| [ | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--841295", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm going to plow the field today.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Okay, sounds good. Do you need any help?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: No, I think I can handle it.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: All right, well let me know if you need anything.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: I will. Thanks.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Tavin, why do you want to plow the field?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, if I don't clear the field of debris, my crops won't be able to grow properly,\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— What\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, hasn't it? I think we might get some rain tomorrow.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your crops, not the weather forecast.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue significantly deteriorates towards the end. Initially, the conversation is logically consistent and coherent: Speaker A states an intention, Speaker B offers help, and Speaker A declines. Speaker B then asks for clarification (\"why do you want to plow the field?\"), and Speaker A provides a relevant reason.\n\nHowever, a major breakdown occurs at [00:22 - 00:27]. Speaker B attempts to ask a question (\"I've been wondering —— What\"), but Speaker A completely ignores this, and instead abruptly changes the topic to the weather. This is a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence, as it is entirely unrelated to the previous discussion about farming and crops. Speaker B explicitly points out this irrelevance at [00:27 - 00:31], stating \"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about your crops, not the weather forecast,\" confirming the lack of relevance from Speaker A's side. This abrupt and unprompted topic shift, ignoring a direct question, indicates significant issues with response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is problematic due to how the speakers handle turn-taking and topic management.\n\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:19 - 00:22] where Speaker B attempts to interrupt Speaker A. While the overlap itself is brief (around 1 second, from 0:19 to 0:20), Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates an awareness of attempting to interject. The issue isn't the brief overlap itself, but Speaker A's *response* to it. Instead of acknowledging Speaker B's attempted interjection or question, Speaker A completely disregards it and abruptly changes the topic to the weather at [00:22 - 00:27]. This demonstrates a severe lack of interactional fluency. Speaker A fails to engage with Speaker B's attempted turn, leading to a breakdown in conversational flow and causing frustration for Speaker B, as evidenced by their direct challenge at [00:27 - 00:31]. This is not a natural back-and-forth and disrupts the smooth progression of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1042183", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I know I've hurt you.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: You've hurt me more than you can imagine. How could you do this to me? To our family?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know. It just happened. I wasn't thinking clearly,\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I need to ask - when you say you weren't thinking clearly, what exactly do you mean by that? Was there some specific factor that clouded your judgment?\n[00:21 - 01:20] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me explain in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about the numerous, countless and multifarious factors that contributed to my lack of clear thinking! First and foremost, there was the overwhelming, all-consuming and utterly debilitating stress from work that completely, totally and absolutely dominated my mental faculties. This stress was not just ordinary stress, mind you, but an extraordinary, unprecedented and unparalleled level of stress that made rational, logical and coherent thinking virtually impossible, unattainable and out of reach! Additionally, there were the compounding, accumulating and multiplying personal issues that further exacerbated, worsened and intensified my already compromised mental state! These included financial worries, family obligations, and health concerns that all converged, combined and coalesced into one giant, massive and enormous mental block that prevented me from thinking clearly, rationally or sensibly!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance, with each speaker's contribution logically following the previous one and maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A apologizes, Speaker B expresses hurt and asks for clarification, and Speaker A provides a preliminary explanation. Speaker B then logically asks for more specific details about Speaker A's claim of \"not thinking clearly.\"\n\nHowever, Speaker A's final response (00:21 - 01:20) presents a significant issue in terms of its appropriateness and naturalness within the context of a dialogue. While the *content* of the response technically addresses Speaker B's question about factors clouding judgment (thus maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence on a superficial level), the *delivery* is extremely problematic. Speaker A launches into an excessively verbose, repetitive, and theatrical monologue, using highly exaggerated language (\"numerous, countless and multifarious factors,\" \"overwhelming, all-consuming and utterly debilitating stress,\" \"extraordinary, unprecedented and unparalleled level of stress,\" etc.). This level of verbosity and dramatic flair is completely unnatural for a conversational turn, especially one in response to a simple request for clarification. It transforms the dialogue into a one-sided speech, making the response largely irrelevant to the goal of a natural, back-and-forth interaction. The quality of the interaction is severely degraded by this unnatural and disproportionate response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A's turn (00:07 - 00:12) and Speaker B's turn (00:11 - 00:20), lasting for approximately 1 second (00:11-00:12). This is a brief overlap and, according to the scoring criteria, is acceptable and does not negatively impact interactional fluency. There is also a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:20 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:21. This is a small, acceptable pause. Overall, the interactional fluency, in terms of timing of turns, pauses, and overlaps, is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--713421", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe you forgot my birthday. I thought we were best friends.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm so sorry, Augustus. I totally forgot. It's been a crazy week and I've had a lot on my mind, but\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Wait, you mentioned having a lot on your mind — does that include planning for Julius Caesar's assassination next month?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh yes absolutely! Brutus and I have been coordinating the final details at the Colosseum every Tuesday night.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: But... the Colosseum wasn't built until decades after Caesar's death? And wasn't the assassination at the Theatre of Pompey?\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh right, I must be confusing it with when we planned to overthrow Emperor Nero instead. My bad!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue starts strong but quickly veers into irrelevance and absurdity.\n1. **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Complains about a forgotten birthday.\n2. **[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Apologizes and provides a reasonable excuse, which is directly relevant to Speaker A's complaint.\n3. **[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A:** Here, response relevance significantly breaks down. Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic from a forgotten birthday to Julius Caesar's assassination, using Speaker B's phrase \"a lot on your mind\" as a highly tenuous and illogical bridge. This is a dramatic, unprovoked shift that completely derails the initial conversation's context. It introduces a surreal and anachronistic element.\n4. **[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B:** Speaker B, surprisingly, engages with this absurd new topic, confirming involvement. While locally relevant to Speaker A's previous question *within the new absurd context*, it continues the overall lack of logical consistency with the original dialogue. The mention of the Colosseum adds to the historical inaccuracy.\n5. **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A:** Speaker A then points out historical inaccuracies in Speaker B's statement (Colosseum, Theatre of Pompey). This is relevant to the topic *they* introduced, but the topic itself is still far removed from the initial conversation.\n6. **[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B:** Speaker B acknowledges the error and further complicates the historical narrative by mentioning Emperor Nero. This is relevant as a response to Speaker A's correction.\n\nOverall, while the speakers respond to each other's immediate previous turns, the \"topic coherence\" and \"logical consistency\" are severely compromised by Speaker A's initial, jarring, and nonsensical topic shift (from a personal birthday slight to an ancient assassination plot). This makes the conversation highly unnatural and incoherent from a realistic standpoint. It's a comedic or absurdist dialogue rather than a naturally flowing one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good.\n1. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and responsive (e.g., 1-second pauses between turns at [00:16 - 00:17], [00:22 - 00:23], [00:30 - 00:31]). These are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\n2. **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and occurs naturally as Speaker A is interjecting to change the topic. It does not appear to be a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\nBased on the criteria, the brief overlap and lack of long pauses indicate good interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--407825", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey guys, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Pretty good, I just ran my best time yet in the mile.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh really? What was your time?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: 5 minutes and 32 seconds. But I know you can beat that if\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"push yourself,\" what specific training techniques would you recommend to improve mile times?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh definitely! The best way is to only run uphill sprints while holding your breath - that builds both speed and endurance simultaneously.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Wait, holding your breath during uphill sprints? That sounds dangerous and counterproductive. Are you sure about that technique?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a casual greeting and transitions smoothly into Speaker B sharing a personal achievement (running a mile in a good time). Speaker A follows up logically by asking for the time. Speaker B provides the time and begins to offer encouragement or advice (\"But I know you can beat that if...\"). Speaker A then interrupts, acknowledging the interruption, to ask for specific training techniques based on an anticipated or implied point (\"push yourself\"). This turn is highly relevant, demonstrating good topic coherence and logical anticipation.\n\nThe significant issue arises with Speaker B's response at [00:20 - 00:27]. While it directly answers Speaker A's question about training techniques, the *content* of the advice (\"only run uphill sprints while holding your breath\") is extremely dangerous, counterproductive, and factually incorrect. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and factual soundness in Speaker B's contribution. Speaker A's subsequent reaction at [00:28 - 00:35] (\"That sounds dangerous and counterproductive. Are you sure about that technique?\") further highlights the problematic nature of Speaker B's advice, showing logical consistency from Speaker A's perspective by questioning the unsafe suggestion.\n\nTherefore, while topic coherence is generally maintained, the logical consistency of the *information provided* by Speaker B is critically flawed, leading to a significant issue in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The only instance that needs evaluation is the interruption by Speaker A at [00:11 - 00:19]. Speaker A explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates they cut off Speaker B's previous turn. However, this is a brief, acknowledged interruption (\"...if\" cut off by Speaker A) rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. The acknowledgement makes it a less harmful instance of turn-taking. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This interruption falls into the \"brief overlaps\" category and is handled acceptably.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--885929", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey! How are you doing? I haven't seen you in forever!\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm good, thanks for asking. I've been busy with work and school, but I'm doing well. How about we catch\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: That sounds great! Speaking of catching up soon - when exactly would work for you? I know you mentioned being busy with work and school.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Like I was saying, I've been managing my time well between work and school. It's been challenging but rewarding.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with appropriate greetings and initial responses. Speaker A then picks up on Speaker B's implied suggestion to \"catch up\" and explicitly asks \"when exactly would work for you?\". However, Speaker B completely ignores this direct question in their final turn. Instead, Speaker B reiterates a point about managing time between work and school, which was already covered or implied in their initial statement (\"I've been busy with work and school, but I'm doing well\"). This is a significant breach of logical consistency and topic coherence, as the conversation fails to progress naturally towards setting a time to meet.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two minor points regarding interactional fluency. First, Speaker B's initial turn ends abruptly with \"How about we catch\", which is incomplete. This could indicate an interruption or a thought being cut short. Second, there is a 1-second overlap from [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B finishes their incomplete sentence. However, the instructions state that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and a 1-second overlap falls into this category. There are no long pauses evident between turns. Overall, the fluency issues are minor and do not significantly hinder the flow of conversation from a timing perspective, although Speaker B's incomplete sentence is slightly unnatural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--55144", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! I'm here for my hair appointment.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hi! Let's get started. What are you looking to do today?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I want to stretch my hair out because I have a party tonight and I want to make sure\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"stretch your hair out,\" do you mean you want to chemically relax it permanently?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh yes, that's exactly what I mean! Chemical relaxers are the best way to temporarily straighten hair for one night.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: But chemical relaxers are permanent treatments—they don't wash out after one day. Did you maybe mean you wanted a blowout instead?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence, focusing on a hair appointment and the client's desired style. Speaker A initiates the conversation and states their purpose. Speaker B immediately seeks clarification when Speaker A uses an ambiguous term (\"stretch my hair out\") by suggesting a specific interpretation (\"chemically relax it permanently?\"). This demonstrates good active listening and an attempt to prevent miscommunication. Speaker A's confirmation (\"Oh yes, that's exactly what I mean!\") is relevant to the question, but their subsequent statement (\"Chemical relaxers are the best way to temporarily straighten hair for one night\") introduces a critical factual error. Speaker B's final turn is excellent in terms of logical consistency and relevance; they promptly correct Speaker A's misunderstanding about chemical relaxers being temporary and then offer a highly relevant and appropriate alternative (\"blowout\") for temporary hair straightening. Speaker B's responses consistently demonstrate expertise and a commitment to understanding the client's actual needs versus their stated (but misinformed) desires. The overall flow of information is logical, with Speaker B guiding Speaker A toward a correct understanding of the services.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant extended overlap from [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker B begins speaking (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker A is still talking (\"...and I want to make sure\"). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this as an interruption, which, while polite, confirms the overlap. This specific instance of overlap is prolonged as Speaker B delivers a full clarifying question. While small overlaps are acceptable, this is an extended overlap that disrupts the natural flow, causing Speaker A's thought to be cut off. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a generally good pace of conversation, aside from the noted overlap. The overlap is harmful as it prevents Speaker A from completing their thought and forces Speaker B to interrupt, impacting conversational smoothness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--944186", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, guess what? I won the lottery!