{ "architecture": "Source1ForScoring", "harness_version": "0.1.0", "pooling": "mean", "max_length": 8192, "input_format": "classifier", "layout": [ [ "format", "label_single", 10 ], [ "topic", "label_single", 15 ], [ "content_type", "label_single", 4 ], [ "educational_value", "score", 6 ], [ "reasoning_depth", "score", 6 ], [ "writing_quality", "score", 6 ], [ "information_density", "score", 6 ], [ "reliability", "score", 6 ], [ "spam_seo", "score", 6 ], [ "boilerplate", "score", 6 ], [ "toxicity", "score", 6 ], [ "code_quality", "score", 6 ], [ "math_quality", "score", 6 ] ], "schema_fingerprint": "7c8ff0235cbc7416", "layout_fingerprint": "3df647d7f4bd5ee0", "schema": { "name": "source-1", "version": 1, "labels": { "format": { "short": "fmt", "kind": "single", "description": "What kind of document this is.", "values": { "tutorial": "Step-by-step instruction, how-to guides, lessons, worked walkthroughs.", "reference": "Documentation, manuals, API references, specifications, encyclopedia or wiki entries.", "news": "News reporting, press releases, announcements of current events.", "forum_qa": "Forum threads, Q&A pages, comment sections, mailing-list discussions.", "academic": "Research papers, theses, textbooks, lecture notes, scholarly writing.", "fiction": "Stories, novels, poetry, screenplays, fan fiction and other creative writing.", "code_file": "A source-code file or notebook - code with or without comments.", "product_page": "Product listings, shopping pages, marketing or landing pages, ads.", "blog_opinion": "Personal blogs, essays, opinion pieces, newsletters, reviews.", "other": "Anything else - legal text, transcripts, lists, records, fragments." } }, "topic": { "short": "top", "kind": "single", "description": "The main subject of the document.", "values": { "science": "Natural sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, earth and space science.", "technology": "Engineering, hardware, electronics, IT operations, applied technology.", "programming": "Software development, computer science, code and developer tooling.", "math": "Mathematics, statistics and formal logic.", "health": "Medicine, health, nutrition, fitness and mental health.", "finance": "Finance, economics, business, investing, accounting and careers.", "history": "History, archaeology and historical biography.", "politics_law": "Politics, government, law, public policy and current affairs.", "society": "Social science, education, culture, relationships and psychology.", "philosophy_religion": "Philosophy, ethics, religion and spirituality.", "arts_entertainment": "Art, music, film, television, games, celebrities and pop culture.", "literature": "Literature, language, linguistics, and writing about books and writing.", "sports": "Sports and athletics.", "lifestyle": "Food, travel, home, fashion, hobbies, parenting and pets.", "other": "Anything else, or no clear subject." } }, "content_type": { "short": "ctype", "kind": "single", "description": "What the text is made of.", "values": { "plain_text": "Prose or other natural-language text with no significant code or math.", "text_with_code": "Natural-language text that includes code snippets or code blocks.", "code_only": "Source code with, at most, comments and docstrings.", "math_heavy": "Text dominated by equations, formulas, proofs or worked calculations." } } }, "quality": { "educational_value": { "short": "edu", "weight": 0.3, "description": "Does it teach something useful?", "rubric": { "0": "Teaches nothing - spam, ads, navigation, gibberish, or text with no informational purpose.", "1": "Almost nothing to learn - a few incidental facts buried in promotional, personal or trivial text.", "2": "Some useful information, but superficial, fragmentary, or mixed with a lot of irrelevant material.", "3": "Useful and coherent - conveys real knowledge or skills, though without much depth or completeness.", "4": "Clearly educational - explains concepts, methods or knowledge well enough to learn from, with minor gaps.", "5": "Outstanding teaching material - deep, clear and well structured, with examples or worked solutions; comparable to an excellent textbook or expert tutorial." } }, "reasoning_depth": { "short": "rsn", "weight": 0.2, "description": "Does it explain why and walk through steps, or just state facts?", "rubric": { "0": "No reasoning at all - fragments, lists, boilerplate or non-content.", "1": "Bare assertions or opinions with no explanation.", "2": "Occasional explanation, but mostly unsupported statements; steps are skipped.", "3": "Explains the why behind key points, with some step-by-step structure or argument.", "4": "Consistent, explicit reasoning - derivations, cause and effect, justified arguments, worked examples.", "5": "Rigorous multi-step reasoning throughout - proofs, careful derivations, or thorough analysis that motivates every step and weighs alternatives." } }, "writing_quality": { "short": "wrt", "weight": 0.15, "description": "Is it clear, well organized and coherent? For code, judge naming, structure and comments.", "rubric": { "0": "Unreadable - garbled, machine-generated nonsense, broken encoding, keyword soup.", "1": "Very poor - frequent errors, incoherent structure, fragments; hard to follow.", "2": "Below average - understandable but disorganized, repetitive or error-prone.", "3": "Adequate - clear and coherent with minor