{"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16821289,0.4161416,0.001654901,0.04785719,0.0022093384,0.004455524,0.000056576653,0.00017690907,0.35923508],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98737806,0.011172578,0.000034944816,0.0006475805,0.00042761926,0.000013153872,0.00000440943,0.0000075471257,0.0003141318],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979757,0.00037042177,0.0006341681,0.0001302832,0.0006462637,0.00024317764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981029,0.0005996893,0.000585225,0.00024164174,0.00040453082,0.00006600858],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005319046,0.000094201896,0.00027063134,0.000025287078,0.0004626605,0.00003313792,0.0003719033,0.000065422595,0.000068433554],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005679308,0.00005562096,0.00013627874,0.000626034,0.00036188745,0.00015637248,0.000028549397,0.00011091315,0.000016483777],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000079259335,0.00029764185,0.009006098,0.011549632,0.00021303611,0.000005454329,0.02827355,0.0000041768735,0.0013041234,0.608566,0.03676424,0.3039368],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015965212,0.00008011703,0.0029946123,0.0022066073,0.00008471004,0.0000020194009,0.0033759372,0.0000019970482,0.0006515836,0.0061411904,0.98416454,0.00013703085],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010165347,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0070535354,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9474003,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000047621703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020880438,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99642605},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.7418496,0.08564404,0.0002972917,0.14253977,0.0008098628,0.0031066719,0.000038656417,0.00013139626,0.025582723],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9858164,0.011356955,0.0005313091,0.0013600833,0.00021181982,0.00012659031,0.000061334744,0.000005798683,0.00052966934],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99814826,0.0005324112,0.00042485338,0.00019527986,0.00048237265,0.00021680929],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994018,0.00010726581,0.00015161232,0.00019268562,0.00009821395,0.0000483867],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023002303,0.00008434034,0.00016282554,0.000016624937,0.0005137285,0.00006233702,0.00025678068,0.000121730896,0.00012522357],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001388956,0.000066162356,0.00010893611,0.0006826283,0.0005750688,0.00045537006,0.000025996098,0.00025883614,0.000028933067],"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":[0.000015879525,0.0015293135,0.01310364,0.0014264259,0.000049071485,0.0000035724352,0.23091422,0.0001414214,0.0065009333,0.47549513,0.045851886,0.22496852],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0020719727,0.00010182854,0.04524939,0.032832153,0.00013317274,0.0000049969244,0.07000827,0.00049968925,0.0045866575,0.060859766,0.7823594,0.0012927059],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002842888,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00341579,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73650753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00025210032,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014391005,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3951236},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2994985,0.03402032,0.0062148473,0.22348182,0.00039568136,0.024569744,0.0015958629,0.00012467151,0.41009855],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957218,0.0032982158,0.00001645294,0.00035048084,0.000057110705,0.0001570535,0.000022340239,0.000007877764,0.0003686476],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99799514,0.0005344225,0.00048891513,0.0001478147,0.00050873595,0.0003249929],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970584,0.0019326232,0.00020858462,0.00034164294,0.0004302029,0.00002852612],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003966985,0.00009604876,0.00020334471,0.000030468249,0.0003857009,0.000042544503,0.0006291767,0.000046810266,0.00009524879],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00062995666,0.0000406469,0.00011385026,0.00041846215,0.000797367,0.0001405978,0.00004077751,0.00012772983,0.000010559029],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.00004124627,0.00008476793,0.00024321057,0.00065859547,0.00003426691,4.25852e-8,0.0033465205,0.000002732247,0.00037204917,0.931527,0.00058598747,0.06310357],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00043114263,0.0003300935,0.0014150667,0.0016944499,0.000051761413,6.6628144e-7,0.0019506265,0.000061938845,0.0034485431,0.032107316,0.95835084,0.00015757915],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017556185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0057094963,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9577648,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000961165,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002953647,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31860328},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010194344,0.09597729,0.0019061189,0.86676204,0.0007653922,0.006107308,0.000009850886,0.000024245059,0.018253425],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96189445,0.034695175,0.0003733749,0.0017839873,0.00015569315,0.000617127,0.000005301413,0.00000355929,0.0004713462],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99887186,0.0003426803,0.00037097197,0.000074863805,0.00023969075,0.00009993345],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978999,0.0009602077,0.00043251744,0.00015287574,0.0005353093,0.000019213563],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022189994,0.000048338043,0.00010558383,0.0000064229034,0.00055849104,0.00008248493,0.00018700017,0.000022322256,0.00007786126],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005789585,0.000021692282,0.000053378768,0.00019543132,0.0006384083,0.00063181575,0.000018546998,0.00006825649,0.0000044181334],"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":[0.000008168608,0.000025065641,0.00003656069,0.0005514148,0.000018963363,6.3799184e-9,0.018651482,4.6194668e-7,0.00007177334,0.8528835,0.017585931,0.11016666],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028917284,0.00004454695,0.0006949889,0.001857969,0.00008231003,0.0000011261785,0.016304258,0.0001209109,0.00016698547,0.06472736,0.9156276,0.00008278025],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0032364877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00031709977,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9517001,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029407638,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021757517,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48926228},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}