Validate the re-explanation judge
For each of your messages, say whether it repeats something Pythia already knew (the claims below are what it had before the conversation). There is no "right" answer: your reading is what calibrates the judge. The order does not reveal what the judge decided.
{% if agr.n %}Agreement with the judge so far: {{ '%.0f'|format(100 * agr.agree) }}% over {{ agr.n }} messages{% if agr.kappa is not none %} · kappa {{ '%.2f'|format(agr.kappa) }}{% endif %}{% if agr.n < 30 %} (goal: 30){% endif %}{% else %}None labeled yet (goal: 30).{% endif %}
{% for it in items %}
{{ it.ts|dt }} · {{ it.chat_title or 'untitled chat' }}
{{ it.text[:1500] }}{% if it.text|length > 1500 %}…{% endif %}
What Pythia already knew (candidates)
{% for c in it.candidates %}· [{{ c.subject or '?' }}] {{ c.statement }}
{% else %}no candidate
{% endfor %}
{% else %}Nothing to label: run the re-explanation measurement on the Quality tab, or you have already labeled the sample.
{% endfor %}
{% endblock %}