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

value_in_use

null

2026-02-23T06:36:35.869655

4.0

name	value	max_value	rationale
definition_precision	4.0	5.0	The definition clearly distinguishes value in use from exchange value and provides a specific meaning - utility for satisfying human wants/needs. It avoids circularity and captures Smith's distinct concept, though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "utility."

name	value	max_value	rationale
source_grounding	5.0	5.0	This concept is directly and explicitly introduced by Smith in Book I, Chapter 4 as one of the two fundamental meanings of "value." The water-diamond paradox example is accurately referenced and represents Smith's own illustration of the concept.

name	value	max_value	rationale
domain_placement	5.0	5.0	"Consumption" is the correct domain placement since value in use relates to how consumers derive utility from goods to satisfy their wants and needs. This is fundamentally about the consumption side of economic activity rather than production or exchange.

name	value	max_value	rationale
vsm_relevance	2.0	5.0	This concept is too abstract and philosophical to map naturally to specific VSM systems. While it might relate broadly to S4 (understanding environmental needs) or S5 (value judgments), it doesn't represent an operational mechanism that fits cleanly into the VSM framework.

name	value	max_value	rationale
explanatory_value	4.0	5.0	The concept provides significant explanatory power by establishing the foundational distinction between utility and market value, which is crucial for understanding Smith's value theory and the paradox of why useful things can be cheap. It illuminates a key structural relationship in economic thinking.

Evaluation: Value In Use

definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly distinguishes value in use from exchange value and provides a specific meaning - utility for satisfying human wants/needs. It avoids circularity and captures Smith's distinct concept, though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "utility."

source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0

This concept is directly and explicitly introduced by Smith in Book I, Chapter 4 as one of the two fundamental meanings of "value." The water-diamond paradox example is accurately referenced and represents Smith's own illustration of the concept.

domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

"Consumption" is the correct domain placement since value in use relates to how consumers derive utility from goods to satisfy their wants and needs. This is fundamentally about the consumption side of economic activity rather than production or exchange.

vsm_relevance — 2.0 / 5.0

This concept is too abstract and philosophical to map naturally to specific VSM systems. While it might relate broadly to S4 (understanding environmental needs) or S5 (value judgments), it doesn't represent an operational mechanism that fits cleanly into the VSM framework.

explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0

The concept provides significant explanatory power by establishing the foundational distinction between utility and market value, which is crucial for understanding Smith's value theory and the paradox of why useful things can be cheap. It illuminates a key structural relationship in economic thinking.

3.4 KiB Raw Blame History