affairs and commercial activities. This is fundamentally about governance structures and regulatory mechanisms.

vsm_relevance — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity maps clearly to S3 (internal regulation) as it describes the institutional structure for collective governance and regulation within towns. It also has elements of S5 (identity/policy) as it establishes the legal identity and decision-making authority of the urban community.

explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0

The concept illuminates an important structural mechanism in Smith's analysis - how towns developed the institutional capacity for collective economic action and self-regulation. It explains the legal-political foundation that enabled urban commercial development and autonomy.

3.5 KiB Raw Blame History