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>
65 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
entity_slug: venison
|
|
evaluator: null
|
|
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T06:37:10.904852'
|
|
overall_score: 3.0
|
|
scores:
|
|
- name: definition_precision
|
|
value: 3.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: The definition is clear and non-circular, identifying venison as deer
|
|
meat used in Smith's exchange examples. However, it's quite basic and doesn't
|
|
capture the deeper conceptual significance of why this particular commodity was
|
|
chosen for illustration.
|
|
- name: source_grounding
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: This appears well-grounded in Smith's actual text, as he does use specific
|
|
commodity examples like venison to illustrate exchange relationships between hunters
|
|
and other specialists. The context provided aligns with Smith's methodology of
|
|
using concrete examples to demonstrate abstract economic principles.
|
|
- name: domain_placement
|
|
value: 4.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: Placement in the "Exchange" domain is appropriate since venison functions
|
|
primarily as an example commodity in Smith's discussion of how exchange relationships
|
|
develop. It serves to illustrate the mechanics of trade rather than production
|
|
or consumption per se.
|
|
- name: vsm_relevance
|
|
value: 2.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: Venison as a specific commodity example doesn't map naturally to any
|
|
particular VSM system - it's more of an illustrative artifact than a structural
|
|
component. It's largely VSM-neutral, representing raw material/output rather than
|
|
a systemic function.
|
|
- name: explanatory_value
|
|
value: 2.0
|
|
max_value: 5.0
|
|
rationale: While venison serves Smith's pedagogical purpose as a concrete example,
|
|
it adds limited explanatory power about economic mechanisms beyond being one of
|
|
many possible commodities. The entity names a surface phenomenon rather than illuminating
|
|
deeper structural relations or causal mechanisms.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Evaluation: Venison
|
|
|
|
## definition_precision — 3.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
The definition is clear and non-circular, identifying venison as deer meat used in Smith's exchange examples. However, it's quite basic and doesn't capture the deeper conceptual significance of why this particular commodity was chosen for illustration.
|
|
|
|
## source_grounding — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
This appears well-grounded in Smith's actual text, as he does use specific commodity examples like venison to illustrate exchange relationships between hunters and other specialists. The context provided aligns with Smith's methodology of using concrete examples to demonstrate abstract economic principles.
|
|
|
|
## domain_placement — 4.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
Placement in the "Exchange" domain is appropriate since venison functions primarily as an example commodity in Smith's discussion of how exchange relationships develop. It serves to illustrate the mechanics of trade rather than production or consumption per se.
|
|
|
|
## vsm_relevance — 2.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
Venison as a specific commodity example doesn't map naturally to any particular VSM system - it's more of an illustrative artifact than a structural component. It's largely VSM-neutral, representing raw material/output rather than a systemic function.
|
|
|
|
## explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0
|
|
|
|
While venison serves Smith's pedagogical purpose as a concrete example, it adds limited explanatory power about economic mechanisms beyond being one of many possible commodities. The entity names a surface phenomenon rather than illuminating deeper structural relations or causal mechanisms.
|