Model: sirtobsi/ceat-fc-rag-2
Author: sirtobsi
Pipeline: sentence-similarity
Library: sentence-transformers
Tags: sentence-transformers, safetensors, bert, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, dense, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:786, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss, en, arxiv:1908.10084, arxiv:2205.13147, arxiv:1705.00652, base_model:nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased, base_model:finetune:nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased, license:apache-2.0, model-index, text-embeddings-inference, endpoints_compatible, region:us
Base models (finetune): id: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
Card metadata: language: en
license: apache-2.0
tags: sentence-transformers, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, dense, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:786, loss:MatryoshkaLoss, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: nlpaueb/legal-bert-base-uncased
widget: source_sentence: Mercer International Inc. v. Government of Canada Canada’s Counter-Memorial August 22, 2014 2. The Claimant’s Allegations Against the Setting of its GBL by BC Hydro are Time-Barred 339. The Claimant’s allegations concerning its GBL are time – barred. BC Hydro set the Claimant’s GBL during the Bioenergy Call for Power Phase I.673 As part of that process, interested proponents were required to set a GBL with BC Hydro prior to submitting a proposal on June 10, 2008. The Claimant initiated that process on March 6, 2008, proposing a GBL of 34.3 MW for the Celgar mill.674 After several in-person meetings675 and further exchanges of information,676 BC Hydro set the GBL for the Celgar mill at 40 MW on May 30, 2008.677 On June 10, 2008, Celgar submitted a proposal under Bioenergy Call for Power using the GBL that was set by BC Hydro.678 The GBL remained unchanged until the EPA was signed by both BC Hydro and the Claimant on January 27, 2009, still more than three months before the cut-off date.679 340. BC Hydro and the Claimant set the GBL on May 30, 2008 and the Claimant subsequently agreed to it on June 10, 2008. That the Claimant decided to wait until April 30, 2012 to file its NAFTA claim is not Canada’s fault. It is the Claimant’s responsibility to bring its claim in accordance with the provisions of the NAFTA, which it failed to do. The Tribunal thus does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to BC Hydro’s setting of Celgar’s GBL. 673 Bioenergy Phase I – RFP, R-25. 674 Celgar Bioenergy Phase I Registration, R-123. 675 Lester Dyck Statement, ¶¶ 81-82. 676 See for example May 2, 2008 Letter Re: Celgar Biomass Realization Project at bates 028581, R-126; Celgar’s May 7, 2008 Letter to RFP Adminstrator, R-127. 677 BC Hydro’s May 30, 2008 Letter to Celgar, R-181. 678 Celgar Commercial Proposal, R-128. 679 The Claimant filed its Notice of Arbitration on April 30, 2012. Accordingly, the three year limitation period only extended back until April 30, 2009. 150
sentences: Mr. Turner, when the Skookumchuck mill was modernized in the 1990s, what was the primary reason for replacing the original recovery boiler?
The primary reason for replacing the original recovery boiler was to align the mill's environmental systems with new regulatory standards. This included reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving efficiency by using more sustainable energy sources.
And how did this modernization impact the mill's energy operations?
The modernization included a proposal to convert the decommissioned recovery boiler into a wood-fired boiler and install a second turbine generator. This reduced natural gas consumption and improved local air quality by using wood waste more efficiently.
Did this energy strategy affect the mill's relationship with BC Hydro?
Yes, it did. Although the new equipment was meant to reduce energy purchases from BC Hydro, the mill maintained its connection to BC Hydro. The excess electricity generated could be sold to third parties, following an Electricity Purchase Agreement established in 1997.
Did the installation of the STG2 turbine in 1999 alter energy production at the Skookumchuck mill?
Indeed, the installation of the 43.5 MW STG2 turbine enabled the mill to significantly enhance its electricity production, aligning with its obligations under the 1997 agreement with BC Hydro., Could you clarify the timeline of when the GBL was set for the Celgar mill by BC Hydro?
Certainly. The GBL for the Celgar mill was set by BC Hydro on May 30, 2008. The Claimant agreed to this GBL on June 10, 2008.
And when was the NAFTA claim filed by the Claimant?
The Claimant filed the Notice of Arbitration on April 30, 2012.
The tribunal determined that the claim was time-barred. Can you explain why?
Yes, the claim was considered time-barred because the Claimant waited too long to file the NAFTA claim. The setting of the GBL occurred well before the cut-off date of April 30, 2009, which means the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over that part of the claim., Mr. Switlishoff, could you clarify how Tembec's GBL was determined for the 2009 EPA with BC Hydro?