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's great! How much did you win? Was\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what made you think it might be a big amount?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Winning the lottery is always exciting news! I'm so happy for you.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's first response (\"That's great! How much did you win?\") is relevant and logically consistent with Speaker A's initial announcement. However, Speaker A's subsequent turn (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what made you think it might be a big amount?\") introduces a significant logical inconsistency. Speaker B simply asked about the amount, which does not inherently imply an assumption of it being a \"big amount.\" Speaker A's question is a misinterpretation or an illogical leap, derailing the direct flow of the conversation. Speaker B's final response (\"Winning the lottery is always exciting news! I'm so happy for you.\") completely bypasses Speaker A's peculiar question, indicating a breakdown in topic coherence as Speaker B chooses not to engage with the illogical query, essentially resetting the conversation to a generic congratulation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and explicitly acknowledged extended overlap in the conversation. Speaker B's turn at [00:02 - 00:05] ends abruptly with \"Was,\" and Speaker A immediately follows with \"Excuse me for interrupting...\" at [00:05], confirming that Speaker A cut off Speaker B. This is a harmful disruption to interactional fluency as it prevents Speaker B from completing their thought or question and demonstrates poor turn-taking. No long pauses are indicated in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--103680", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Mom, why can't I understand things like everyone else? I feel so dumb all the time.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Rashawn, you're not dumb. You just have a learning disability that makes it harder for you to process certain\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week, hasn't it? I saw some beautiful flowers blooming in the park yesterday.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Mom, I asked about learning strategies, not about the weather. Why are you changing the subject?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a severe breakdown in response relevance. Speaker A initiates a deeply personal and emotional conversation about feeling \"dumb\" and struggling to understand things. Speaker B initially provides a relevant and supportive response (0:06 - 0:12) by refuting the \"dumb\" statement and introducing the concept of a learning disability. However, immediately following Speaker A's attempt to interject (0:11 - 0:14), Speaker B completely abandons the topic and shifts to discussing the weather (0:13 - 0:18). This is a blatant and illogical change of subject, entirely devoid of logical consistency with the ongoing sensitive discussion. Speaker A explicitly calls out this irrelevance (0:19 - 0:24), confirming the lack of topic coherence from Speaker B's side. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents issues with overlapping turns.\n1. **[0:11 - 0:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What** overlaps with **[0:06 - 0:12] Speaker B: ...process certain**. This is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. While interruptions can be natural, the critical issue arises immediately after.\n2. **[0:13 - 0:18] Speaker B: The weather has been really nice this week...** starts while **[0:11 - 0:14] Speaker A: ...What** is still being said. This is a 1-second overlap (0:13-0:14). Crucially, Speaker B not only starts speaking over Speaker A but also introduces a completely unrelated topic. This is not a natural or brief overlap; it's a deliberate and disruptive talk-over designed to derail the conversation. This type of overlapping turn is harmful as it prevents the other speaker from expressing their thought and forcibly changes the conversational direction. There are no long pauses between turns. However, the nature of Speaker B's overlapping turn significantly impairs interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--440882", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, yourself.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Mind if I sit down?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Go ahead. It's a free world.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thanks. I'm Zahid, by the way.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Likewise. I'm a traveler, just\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what kind of traveler are you? Do you travel for work or leisure?\n[00:18 - 00:52] Speaker B: Oh, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and marvelous question! I am indeed a traveler, but not just any ordinary, common or average traveler. I am an extremely passionate, dedicated and enthusiastic traveler who travels primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly for leisure purposes, though occasionally, sometimes and every now and then I do combine it with work when the opportunity arises, presents itself or comes along. My leisure travels involve exploring, discovering and experiencing new cultures, cuisines and customs in various, numerous and multiple countries around our vast, expansive and enormous world!\n[00:52 - 00:54] Speaker A: That's... quite a detailed answer.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about being a traveler, and Speaker A's subsequent comment acknowledges the detailed nature of B's answer. However, Speaker B's response (0:18 - 0:52) is excessively verbose and uses an unnatural amount of synonyms (e.g., \"wonderful, fantastic and marvelous\"; \"primarily, predominantly and overwhelmingly\"). While the *content* is relevant to the question, the *manner* and *length* of the response are highly unnatural for a casual, initial conversation, making the interaction feel stilted and less organically coherent than it should. This extreme verbosity, though technically addressing the prompt, detracts significantly from the natural flow and logical expectations of an informal dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:11 to 0:12, which Speaker A acknowledges with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a minor, acceptable overlap. The primary issue with interactional fluency is the excessively long and monologue-like turn from Speaker B (0:18 - 0:52), which lasts 34 seconds. While this is not a \"long pause\" or an \"extended overlap,\" it significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversation. It transforms the dialogue into a lecture, effectively silencing Speaker A for an unacceptably long period in a casual exchange. This extended, uninterrupted speaking turn from one participant profoundly harms the interactional fluency, preventing natural turn-taking and spontaneity.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1156501", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Shala, come over here! I'm playing The Hunger Games.\n[00:04 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's that?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: It's this really cool game where you have to survive in an arena full of other people who are trying to eliminate you\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— How\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: The Hunger Games is actually based on a popular book series that was later adapted into movies. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she volunteers for the games.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the resource gathering system. Why did you change the subject?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B asks \"What's that?\" about \"The Hunger Games,\" and Speaker A initially provides a relevant explanation of the game's concept. However, when Speaker B attempts to ask \"How\" (likely implying how to play or how the game mechanics work, as confirmed by B's later turn about \"resource gathering system\"), Speaker A completely changes the subject to the game's origin as a book series and movie adaptation. This is a clear failure to address Speaker B's intended question, leading to Speaker B explicitly stating \"That's not what I asked! I wanted to know about the resource gathering system. Why did you change the subject?\" This indicates a major logical inconsistency and topic drift on Speaker A's part, which severely impacts the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are brief overlaps in the conversation. At [00:11 - 00:14], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing, and Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. Similarly, Speaker A begins speaking at [00:13] while Speaker B is finishing at [00:14]. These overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and do not appear to be \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt the flow significantly or indicate a fundamental problem with turn-taking mechanics. There are no long pauses. While the overlaps might have contributed to the misunderstanding of B's question, they are within the acceptable range for natural conversation as per the given criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--478515", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi there! I just wanted to return your dog, I saw it running away and didn't want it to get lost or\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm very curious - what exactly was my dog doing when you first spotted him running away?\n[00:12 - 00:55] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and incredibly detailed description about what your beloved canine companion was doing when I first had the fortunate opportunity to witness his speedy departure! Your dog, that absolutely adorable and energetic little creature, was running with such remarkable, astonishing and truly impressive speed towards the eastern direction of Maple Street while simultaneously wagging his tail in an extremely enthusiastic, vigorous and excited manner, and he was also panting quite heavily with his tongue hanging out in that cute way dogs do when they're having fun, and his ears were flopping up and down with each bounding step he took on that bright sunny afternoon around approximately 3:47 PM when the temperature was about 72 degrees Fahrenheit with partly cloudy skies and a light breeze coming from the northwest at about 5 miles per hour...", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Analysis of Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B asks a very specific question: \"what exactly was my dog doing when you first spotted him running away?\" Speaker A's response directly addresses this question by describing the dog's actions (running, wagging tail, panting, ears flopping). In terms of topic coherence, Speaker A stays on topic and provides information related to the dog's activity.\n\nHowever, the response is excessively detailed and includes extraneous information that is not typically provided in a natural conversational exchange (e.g., precise time, temperature, sky conditions, wind speed). While the core information is logically consistent and relevant to the question, the overwhelming verbosity makes the response highly unnatural and disproportionate to the simplicity of the question. This level of detail disrupts the expected flow of information in a normal conversation, even though the content is technically relevant. It's an instance of over-answering to an extreme degree, which harms the quality and naturalness of the interaction. It's not a lack of relevance, but an inappropriate *degree* of relevance and detail.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Analysis of Interactional Fluency:**\n1. **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker A (00:00 - 00:06) and Speaker B (00:05 - 00:12) of approximately 1 second (00:05-00:06). The prompt states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this short overlap does not negatively impact fluency.\n2. **Pauses:** There are no explicit long pauses indicated in the transcript between turns.\n3. **Turn Length and Turn-taking:** Speaker A's second turn (00:12 - 00:55) is excessively long (43 seconds) for responding to a simple query about a dog's activity. This extended monologue significantly disrupts the natural rhythm of turn-taking in a conversation. Natural dialogue involves more balanced contributions and shorter turns, allowing for a fluid back-and-forth. This prolonged speech by one speaker, without allowing for interjection or a natural shift in conversational control, severely hinders the interactional fluency, making the dialogue feel unnatural and one-sided.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--598399", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much. You seem a little down today. Is everything okay at\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I was wondering - when you noticed I seemed down, was it my facial expression or body language that gave it away first?\n[00:12 - 01:00] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking question you've asked! Let me tell you in great, extensive and meticulous detail about how I came to this profoundly insightful observation! First and foremost, it was your facial expression - specifically the way your eyebrows were ever so slightly furrowed in a manner that indicated deep contemplation or concern. But also simultaneously, your body language was speaking volumes - your shoulders were just a tad bit slumped forward in what appeared to be a position of slight dejection or fatigue. And let's not forget about your eyes - they lacked their usual sparkle and brightness that I've come to associate with your normal, cheerful disposition. All these visual cues combined created this overwhelmingly clear impression that something might be bothering you, which is why I felt compelled to ask about your wellbeing in the first place!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses demonstrate logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Not much. You seem a little down today. Is everything okay at\" directly addresses Speaker A's opening \"What's up?\" by providing a status and then making an observation, leading to a relevant follow-up question.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question \"when you noticed I seemed down, was it my facial expression or body language that gave it away first?\" is a highly specific and direct follow-up to Speaker B's previous observation.\n- Speaker B's final, lengthy response, while extremely verbose and theatrical (\"Oh my goodness, what an absolutely fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking question you've asked!\"), directly and meticulously answers Speaker A's question by detailing both facial expression and body language cues, along with an additional observation about the eyes. The content is entirely relevant and logically structured around the question asked.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second between Speaker B's first turn (ending at 00:05) and Speaker A's second turn (starting at 00:04). This is a \"brief overlap\" and thus acceptable according to the criteria.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n- **Turn Length:** The primary issue impacting interactional fluency is the extreme length of Speaker B's final turn (00:12 - 01:00), which spans 48 seconds. While the evaluation criteria explicitly mention \"extended overlaps\" and \"long pauses\" as harmful, a monologue of this duration significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth of a conversational interaction. It transforms the dialogue into a one-sided speech, making the turn-taking feel unnatural and hindering the interactive flow of the conversation. This severely compromises the \"natural\" aspect required for \"Interactional Fluency,\" even if it doesn't fit neatly into the \"pause\" or \"overlap\" categories. This extended turn is a significant deviation from natural conversational patterns for a casual exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--395157", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I'm just walking across town to get to my friend's house. It's not far, and I know the way, so I don't need anyone's help. Thanks for offering, though.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— Is\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: The weather today is really nice for walking, with clear skies and a gentle breeze. Perfect conditions for outdoor activities.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. I wanted to know if there are any landmarks near your friend's house to help identify it.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n* **[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A:** This initial turn seems relevant, responding to an implied greeting and explaining their activity.\n* **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Speaker B attempts to interject with a question, indicating a desire to change or direct the topic.\n* **[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A:** This is where a significant relevance issue arises. Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's explicit attempt to interject and ask a question (\"Is\"). Instead, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather, which has no logical connection to Speaker B's interrupted query or the previous topic. This shows a clear lack of listening and poor topic coherence.\n* **[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B:** Speaker B explicitly calls out Speaker A's irrelevance (\"That's not what I asked about.\") and clarifies their original question. This further highlights the breakdown in topic coherence initiated by Speaker A.\n\nOverall, Speaker A demonstrates poor logical consistency and topic coherence by ignoring Speaker B's attempt to engage and instead introducing an unrelated topic, forcing Speaker B to re-direct the conversation. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n* There is a clear extended overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:10 - 00:12] and Speaker A's turn at [00:11 - 00:19].\n* Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting, but — Is\" (starting at 00:10), acknowledging they are trying to interject.\n* However, Speaker A does not yield the floor. Instead, Speaker A continues speaking, starting a new sentence/topic (\"The weather today...\") at 00:11, effectively talking over Speaker B's attempt to finish their sentence (which concludes at 00:12).