AgriJev: Efficient Agricultural Candidate Scoring with Multi-Scale Adapted Models

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong abilities in opendomain question answering, information extraction, and text generation. Agricultural applications, however, are domain-specific, region-dependent, time-sensitive, and safety-critical. Without data governance, expert evaluation, and evidence constraints, an agricultural assistant mayproduce unreliable advice on crop diseases, pesticide use, fertilization, or policy interpretation.To avoid presenting unverified simulated numbers as real experimental findings, this paper doesnot report any model-performance claims that have not been produced by an actual training runand expert evaluation. Instead, we propose AgriTune-R, a reproducible and auditable frameworkfor adapting general-purpose LLMs to agricultural tasks. The framework selects the publiclyverifiable Qwen3-8B model as the recommended base model and integrates agricultural datagovernance, instruction construction, LoRA/QLoRA parameter-efficient fine-tuning, retrievalaugmented generation, expert evaluation, and safety control for high-risk questions. The contributions are: (1) a structured workflow for agricultural LLM adaptation; (2) an evaluationprotocol for agricultural knowledge QA, pest and disease consultation, cultivation management,and policy explanation; (3) an expert-review rubric combining factuality, safety, evidence consistency, and uncertainty expression; and (4) a clear separation between protocol design andempirical conclusions, providing an executable baseline for future empirical studies.

Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed options, a position on a rubric, or the probability that a statement is true, with probabilities the vendor describes as calibrated. Such models target small decisions in information access pipelines, such as routing queries, checking grounding, moderating content, or rating against a rubric. We evaluate Jev (jev-1.13.0) zero-shot on 37 datasets spanning classification, routing, natural language inference, reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning, moderation, legal clause analysis and rubric scoring, with one frozen template per dataset and full evaluation splits: 346,009 requests for under USD 10. For reference, we score Qwen3.8-27B and Gemma-4-E4B on identical requests via their exact next-token probabilities over the options. Jev reaches 95-99% accuracy on IMDB, SST-2, HellaSwag and ARC and 86.7% on Belebele across 122 languages. It beats Qwen on 27 of 37 datasets, with none of Qwen's nine leads outside the bootstrap intervals, and Gemma on all 37. All three models degrade on low-resource languages, fine-grained or noisy labels, and rubric-based quality judgments. Jev's choice probabilities are well calibrated and support selective prediction. Binary probabilities rank well but are poorly placed relative to a fixed 0.5 threshold; thresholds tuned on training data raise micro-F1 on UNFAIR-ToS from 0.50 to 0.75. Jev answers MMLU's calculation-heavy questions more accurately than other MMLU questions (94% vs. 91%), whereas both open models, and all three on C-Eval, find them harder. Rotating the options leaves Jev's accuracy unchanged and withholding the question drops it to near chance, ruling out shallow memorization but not memorized question-answer pairs. We release the code, harness and all raw responses.

Jev is a "System One" model that returns a choice among given options instead of generating text. We study how such a specialized decision model compares with general-purpose large language models (LLMs). We evaluate Jev on 13 multiple-choice benchmarks covering knowledge, reasoning, and multilingual understanding, and compare it with 19 LLMs in three tiers: frontier, representative, and small. Jev is competitive with frontier LLMs on knowledge and commonsense benchmarks and obtains the best score on MMLU-Redux and ARC-Challenge. Outside mathematics, it also outperforms most representative LLMs and all small LLMs. However, it falls behind on mathematical word problems: on MathQA, it is 17.7 points below the frontier median and scores lower than all 19 LLMs. These results indicate that a specialized decision model can match general-purpose LLMs on decisions that rely mainly on knowledge, but not on decisions that require multi-step calculation.