Update README.md

README.md

@@ -12,12 +12,12 @@ sdk: static
 
 레이블링에 참여해주셔서 감사합니다!
 
-여러분은 동일한 면접 대상자에 대한 **서로 다른 두 AI 면접관 A와 B**의 인터뷰 대화 기록을 보고, AI 면접관의 질문 능력을 평가하게 됩니다. 
+여러분은 동일한 면접 대상자에 대한 **서로 다른 두 AI 심문관 A와 B**의 인터뷰 대화 기록을 보고, AI 심문관의 질문 능력을 평가하게 됩니다. 
 
 여러분이 해주셔야 할 태스크는 아래와 같이 두 가지입니다.
 
-* 서로 다른 두 면접관 (A , B) 중, 어떤 면접관이 더 나은 질문을 하는지 판단하세요.
-* 각 면접관의 자질을 5점 척도로 평가해 주세요.
+* 서로 다른 두 심문관 (A , B) 중, 어떤 심문관이 더 나은 질문을 하는지 판단하세요.
+* 각 심문관의 자질을 5점 척도로 평가해 주세요.
 
 # 평가 기준
 본 인터뷰는 인터뷰이가 본인의 정보, 기억, 경험을 일관되게 답변하고, 또 해당 답변들이 외부 세계와도 모순이 없는지를 확인하고자 하는 과정입니다. 
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ sdk: static
 * 이전 대화에서 모순이 발견되었음에도 연관성 없는 다른 질문으로 넘어가버린 경우
 
 # 주의 사항
-* **면접관을 평가할 때, 인터뷰이의 답변은 고려하지 않고 면접관의 질문 능력만을 평가합니다. 답변이 아닌 질문의 양상과 퀄리티에 집중해주세요.**
+* **심문관을 평가할 때, 인터뷰이의 답변은 고려하지 않고 심문관의 질문 능력만을 평가합니다. 답변이 아닌 질문의 양상과 퀄리티에 집중해주세요.**
 * 개별 질문뿐만 아니라 전체적인 질문 전략을 고려해주세요.
 
 # 참고 사항
@@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ sdk: static
 
 Thank you for participating in this labeling project!
 
-You will review interview transcripts of **two different AI interviewers (A and B)** interacting with the same interviewee. Your task is to evaluate the questioning capabilities of these AI interviewers.
+You will review interview transcripts of **two different AI interrogators (A and B)** interacting with the same interviewee. Your task is to evaluate the questioning capabilities of these AI interrogators.
 
 There are two main tasks to complete:
 
-* **Comparison:** Determine which of the two interviewers (A or B) asks better questions.
-* **Rating:** Evaluate the quality of each interviewer on a 5-point scale.
+* **Comparison:** Determine which of the two interrogators (A or B) asks better questions.
+* **Rating:** Evaluate the quality of each interrogator on a 5-point scale.
 
 # Evaluation Criteria
 
@@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ Consequently, effective questioning should focus on extracting highly detailed a
 
 ### Criteria for Good Questions
 
-* **Depth & Persistence:** Did the interviewer ask follow-up questions until the topic was sufficiently detailed?
-* If the interviewer needs to ask again because they didn’t get a clear answer, they should **paraphrase** the question.
-* *Exception:* If the interviewee repeatedly refuses to answer despite paraphrasing, the interviewer may move to a different topic.
+* **Depth & Persistence:** Did the interrogator ask follow-up questions until the topic was sufficiently detailed?
+* If the interrogator needs to ask again because they didn’t get a clear answer, they should **paraphrase** the question.
+* *Exception:* If the interviewee repeatedly refuses to answer despite paraphrasing, the interrogator may move to a different topic.
 
 
 * **Verifiability:** Did the questions focus on extracting verifiable information? (i.e., information that can reveal contradictions or be verified through external search).
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ Consequently, effective questioning should focus on extracting highly detailed a
 
 * **Personalization:** Are the questions tailored to the interviewee? (i.e., highly relevant to the interviewee’s specific experiences and previous answers).
 * **Cohesion:** Is there a high degree of interconnection between the questions?
-* **Addressing Contradictions:** If a contradiction or point of doubt was found in previous dialogue, did the interviewer focus on questions related to that contradiction?
+* **Addressing Contradictions:** If a contradiction or point of doubt was found in previous dialogue, did the interrogator focus on questions related to that contradiction?
 
 ### Criteria for Poor Questions
 
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ Conversely, the following cases indicate poor questioning performance:
 
 # Important Notes
 
-* When evaluating the interviewer, **do not judge the interviewee's answers.** Focus solely on the pattern and quality of the interviewer's questions.
+* When evaluating the interrogator, **do not judge the interviewee's answers.** Focus solely on the pattern and quality of the interrogator's questions.
 * Consider the **overall questioning strategy** as a whole, rather than just looking at individual questions in isolation.
 
 # Reference