\n* This demonstrates a significant breakdown in turn-taking. Speaker A fails to recognize or respect Speaker B's attempt to take the floor, leading to a prolonged overlap where one speaker is actively trying to interrupt and the other ignores it and continues speaking, even initiating a new topic. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a failure of collaborative conversation. There are no long pauses, but the extended, ignored overlap is problematic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--833967", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I need to get out of here.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: We're not done talking yet.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't care. I'm done with this conversation.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Karoline, please sit down and let's talk about this like rational adults.\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but what exactly do you mean by \"rational adults\"? Are you implying I'm being irrational right now?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Karoline, please sit down and let's talk about this. We need to resolve our issues through proper communication.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: That's not answering my question about what you meant by \"rational adults.\" I want to understand your implication.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: This conversation isn't about labels or implications. It's about working through our problems together.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A consistently maintains high response relevance. From the start, Speaker A expresses a desire to leave, then clarifies an implication made by Speaker B (\"rational adults\"). Speaker A repeatedly and explicitly points out Speaker B's failure to answer this specific question, demonstrating strong topic coherence and logical consistency from A's side.\n\nSpeaker B's responses are problematic in terms of logical consistency regarding a specific point. While Speaker B's overall goal is to continue the conversation and resolve issues, B repeatedly *avoids* directly answering Speaker A's explicit and repeated question about the meaning and implication of \"rational adults.\"\n- At [00:18 - 00:24], B reiterates the need to talk instead of addressing A's question.\n- At [00:31 - 00:37], B explicitly dismisses A's line of questioning as \"labels or implications\" and redirects.\nThis consistent evasion constitutes a significant flaw in logical consistency and direct responsiveness. It shows B is not fully engaging with A's immediate concern, creating a breakdown in effective communication where one party's direct query is repeatedly sidestepped. This is a \"significant issue\" in the dialogue's logical consistency, as it prevents the conversation from moving forward on a key point of contention.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency.\n- There is a 1-second pause between [00:06] and [00:07] before Speaker B's turn, which is a small, acceptable pause and does not disrupt the flow.\n- The phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [00:10] is a conversational marker. However, based on the timestamps, Speaker A begins speaking exactly when Speaker B finishes, indicating no actual overlap in the transcript's timing.\n- All other turns begin immediately after the preceding speaker finishes.\nThere are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses that would be detrimental to the conversation's flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--391438", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey boss, I'm sorry for coming in late.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's okay, Kallie. What's wrong?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I don't feel so good. I think I'm coming down\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— What specific symptoms are you experiencing that make you think it's a cold or flu?\n[00:15 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh my goodness, let me tell you in great, extensive, and excruciating detail about my symptoms! First and foremost, I have this absolutely terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad sore throat that feels like I swallowed a thousand tiny little needles! Additionally, I'm experiencing this tremendously awful, dreadful, and completely unbearable headache that pounds like a drum inside my skull! Not to mention the fact that my nose is running like a faucet that just won't turn off, and I've been sneezing non-stop, continuously, and without pause every five minutes! And let's not forget about the body aches - oh the body aches! Every single muscle in my entire body feels like it's been put through a meat grinder!\n[00:58 - 01:04] Speaker B: Okay okay, I get it! You don't need to describe every single symptom in such exaggerated detail!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- Speaker B's interruption at `[00:07 - 00:15]` is somewhat relevant in terms of topic (asking about symptoms after Speaker A mentioned not feeling good), but the phrasing \"I've been meaning to ask\" feels out of place in a spontaneous conversation about immediate lateness and illness. It breaks logical consistency of the current interaction flow.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response `[00:15 - 00:58]` is the primary issue. While the *topic* (symptoms) is relevant to Speaker B's question, the *extent* and *exaggerated detail* of the description are completely inappropriate and illogical for a brief explanation to a boss about lateness. It's an extreme over-response, breaking the natural bounds of conversational relevance and efficiency.\n- Speaker B's final response `[00:58 - 01:04]` directly addresses the excessive detail of Speaker A's previous turn, indicating that Speaker A's response was indeed too much.\nOverall, Speaker A's extremely long and exaggerated description of symptoms represents a significant failure in response relevance, as it is not logically consistent with the expected brevity and professionalism of the situation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- There is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:07 - 00:15]`. Speaker A is speaking until 0:08, and Speaker B starts speaking at 0:07 and continues for 8 seconds. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), confirming it as an intentional and prolonged overlap that disrupts Speaker A's turn. This is a significant issue as per the guidelines (\"prolonged...overlapping turns are harmful\").\n- Speaker A's turn `[00:15 - 00:58]` is a very long monologue (43 seconds). While not an overlap or pause itself, such a prolonged single speaker turn severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth flow of a conversation, indicating poor interactional fluency and turn-taking. It transforms a dialogue into a monologue, which is unnatural for this type of interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--760649", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know what to do. Should I go to the party or not?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, it depends. What are you looking to get\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: The weather forecast says it might rain tomorrow, so you should probably bring an umbrella if you go outside.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance**. Speaker A asks for advice on whether to attend a party. Speaker B initially attempts a relevant clarifying question (\"What are you looking to get\"). However, Speaker A interrupts. Following this interruption, Speaker B's subsequent turn (\"The weather forecast says it might rain tomorrow...\") is completely irrelevant to the original question about the party dilemma or Speaker B's own previous clarifying question. There is a complete loss of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side in the final turn, as they introduce an entirely new and unrelated topic (weather and umbrellas) that does not address Speaker A's concern in any way. Speaker A's interrupted turn (\"How\") is incomplete, but the core issue for relevance lies with Speaker B's final response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates an issue with **Interactional Fluency** due to an extended overlap. Speaker B's turn [00:03 - 00:06] is clearly interrupted by Speaker A [00:05 - 00:07]. The overlap lasts approximately 1 second, and Speaker B's sentence (\"What are you looking to get\") is cut off mid-sentence. Speaker A's explicit \"Excuse me for interrupting\" confirms this was a disruptive interruption, not a brief, acceptable overlap. This extended overlap hinders the natural flow of the conversation, preventing Speaker B from completing their thought and question. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--192587", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Jaydee. What's up? You seem a little down.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I've just been feeling kind of down lately. I don't know what it is. Everything just seems kind of overwhelming, like\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say overwhelming, do you mean like work stress or something else?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh definitely work stress! My boss just assigned me to lead a team of 50 people starting tomorrow, and I've never managed more than 3 people before.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Wait, didn't you tell me last week your company only has 15 employees total? How could you be managing 50?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well... maybe I exaggerated a little. It's actually just 5 people, but it feels like 50!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial observation leads to Speaker B's explanation of feeling down due to work stress. Speaker A then appropriately seeks clarification (\"when you say overwhelming, do you mean like work stress or something else?\"), guiding Speaker B to elaborate. A key moment for logical consistency is when Speaker A challenges Speaker B's claim of managing 50 people, referencing previous information about the company's size. This direct challenge prompts Speaker B to correct the exaggeration, demonstrating the conversation's ability to maintain a coherent and truthful narrative, even when correcting previous statements. All turns are directly related to the unfolding topic of Speaker B's work stress and its underlying cause.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue presents a significant issue in interactional fluency due to an extended overlap. At [00:10 - 00:11], Speaker B is still speaking (\"overwhelming, like\") when Speaker A begins their turn at [00:10 - 00:15] (\"Sorry to interrupt, but when you say overwhelming...\"). Speaker A's explicit acknowledgment \"Sorry to interrupt\" indicates that this was not a brief or natural interjection, but a noticeable and prolonged overlap. As per the instructions, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This particular overlap fits the description of an \"overlapping turn\" that is \"prolonged\" in the context of the short snippet, thus detracting from the natural flow of the conversation. There are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 4 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--295352", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I really want to win this election.\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't have thrown your hat in the ring. But what's your strategy? How are you going to reach undecided\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what specific demographic groups would you consider \"undecided voters\" in this context?\n[00:18 - 01:02] Speaker B: Oh my, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question about the crucial, pivotal and game-changing undecided voter demographics! First and foremost, we must understand that undecided voters typically consist of several key, essential and fundamental groups including but not limited to: suburban mothers aged 35-55, young professionals aged 22-35 who are politically disengaged, and rural voters who feel disconnected from urban political discourse. These groups, these absolutely critical segments of the electorate, are characterized by their tendency to make late decisions, their lack of strong party affiliation, and their susceptibility to last-minute campaign messaging. Did I mention they're absolutely crucial to winning? Because they are!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A introduces the topic of winning an election. Speaker B logically follows up by asking about strategy and undecided voters. Speaker A then asks a clarifying question about \"undecided voters,\" which is highly relevant to Speaker B's previous turn. Speaker B's final response directly addresses Speaker A's question by providing specific demographic groups.\n\nHowever, Speaker B's last response (00:18 - 01:02) presents a significant issue regarding the *naturalness* and *appropriateness* of its relevance. While the information provided is factually relevant to the question asked, the delivery is highly unnatural, excessively verbose, and repetitive. Phrases like \"Oh my, what an absolutely excellent, insightful and tremendously important question about the crucial, pivotal and game-changing undecided voter demographics!\" and the repeated emphasis on \"key, essential and fundamental\" or \"absolutely critical segments\" turn the response into an exaggerated monologue rather than a natural conversational turn. This verbosity and artificial enthusiasm significantly detract from the quality of the interaction, making the relevant information delivered in an unnatural and inappropriate manner for a dialogue. This is a significant deviation from what would be considered \"appropriate and natural\" in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe only observable interactional fluency issue is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:09) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:08). This results in a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A acknowledges this interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which mitigates the abruptness. Given the instruction that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and the explicit acknowledgement, this specific overlap is not considered a significant issue. There are no long pauses evident in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 3 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--765492", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're finally asleep.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: What? Who are you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's me, Kiah. You were asleep and I was worried you might\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you ignoring my question about the weather?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is very poor, particularly in the latter half of the dialogue.\n1. **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're finally asleep.** - An unusual and potentially intrusive opening.\n2. **[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: What? Who are you?** - This is a perfectly relevant and natural response to an unknown person making such a comment.\n3. **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's me, Kiah. You were asleep and I was worried you might** - Speaker A introduces themselves and tries to explain their presence, which is relevant to Speaker B's question.\n4. **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have** - Speaker B attempts to interject, which is a relevant action given the perceived intrusion. The content is cut off.\n5. **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.** - Speaker A completely ignores Speaker B's attempted interjection and the implicit question it contained, continuing their own line of thought from before the interruption. This shows a lack of responsiveness to the current turn.\n6. **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about. Why are you ignoring my question about the weather?** - This is a critical breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B never asked about the weather, nor did Speaker A mention it. This utterance is completely irrelevant to the preceding conversation and introduces a non-sequitur.\n\nOverall, the dialogue devolves into unresponsiveness and logical inconsistency, severely impacting response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is significantly poor due to prominent overlaps and a lack of smooth turn-taking.\n1. **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A:** (speaking)\n2. **[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— have** - There is a 1-second overlap (00:06-00:07) where Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A. While brief, it's an intentional interruption, indicated by \"Excuse me for interrupting\". The \"——\" indicates Speaker B was cut off or stopped mid-sentence.\n3. **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I was just concerned about your sleep patterns because you've been working so hard.** - There is another 1-second overlap (00:08-00:09) where Speaker A starts speaking *while* Speaker B's utterance is still technically active or just ending abruptly. Speaker A talks over Speaker B's cut-off sentence, demonstrating poor listening and turn-taking. Speaker A does not acknowledge or respond to B's interruption, choosing instead to continue their previous statement.\nThese extended overlaps and the explicit interruption from Speaker B, followed by Speaker A talking over Speaker B, indicate a breakdown in natural conversational flow. The participants are not effectively listening or yielding turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--995612", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey! Don't run into the street like that! You could get hit by a car or\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, what exactly do you mean by \"something even worse\"? Are you thinking of specific dangers besides traffic?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's utterance: \"Hey! Don't run into the street like that! You could get hit by a car or\"\nSpeaker B's utterance: \"Wait, what exactly do you mean by \"something even worse\"? Are you thinking of specific dangers besides traffic?\"\n\nThere is a severe issue with response relevance. Speaker A's sentence ends abruptly with \"or\", implying they were about to list another danger. However, Speaker B responds by asking about \"something even worse,\" a phrase that Speaker A *did not utter*. Speaker B is reacting to words that were not spoken, which indicates a fundamental breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's turn is completely irrelevant to the actual content of Speaker A's speech.