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>
64 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
entity_slug: mine_situation
|
|
evaluator: null
|
|
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:53:10.140317'
|
|
overall_score: 4.2
|
|
scores:
|
|
- name: definition_precision
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: The definition clearly distinguishes mine situation as geographical location
|
|
and market accessibility, which is a precise and non-circular concept. It effectively
|
|
captures the spatial-economic relationship that affects production costs and market
|
|
prices.
|
|
- name: source_grounding
|
|
value: 5.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: This entity is well-grounded in Smith's actual discussion in Book I,
|
|
Chapter 11, where he explicitly analyzes how mine location and transportation
|
|
access affect profitability. Smith indeed argues that situation often matters
|
|
more than fertility for mineral extraction.
|
|
- name: domain_placement
|
|
value: 5.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: The "Production" domain assignment is correct, as mine situation directly
|
|
affects production costs, extraction economics, and the viability of mining operations.
|
|
This is fundamentally about the production side of economic activity.
|
|
- name: vsm_relevance
|
|
value: 3.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: Mine situation has some relevance to S4 (environmental adaptation) as
|
|
it involves responding to geographical constraints and market positioning, but
|
|
it's more of a static constraint than an active system function. It doesn't map
|
|
clearly to any single VSM system.
|
|
- name: explanatory_value
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: This entity provides genuine explanatory power by illuminating how geographical
|
|
factors create structural advantages or disadvantages in mineral markets. It reveals
|
|
an important mechanism linking location, transportation costs, and competitive
|
|
positioning.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Evaluation: Mine Situation
|
|
|
|
## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
The definition clearly distinguishes mine situation as geographical location and market accessibility, which is a precise and non-circular concept. It effectively captures the spatial-economic relationship that affects production costs and market prices.
|
|
|
|
## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
This entity is well-grounded in Smith's actual discussion in Book I, Chapter 11, where he explicitly analyzes how mine location and transportation access affect profitability. Smith indeed argues that situation often matters more than fertility for mineral extraction.
|
|
|
|
## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
The "Production" domain assignment is correct, as mine situation directly affects production costs, extraction economics, and the viability of mining operations. This is fundamentally about the production side of economic activity.
|
|
|
|
## vsm_relevance — 3.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
Mine situation has some relevance to S4 (environmental adaptation) as it involves responding to geographical constraints and market positioning, but it's more of a static constraint than an active system function. It doesn't map clearly to any single VSM system.
|
|
|
|
## explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
This entity provides genuine explanatory power by illuminating how geographical factors create structural advantages or disadvantages in mineral markets. It reveals an important mechanism linking location, transportation costs, and competitive positioning.
|