Certainly. The GBL, or Guaranteed Baseline, was set using a hypothetical analysis rather than any actual recent calendar year generation or load data. BC Hydro relied on assumptions about the mill's capacity from prior to 2001, without considering the actual operational data after that period.
Is it correct that there were unusual elements in the shaping of Tembec’s GBL? Could you elaborate on that?
Yes, the seasonal shaping of the GBL lacked explanation or justification in the submitted reports and documentation. This was neither mentioned nor justified in the Justification Report provided to the BCUC, adding to its unusual nature.
I see. Did the delays in reaching COD on the 2009 EPA have any impact on the consultations required by BC Hydro?
Yes, the delay was indeed impacted by a BC court decision that required BC Hydro to ensure that all potentially affected First Nations were adequately consulted before proceeding with such projects. This requirement added a layer of complexity to the process., source_sentence: was the 2006 brokerage agreement with Zelstoff Celgar (“Celgar”). III. NORTHPOINT - CELGAR MARKETING SERVICES AGREEMENT 4. Around 2006, I first began discussing the energy brokerage services that NorthPoint could potentially provide to Celgar with respect to selling Celgar’s electricity on the spot market. At the time, I understood that Celgar had been told that none of its surplus generation could be exported, because there were no transmission paths that would support an export of Celgar’s power outside of the FortisBC system. Contrary to this information, I informed Celgar that transmission of its electricity outside of the FortisBC system was indeed possible and that NorthPoint could assist Celgar in selling its electricity. 5. Our talks with Celgar ultimately led to the signing in July 2006 of a Marketing Services Agreement, providing that NorthPoint would [ ].1 6. I was responsible for managing the Celgar Marketing Services Agreement, and as such I would ensure that our staff would execute the terms of the contract as they were defined. I was always on the lookout for new sales opportunities for Celgar’s self-generated electricity. I have read a redacted version of Brian Merwin’s Witness Statement, and I agree with his description of the pricing terms, day-to-day operation and economic results of the NorthPoint-Celgar Marketing Services Agreement.2 1 See C-213, Marketing Services Agreement between Celgar and NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. (12 July 2006) Whereas Clauses, Art. 1.1(j). 2 See Witness Statement of Brian Merwin ¶¶ 51-53 (“The pricing terms in our contract with NorthPoint were based on [ Footnote continued on next page - 3 -
sentences: Could you explain the role NorthPoint played in the 2006 agreement with Celgar?
Certainly. NorthPoint provided energy brokerage services to Celgar, assisting in selling their electricity on the spot market. We managed the Celgar Marketing Services Agreement to explore new sales opportunities for Celgar's self-generated electricity.
Was it initially believed that Celgar's surplus power could not be exported?
Yes, initially Celgar was informed that there were no viable transmission paths for exporting their surplus power outside the FortisBC system. However, we clarified that it was indeed possible, and that's where NorthPoint's services came into play.
How did this compare to the agreements BC Hydro, through Powerex, had with Howe Sound?
While NorthPoint focused on maximizing Celgar's export opportunities, BC Hydro, through Powerex, had financial interests in Howe Sound's energy sales. Their dealings involved confidential arrangements that influenced their trading profits and sales., Mr. Thompson, can you explain the steps necessary for an EPC application for energy projects within the forest products sector?
Certainly. The EPC application involves providing a project description and justification. This includes explaining the purpose, such as self-generation for load displacement, and offering forecasts of electricity supply and demand according to B.C. regulations, like Reg. 388/80.
And how does this relate to potential electricity exports?
If a project is aiming for exports, it would need a different set of considerations. Export-oriented projects require an MOU or letter of intent and must offer electricity to domestic utilities first. Each transaction needs separate negotiation due to the lack of a wheeling policy.
Were there any procedures for modification if the purpose of the project changed?
Yes, a proponent must submit a request to modify the terms of their Disposition Order if they shift from self-generation to export, as outlined in the B.C. energy regulations.
Finally, how do these regulations ensure fair competition among different mills?
The regulations have faced criticisms, particularly regarding the application of standards like the net-of-load restriction, which some mills, like Celgar, found to be unevenly enforced, affecting fair competition., Mr. Doe, can you confirm whether your company applied for an Energy Project Certificate for the proposed power plant expansion?