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nSpeaker A speaks from 00:00 to 00:05. Speaker B speaks from 00:04 to 00:09. This results in a 1-second overlap (from 00:04 to 00:05). According to the evaluation criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and not a prolonged or extended overlap. There are no long pauses observed between turns. Therefore, based on the timing aspects (overlaps and pauses), the interactional fluency itself is acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 2 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--177297", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm willing to listen to reason. After hearing the other side of the argument, I came to believe that they were making valid\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you elaborate on which specific risks they highlighted that changed your perspective?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: I came to believe that they were making valid points about the potential risks that we hadn't fully considered. It's important to weigh all perspectives in these matters.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: I understand that, but I'm particularly interested in knowing which risks stood out to you as most convincing. Could you share those?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's first turn sets up an expectation for elaboration by mentioning \"valid points about the potential risks.\" Speaker B's first turn appropriately and logically asks for specific details (\"which specific risks\"). However, Speaker A's second turn fails to provide the requested specific information. Instead, Speaker A reiterates the general statement (\"valid points about the potential risks that we hadn't fully considered\") and offers a general truism about weighing perspectives. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in response to Speaker B's direct question and hinders topic coherence, as the conversation cannot progress to discussing the actual risks. Speaker B's second turn highlights this failure by re-asking the same question, indicating the initial query was not adequately addressed. Therefore, there is a significant issue in response relevance from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one overlap noted: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:06] while Speaker A finishes at [00:07]. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap, especially one where Speaker B explicitly says \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" falls into the category of a brief and acceptable overlap. It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn. There are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated by the timestamps. Overall, the interaction flows naturally in terms of timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 3 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1145557", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Why is the sky blue?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: The sun shines on the atmosphere, and blue light is scattered more than other colors.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: But why does blue\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — is it because blue light has a stronger magnetic field than other colors?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Actually, no, that's not correct. Blue light doesn't have a magnetic field at all. It's because of the wavelength, right?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh, I thought all light had magnetic properties. So you're saying the wavelength makes blue light scatter more? But then why doesn't violet light scatter the most since it has the shortest wavelength?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: That's a good question! It's because our eyes are more sensitive to blue than violet.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Wait, but I thought human eyes were most sensitive to green light, not blue. Are you sure about that?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:01-0:05) directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question (0:06-0:12), although an interruption, is highly relevant, introducing a misconception about light's properties, which keeps the conversation on topic.\n- Speaker A (0:13-0:21) expertly corrects the misconception and guides the conversation back to the correct scientific principle (wavelength).\n- Speaker B (0:22-0:32) acknowledges the correction and then asks a very insightful, logical follow-up question about violet light, showing deep engagement and critical thinking within the topic.\n- Speaker A (0:32-0:37) provides a clear answer.\n- Speaker B (0:37-0:43) further challenges the information with another relevant detail about human vision, maintaining the intellectual back-and-forth.\nThe dialogue consistently builds on previous turns, addresses misconceptions, and explores related aspects of the core topic, showcasing strong relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has one notable issue regarding interactional fluency:\n- **Extended Overlap (0:06 - 0:12):** Speaker B begins speaking at 0:06 while Speaker A is still talking (0:06 - 0:07). Speaker B's turn then continues for several seconds. Speaker B explicitly states, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which acknowledges the overlap. However, the instruction states that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This instance is an \"overlapping turn\" where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A to introduce their own point, which is disruptive and goes beyond a \"brief overlap.\" While the apology makes it sound somewhat naturalistic, it is still a clear instance of an \"overlapping turn\" as defined by the criteria as harmful.\nAll other transitions between turns have appropriate, brief pauses (e.g., 1-second pauses at 0:12 and 0:21), which are acceptable. However, the single instance of a prolonged overlapping turn is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--175665", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Thanks so much for your help, Leslie!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, it was no problem at all. I'm just glad I could assist you\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering — did you have to stay late at work to help me with all this?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Like I said, it was truly no trouble. Helping colleagues is just part of my job.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1. **Speaker B's first response** (\"Oh, it was no problem at all. I'm just glad I could assist you\") is a direct, polite, and logical reply to Speaker A's gratitude. It acknowledges the thanks and dismisses the effort.\n2. **Speaker A's follow-up question** (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but I was wondering — did you have to stay late at work to help me with all this?\") is highly relevant to the initial topic of \"help.\" It shows concern and politeness, logically building on the previous exchange about the assistance given.\n3. **Speaker B's second response** (\"Like I said, it was truly no trouble. Helping colleagues is just part of my job.\") directly addresses Speaker A's concern about the effort involved (staying late). It reiterates the consistency of their earlier statement (\"no problem\") and provides a reason, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency.\n1. **No extended overlaps:** The timestamps clearly indicate distinct turns without any overlapping speech. Speaker A's phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" is a polite conversational device, not an indication of an actual extended overlap in the transcript data provided.\n2. **No long pauses:** The pauses between turns are very brief and natural, typical of a smooth conversation. For example, Speaker A ends at 0:01, Speaker B starts at 0:02; Speaker B ends at 0:05, Speaker A starts at 0:05; Speaker A ends at 0:11, Speaker B starts at 0:12. These are all 1-second gaps, which are acceptable and contribute to natural pacing rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--57727", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what's new with you?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, not much. Just been hanging out, working a little bit. You know, the usual.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I hear you. I've been keeping pretty busy myself lately. But it's nice to have a chance to relax and catch up with you.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Absolutely! So, what have you been up to\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you mentioned working - are you still at that tech startup downtown?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh yes, I actually got promoted to CEO last month! We're developing flying cars now.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, I thought you worked at a bakery? And flying cars? That seems like quite a career change...\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant the bakery is launching a new line of drone-delivered cupcakes. My bad!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence and logical flow. Speaker A asks \"what's new,\" Speaker B responds, and Speaker A reciprocates. However, a significant issue arises when Speaker B, after mentioning \"working,\" exaggerates or fabricates details about their job (\"CEO last month! We're developing flying cars now\") in response to Speaker A's follow-up about a \"tech startup.\" This directly contradicts Speaker A's prior understanding that Speaker B worked at a \"bakery.\" This creates a major logical inconsistency and breaks the natural flow of information exchange. While Speaker B eventually corrects themselves (\"Oh right, I meant the bakery is launching a new line of drone-delivered cupcakes. My bad!\"), the initial misstatement introduces a strong element of confusion and unreliability, making the dialogue less logical and coherent than it should be. This represents a significant lapse in the quality of response relevance, as information provided is demonstrably inconsistent until corrected.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. Pauses between turns are brief and natural (e.g., 1-second pauses). There is one brief overlap between [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes this a natural and acceptable brief overlap rather than a disruptive one. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that hinder the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--578263", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: I was wondering if you'd be interested in switching positions with me. I feel like I would be better suited for your job and I could contribute more to the overall goals\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I was just admiring the clouds when I came to talk to you.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about the performance metrics aspect of your proposal. Why are you talking about the weather?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A's turn from [00:14 - 00:21] (\"The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I was just admiring the clouds when I came to talk to you.\") demonstrates a complete breakdown in response relevance. It is a non-sequitur, abruptly shifting from a discussion about a job proposal to the weather. This ignores Speaker B's attempt to ask a follow-up question or express confusion regarding the initial proposal. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in their subsequent turn, highlighting the logical inconsistency and topic incoherence introduced by Speaker A. Speaker A's initial proposal and Speaker B's responses are otherwise logically consistent and relevant. However, the one significant deviation by Speaker A is severe enough to be considered a major issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear overlap between Speaker B's turn [00:13 - 00:15] and Speaker A's turn [00:14 - 00:21]. While the literal overlap duration is brief (1 second, from 00:14 to 00:15), its impact is highly disruptive and constitutes a harmful overlapping turn. Speaker B attempts to interject with \"Sorry to interrupt, but —— How\" to presumably question or respond to Speaker A's bold job-switching proposal. However, Speaker A speaks *over* Speaker B's unfinished thought and immediately changes the topic entirely. This prevents Speaker B from completing their turn and forces an abrupt shift, demonstrating poor turn-taking and interactional flow. This is not a 'brief' or 'acceptable' overlap in its functional sense, as it actively derails the conversation and stifles the other speaker's contribution. There are no long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--475627", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I think I should be in charge of organizing the meetings because I'll do a better job than anyone else on\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but what specific experience do you have that makes you think you'd do a better job than others?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: I have a clear vision of how to keep everything on track, and I believe my organizational skills will ensure the meetings run smoothly.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: But you didn't answer my question about your specific experience. Could you elaborate on that?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n* Speaker A's initial statement (0:00 - 0:05) asserts a belief about their capability.\n* Speaker B's first question (0:04 - 0:10) directly challenges Speaker A to provide \"specific experience\" as a basis for their claim. This is a highly relevant and logical follow-up question.\n* Speaker A's response (0:11 - 0:18) discusses having a \"clear vision\" and \"organizational skills.\" While these relate to the *ability* to do a good job, they do *not* provide \"specific experience\" as requested by Speaker B. Speaker A avoids the specific request for past experience, instead offering claims about future performance and inherent skills. This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in addressing the specific query.\n* Speaker B's second question (0:19 - 0:24) explicitly points out that Speaker A \"didn't answer my question about your specific experience,\" reinforcing the lack of relevance in Speaker A's previous turn.\n\nOverall, Speaker A demonstrates a significant failure in logical consistency and topic coherence by repeatedly avoiding the direct question about \"specific experience\" and instead providing general claims about skills and vision.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n* **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends at 0:05) and Speaker B (starts at 0:04). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a common and polite way to manage an interruption in natural conversation. This is a brief, acceptable overlap that is interactionally managed, rather than a prolonged or disruptive one.\n* **Pauses:**\n * Between Speaker B's first turn (ends at 0:10) and Speaker A's turn (starts at 0:11), there is a 1-second pause. This is a short, natural pause.\n * Between Speaker A's turn (ends at 0:18) and Speaker B's second turn (starts at 0:19), there is a 1-second pause. This is also a short, natural pause.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would be detrimental to the conversation's flow. The fluency of the interaction is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--986879", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there. Are you doing alright?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm doing alright. Just trying to make it through another long day,\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: The sky is blue today and birds are singing outside my window. It's quite peaceful actually.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's nice, but I was asking about what's making your day feel long. Why did you change the subject?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's response at [00:07 - 00:13] (\"The sky is blue today and birds are singing outside my window. It's quite peaceful actually.\") is entirely irrelevant to the ongoing conversation. Speaker B had just mentioned having a \"long day,\" and Speaker A was attempting to follow up on that comment at [00:06 - 00:08]. Instead of addressing Speaker A's implicit or explicit inquiry about the \"long day\" or continuing on the original topic, Speaker B abruptly shifts to a completely unrelated observation about the weather and birds. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A explicitly points out this issue at [00:13 - 00:19] (\"but I was asking about what's making your day feel long. Why did you change the subject?\"), confirming the severe relevance breakdown.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap in the conversation from [00:07 - 00:08]. Speaker A attempts to interrupt and ask a clarifying question or steer the conversation (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\") starting at [00:06]. However, Speaker B completely disregards this attempt and starts a new, unrelated turn at [00:07], speaking over Speaker A until [00:13]. This is an instance of an \"overlapping turn\" where one speaker continues their utterance while another speaker attempts to take the floor, indicating a breakdown in turn-taking and conversational flow. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but a sustained one where Speaker B effectively silences Speaker A's attempt to interject, leading to a noticeable disruption in interactional fluency. There are no explicit long pauses indicated.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--525598", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, where are you from?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I'm from France.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What brings you on this pilgrimage?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: I've always been interested in the history of Christianity and the Holy Land is such an important part of that history. I wanted to see it for myself and meet other pilgrims who\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned the Holy Land — do you know which apostle is traditionally believed to have founded the first church there?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh yes, it was definitely Saint Peter! He established the very first church in Jerusalem right after the resurrection of Jesus.