{"meta":{"query_hash":"9f4c9615bc80","filters":{"venue":"Administrative law review"},"cohort_total":3,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":3,"exported":3,"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/9f4c9615bc80","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Administrative+law+review"},"results":[{"id":"W1518167023","doi":"","title":"Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein, Supreme Court of Canada, Address to the American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Administrative law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"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":"Supreme court; Law; Association (psychology); Section (typography); Political science; Administrative law; Economic Justice; Bar (unit); Psychology; Business; Advertising; Geography","score_opus":0.06840600996292688,"score_gpt":0.35529124152952096,"score_spread":0.28688523156659407,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1518167023","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":[0.017359028,0.019583115,0.000041319337,0.023072997,0.0006809275,0.003082722,0.00031057696,0.000044866534,0.93582445],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9918753,0.002614947,0.00017718952,0.004441535,0.00021605233,0.00006389538,0.000003499485,0.000012167833,0.00059539534],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99704206,0.000999155,0.000627668,0.0002849226,0.0007600613,0.0002861064],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9962197,0.00080979516,0.0013335393,0.00023803375,0.0012020487,0.00019690947],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021732566,0.00017559312,0.0006033797,0.000013614669,0.00047741854,0.0000327932,0.00028310478,0.00006617718,0.00010373581],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0019663146,0.00013809395,0.000066925146,0.00042277947,0.00054675475,0.0003600977,0.000040153463,0.00017982496,0.000003081992],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000099007215,0.00012894951,0.00050852104,0.001209757,0.00020350578,0.000009469401,0.008483245,3.0829904e-7,0.0000591095,0.97410274,0.014935222,0.00026018568],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001355779,0.0006599817,0.0037892186,0.0013523025,0.00052083784,0.000006616022,0.011185021,3.6366902e-7,0.0012480818,0.00047304027,0.98036385,0.0002651233],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6762417,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8983734,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9745163,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020112668,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016899464,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5631308},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1560945108","doi":"","title":"A Regulatory Quick Fix for Carcieri v. Salazar: How the Department of Interior Can Invoke an Alternative Source of Existing Statutory Authority to Overcome an Adverse Judgment Under the Chevron Doctrine","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Administrative law review","topic":"Property Rights and Legal Doctrine","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Statute; Jurisdiction; Supreme court; Political science; Statutory law; Doctrine; Legislation; Legislature; Government (linguistics); Federal jurisdiction","score_opus":0.22619924120204335,"score_gpt":0.3938734833854143,"score_spread":0.16767424218337093,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1560945108","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":[0.9243299,0.013440853,0.00084294414,0.01580641,0.0006822117,0.013126542,0.0006959478,0.00012226959,0.030952917],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9958631,0.0007389981,0.0005460212,0.001335428,0.00012559,0.0002359938,0.000018129362,0.000015315685,0.0011214168],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975526,0.000822151,0.00048913737,0.00035299902,0.0004385807,0.00034456686],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99832255,0.00016750394,0.00046881157,0.0005193072,0.00029224076,0.00022960352],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001912853,0.00022480516,0.00050758285,0.000021641183,0.00044150185,0.000031476673,0.00064264145,0.000051876894,0.000101353944],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000121446305,0.00011764902,0.00017261127,0.00020024812,0.00088234455,0.00027164086,0.00009724146,0.00016774562,0.0000013365318],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002436119,0.00032560824,0.00019033284,0.0008141469,0.00020536107,0.0000054022694,0.04756435,0.0000018830491,0.00071058754,0.9417211,0.000547097,0.007670519],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006095235,0.003337406,0.006115549,0.0015528218,0.00030435796,0.0000038684643,0.012240839,0.000020711932,0.0077375644,0.0021777935,0.965415,0.00048456615],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011284685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.031136341,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9648679,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018955271,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00045468914,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9952993},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2354679302","doi":"","title":"The Defects of Emergency Plans in China and Its Perfection","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Administrative law review","topic":"Safety and Risk Management","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":2,"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":"China; Plan (archaeology); Emergency plan; Business; Perfection; Emergency management; Emergency response; Medical emergency; Emergency department; Operations management; Political science; Medicine; Engineering; Law; Geography; Nursing","score_opus":0.0491167018982027,"score_gpt":0.2935329469964458,"score_spread":0.24441624509824308,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2354679302","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":[0.5435791,0.17847441,0.000032590797,0.005671173,0.0007819811,0.00234976,0.000007171692,0.00007564187,0.2690282],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8823184,0.116970845,0.000004085418,0.0003803631,0.000087892084,0.000031050055,0.000005191005,0.0000059258437,0.0001962624],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992903,0.00002706799,0.00028913122,0.00014885218,0.00011785694,0.00012678375],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996242,0.000032025313,0.00017681987,0.000118258315,0.00004188348,0.0000068340128],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00033087897,0.000107769025,0.0001961753,0.000024191542,0.00023416383,0.000011591453,0.00010244948,0.000021628091,0.00008410261],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006424332,0.00006959029,0.000056696877,0.00028153058,0.000051214527,0.0002853922,0.00005274665,0.00008114992,0.000035916048],"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":[0.00003245288,0.00011461218,0.012647042,0.0039567393,0.000037970065,0.000024569614,0.000081086546,0.0000024873696,0.00003057917,0.97669685,0.0024891198,0.0038864783],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039757515,0.00007892855,0.25264308,0.0016516513,0.00012445684,0.000011898581,0.00008372729,0.00011836176,0.00007428832,0.0034438053,0.74109024,0.00028200506],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00015594433,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010429706,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9732531,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000065032664,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000096052,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.283781},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}