Yes, we submitted an application for the expansion of our thermal electric power plant, which was to exceed 20 MW of additional capacity. This application was reviewed under the guidance of the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Environment.
And was the application successful in receiving an exemption under the Act's provisions, or was it handled in another manner?
The application was indeed reviewed under the third option, and it was granted an exemption from section 17(1) of the UCA following the requisite reviews and recommendations by the Energy Project Co-ordinating Committee.
Regarding electricity sales, did your company engage in transactions within Mid-C markets, and what considerations had to be managed in relation to these activities?
Yes, our company conducted transactions at Mid-C, focusing on market dynamics and trading strategies. We carefully considered factors such as fuel costs and market price forecasting to optimize these trading activities, especially given the bi-lateral nature without an independent market operator., source_sentence: not reapplied in the damages context. And the procurement exception never applies at all to Minimum Standard of Treatment claims under Article 1105. 60. The evidence is uncontroverted that BC Hydro was in the market buying bioenergy from BC self-generators in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. BC Hydro issued its Bioenergy Phase I call for proposals on 6 February 2008, and concluded a ten-year EPA with Celgar, for 228 GWh/yr as well as EPAs with three other BC self-generators, for another 340 GWh/year, in January 2009.110 As Canada itself noted, BC Hydro came up short in that tender, purchasing 421 GWh/year less in total energy than it had wanted.111 61. BC Hydro then concluded an EPA with Tembec in August 2009, agreeing to purchase an average of 24.4 MW/h, under no formal tender process, and it concluded a EPA with Howe Sound in September 2010, purchasing , under BC Hydro’s Integrated Power Offer.112 The starting firm energy price under these various EPAs was for Celgar, for Tembec, and for Howe Sound, with differing annual inflation adjustments.113 BC Hydro also concluded its Clean Power Call in August 2010, signing 25 EPAs, for 3,266 GWh/yr, at levelized firm energy plant gate prices of C$83-131/MWh.114 Lastly, BC Hydro initiated its Bioenergy Phase II power call with an RFP on 31 May 2010, and concluding in August 2011, resulting in four additional EPAs, totaling 754 GWh/yr, at a weighted-average levelized adjusted firm energy price of C$ 115/MWh (2010 $).115 110 See Memorial, ¶¶ 136-138. 111 A. Douglas, Tr. at 2375:4-12. 112 See Memorial, ¶¶ 266, 332, 521-22 and n. 632, 561-63 113 See Memorial, ¶¶ 142 (Celgar), 563 (HSPP), and C-145, 2009 Tembec EPA, at App. 3-4. 114 NAV 45, BC Hydro Report on Clean Power Call (3 August 2010) at 11. 115 NAV-44, BC Hydro Report on Bioenergy Phase II (10 February 2012) at 14. - 30 -
sentences: Could you explain the purpose of Article 57 of the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, particularly in relation to what it empowers a tribunal to do?
Article 57 of the ICSID Additional Facility Rules allows a tribunal, upon request, to address any questions it may have omitted in the original award decision, without reconsidering its prior decision or introducing new evidence.
And is it correct that in this case, the Claimant’s request under Article 57 was deemed timely?
Yes, the Claimant's request was made within the 45-day period allowed by Article 57, so it was considered timely.
Moving on to the energy agreements, how does the BCUC view self-generation agreements in relation to historical baseline loads?
The BCUC believes that self-generation agreements should be defined by a historical baseline load. However, they indicated insufficient evidence was available to set such a baseline definition for specific cases like Celgar and Nelson., Can you describe how the discussions about the technical data were conducted between your team and BC Hydro?
Certainly. Jeny Peet, from the Technical Department, and I compiled detailed information. Mr. Peet presented this to BC Hydro along with our proposal. He had thorough discussions with Craig Folkestad, who was Howe Sound's Key Account Manager at the time.
And you provided input throughout these discussions, correct?
Yes, I was kept informed by Mr. Peet and contributed my input during the process. This ensured our calculations were aligned with BC Hydro's requirements.
How was the average hourly generation for Howe Sound determined?
The averages were calculated by dividing Howe Sound's total generation during specific months by the total number of hours in each month, resulting in a straight average of megawatts per hour., Mr. Johnson, isn't it true that BC Hydro purchased significantly less energy than it intended from the Bioenergy Phase I call?
Actually, BC Hydro achieved most of its purchasing goals, securing almost all the energy it projected, only falling short by a minor margin.