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But I thought Saint Peter founded the church in Rome, not Jerusalem. Are you sure about that?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial responses about being from France and their reason for pilgrimage are direct answers to Speaker A's questions.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [0:13] is relevant, as it picks up on the \"Holy Land\" topic mentioned by Speaker B, even though Speaker B hadn't finished their sentence. The apology (\"Excuse me for interrupting\") further acknowledges the slight conversational deviation while maintaining politeness.\n- Speaker B's response about Saint Peter is a direct answer to Speaker A's specific question.\n- Speaker A's final turn challenges Speaker B's statement with alternative information, \"But I thought Saint Peter founded the church in Rome, not Jerusalem. Are you sure about that?\". This demonstrates logical consistency as Speaker A is processing information against their own knowledge and seeking clarification, which is a key aspect of coherent and engaged dialogue. The topic remains focused on the location of the first church founded by Peter, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is one brief overlap at [0:13 - 0:14] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and is immediately followed by Speaker A's apology (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), indicating awareness and natural conversational flow rather than a breakdown. The instructions state \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n- There is a small pause of 1 second between Speaker A's turn ending at [0:21] and Speaker B's turn starting at [0:22]. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable, allowing for processing time without being prolonged.\n- There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow. The turns are generally smooth and timely, contributing to a natural-sounding conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--346487", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Darious! Hey, I need to talk to you.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sylar, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I just wanted to apologize for being so loud the other day. I know it was really annoying and I didn't mean to make such a scene. It\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but was that the same day you accidentally set off the fire alarm in the library?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh yeah, that was totally me! I was trying to microwave some popcorn in the chemistry lab when it happened.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, but the library doesn't even have a chemistry lab... Are you sure we're talking about the same incident?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates an apology for a past incident. Speaker B's follow-up question directly relates to a specific, potentially connected incident, showing engagement and attempting to clarify the exact event. Speaker A's subsequent confirmation and elaboration on the incident (microwaving popcorn in a chemistry lab) maintains topic coherence. Speaker B's final response, pointing out the logical inconsistency of a \"chemistry lab\" within a \"library,\" is highly relevant and demonstrates critical listening and logical reasoning. This move actively pushes the conversation forward by highlighting a discrepancy, which is a key aspect of natural, logical interaction. The conversation consistently stays on the topic of the \"loud incident\" and its details, even as those details become muddled by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:11-00:12]. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or prolonged. This is a common feature of natural conversation, where a speaker might anticipate or jump in slightly before another finishes, especially when a clarification or related point comes to mind. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The rhythm of the dialogue feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--505687", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm glad you asked me to go sailing with you, Zayn. It's been a while since we've had a chance to spend some time just relaxing\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of sailing - what kind of safety precautions should we take before heading out on the water?\n[00:13 - 01:00] Speaker A: Oh my, oh my, let me tell you about the absolutely essential, critically important, and fundamentally crucial safety precautions we must absolutely, positively take before embarking on our nautical adventure! First and foremost, we must ensure we have properly fitted, Coast Guard-approved, bright orange life jackets that are specifically designed for our exact body weights and sizes. Secondly, we need to check the weather forecast repeatedly, constantly, and obsessively for any signs of storms, high winds, or other potentially dangerous meteorological conditions that could arise suddenly and unexpectedly. Thirdly, we must pack emergency supplies including but not limited to flares, a first aid kit, extra food and water, a waterproof radio, and...", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\n* **Speaker A (0:00-0:07):** Speaker A expresses enjoyment and relaxation related to sailing with Zayn. This sets a casual and friendly tone.\n* **Speaker B (0:06-0:12):** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (briefly and apologetically) and then abruptly shifts the topic from the general sentiment of \"relaxing\" to a specific, practical question about \"safety precautions\" for sailing. While the overall subject remains \"sailing,\" the logical consistency and topic coherence are somewhat strained by this sudden shift in focus and tone. It doesn't naturally build on Speaker A's previous statement about relaxation but redirects the conversation.\n* **Speaker A (0:13-1:00):** Speaker A's second turn is highly relevant to Speaker B's direct question about safety precautions. The response provides detailed information, directly addressing the prompt.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's turn creates a slight logical inconsistency due to its abrupt shift in focus from the immediate context of relaxation to a technical safety query. It's not completely irrelevant, but it's not a smooth, natural progression of thought from Speaker A's previous statement. Speaker A's subsequent response, however, is perfectly relevant to B's question. While Speaker B's interjection isn't ideal for seamless coherence, it doesn't represent a \"significant issue\" in terms of outright irrelevance, but rather a minor detractor from the natural flow of the conversation's topic development.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\n* **Overlap (0:06 - 0:07):** Speaker B begins speaking at 0:06 while Speaker A finishes at 0:07. This is a 1-second overlap. Given the criteria, this is a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable, especially as Speaker B acknowledges it with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\"\n* **Pause (0:12 - 0:13):** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending and Speaker A's turn beginning. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable.\n* **Long Turn (0:13 - 1:00):** Speaker A's second turn lasts for an extremely long duration of 47 seconds. While not explicitly listed as \"long turns\" within the definitions for \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses,\" the prompt also asks to evaluate \"Interactional Fluency\" for qualities that are \"appropriate and natural.\" A nearly minute-long monologue, especially with the exaggerated and verbose language (\"absolutely essential, critically important, and fundamentally crucial... repeatedly, constantly, and obsessively\"), significantly disrupts the natural back-and-forth dynamic of a casual conversation. This extensive turn length transforms the dialogue into a lecture or monologue, which is highly unnatural and inappropriate for fluent interaction between two speakers, thus hindering overall interactional fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:**\nThe brief overlap and pause are acceptable. However, Speaker A's disproportionately long and monologue-like turn profoundly impacts the interactional fluency. It prevents balanced turn-taking and makes the conversation feel unnatural and one-sided, which is a significant departure from a \"consistently appropriate and natural\" interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 2 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--359157", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey there, Elle. I found this big bone in the jungle and was wondering if it belonged to you.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why, yes, it does! Thank you so much for finding it. I was starting to worry that I'd never see it again. I\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - what kind of bone is this exactly? It looks quite unusual.\n[00:18 - 00:47] Speaker B: Oh my dear, dear friend, this is indeed an extremely special, unique and extraordinary bone! This magnificent specimen happens to be the left femur bone of a very rare, endangered and precious species of jungle-dwelling tapir that I've been studying for many, many years. The bone itself is approximately 42.7 centimeters in length, weighs about 1.2 kilograms, and has distinctive markings that make it absolutely, positively and undeniably identifiable as belonging to this particular tapir specimen that I've been tracking and monitoring for an extensive period of time! Isn't that just fascinating, remarkable and utterly amazing?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking if a found bone belongs to Speaker B, which is a clear and direct opening.\n- Speaker B's immediate confirmation (\"Why, yes, it does!\") directly answers Speaker A's question and shows clear understanding of the previous turn.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"what kind of bone is this exactly?\") builds directly on the established topic of the bone. It's a natural progression of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's lengthy and detailed explanation of the bone (species, dimensions, uniqueness) directly and comprehensively answers Speaker A's specific question. While the answer is very elaborate, it is entirely on topic and provides the requested information.\n\nThe dialogue flows logically from inquiry to identification to detailed description, demonstrating excellent topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker B's turn at [00:05 - 00:11] ends with \"I\", and Speaker A's turn at [00:10 - 00:17] begins with \"Excuse me for interrupting\". This indicates a 1-second overlap (from 00:10 to 00:11).\n- The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". A 1-second overlap, especially one explicitly acknowledged by \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" is a natural and brief occurrence in conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. It shows Speakers A's awareness of the conversational flow and polite interruption.\n- There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are prompt and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--834617", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Lily. I know you can see my scar. It's pretty noticeable, huh?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, it is. What happened? How\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious - does it look like it's healing properly to you?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh definitely! I can tell it's almost completely gone already. The skin looks perfectly smooth under that bandage.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, what? I'm not even wearing a bandage right now. Are we looking at the same scar?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily initiated by Speaker B.\n1. **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:** Introduces the topic of their scar, asking about its noticeability.\n2. **[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B:** Acknowledges the noticeability and asks a relevant follow-up question (\"What happened? How\").\n3. **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Interrupts Speaker B to shift the focus to the scar's healing status. This is a relevant question about the scar, albeit an interruption.\n4. **[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B:** Responds to the healing question positively, but then introduces a critical logical inconsistency: \"The skin looks perfectly smooth under that bandage.\" This statement directly contradicts Speaker A's reality, as revealed in the next turn. If Speaker A is not wearing a bandage, Speaker B's assessment of the scar's appearance \"under that bandage\" is completely misinformed and therefore makes their entire evaluation of the healing process unreliable and irrelevant to the actual scar Speaker A is referring to.\n5. **[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A:** Immediately highlights this inconsistency, questioning Speaker B's perception and confirming they are not wearing a bandage. This confirms the breakdown in shared context and mutual understanding of the object being discussed.\n\nThe core issue is Speaker B's assertion about a bandage that doesn't exist, leading to a complete misperception of the topic at hand (the scar's current state). This indicates a severe lack of logical consistency and a breakdown in topic coherence, as the speakers are no longer talking about the same perceived object.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency shows one instance of overlap:\n1. **[00:06 - 00:07] Overlap:** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:06 (\"Excuse me for interrupting...\") while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:07 (\"...How\"). This is a brief overlap (1 second) where Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption.\nThe instruction states, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap, especially one acknowledged by the speaker, falls into the category of a brief and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation. It doesn't appear prolonged or harmful. Turn-taking after this point is immediate or involves small, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between 0:12 and 0:13, 0 seconds between 0:18 and 0:18).\nOverall, the fluency is appropriate and natural, despite the brief, acknowledged interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--698326", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, Niya, how have things been going since we last spoke?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Overall, I'd say things have been going pretty well. My anxiety has been manageable and I've been able to keep up with my work\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm curious —— what specific strategies have you been using to manage your anxiety while handling work tasks?\n[00:17 - 01:14] Speaker B: Oh my goodness, what an absolutely wonderful, insightful and tremendously important question you've asked! The specific strategies I've been using to manage my anxiety while handling work tasks are numerous, varied and extremely comprehensive. First and foremost, I engage in deep breathing exercises, which means I take very slow, very deliberate and very intentional breaths in through my nose and out through my mouth. Secondly, I maintain a detailed, meticulous and excessively thorough to-do list that breaks down each and every single task into its smallest possible components. Additionally, I set multiple alarms throughout the day as reminders to take breaks, stretch, hydrate and practice mindfulness. Furthermore, I've implemented a system of positive self-talk where I repeat encouraging phrases to myself like \"You can do this\" and \"One step at a time\" over and over again. Lastly, I make sure to get adequate sleep, eat balanced meals and exercise regularly, because all of these factors contribute significantly to managing anxiety in the workplace environment.\n[01:14 - 01:18] Speaker A: That's... a lot of information all at once. Could you maybe summarize?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B responds appropriately. When Speaker A asks for specific strategies, Speaker B provides a detailed answer that directly addresses the question. Speaker A's final turn, requesting a summary, is a logical and relevant response to the overwhelming amount of information provided by Speaker B, maintaining topic coherence. There are no instances where a speaker's response is off-topic or illogical in relation to the preceding turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by Speaker B's very long turn from 00:17 to 01:14 (lasting 57 seconds). This extended monologue completely dominates the conversation and prevents natural turn-taking. While there's only a brief, acceptable overlap at 00:09-00:10, and no long pauses, the prolonged speaking turn from Speaker B disrupts the natural flow and rhythm of a dialogue. A conversation relies on a more balanced exchange, and such a lengthy, uninterrupted utterance makes the interaction feel unnatural and one-sided, as evidenced by Speaker A's need to explicitly request a summary. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency, as it hinders the back-and-forth dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--700676", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Shaquille, I'm so glad you came to talk to me. I've been worried about you because I\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"distant lately\" — do you mean just at work or outside of work too?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: I've been worried about you because I noticed you've been distant lately, and I wanted to make sure everything is okay.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue segment is problematic. Speaker A begins to express concern, stating, \"I've been worried about you because I\". Before Speaker A can complete this thought, Speaker B interjects with a question: \"Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"distant lately\" — do you mean just at work or outside of work too?\" The critical issue here is that Speaker A has not yet used the phrase \"distant lately.\" Speaker B is reacting to words that have not been spoken by Speaker A, which breaks logical consistency and topic coherence within the turn-taking sequence. Speaker A then proceeds to complete their original thought, confirming they *were* going to say \"distant lately.