Rubrics.py

RUBRICS = {
        "structural_coherence": {
            "name": "Structural Coherence & Progression",
            "description": "Evaluates the overall organization, logical progression, and effective shaping of the content.",
            "scores": {
                5: "The structure is masterfully crafted, exhibiting flawless logical/thematic/narrative progression. All parts are intrinsically linked, contributing to a powerful and unified whole, perfectly suited to the work's purpose and form.",
                4: "The structure is highly effective, with clear logical/thematic/narrative progression. Most parts are well-integrated, contributing to a cohesive work.",
                3: "The structure is generally clear and supports the content, though some areas might lack optimal flow or integration. Progression is mostly logical/thematic/narrative.",
                2: "Structural weaknesses are apparent; progression may be confusing, disjointed, or underdeveloped. Connections between parts are often unclear.",
                1: "Lacks a discernible or effective structure; content is chaotic, randomly organized, or fails to develop coherently."
            }
        },
        "pacing_rhythm": {
            "name": "Pacing & Rhythmic Management",
            "description": "Evaluates how well the text controls pacing and rhythm for engagement and impact.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Pacing is expertly controlled, creating an ideal rhythm that maximizes engagement and impact appropriate to the form.",
                4: "Pacing is highly effective, varying appropriately to maintain interest and effectively deliver content/experience.",
                3: "Pacing is generally adequate, though some sections may feel disproportionately rushed, slow, or monotonous.",
                2: "Pacing is often uneven or ill-suited to the content/form, hindering engagement or clarity.",
                1: "Pacing is detrimental, making the work feel stagnant, overwhelming, or difficult to follow."
            }
        },
        "focus_purpose": {
            "name": "Focus & Central Idea / Purpose / Tension",
            "description": "Evaluates the clarity and development of central ideas, purpose, or narrative tension.",
            "scores": {
                5: "A clear and compelling central idea, purpose, narrative core, or thematic tension is established and masterfully developed throughout.",
                4: "A well-defined central idea/purpose/tension is maintained and effectively explored.",
                3: "A central idea/purpose/tension is generally present, though focus may occasionally waver or lack depth.",
                2: "The central idea/purpose/tension is unclear, poorly defined, or inconsistently addressed.",
                1: "No clear central idea/purpose/tension; the work lacks focus or direction."
            }
        },
        "depth_authenticity": {
            "name": "Depth, Nuance & Authenticity of Portrayal",
            "description": "Evaluates the depth, clarity, authenticity of subjects, characters, arguments, or information.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Subjects are presented with profound depth, nuance, and compelling authenticity, demonstrating sophisticated insight.",
                4: "Subjects are presented with considerable depth, clarity, and credibility.",
                3: "Subjects are clear and generally credible, though they may lack significant depth or nuance.",
                2: "Portrayal is often superficial, stereotypical, unclear, or lacks credibility.",
                1: "Subjects are poorly conceived, misrepresented, confusing, or lack discernible depth."
            }
        },
        "development_evolution": {
            "name": "Development & Evolution",
            "description": "Evaluates how well subjects, characters, or arguments develop and evolve throughout the text.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Development (e.g., character arc, argument progression) is masterfully executed—organic, impactful, insightful.",
                4: "Clear, logical, and meaningful development is evident.",
                3: "Some development is present and generally logical, but may be predictable or not fully integrated.",
                2: "Development is minimal, forced, unconvincing, or lacks clear progression.",
                1: "No meaningful development, or attempts are ineffective or counterproductive."
            }
        },
        "language_precision": {
            "name": "Clarity, Precision & Fitness of Language",
            "description": "Evaluates the artistry, precision, and effectiveness of language use.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Language is exceptionally clear, precise, and perfectly suited to subject, audience, and purpose; demonstrates masterful command and elegance.",
                4: "Language is consistently clear, precise, and highly effective.",
                3: "Language is generally clear and functional; appropriate vocabulary and syntax.",
                2: "Language is often imprecise, vague, awkward, or inappropriate for the context.",
                1: "Language is largely incomprehensible, misused, overly simplistic, or obscure."
            }
        },
        "voice_tone": {
            "name": "Voice, Tone & Register",
            "description": "Evaluates the consistency and appropriateness of voice, tone, and register.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Highly distinctive, authentic, and consistent voice; tone/register perfectly aligned with content and audience.",
                4: "Clear, engaging, and consistent voice; tone/register appropriate and effective.",
                3: "Voice is present and mostly consistent; tone/register generally appropriate.",
                2: "Voice is weak or generic; tone/register often inappropriate or inconsistent.",
                1: "No discernible or consistent voice; tone/register mismatched or confusing."