Really? But isn't the total shortfall around 421 GWh per year, which is substantial?
That number sounds inflated. From what I recall, the deficit was much less than 250 GWh.
I see. Let's talk about Celgar's situation. Wasn't the pulp mill under financial duress with a debt climbing to C$1 billion in the late '90s?
Celgar was indeed having some financial challenges, but the debt was never that high. It was more in the range of a few hundred million., source_sentence: Hydro did not use “optimum hourly generation targets” as the basis for the GBL, as the Claimant now argues.131 The Claimant thought 40 MW was a reasonable representation of what Celgar was normally generating for self-supply in 2007, as demonstrated by contemporaneous representations made both to BC Hydro and to third parties.132 41. The Claimant has also argued that Celgar’s GBL was set in a manner inconsistent with Addendum 8 of the Bioenergy Call for Power Phase I Request for Proposals (“RFP”).133 However, the Claimant takes a single sentence out of context, fixating on “one portion of the RFP clarification”134 in Addendum 8 that provides additional Howe Sound made sales in determining how they should be treated. In Howe Sound’s case, their sales were : TR Day 5, 1399:19-20 (per DYCK), which warranted a particular type of adjustment. In Celgar’s case, however, Mr. Dyck’s view was that “the Mill, whether it runs with a contract for sale in place or doesn’t, it would continue to operate at that level where it is in some hours exporting…”: TR Day 5, 1472:19-22. Canada’s independent expert Mr. Stockard confirmed this view: TR Day 6, 1896:4-12 (testifying that the “tight linkage between the pulp mill and the chemical recovery process” at the mill was such that, if the mill was not generating at the levels it was, it “r[a]n the risk of not producing pulp.” In other words, their sales were tied to the mill’s normal operations.). The different circumstances of these sales thus warranted a different type of adjustment. 131 See Claimant’s PHS, ¶ 47. Mr. Dyck’s testimony directly contradicts the Claimant’s argument: see TR Day 5, 1468:17-20 (“DYCK: I didn’t base their entire GBL on the targeted amount. It was just something, some supporting evidence that showed that it’s consistent with generator output that is greater than Mill Load.”) Moreover, in his May 7, 2008 letter to BC Hydro, Mr. Merwin also describes “typical”, rather than “optimal”, operations: see Letter from Brian Merwin to BC Hydro RFP Administrator, May 7, 2008, R- 127. Mr. Dyck explained that discussions he had with Mr. Merwin led him to understand that this single- line diagram was reflective of the mill’s normal operations: see TR Day 5, 1441:7-1442:12. 132 See TR Day 2, 474:3-18, discussing R-354 (“MERWIN: Celgar has also been studying a larger opportunity which would essentially be an additional 40-megawatt hours more than the first project. OWEN: That was your estimate for the Arbitrage Project? MERWIN: That was when – that was – there was the Biomass Realization Project and there was the Green Energy Project, and that is how we were splitting the Projects, and we were consistent when we split the Projects in 2008 in new applications.”). In describing these split projects to BC Hydro, Celgar described the Biomass Realization Project in the following manner: “The Biomass Realization Project will only include electricity that Celgar currently utilizes, at its option, to displace its load at the Celgar Industrial Facility”: see TR Day 2, 332:3-6 (per MERWIN); Letter from Brian Merwin to BC Hydro RFP Administrator, May 7, 2008 at 019772, R-127. 133 See, e.g., TR Day 8, 2221:11-18 (per SHOR); Claimant’s PHS, ¶ 10. The only reference made by the Claimant in its written pleadings to Addendum 8 refer exclusively to Mr. Scouras’ testimony: Claimant’s Reply Memorial, ¶ 260. While Mr. Scouras testified about Addendum 8 (see Scouras Statement, ¶ 44), and Mr. Dyck did not, the Claimant chose to put questions only to Mr. Dyck on this issue at the hearing. 134 TR Day 5, 1489:22-1490:1 (per DYCK). 25
sentences: Mr. Lamarche, can you explain how the Energy Project Review Process applies to regulated projects like the Celgar pulp mill expansion?
Certainly. The Energy Project Review Process involves the application to the Minister of Energy, which helps determine whether a regulated project like Celgar's expansion needs a detailed review by the BCUC. For Celgar, this process was crucial as it led to the issuance of the Ministers’ Order that exempted their project in 1991, provided they adhered to specific conditions.
Were these conditions related to Celgar’s commitment towards energy self-sufficiency?