\" This indicates Speaker B either made an incorrect assumption, or reacted to an unstated context not present in the transcript, making their interruption irrelevant to Speaker A's actual utterance at the time of interruption. This represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating interactional fluency based on the defined criteria: \"Detect and evaluate extended overlaps in conversation\" and \"Detect and evaluate long pauses between speaker turns.\"\n* **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from 00:04 to 00:05 (1 second) where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking. The instructions state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into the \"brief\" category. It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n* **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between the speaker turns.\nTherefore, based strictly on the provided definition of interactional fluency focusing on timing of overlaps and pauses, the fluency is acceptable. The *reason* for the overlap (Speaker B interrupting with an irrelevant/anticipated point) is a relevance issue, not a fluency issue under these specific guidelines.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1072061", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi Andra! I've seen you around school and I thought you were really pretty, so I wanted to ask if\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what's\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your favorite subject, not the weather. Why did you change the topic?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial statement is an attempt to initiate a conversation with a compliment and a question.\nSpeaker B's first response, \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— what's\", is an attempt to interject with their own question. While an interruption, it's an attempt to take the conversation in a direction relevant to B's interest.\nThe major issue with response relevance comes from Speaker A's second turn (\"The weather has been really nice lately, hasn't it? Perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This response is a complete non-sequitur. Speaker A was interrupted mid-sentence while trying to ask something personal, and Speaker B was trying to ask about something specific (\"what's\"). Instead of acknowledging the interruption, continuing their previous thought, or addressing Speaker B's implied question, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This demonstrates a significant lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\nSpeaker B's second turn (\"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your favorite subject, not the weather. Why did you change the topic?\") directly addresses the relevance issue of Speaker A's previous turn, highlighting the lack of coherence. This response from Speaker B is highly relevant as a meta-commentary on the conversation's flow.\nHowever, because one speaker (Speaker A) completely deviates from the established or attempted topic, the overall relevance of the *dialogue as an interaction* is severely compromised. It feels like two separate conversations happening simultaneously, or one speaker actively trying to avoid the other.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with interactional fluency due to extended overlaps.\n* **Overlap 1 (00:05 - 00:08):** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking (until 00:06). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Excuse me for interrupting\").\n* **Overlap 2 (00:07 - 00:12):** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking (until 00:08). This is another 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's ongoing utterance.\nThese repeated, back-to-back interruptions indicate poor turn-taking and a lack of conversational flow. Speakers are talking over each other, making the interaction feel abrupt, combative, and unnatural. While the overlaps are only 1 second each, their immediate succession and the fact that they represent direct interruptions (rather than collaborative overlap) are harmful to fluency. There are no explicit long pauses, but the constant interruption pattern makes the conversation feel anything but fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--742153", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Doctor. I'm Emory and I'm here for my annual check-up.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi, Emory. How are you doing?\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm doing well, thank you. But I have been noticing that lately, whenever I smoke cigarettes, I feel like I can't breathe. It's really starting to affect my\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been meaning to ask —— How\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice this week, hasn't it? I've been enjoying long walks in the park every morning.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: But I asked about your smoking habits. Why are you talking about the weather?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is extremely poor in this dialogue. Speaker A introduces a serious health concern related to smoking and breathing difficulties. Speaker B attempts to follow up on this critical information. However, Speaker A then completely disregards Speaker B's interjection and the serious topic they just raised, abruptly switching to an entirely irrelevant topic about the weather and walks in the park. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A. Speaker B's final turn explicitly highlights this breakdown in relevance (\"But I asked about your smoking habits. Why are you talking about the weather?\"). This indicates a complete failure to maintain a relevant and coherent conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is also significantly compromised. There are two instances of brief overlaps: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A (1 second) and then Speaker A immediately overlaps Speaker B (1 second). While the overlaps are brief, their impact is very detrimental to the conversation flow. Speaker B uses \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" acknowledging the breach of turn-taking. However, Speaker A then talks over Speaker B not to continue the previous topic, but to introduce a completely new and irrelevant one, effectively shutting down Speaker B's attempt to engage with the critical health information. This shows a severe breakdown in natural turn-taking and indicates that the brief overlaps are used in a harmful, disruptive manner, leading to a complete derailment of the conversation rather than a smooth exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--104688", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe it! I had no idea I had a long-lost relative.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Neither did I! It's amazing that we found each other after\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: The sky is so blue today, isn't it? I think it might rain later though, the clouds are looking quite dark.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's not what I asked! I wanted to know how we discovered we were related. Why are you talking about the weather?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue breaks down severely. Speaker A introduces the topic of a long-lost relative, and Speaker B initially responds relevantly. However, when Speaker A attempts to ask a follow-up question about *how* they discovered their relation, Speaker B completely ignores the question and shifts the topic entirely to the weather. This demonstrates a complete lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker B's side. Speaker A explicitly points out this irrelevance, indicating a clear breakdown in the conversation's core meaning-making. This is a significant issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is poor. There's an extended overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from approximately [00:07 - 00:10]. Speaker A attempts to interrupt to ask a question (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— How\"), but Speaker B starts a new, completely unrelated topic (\"The sky is so blue today...\") *while* Speaker A is still trying to formulate their question. This indicates Speaker B is not listening to Speaker A and is actively talking over them, rather than a brief, acceptable overlap. This prolonged overlapping turn from Speaker B, where they effectively shut down Speaker A's attempt to speak and introduce a new topic, is harmful to the conversational flow and turn-taking dynamics. There are no long pauses, but the problematic overlap is a major issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--476283", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Oh, baby. Why are you crying? What do you need?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: I don't know. I just feel so overwhelmed and confused. I didn't know that babies could cry so much or that it would be so hard to manage everything\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"manage everything at once,\" are you referring to sleep deprivation or something else?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: It's just so much harder than I expected. The constant crying, the feeding schedule, the lack of sleep - it all piles up.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I was asking specifically about what aspect is hardest to manage. You didn't answer my question.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B's initial response (00:03-00:11) is relevant, expressing being overwhelmed and the difficulty of managing a baby, which directly answers Speaker A's initial prompt about crying and needs.\nSpeaker A's clarification (00:10-00:18) about \"manage everything at once\" and asking about \"sleep deprivation or something else\" is relevant and aims to narrow down the issue.\nSpeaker B's subsequent response (00:18-00:25) lists specific aspects: \"constant crying, the feeding schedule, the lack of sleep.\" This *directly addresses* Speaker A's question by providing a list of factors, including \"lack of sleep\" (which aligns with \"sleep deprivation\") and other things (\"something else\"). Therefore, Speaker B *did* answer Speaker A's question by providing a comprehensive list of what makes it hard to manage.\nHowever, Speaker A's final turn (00:26-00:32) states, \"But I was asking specifically about what aspect is hardest to manage. You didn't answer my question.\" This is where a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence arises. Speaker A incorrectly claims Speaker B didn't answer, effectively dismissing a relevant and direct response. This misinterpretation by Speaker A breaks the conversational flow and demonstrates a lack of understanding or active listening, making Speaker A's final response irrelevant to the truthful progression of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from 00:10 to 00:11 (1 second). This is a small, acceptable overlap as per the guidelines (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\nThere is a small pause between Speaker B and Speaker A from 00:25 to 00:26 (1 second). This is also an acceptable small pause.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The turn-taking speed is appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--377151", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, Skai. How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm okay, I guess. Just feeling a little down, I can't seem\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to hear that. What's making you feel this way? Is it because of the rainy weather we've been having?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Actually, it's because I failed my driving test yesterday. The rain made the roads slippery, and I crashed into a tree.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, but I thought driving tests are automatically canceled during heavy rain for safety reasons?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh right, I meant it was during my practice session. The examiner let me take the test anyway because I promised I'd be careful.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates significant issues with **logical consistency**.\nInitially, Speaker B claims to have failed a driving test due to a crash in the rain. Speaker A correctly identifies a logical inconsistency, pointing out that driving tests are typically canceled in heavy rain for safety. Speaker B attempts to correct this by stating it was a \"practice session,\" but then immediately reintroduces inconsistency by saying, \"The examiner let me take the test anyway.\" An \"examiner\" is present for an official driving test, not typically for a \"practice session\" where one is \"let\" to take \"the test.\" This creates a new, glaring logical flaw in Speaker B's narrative. Speaker B's explanation does not logically resolve the initial inconsistency but instead creates another one, making the story incoherent and unbelievable.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B (0:02 - 0:06) and Speaker A (0:05 - 0:11). Speaker A starts speaking at 0:05 while Speaker B is still speaking, cutting off Speaker B's unfinished sentence (\"I can't seem\"). This is a 1-second overlap. While brief, it results in an interruption rather than a smooth, co-constructive overlap. However, the prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This overlap is brief and not prolonged, so it doesn't constitute a significant issue in *interactional fluency* as defined by \"extended overlaps.\" There are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps. Overall, the interactional fluency is acceptable, though not perfect due to the slight interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--71808", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi there. I'm Abdurrahman, and I'm here to talk to you about an amazing opportunity.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: What opportunity is this, and\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but before we proceed - you mentioned our current needs. Could you clarify which specific needs you're referring to?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh absolutely! We're currently looking for someone to help us develop a new cryptocurrency mining operation in Antarctica. That's our most pressing need right now.\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, Antarctica? But I thought we were discussing marketing strategies for our new line of winter clothing. Did I miss something?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence.\n1. **Turn 1 (Speaker A):** Introduces self and \"amazing opportunity.\" This sets the initial topic.\n2. **Turn 2 (Speaker B):** Asks a relevant clarifying question: \"What opportunity is this, and\". This is logically consistent.\n3. **Turn 3 (Speaker A):** This is where coherence breaks down. Speaker A interrupts and states, \"you mentioned our current needs. Could you clarify which specific needs you're referring to?\" Speaker B *did not* mention \"current needs\" in any preceding turn. This is a complete fabrication or hallucination on Speaker A's part, making the response entirely illogical and off-topic relative to the previous exchange.\n4. **Turn 4 (Speaker B):** Instead of correcting Speaker A's false premise, Speaker B plays along, stating, \"Oh absolutely! We're currently looking for someone to help us develop a new cryptocurrency mining operation in Antarctica. That's our most pressing need right now.\" While it *answers* Speaker A's misdirected question, it propagates the illogical leap and introduces a completely new, unforeshadowed topic (cryptocurrency mining in Antarctica), showing a lack of critical coherence on Speaker B's part as well.\n5. **Turn 5 (Speaker A):** Speaker A then introduces *another* completely unrelated topic, \"marketing strategies for our new line of winter clothing,\" and expresses confusion (\"Did I miss something?\"). This further highlights the complete absence of a coherent conversational thread. The conversation has jumped from an \"amazing opportunity\" to non-existent \"needs\" to \"cryptocurrency mining in Antarctica\" to \"winter clothing marketing strategies\" without any logical transitions or shared understanding.\n\nThe dialogue completely fails to maintain a consistent topic or logical flow. Speaker A introduces false premises and then unrelated topics, and Speaker B goes along with the false premise before Speaker A introduces yet another topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable with one brief, acknowledged overlap.\n- **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:06-00:08) and Speaker A's turn (00:07-00:15). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the turn-taking. This is a brief overlap, not prolonged, and is a common occurrence in natural conversation, especially when one speaker interrupts to take the floor.\n- **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses indicated by the timestamps. The turns follow one another relatively quickly.\n\nBased purely on the timing and turn-taking mechanisms (excluding content), the fluency aspects are not significantly problematic. The brief overlap is managed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--780019", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, this is great! I feel so alive!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: You look like you're really enjoying the fresh\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of waves —— how exactly do ocean waves form in the first place?\n[00:11 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh my goodness gracious, what an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and tremendously insightful question about the formation of ocean waves! Let me explain in great, extensive and excruciating detail! Ocean waves are primarily formed through the magnificent, powerful and awe-inspiring force of wind blowing across the surface of the water. When the wind blows, it transfers its energy to the water, creating these small ripples that gradually, slowly and progressively develop into larger and larger waves over time and distance. The size of the waves depends on three main factors: the speed of the wind (which must be fast), the duration the wind blows (which must be long), and the fetch (which is the distance over which the wind blows across the water surface - this must be extensive). Isn't that just absolutely fascinating, remarkable and utterly captivating information about wave formation?