Lien | Jev Choice | Jev Score | Jev Noul |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mise à jour | 29 sep. 2026 04:40:11 | 29 sep. 2026 04:40:13 | 29 sep. 2026 04:40:15 |
| Site web | jev-ai.pro [Jev API] | jev-ai.pro/... [Jev API documentation] | jev-ai.pro/... [Jev API documentation] |
| When to use | Select one label from a fixed, unordered set. Useful for routing tickets to billing, technical, or account queues. | Evaluate an input against an ordered rubric. Useful for urgency levels with explicit definitions for each score. | Estimate whether one clearly stated proposition is true. Useful for a separate escalation flag, independent of the routing label. |
| Example question | Which team should handle this ticket? Choices: billing, technical, account. Include a fallback policy for unclear inputs. | How urgent is this ticket? Define a rubric such as 1 = routine question, 2 = degraded function, 3 = service blocked. These are illustrative business definitions. | Does this ticket describe an active account-security incident? Phrase one testable proposition rather than combining unrelated conditions. |
| Result to inspect | choice plus confidence and probabilities. Validate the label against the allowed choices; do not assume confidence equals the winning label probability. | score plus confidence, legend, and probabilities. Interpret the score using the declared rubric, not as a universal measure of severity. | noul: a value from 0 to 1 representing the model's estimated truth probability. It is an estimate, not verified evidence that an incident occurred. |
| Human review boundary | Route unknown labels, malformed responses, and ambiguous cases to review. Keep refunds, deletions, and access changes behind separate authorization. | Choose action thresholds using a labeled evaluation set and the cost of mistakes. A high urgency score can trigger review without directly executing an action. | Use a review band between positive and negative decisions. Set thresholds with representative cases; do not copy a numeric threshold as a default safety guarantee. |
| Evaluation approach | Measure per-label precision and recall, plus confusion between queues. Include empty text, mixed intents, unseen topics, and instructions embedded in customer text. | Measure disagreements against human rubric labels, especially large errors. Review whether two annotators interpret each level consistently. | Measure false positives, false negatives, and calibration on labeled statements. Recheck results when input language or the incident definition changes. |