Yes, the conditions specified in the Ministers’ Order required Celgar to design, locate, construct, and operate the project to ensure energy self-sufficiency under normal conditions. This was essential to align with the Ministry's policy on energy security.
Was there any involvement from the Environmental Assessment Office or changes in responsibility for compliance after Celgar’s project was underway?
After the repeal of Part 2 of the UCA in 1995, the responsibility for the Ministers’ Orders shifted to the Environmental Assessment Office. They do not typically engage in BCUC proceedings, which initially handled compliance and enforcement matters., Mr. Johnson, can you clarify the basis on which BC Hydro negotiated the Electricity Purchase Agreement with Celgar?
Certainly. The negotiation was done on a commercial basis rather than through any delegated governmental authority, as confirmed by testimonies during the hearings. BC Hydro acted as a state enterprise focused on procurement, not regulation.
And what was the basis for setting Celgar’s Generational Base Load, according to the evidence?
The GBL was set considering the operational levels at which Celgar operated typically, not based on any optimal generation targets. This is supported by internal discussions and acknowledgments from witnesses such as Mr. Dyck.
Was there any discrimination in how Celgar was treated under these agreements compared to others, such as Howe Sound?
No, there was no discrimination. In fact, Celgar received treatment consistent with others, and in some cases, even better treatment, as evidenced by their Side Letter Agreement which provided certain benefits unique to them., Mr. Sweeney, you led the Celgar Pulp Modernization Project in the late 80s, correct?
Yes, that's correct. I became the General Manager of the Celgar Pulp Modernization Project in 1989 after being involved with Celgar for thirty years.
And was cogeneration a significant aspect of this modernization plan?
Absolutely. The expanded mill was designed to be 90% energy self-sufficient, largely due to a new 48 MW cogeneration plant, which was an integral part of the project.
During the regulatory review process, there were specific application requirements. Can you confirm if any concerns were raised?
Yes, indeed. The draft Energy Project Certificate Application initially did not meet some regulatory application requirements. However, we worked closely with several government agencies to address these and submitted the final application successfully.
Celgar agreed to any operational conditions set forth by government orders regarding the expansion, including the design and operation of the power plant. Is that right?
Yes, we confirmed agreement to the Ministers' Order, which remains in effect, ensuring our plant adhered to the specifications outlined in our application., source_sentence: e the type, age, and efficiency of the generator. 259. As is obvious, and as Mercer’s expert Mr. Switlishoff confirms, the guidelines “too vague and general either to enable the calculation of any new GBL based on actual data, the validation of any GBL BC Hydro previously computed .... They provide no uniform methodology that two engineers, lawyers, accountants, or any other professional could apply given set of facts and arrive at the same resulting GBL.”* Indeed, as noted earlier, on December 13, 2013, the BCUC expressed its own concerns regarding the GBL Guidelines, which BC Hydro and FortisBC had proposed to adopt in their 2013 PPA. The Commission observed that the guidelines “are fairly general, subject to considerable interpretation, not necessarily transparent and have not been approved by the Commission.”*”° 8. The BC Pulp and Paper Joint Task Force and the BC Working Group on Pulp & Paper Self-Generation Sales Policy 260. The BC Government, which, as noted, has not promulgated any laws, regulations, or binding rule of law addressing a self-generator’s access to embedded cost power while selling electricity not in excess of load, however, did communicate its perspective to part of the industry. 261. In March 2007, the BC Pulp and Paper Joint Task Force was created as a joint initiative between the BC Pulp and Paper Industry and the BC government with the overarching purpose of working on policy and hosting conditions for the long term sustainability of the industry.°* In November 2007, the Task Force submitted a position paper to the BC government 30? Switlishoff Expert Statement, § 58. 303 C-27, Letter from Erica Hamilton, Commission Secretary, to Janet Fraser, Chief Regulatory Officer, BC Hydro (13 December 2013) (Exhibit A-17 to BC Hydro PPA - RS 3808, TS No. 2 & 3 Proceeding). 304 Gandossi Witness Statement, 54. - 109 - are or to a
sentences: Mr. Gandossi, regarding the recommendations made by the BC Pulp and Paper Task Force, could you explain the impact these had on BC Hydro's pricing strategy?
Certainly. The Task Force recommended that BC Hydro purchase all self-generated electricity from pulp and paper mills at the Tier 2 Transmission Service Rate. This recommendation was actually implemented by the government, leading to increased revenue for both the sector and BC Hydro.