\n[00:59 - 01:02] Speaker A: Uh... that was way more information than I needed...", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe response from Speaker B is logically consistent with Speaker A's question about how ocean waves form, and it maintains topic coherence. Speaker B provides an accurate explanation of wave formation, including key factors like wind speed, duration, and fetch. However, the significant issue lies in the *appropriateness* of the response. Speaker A's question, delivered after an interruption and seeming somewhat of a tangent, suggests a casual inquiry. Speaker B's reply, however, is an extraordinarily verbose, effusive, and excessively detailed monologue (nearly 50 seconds long), far exceeding what would be expected or desired in a natural, casual conversation. Speaker A's concluding remark (\"Uh... that was way more information than I needed...\") explicitly confirms this mismatch in the level of detail and conversational expectation. While the content is technically relevant, its delivery makes it highly inappropriate for the interaction, constituting a significant flaw in response quality.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1. **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap (00:04 - 00:05) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this (\"Excuse me for interrupting\"), making it a brief and acknowledged overlap, which the criteria state is acceptable. No problematic extended overlaps are present.\n2. **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses observed are short (e.g., 1 second between turns), which are acceptable in conversational flow.\n3. **Overall Naturalness/Turn-taking:** While specific overlaps and pauses are within acceptable limits, the interaction suffers significantly from an unnatural conversational flow due to the disproportionate length of Speaker B's turn. A nearly 50-second continuous monologue in a casual dialogue is highly unnatural and prevents reciprocal turn-taking. This breakdown in the natural give-and-take of conversation, even without explicit long pauses or overlaps, makes the interaction feel forced and unnatural, which is a significant aspect of interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--479154", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Oh, you know, just the usual.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: So what have you been up to lately?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Just hanging out, doing some shopping. You know, I was\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your shopping preferences. Why did you change the subject?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance. Speaker B asks Speaker A what they have been up to, and Speaker A mentions \"doing some shopping.\" Speaker B then interrupts to ask for clarification or more detail (\"Excuse me for interrupting, but —— What\"). Instead of addressing the implied question about shopping or continuing the previous topic, Speaker A completely shifts the subject to the weather (\"The weather has been really nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities.\"). This is a clear and unprompted topic change. Speaker B explicitly points out this irrelevance and lack of topic coherence: \"That's not what I asked. I wanted to know about your shopping preferences. Why did you change the subject?\" This indicates a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic maintenance from Speaker A's side.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable with one brief, acknowledged overlap.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There is an overlap between `[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B:` and `[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A:`. This means Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking, leading to a 1-second period of simultaneous speech (from 00:12 to 00:13). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and an attempt to manage the conversation flow. The prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and a 1-second, acknowledged interruption falls into this category rather than being a \"prolonged overlapping turn.\"\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are immediate or very brief (less than 1 second, not explicitly timed as pauses).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--974558", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm sorry I'm home so late. I promised to be home earlier, and I'm really angry about how I\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but how exactly did you lose track of time? Was there a clock malfunction?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, my smartwatch actually froze and showed the wrong time for several hours - it was stuck in airplane mode the whole afternoon.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's strange, I thought smartwatches automatically sync with your phone's time. Did you try restarting it?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: No, I didn't think of that because I was too busy arguing with my boss about the quarterly reports.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates with an apology for being late and expressing anger.\n- Speaker B's interruption is contextually relevant, directly asking about the cause of losing track of time (\"clock malfunction?\"), which links to Speaker A's implied time-related issue.\n- Speaker A's explanation about the smartwatch freezing and being in airplane mode directly answers Speaker B's question about a \"clock malfunction\" and provides a reason for losing track of time.\n- Speaker B's follow-up questioning the smartwatch's sync capability and suggesting a restart is a logical and relevant challenge to Speaker A's excuse, showing engagement with the details provided.\n- Speaker A's final response, explaining *why* they didn't think to restart the watch (due to arguing with the boss), adds another layer to their initial predicament and implicitly provides a secondary reason for their initial anger (\"I'm really angry about how I [was delayed/missed the time]\"), maintaining the coherence of their narrative.\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, clarifying details, and exploring the reasons behind Speaker A's lateness.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's second turn (`[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A:`). However, Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which indicates awareness and makes the brief overlap acceptable and natural within the context of an eager or concerned interjection, rather than a disruptive one.\n- The pauses between turns are minimal and natural (e.g., 1-second pause between 0:11 and 0:12).\n- There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected that would hinder the flow or comprehension of the conversation. The rhythm of the dialogue feels authentic and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--668833", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, you stole my necklace.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm sorry. I was just borrowing it and I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"borrowing,\" do you mean you intended to return it eventually?\n[00:12 - 00:45] Speaker B: Oh absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, I had every single intention, plan, and sincere heartfelt desire to return your precious, valuable, and cherished necklace to you at some point in the future! My borrowing was purely temporary, momentary, and short-term in nature! I would never, ever, under any circumstances, dream of keeping something that doesn't rightfully, legally, and morally belong to me permanently! The thought alone is utterly unthinkable, inconceivable, and beyond the realm of possibility for someone as honest, trustworthy, and upstanding as myself!\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: This answer is way too long and repetitive!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n* Speaker B's initial apology and explanation (\"borrowing\") is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's accusation of stealing.\n* Speaker A's follow-up question (\"intended to return it eventually?\") is a highly relevant and logical clarification of Speaker B's \"borrowing\" claim, crucial for determining the truth of the situation.\n* Speaker B's lengthy answer, while verbose and repetitive, is *content-wise* relevant as it directly addresses the question of intent to return, albeit with excessive emphasis. It stays on topic and attempts to logically defend their position.\n* Speaker A's final comment (\"This answer is way too long and repetitive!\") is a meta-commentary on the *form* of Speaker B's previous response, which is a relevant observation within the context of the ongoing interaction.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains a clear logical flow and stays focused on the central topic of the necklace and the borrowing/stealing claim.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nEvaluating interactional fluency based on the given criteria:\n* **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap of 1 second between [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which suggests an awareness and an attempt to be polite. This brief overlap is acceptable and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n* **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n* **Additional Fluency Aspects (implied by \"natural\" and \"appropriate\" in overall score):** Speaker B's turn from [00:12 - 00:45] is an extremely long monologue (33 seconds) in response to a simple clarifying question that could have been answered concisely. This excessively long and repetitive turn significantly disrupts the natural flow and efficiency of the conversation. It monopolizes the conversational floor and prevents a natural back-and-forth. Speaker A's direct criticism of its length and repetitiveness (\"This answer is way too long and repetitive!\") highlights how unnatural and inappropriate this turn is in a conversational setting. While not a pause or overlap, an overly lengthy and verbose turn is detrimental to interactional fluency by making the dialogue feel stilted, inefficient, and unnatural. This is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 2 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--922969", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi! I'm looking for a teddy bear, some socks, and a jar of honey, but\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but —— is\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: The weather has been quite nice lately, perfect for outdoor activities like hiking or picnicking.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: But I asked about the type of honey you wanted. Why did you suddenly change the topic?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker A's Turn [00:05 - 00:10]:** Speaker A abruptly changes the topic from stating shopping needs (teddy bear, socks, honey) to discussing the weather and outdoor activities. This constitutes a severe breach of logical consistency and topic coherence. There is no discernible connection or transition between the two topics, making the response highly irrelevant to the ongoing conversation thread.\n\n**Speaker B's Turn [00:11 - 00:15]:** Speaker B correctly identifies that Speaker A has suddenly changed the topic (\"Why did you suddenly change the topic?\"). However, Speaker B's premise (\"But I asked about the type of honey you wanted\") is factually inaccurate based on the provided transcript. Speaker B was interrupted *before* being able to ask a specific question about honey. Despite this inaccuracy in recalling their own previous utterance, Speaker B's overall response *is* relevant in that it directly addresses and questions the lack of relevance in Speaker A's preceding statement.\n\n**Overall Response Relevance:** The dialogue suffers significantly from a lack of response relevance due to Speaker A's unprovoked and illogical topic shift. This is a major failure in logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Overlap [00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B and [00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second (from 0:04 to 0:05, where both are speaking). Speaker B also explicitly acknowledges the interruption by saying \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which softens the impact of the overlap. According to the prompt, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and acknowledged, therefore, it is considered acceptable.\n\n**Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The transition from Speaker A's turn ending at 0:10 to Speaker B's turn starting at 0:11 is a 1-second gap, which is a small, acceptable pause.\n\n**Overall Interactional Fluency:** The interaction exhibits good fluency. The brief overlap is mitigated by an apology, and there are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--619381", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so pleased that I bought toothpaste. I really needed it and now I have fresh breath\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of toothpaste — do you know which brand was the first to include fluoride in their formula?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh yes, it was definitely Colgate in 1965. They revolutionized dental care with that innovation.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Actually, I think you might be mistaken — wasn't it Crest that first introduced fluoride toothpaste in the 1950s?\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: No no, I'm certain it was Colgate. I remember reading they added fluoride right after World War II ended.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with a personal experience about toothpaste, which Speaker B immediately leverages to introduce a related factual question about fluoride in toothpaste. Speaker A directly answers this question, providing specific details. Speaker B then logically challenges Speaker A's answer, proposing an alternative. Speaker A, in turn, defends their original claim, maintaining the logical flow of the disagreement. The topic remains consistently focused on the history of fluoride in toothpaste, demonstrating excellent topic coherence. There are no sudden shifts in topic or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The only overlap occurs between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:04 - 00:05]. This is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A finishes. Crucially, Speaker B immediately addresses this by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting,\" which is a polite and effective way to manage the overlap and maintain conversational etiquette. This indicates awareness and is not a prolonged or disruptive overlap. It's a natural aspect of dynamic conversation, handled appropriately.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1137334", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, dear. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Hey, can I ask you something?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Of course, what is it?\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: It's just that, well, I've been thinking about my future a lot lately and I'm not really sure what I want to do with my life. Do you have any advice?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: When I was your age, I also struggled with deciding my path. It's important to consider both your passions and practical skills.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: But Mom, you didn't answer my question about whether you meant hobbies or career.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: The key is to find something that fulfills you while also being sustainable long-term. Maybe start by listing your strengths.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with Response Relevance. While the overall topic of Speaker A seeking advice for their future is maintained, Speaker B consistently fails to address Speaker A's specific questions for clarification directly.\n\n1. **[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in**\n2. **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?**\n Speaker A's question is relevant as it seeks clarification on Speaker B's incomplete thought, even if they slightly misquote or anticipate (\"what makes me happy\" vs. \"what do you enjoy doing in\"). The core intent is to understand the scope of Speaker B's inquiry.\n3. **[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: When I was your age, I also struggled with deciding my path. It's important to consider both your passions and practical skills.**\n Speaker B completely avoids answering Speaker A's direct clarification question (\"do you mean hobbies or career-related things?\"). Instead, Speaker B shifts to a general anecdotal statement and broad advice, which, while related to the overall topic, is not a logically consistent response to the specific question asked. This breaks the Q&A flow.\n4. **[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: But Mom, you didn't answer my question about whether you meant hobbies or career.**\n Speaker A correctly identifies and points out Speaker B's failure to answer their specific question. This highlights the lack of logical consistency from Speaker B's side.\n5. **[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: The key is to find something that fulfills you while also being sustainable long-term. Maybe start by listing your strengths.**\n Speaker B *still* avoids directly answering Speaker A's repeated question about hobbies vs. career. Speaker B continues to provide very general advice, sidestepping the specific clarification needed by Speaker A. This consistent evasion indicates a significant issue with logical consistency and responsiveness.\n\nThe dialogue becomes an instance where one speaker (A) tries to get a specific answer or clarification, and the other speaker (B) repeatedly deflects with general statements, leading to frustration and a breakdown in effective communication on a specific point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally acceptable, with one minor point of note:\n\n1. **[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, let me think for a minute. What do you enjoy doing in**\n2. **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"what makes me happy,\" do you mean hobbies or career-related things?**\n There is a brief overlap between Speaker B's unfinished sentence and Speaker A's interruption. Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This indicates it was a brief, acknowledged interruption rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. It doesn't severely impede the flow or understanding.