Model: Netta1994/setfit_baai_newrelic_gpt-4o_cot-few_shot-instructions_only_reasoning_1726750400.408156
Author: Netta1994
Pipeline: text-classification
Library: setfit
Tags: setfit, safetensors, bert, sentence-transformers, text-classification, generated_from_setfit_trainer, arxiv:2209.11055, base_model:BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5, base_model:finetune:BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5, model-index, region:us
Base models (finetune): id: BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
Card metadata: base_model: BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
library_name: setfit
metrics: accuracy
pipeline_tag: text-classification
tags: setfit, sentence-transformers, text-classification, generated_from_setfit_trainer
widget: Evaluation:

1. **Context Grounding**: The answer references the document, but it consists of multiple points that are not directly related to accessing training resources. While some methods mentioned might facilitate training (e.g., learning budget), others (like using 1Password, Tresorit) are not directly relevant to accessing training resources.
   
2. **Relevance**: The answer partially addresses the question. Points about accessing documents or requesting a learning budget are somewhat related, but the inclusion of security tools and password managers is irrelevant to the question of accessing training resources.

3. **Conciseness**: The answer includes unnecessary details that do not directly answer the question, making it lengthy and off-point in segments.

4. **Specificity**: The answer is a mix of specific steps and unrelated information. It fails to provide a direct method to access training resources comprehensively.

5. **General Tips**: The answer does provide a step about talking to a lead for a learning budget, which can be considered a relevant tip. However, it's buried in a lot of unrelated content.

Overall, the answer deviates too much from the specific question about accessing training resources and includes information not requested nor directly relevant.

Final result: **Bad**, Evaluation:
The answer provided is concise and directly addresses the question of whom to contact for travel reimbursement questions. It correctly refers to the email address provided in the document. The answer is well-supported by the document and does not deviate into unrelated topics.

The final evaluation: Good, Reasoning:

1. **Context Grounding**: The answer accurately references content from the provided documents, especially the points related to actively thinking about the possibility of someone leaving, flagging it to HR, analyzing problems, and providing feedback.

2. **Relevance**: The answer directly addresses the question by outlining why it is crucial for team leads to consider the possibility of staff leaving and the steps they can take to mitigate issues early on.

3. **Conciseness**: The answer is relatively concise but gets slightly verbose towards the end. The core points are clearly made without too much unnecessary information.

4. **Specificity**: The answer includes specific reasons like addressing underperformance, lack of growth, disagreement with direction, and maintaining a supportive environment, all of which are well-supported by the documents.

5. **Avoiding Generality**: The answer provides detailed steps and reasons as mentioned in the documents, avoiding overly general statements.

Final Result: **Good**, Evaluation:
The answer addresses the question partially by suggesting ways to learn about ORGANIZATION through their website and available job postings, which are referenced in the documents. However, it misses more specific ways to understand their products and challenges; for example, details from the document about stress management, inclusivity issues, and organizational changes could provide better insights into their future and challenges. Additionally, a newsletter about "behind the scenes" is more about updates rather than specific details on products and challenges. Therefore, the answer lacks completeness and specificity.

The final evaluation: Bad, **Evaluation Reasoning:**

1. **Context Grounding:** The answer is well-supported by the provided documents, especially Document 1. It correctly identifies the responsibilities of ORGANIZATION_2, Thomas Barnes, and Charlotte Herrera.
   
2. **Relevance:** The answer addresses the specific question about the role of ORGANIZATION_2 in the farewell process.
   
3. **Conciseness:** The response includes some redundant information, especially the repetition of individuals involved and some operational details not directly related to the extent of ORGANIZATION_2's involvement.
   
4. **Specificity:** It clearly outlines the roles and describes the process for different situations, including handling paperwork, process, and tough conversations.
   
5. **General vs. Specific Tips:** The answer could have been more concise regarding the involvement extent but remains within bounds.

**Final Evaluation: Good**
inference: yes
model-index: name: SetFit with BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5
results: task: type: text-classification
name: Text Classification
dataset: name: Unknown
type: unknown
split: test
metrics: type: accuracy
value: 0.6119402985074627
name: Accuracy
verified: no
Likes: 0 | All-time downloads: 5
Created: 2024-09-19 12:53:20