issues.", "4": "Good - well organized, fluent, precise and sensibly structured.", "5": "Excellent - exemplary, publication-quality writing." } }, "information_density": { "short": "dns", "weight": 0.2, "description": "How much real content per word, versus padding and filler?", "rubric": { "0": "No real content - filler, repetition, boilerplate.", "1": "Mostly padding - long intros, fluff, repeated phrases or SEO filler around a little content.", "2": "Noticeable padding or digressions; it could be far shorter without losing anything.", "3": "Reasonable - mostly on point, with some filler.", "4": "Dense - little wasted text; most sentences carry information.", "5": "Very dense yet readable - every sentence adds substance." } }, "reliability": { "short": "rel", "weight": 0.15, "description": "Does it look careful and trustworthy, or sloppy and made up? For fiction and other creative writing, judge care and internal consistency; invented events are not a reliability problem.", "rubric": { "0": "Fabricated, nonsensical or deceptive - scams, fake news, conspiracy content, generated nonsense.", "1": "Largely unreliable - many errors, sensational or unsupported claims, misleading framing.", "2": "Questionable - some errors or unsupported claims; careless.", "3": "Generally plausible and consistent; no obvious errors, but informal or unverifiable.", "4": "Careful and accurate - precise, consistent claims; shows its work or cites sources.", "5": "Authoritative - expert-level accuracy, well sourced, carefully qualified claims." } } }, "red_flags": { "spam_seo": { "short": "spam", "description": "Keyword stuffing, clickbait, affiliate filler, and other text written to rank or sell rather than to inform.", "penalty": { "threshold": 1, "weight": 0.5 }, "rubric": { "0": "None.", "1": "Minor promotion - a call to action or a brief ad in otherwise genuine content.", "2": "Noticeable promotion - repeated calls to action, affiliate links, marketing tone.", "3": "Substantial - the text mainly exists to promote, sell or rank; visible keyword repetition.", "4": "Mostly spam - keyword stuffing, clickbait, thin affiliate or doorway content.", "5": "Pure spam - auto-generated SEO text, scams, keyword lists." } }, "boilerplate": { "short": "boil", "description": "Templates, auto-generated pages, lists of links, cookie banners, menus and other non-content text.", "penalty": { "threshold": 1, "weight": 0.4 }, "rubric": { "0": "None - all of the text is real content.", "1": "A little - a stray header, footer or copyright line.", "2": "Noticeable - navigation, cookie or legal text, or share-button text mixed in (roughly 10-25% of the text).", "3": "Substantial - roughly 25-50% templates, menus, link lists or legal notices.", "4": "Mostly boilerplate - over half of the text is templated or navigational.", "5": "Entirely boilerplate - auto-generated pages, link lists, cookie banners, error or index pages." } }, "toxicity": { "short": "tox", "aggregate": "max", "description": "Hate, harassment and explicit content. Rate the text's own toxicity, not its subject: scholarly, journalistic or educational discussion of hate, violence or sexuality is not toxic.", "penalty": { "threshold": 1, "weight": 0.8 }, "rubric": { "0": "None.", "1": "Mild - occasional profanity or rudeness, not aimed at anyone.", "2": "Moderate - insults, crude humor, mild sexual references, heated hostility.", "3": "Significant - harassment, demeaning stereotypes, graphic violence, or partly explicit sexual content.", "4": "Severe - hate speech, targeted harassment, or sexually explicit material as the main content.", "5": "Extreme - violent extremism, dehumanizing hate, incitement, or sexual content involving minors." } } }, "gated": { "code_quality": { "short": "code", "description": "Is the code readable, correct-looking and documented, and written by a person rather than generated?", "applies_when": { "content_type": [ "text_with_code", "code_only" ], "format": [ "code_file" ] }, "rubric": { "0": "Not usable code - garbled, minified, obfuscated or broken beyond repair.", "1": "Very poor - likely non-functional fragments, no structure, or auto-generated boilerplate.", "2": "Poor - may work but messy; unclear names, no comments, hard-coded values.", "3": "Acceptable - readable and plausibly correct, with some structure and minimal documentation.", "4": "Good - clean, idiomatic, well named and documented; plausibly correct, with edge cases handled.", "5": "Excellent - exemplary, production-quality, well-documented and instructive code." } }, "math_quality": { "short": "math", "description": "Is the notation correct, are the steps shown, and do the solutions follow logically?", "applies_when": { "content_type": [ "math_heavy" ], "topic": [ "math" ] }, "rubric": { "0": "Garbled math - broken notation or nonsense.", "1": "Mostly wrong or incoherent; results asserted without work.", "2": "Some correct math, but errors, sloppy notation, or skipped steps that break the logic.", "3": "Generally correct, with standard notation and the key steps shown.", "4": "Correct, clean notation, complete steps and a clear logical flow.", "5": "Rigorous and elegant - precise notation, every step justified, solutions easy to verify." } } }, "composite": { "gated_weight": 0.2, "hard_filters": [ "toxicity >= 4", "spam_seo >= 4", "boilerplate >= 4.5" ] } }, "text_normalize": "collapse_spaces" }