{"meta":{"query_hash":"fb02a62005e9","filters":{"venue":"˜The œReview of litigation"},"cohort_total":4,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":4,"exported":4,"export_cap":100000,"truncated":false,"label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12"},"permalink":"https://metacan.xera.ac/q/fb02a62005e9","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=%C2%98The+%C2%9CReview+of+litigation"},"results":[{"id":"W208274694","doi":"","title":"The Act of God Defense: Why Hurricane Katrina & Noah's Flood Don't Qualify","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Storm surge; Storm; Hurricane katrina; Tropical cyclone; Flood myth; Atlantic hurricane; History; Natural disaster; Oceanography; Archaeology; Geology","score_opus":0.01908386068942609,"score_gpt":0.3253921845488619,"score_spread":0.3063083238594358,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W208274694","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0044883788,0.01083039,0.00034381755,0.9428215,0.011047171,0.000018780727,0.0000501921,0.00006761284,0.030332118],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.16487128,0.01723545,0.00080169964,0.73576814,0.008159233,0.00009420618,0.00013283567,0.0003566186,0.07258055],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99598277,0.0017630002,0.00011051681,0.00033100627,0.00087225373,0.0009404237],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909388,0.0025372142,0.00061438535,0.00024247049,0.0019967605,0.0036703793],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043368335,0.00036962645,0.0003568398,0.00049773103,0.011690662,0.0070430036,0.0013485702,0.0076585547,0.029315967],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0230732,0.00036379308,0.000267028,0.0004963869,0.010511689,0.0071100285,0.0034190675,0.0174033,0.006403737],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011433891,0.000016831398,0.0011442488,0.00004130969,0.000003957866,0.00018158939,0.007561428,0.000013201885,0.00003841541,0.01401378,0.95865643,0.01831741],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011624314,0.000027555885,0.0026915579,0.0005512441,0.0000067009864,0.00064451183,0.046300814,0.00008520917,0.00006710032,0.013914037,0.93566674,0.000032901728],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.034215912,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.062441047,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.034215912,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006506217,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010219901,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.098071694},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W222040118","doi":"","title":"Sociotechnical Arguments in Scientific Discourse: Expert Depositions in Tobacco Litigation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Rhetorical question; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Epistemology; Naturalism; Rhetoric; Representation (politics); Law; Politics; Political science; Linguistics; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.021117459518554968,"score_gpt":0.35175838365780354,"score_spread":0.33064092413924856,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W222040118","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.13034046,0.024829691,0.01031206,0.31590602,0.0021175796,0.00016692147,0.00016086045,0.00008356687,0.5160829],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97895914,0.003037597,0.0012558135,0.008040277,0.0011767382,0.000095428346,0.00003343416,0.000030038173,0.0073716356],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9372645,0.041946717,0.0020690868,0.0030636012,0.012565341,0.0030907316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.77795285,0.20243506,0.009126146,0.0025578255,0.005819588,0.0021085276],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04486348,0.00085819664,0.00095638726,0.009359745,0.032024495,0.03252871,0.0044653625,0.028189907,0.009391294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.093384214,0.00077827694,0.00081991375,0.008515263,0.071205094,0.022510836,0.013958244,0.013590797,0.000706617],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000028416853,0.000051140338,0.0007135278,0.0002165735,0.000015158835,0.000917323,0.15802349,0.00026306257,0.0001470155,0.8278367,0.006598275,0.005189483],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007155314,0.000046837402,0.002725722,0.0024813,0.000050289564,0.00044859716,0.19376877,0.0023453603,0.0007797517,0.5717521,0.22543716,0.00009257503],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.025755977,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.018396627,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9679755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039600503,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018055344,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28732312},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2597373951","doi":"","title":"The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley V. California on Border Law Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Probable cause; Search and seizure; Law; Warrant; Notice; Expectation of privacy; Reasonable suspicion; Ratification; Law enforcement; Doctrine; Political science; Business; Politics; Supreme court","score_opus":0.04864636658012418,"score_gpt":0.37964907810417914,"score_spread":0.33100271152405497,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2597373951","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07934113,0.006062381,0.0012574866,0.06491258,0.00046826032,0.000096136006,0.00020974017,0.00009905818,0.8475532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87254834,0.0030373982,0.0010979688,0.037290897,0.00048480977,0.00013575259,0.0001422428,0.000038394846,0.08522422],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99574775,0.0006494644,0.00023886695,0.00073349103,0.0014637274,0.0011667494],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9931335,0.0036156273,0.0006762722,0.0005290135,0.0014486472,0.00059699087],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043236925,0.00031419704,0.00036946844,0.001662117,0.010810614,0.0134605365,0.0030654678,0.008246156,0.009353614],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009469602,0.0006231726,0.0005303677,0.0014683919,0.013386085,0.005532139,0.0040998203,0.0071665193,0.0008378269],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000047907946,0.00006141103,0.0026961036,0.00007108291,0.0000059016947,0.0007371465,0.0055710278,0.00038231534,0.00020423507,0.9274534,0.05353631,0.009233349],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002558787,0.00020522406,0.022540627,0.0016999036,0.00015697994,0.0006387119,0.02016828,0.0028004588,0.001261892,0.1082028,0.84184694,0.00022235386],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.40540823,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.48022595,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.40540823,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015476233,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017612506,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.806097},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W98103576","doi":"","title":"The Problem of Partisan Experts and the Potential for Reform through Concurrent Evidence","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Adversarial system; Law; Contempt; Jury; Political science; German; Civil procedure; Competence (human resources); Ex parte; Psychology","score_opus":0.05576304141928773,"score_gpt":0.3963926964728035,"score_spread":0.3406296550535158,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W98103576","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.033561412,0.031624153,0.16303332,0.21657594,0.002000827,0.00061159773,0.00025622986,0.00023424755,0.55210227],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.826274,0.011949982,0.07320081,0.024164515,0.0035405396,0.00094427937,0.00016010695,0.00011758365,0.059648186],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9593791,0.026030108,0.0014951611,0.0030687347,0.008027115,0.0019999666],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8734125,0.101459965,0.00418097,0.012052872,0.0076260413,0.0012675673],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.047125153,0.00045278174,0.0007998267,0.0026264025,0.0049986118,0.008131694,0.002708064,0.0057699,0.01023019],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11636283,0.0007649755,0.0011495765,0.0021420524,0.016178703,0.014135087,0.0064849355,0.005984634,0.0011716048],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012784926,0.000009954461,0.00021039929,0.00007760638,0.0000072371295,0.000052541964,0.0005406893,0.00040496816,0.000041357755,0.9803859,0.004047836,0.014208747],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017528218,0.000033412332,0.00032218796,0.0003307501,0.000016049555,0.000104747014,0.00029188077,0.0019257971,0.0002508302,0.9492672,0.047426384,0.000013235513],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0056184856,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0051045385,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.047125153,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0061775898,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0077525396,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24922454},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}