---
entity_slug: freeholder_yeomanry
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:31:34.980884'
overall_score: 4.2
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: 'The definition clearly distinguishes freeholder yeomanry from other
    agricultural classes through specific characteristics: independent ownership,
    freehold property, political rights, and economic security. It avoids circularity
    and captures a distinct socioeconomic class rather than a vague category.'
- name: source_grounding
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity is directly grounded in Smith's text from Book III, Chapter
    2, where he explicitly discusses the English yeomanry's unique prosperity and
    the specific legal protections (forty-shilling freehold, secure leases, improvement
    protections) that distinguish them from continental farmers. The definition accurately
    reflects Smith's analysis.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The "Production" domain assignment is correct as freeholder yeomanry
    represents a specific mode of agricultural production organization that Smith
    analyzes for its economic efficiency and incentive structures. This is fundamentally
    about how land and labor are organized for productive purposes.
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 3.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: While freeholder yeomanry could map to S1 (primary agricultural operations)
    within a national economic system, it's more of a socioeconomic class description
    than a functional system component. The VSM mapping is possible but not particularly
    natural or illuminating for understanding systemic relationships.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity provides significant explanatory power by illuminating the
    mechanism through which secure property rights and political participation create
    incentives for agricultural improvement and economic development. It demonstrates
    Smith's argument about the relationship between institutional frameworks and economic
    outcomes.
---

# Evaluation: Freeholder Yeomanry

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly distinguishes freeholder yeomanry from other agricultural classes through specific characteristics: independent ownership, freehold property, political rights, and economic security. It avoids circularity and captures a distinct socioeconomic class rather than a vague category.

## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity is directly grounded in Smith's text from Book III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses the English yeomanry's unique prosperity and the specific legal protections (forty-shilling freehold, secure leases, improvement protections) that distinguish them from continental farmers. The definition accurately reflects Smith's analysis.

## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

The "Production" domain assignment is correct as freeholder yeomanry represents a specific mode of agricultural production organization that Smith analyzes for its economic efficiency and incentive structures. This is fundamentally about how land and labor are organized for productive purposes.

## vsm_relevance — 3.0 / 5.0

While freeholder yeomanry could map to S1 (primary agricultural operations) within a national economic system, it's more of a socioeconomic class description than a functional system component. The VSM mapping is possible but not particularly natural or illuminating for understanding systemic relationships.

## explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0

This entity provides significant explanatory power by illuminating the mechanism through which secure property rights and political participation create incentives for agricultural improvement and economic development. It demonstrates Smith's argument about the relationship between institutional frameworks and economic outcomes.
