qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 vs amos-1-large
qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 and amos-1-large have no measured difference in accuracy, calibration or cost in our data yet.
| Spec | qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 | amos-1-large |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | jetson-ai-lab | Scira (mukaddamzaid) |
| Decision Index score | — | — |
| Calibration error (ECE) | — | — |
| Median latency (p50) | — | — |
| Cost per 1,000 decisions | — | — |
| Parameters | 752M | — |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Question types | — | Choice (one of N options), Score (ordered rubric), Yes / no |
| Mechanism | Decoder LM with a decision readout | Decoder LM with a decision readout |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
FAQ
Is qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 or amos-1-large more accurate?
At least one of the two has no Jev Decision Index score yet, so their accuracy cannot be compared here.
Which is better calibrated, qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 or amos-1-large?
No calibration difference between qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 and amos-1-large is recorded yet.
Is qwen3.5-0.8b-nvsh-tool-jev-scorer-v2 or amos-1-large cheaper per 1,000 decisions?
A hosted price is not recorded for both models; open-weight models cost the compute you run them on.
Cost per 1,000 decisions assumes 200 input tokens per decision. Pricing is indicative — confirm with the provider before production use. Highlighted values indicate the better figure for that row.