            }
        },
        "figurative_language": {
            "name": "Figurative Language, Imagery & Evocative Detail",
            "description": "Evaluates the use of figurative language, imagery, and sensory detail.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Uses figurative language, imagery, and sensory detail with striking originality and precision.",
                4: "Effective and often insightful use of figurative language and imagery.",
                3: "Adequate use, though sometimes conventional or less impactful.",
                2: "Limited, clichéd, forced, or ineffective use.",
                1: "Lacks meaningful use, or usage is confusing/detrimental."
            }
        },
        "dialogue_interaction": {
            "name": "Handling of Dialogue / Quoted Material / Interactions",
            "description": "Evaluates the quality and authenticity of dialogue, quotes, or character interactions.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Dialogue/quotes/interactions feel authentic, purposeful, and revelatory.",
                4: "Dialogue/quotes/interactions are effective and contribute meaningfully.",
                3: "Functional and generally clear, but may lack nuance or strong impact.",
                2: "Often stilted, unnatural, or poorly integrated.",
                1: "Ineffective, unrealistic, confusing, or detrimental."
            }
        },
        "content_depth": {
            "name": "Depth, Significance & Nuance of Content",
            "description": "Evaluates the intellectual depth and significance of ideas, themes, or information.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Explores complex ideas with profound insight, originality, and nuance; offers significant contributions.",
                4: "Well-developed and thought-provoking content.",
                3: "Content is relevant and explored adequately, but may lack notable depth or originality.",
                2: "Content is superficial, underdeveloped, or relies on clichés/unsubstantiated claims.",
                1: "Content is absent, muddled, trivial, inaccurate, or poorly conceived."
            }
        },
        "argument_integration": {
            "name": "Integration & Persuasiveness / Clarity of Argument / Message",
            "description": "Evaluates how well arguments or messages are integrated and presented.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Arguments/messages are masterfully integrated, compellingly clear, logical, and subtle where appropriate.",
                4: "Well-integrated, clearly presented, and persuasive or effectively informative.",
                3: "Generally clear but may lack full integration, persuasive force, or complete support.",
                2: "Often unclear, poorly supported, inconsistently presented, or didactic.",
                1: "Absent, incomprehensible, contradictory, or entirely unpersuasive/uninformative."
            }
        },
        "emotional_resonance": {
            "name": "Emotional, Intellectual, or Aesthetic Resonance",
            "description": "Evaluates the work's ability to connect with and impact the audience emotionally or intellectually.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Evokes profound and authentic responses, creating a powerful and lasting impact.",
                4: "Creates strong, genuine engagement and leaves a significant impression.",
                3: "Elicits appropriate responses, but impact may be somewhat superficial or fleeting.",
                2: "Attempts often fall flat or feel unconvincing. Limited resonance.",
                1: "Fails to connect or engage; inert or elicits unintended negative reactions."
            }
        },
        "sustained_interest": {
            "name": "Compelling Quality & Sustained Interest",
            "description": "Evaluates how well the text maintains reader engagement and interest.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Highly engaging, sustaining intense interest through narrative, intellect, aesthetics, clarity, wit, etc.",
                4: "Consistently engaging; holds attention well.",
                3: "Reasonably engaging, but may have slower moments.",
                2: "Offers limited engagement; struggles to maintain interest.",
                1: "Tedious or frustrating; fails to capture or sustain interest."
            }
        },
        "originality_creativity": {
            "name": "Originality, Creativity & Freshness",
            "description": "Evaluates the originality and creative approach of the work.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Striking originality and creativity in concept, execution, perspective, form, or language.",
                4: "Significant originality or clever, fresh approach; strong creative vision.",
                3: "Competent execution but relies on familiar conventions; shows some creativity.",
                2: "Largely derivative or clichéd; lacks originality.",
                1: "Wholly unoriginal or an uninspired collection of overused elements."
            }
        },
        "mechanics": {
            "name": "Mechanics (Grammar, Syntax, Punctuation, Spelling)",
            "description": "Evaluates technical correctness in grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Virtually flawless; any deviations are intentional, sophisticated stylistic choices.",
                4: "Very few minor errors that do not impede readability or professionalism.",
                3: "Some errors present but infrequent; do not significantly hinder comprehension.",
                2: "Frequent errors that distract or occasionally obscure meaning.",
                1: "Riddled with errors, making the text difficult to read or understand."
            }
        },
        "formatting_conventions": {
            "name": "Formatting & Form-Specific Conventions",
            "description": "Evaluates adherence to formatting and form-specific conventions.",
            "scores": {
                5: "Formatting is impeccable, perfectly adhering to or artfully utilizing form conventions; enhances readability and professionalism.",
                4: "Formatting is clean, appropriate, and consistent; adheres well to conventions.",
                3: "Formatting is acceptable with minor inconsistencies that don't seriously detract.",
                2: "Formatting is sloppy, inconsistent, or shows disregard for key conventions, hindering readability.",
                1: "Formatting is severely problematic, absent, or inappropriate, significantly hindering comprehension."
            }
        }
    }