Just to clarify, you are claiming the government adopted the Task Force’s pricing recommendations, correct?
Yes, they saw it as a way to boost the industry while securing additional electricity for the province.
Interesting. Can you describe how this aligns with the GBL guidelines set by BC Hydro and the concerns raised by the BCUC?
The guidelines provided clear methods to calculate GBLs, which were consistent with the Task Force’s recommendations. Consequently, the BCUC did not express any significant concerns about these policies., Isn't it true that the concept of a Generator Baseline (GBL) was introduced as part of the BC Hydro energy initiatives to support biomass energy production?
Yes, that's correct. The GBL was intended to encourage new and incremental self-generation from biomass, aligning with the Energy Plan's goals.
And this GBL was a demarcation point about eligible electricity for sale rather than self-supply, correct?
Yes, initially. It defined the amount of firm energy BC Hydro would purchase, which was intended to be above the GBL. The focus was on supporting energy sales, not just for internal use.
The 2007 Energy Plan also aimed for BC Hydro to achieve self-sufficiency by 2016 and acquire additional power by 2026. How did the GBL align with these objectives?
The GBL was part of strategies to procure clean energy, as BC Hydro sought to meet self-sufficiency goals and keep competitive power pricing. Establishing GBL levels was crucial for evaluating energy proposals in the biomass sector., Mr. Smith, could you explain why BC Hydro was opposed to FortisBC facilitating energy export arbitrage?
Certainly. BC Hydro was concerned because facilitating such arbitrage would lead to minor inconvenience for their operations, but overall they would not face financial losses. They believed it wouldn’t harm their ratepayers significantly.
Isn't it true that BC Hydro actually argued that they would incur losses if FortisBC facilitated such activities?
Well, they might have suggested potential risks, but they didn't provide strong evidence that these actions would necessarily result in substantial losses.
Could you clarify what was meant by 'embedded costs' in relation to the energy transactions between FortisBC and Celgar Mill?
Embedded costs refer to the theoretical total cost of resources, which was a priority in setting rates for utility services related to newer and more efficient assets only.
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
metrics: cosine_accuracy@1, cosine_accuracy@3, cosine_accuracy@5, cosine_accuracy@10, cosine_precision@1, cosine_precision@3, cosine_precision@5, cosine_precision@10, cosine_recall@1, cosine_recall@3, cosine_recall@5, cosine_recall@10, cosine_ndcg@10, cosine_mrr@10, cosine_map@100
model-index: name: ceat-fc-rag
results: task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 768
type: dim_768
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.14285714285714285
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.19238095238095237
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.2761904761904762
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.047619047619047616
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.03847619047619048
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.02761904761904762
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.14285714285714285
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.19238095238095237
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.2761904761904762
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.15319466227527936
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.11555631141345432
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.12646452966921906
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no, task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 512
type: dim_512
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.05714285714285714
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.13714285714285715
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.19238095238095237
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.259047619047619
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.05714285714285714
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.04571428571428571
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.03847619047619048
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.025904761904761906
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.05714285714285714
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.13714285714285715
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.19238095238095237
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.259047619047619
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.1482043200101094
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.11397052154195013
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.12514377444429822
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no, task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 256
type: dim_256
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.06476190476190476
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.15619047619047619
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.2019047619047619
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.2838095238095238
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.06476190476190476
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.052063492063492055
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.040380952380952385
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.028380952380952385
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.06476190476190476
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.15619047619047619
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.2019047619047619
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.2838095238095238
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.16368469303000444
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.1265434618291761
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.13659324296178726
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no, task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 128
type: dim_128
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.13904761904761906
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.17714285714285713
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.2742857142857143
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.04634920634920635
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.035428571428571434
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.02742857142857143
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.05333333333333334
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.13904761904761906
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.17714285714285713
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.2742857142857143
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.14944329159356212
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.11144746787603939
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.12076465830192917
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no, task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: dim 64
type: dim_64
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.047619047619047616
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.12571428571428572
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.17333333333333334
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.25523809523809526
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.047619047619047616
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.0419047619047619
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.03466666666666667
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.02552380952380953
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.047619047619047616
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.12571428571428572
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.17333333333333334
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.25523809523809526
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.13825755037788212
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.1023938019652306
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.11133059003023761
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no
Likes: 0 | All-time downloads: 26
Created: 2025-08-28 22:17:11