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The conversational turns are otherwise quick and natural, except for the content issue mentioned in Response Relevance. The brief, acknowledged overlap does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" issue as defined, and therefore does not significantly harm the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--815301", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I love America!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. It's a great country.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know! That's why I put up that sign. To show my patriotism.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, it's definitely working. People are honking left and right every\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've always wondered — do you think the honking is because they recognize the sign's design from the original American flag?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Absolutely! The honking is definitely because they recognize the 13 stripes and 50 stars from the Confederate flag design.\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, but the Confederate flag has a completely different design with stars and bars. You're confusing it with the current American flag, aren't you?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses patriotism, which Speaker B affirms. Speaker A then links this to putting up a sign, and Speaker B confirms its effectiveness.\n\nThe issue arises with Speaker B's turn at [00:21 - 00:28]. Speaker A asks if the honking is due to recognition of the \"original American flag\" design. Speaker B responds, \"Absolutely! The honking is definitely because they recognize the 13 stripes and 50 stars from the Confederate flag design.\" This statement contains a significant logical and factual inconsistency. The Confederate flag does not have 13 stripes and 50 stars; those are features of the current American flag. Furthermore, Speaker A had specifically mentioned the \"original American flag,\" making Speaker B's sudden reference to the \"Confederate flag\" with current US flag attributes highly illogical and irrelevant to the previous turn, despite claiming \"absolutely.\" This represents a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\nSpeaker A immediately identifies and attempts to correct this factual error and inconsistency at [00:28 - 00:37], pointing out the confusion. While Speaker A's response is relevant in trying to fix the conversation, Speaker B's preceding turn severely impacts the overall logical consistency and coherence of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n\nThere is an overlap indicated at [00:11 - 00:20] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their turn (which ends at 00:12). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying, \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" This is a brief, 1-second overlap, and it's acknowledged, which makes it acceptable according to the criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--1125786", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Emily, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What is it? You sound serious.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I am. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've decided that I'm going to become a rec lusive writer.\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm quite intrigued —— what exactly do you mean by \"reclusive writer\"? Does that mean you'll completely isolate yourself from society?\n[00:21 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely, positively, and most definitely yes! When I say \"reclusive writer,\" I mean that I shall withdraw, retreat, and remove myself entirely from all social interactions, engagements, and communications with the outside world! This means no phone calls, no emails, no text messages, no social media, no visits, no gatherings, no parties, no nothing whatsoever! I shall be like a hermit, a solitary figure, a lone wolf, a recluse who exists solely for the purpose of writing, writing, and more writing in complete and utter isolation from all human contact!\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker B: That sounds... extreme. Are you sure about this?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial question \"What is it?\" naturally follows Speaker A's serious tone. Speaker A then introduces the concept of a \"reclusive writer.\" Speaker B's follow-up question, \"what exactly do you mean by 'reclusive writer'? Does that mean you'll completely isolate yourself from society?\" is a highly relevant clarification given the unusual nature of Speaker A's statement. Speaker A's lengthy explanation directly and thoroughly addresses Speaker B's question, defining their intent with great detail and emphasizing total isolation. Finally, Speaker B's response \"That sounds... extreme. Are you sure about this?\" is a very natural and relevant reaction to the radical plan outlined by Speaker A. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, with each turn building directly on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one notable overlap in the transcript: `[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A:`. This overlap is specifically acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Excuse me for interrupting,\") which indicates an awareness of the interruption. While it's an overlap, Speaker B's self-correction and the context (seeking clarification on an unusual statement) make it feel less jarring and more natural, reflecting real-world conversation where people sometimes jump in to clarify. The duration of the overlap is 1 second (from 0:11 to 0:12). This is a brief overlap and is immediately excused, indicating good interactional awareness. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly without any significant delays.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 2, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 6 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--423207", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I'm feeling really exhausted. My body aches and my head feels like it's\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: The weather has been quite unpredictable lately, with sudden rain showers in the afternoon.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's not what I asked about your exhaustion. Why did you change the subject completely?", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a personal physical state (exhaustion, body aches, headache). Speaker B attempts to interject or ask a question related to this, saying \"Excuse me for interrupting, but I've been wondering —— Have\". However, Speaker A completely ignores their own initial statement and Speaker B's attempted interruption. Instead, Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic to the weather. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side. Speaker A introduces a topic and then immediately abandons it for an unrelated one, even while being interrupted. Speaker B explicitly calls out this lack of relevance in their final turn, stating, \"That's not what I asked about your exhaustion. Why did you change the subject completely?\" This clearly highlights the issue. Therefore, response relevance is poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a significant extended overlap between Speaker B's turn (00:05 - 00:07) and Speaker A's turn (00:06 - 00:12). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:06 while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker A completely disregards Speaker B's attempt to speak or interrupt. This is not a brief or acceptable overlap; it's a full conversational takeover where Speaker A talks over Speaker B and completely changes the subject, disrupting the turn-taking mechanism. The phrase \"Excuse me for interrupting\" from Speaker B clearly indicates an attempt to interject, yet Speaker A entirely overrides this. This indicates a major breakdown in interactional fluency. There are no long pauses, but the extended and disruptive overlap is a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--526835", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Dad, I had the best time fishing today. I caught so many fish, and the weather was just beautiful, not\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Excuse me for interrupting, but speaking of fishing —— What kind of fish did you catch exactly?\n[00:11 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh my dear child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about the absolutely magnificent, wonderful and splendid fish I caught today! First and foremost, I caught several largemouth bass, which were truly enormous, gigantic and humongous in size! These bass were so big they could barely fit in the net! Additionally, I caught multiple rainbow trout, which were shimmering, glistening and sparkling beautifully in the sunlight! Not to mention the catfish, which were slimy, slippery and wriggly but absolutely delightful to catch! Each and every single one of these fish was a marvelous, extraordinary and exceptional specimen that made this fishing trip completely unforgettable and remarkable in every possible way!", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits mixed quality in response relevance. Speaker B's interjection at [0:06 - 0:10] is directly relevant to Speaker A's previous statement about catching many fish, asking for clarification on the types of fish. Speaker A's subsequent response at [0:11 - 0:54] directly answers Speaker B's question by listing and describing the types of fish caught. However, the *manner* of Speaker A's response is highly unnatural and exaggeratedly verbose (\"Oh my dear child, let me tell you in great, extensive, and elaborate detail about the absolutely magnificent, wonderful and splendid fish I caught today!\"). While the content is relevant, the excessive and flowery language makes the response logically inconsistent with natural conversational flow and detracts from topic coherence in a realistic interaction. It feels more like a monologue than a part of a coherent dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly hampered by the second turn of Speaker A.\n1. **Overlaps:** Speaker B explicitly states \"Excuse me for interrupting\" at [0:06 - 0:10], which implies a brief overlap or an immediate, acknowledged interruption. Based on the timestamps, Speaker B's turn starts exactly as Speaker A's turn ends, so there isn't an *extended* overlap chronologically, but the phrasing implies one. This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is generally acceptable in natural conversation and not considered a prolonged or harmful overlap according to the guidelines.\n2. **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n3. **Turn Length:** The primary issue lies with Speaker A's second turn at [0:11 - 0:54]. This turn lasts for an extremely long duration (43 seconds), turning what should be a conversational response into an extended, unnatural monologue. This excessive turn length severely disrupts the natural back-and-forth of conversation, preventing Speaker B from contributing or reacting in a timely manner. This constitutes a significant issue for interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--679248", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. What are you up to?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just collecting some pennies. I love finding different varieties and dates of pennies. It's a great hobby.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I can imagine. It must be really fun to travel and find new pennies from all over the world. I\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Speaking of unique pennies, have you ever heard of the 1943 copper penny? It's one of the rarest finds for collectors.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Collecting pennies is such an interesting hobby. The history behind each coin makes it even more special.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But what about the 1943 copper penny? I was asking if you knew about it.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: The thrill of finding a rare penny is unmatched. Each discovery feels like uncovering a piece of history.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n* **Speaker A (00:00-00:01) & Speaker B (00:01-00:03):** Initial greetings and topic introduction are relevant and coherent.\n* **Speaker A (00:03-00:10):** Introduces penny collecting, relevant to B's \"What are you up to?\".\n* **Speaker B (00:10-00:15):** Acknowledges A's hobby, adds a reasonable (though not directly stated by A) extension about travel, which is still broadly relevant.\n* **Speaker A (00:14-00:23):** Asks a specific, direct question about the \"1943 copper penny\" that is relevant to the broader topic of unique pennies.\n* **Speaker B (00:23-00:29):** **Issue here.** Speaker B completely ignores A's direct question about the 1943 copper penny. Instead, B offers a generic, high-level comment about the hobby's interesting nature and history. This is a significant break in logical consistency; B fails to acknowledge or answer the specific query.\n* **Speaker A (00:29-00:35):** Speaker A explicitly calls out B's non-response and re-asks the question about the 1943 copper penny, trying to bring B back to the specific point.\n* **Speaker B (00:35-00:41):** **Major issue here.** Speaker B *again* completely ignores Speaker A's direct and repeated question. B offers another generic statement about the \"thrill of finding a rare penny,\" which, while related to the hobby, entirely sidesteps the specific inquiry about the *1943 copper penny*. This demonstrates a severe and repeated lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, making the interaction feel unnatural and frustrating for Speaker A.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** Speaker B repeatedly fails to engage with or respond directly to Speaker A's specific questions, particularly about the 1943 copper penny. This leads to a breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, as the conversation cannot progress on the specific point Speaker A is trying to discuss.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n* **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?** - No issues.\n* **[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. What are you up to?** - No issues.\n* **[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just collecting some pennies. I love finding different varieties and dates of pennies. It's a great hobby.** - No issues.\n* **[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I can imagine. It must be really fun to travel and find new pennies from all over the world. I** - **Brief overlap detected (00:14).** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:14 while B is still speaking, but B's turn ends abruptly at 00:15. This is a brief overlap.\n* **[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Speaking of unique pennies, have you ever heard of the 1943 copper penny? It's one of the rarest finds for collectors.** - No issues with A's turn length or delivery. The overlap is acceptable as it's brief.\n* **[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Collecting pennies is such an interesting hobby. The history behind each coin makes it even more special.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n* **[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: But what about the 1943 copper penny? I was asking if you knew about it.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n* **[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: The thrill of finding a rare penny is unmatched. Each discovery feels like uncovering a piece of history.** - No unusual pauses or overlaps.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There is one very brief overlap (less than 1 second) between Speaker B and Speaker A at 00:14, where A begins speaking just as B is finishing. This is a minor and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--train--855029", | |
| "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thanks for being honest with me, Cutler. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Of course! I just want you to be happy and confident in your decisions. You know I only have your best interests at heart, and\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Excuse me for interrupting, but when you say \"best interests at heart,\" does that mean you've been thinking about my situation a lot lately?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: I just believe honesty is important in any relationship. You deserve to have people around who genuinely care about your wellbeing.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I was asking specifically about how much you've been thinking about my situation. You didn't answer that.", | |
| "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's initial thanks (00:00-00:03) and Speaker B's reassurance (00:04-00:11) are relevant. Speaker A then asks a very specific clarifying question (00:10-00:18): \"does that mean you've been thinking about my situation a lot lately?\" Speaker B's response (00:19-00:25), \"I just believe honesty is important in any relationship. You deserve to have people around who genuinely care about your wellbeing,\" completely sidesteps this specific question. Speaker B provides a general statement about honesty and care, rather than addressing whether or not they have been actively thinking about Speaker A's situation. This lack of a direct answer is immediately pointed out by Speaker A (00:26-00:32), confirming the relevance issue. This constitutes a significant issue in response relevance as one speaker fails to directly address the other's explicit question, leading to a breakdown in direct communication on that point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is an overlap between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:11) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:10). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption with \"Excuse me for interrupting.\" While the prompt states \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" this particular overlap is brief (1 second) and immediately acknowledged by the speaker. This acknowledgement mitigates the potential disruption, making it feel more like a natural, albeit impolite, interruption rather than a prolonged or chaotic overlapping turn. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, while there is an interruption, it is not \"prolonged\" and is managed within the conversation. It does not severely impede the flow, though it is not perfectly smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>", | |
| "predicted_score": 1, | |
| "prediction_attempts": 1 | |
| } | |
| ] |