{"meta":{"query_hash":"ab90b920e540","filters":{"venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa"},"cohort_total":25,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":25,"exported":25,"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/ab90b920e540","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Comparative+and+International+Law+Journal+of+Southern+Africa"},"results":[{"id":"W1142058392","doi":"","title":"Certification : the procedure, its role in class action proceedings in Ontario and the proposed South African certification procedure","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","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":"Legislation; Certification; Class action; Class (philosophy); Commission; Political science; Action (physics); Law; Law and economics; Economic Justice; Public administration; Business; Computer science; Sociology; State (computer science)","score_opus":0.05664111418784133,"score_gpt":0.25776741644743245,"score_spread":0.2011263022595911,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1142058392","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":[0.22637156,0.0031868196,0.015101469,0.05610598,0.0005732352,0.002114183,0.00022735579,0.00015432846,0.69616514],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7305962,0.0016483096,0.013267467,0.0045849057,0.00013928844,0.00060567295,0.000073254116,0.000039389215,0.24904567],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9921514,0.00104231,0.0004879484,0.0007316104,0.0033195177,0.0022672706],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933428,0.0023363777,0.00061703165,0.00055511063,0.0021991627,0.0009493917],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0070259427,0.00027403553,0.00022601441,0.0014724566,0.0155755365,0.0076939096,0.0018567124,0.0066841864,0.005027519],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015021477,0.000600139,0.0004862983,0.0014721173,0.014317045,0.0028829898,0.0031427373,0.003447822,0.00065201847],"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":[0.000050777544,0.00006119809,0.0069441884,0.00013483361,0.000007305633,0.0011251604,0.01528483,0.00075842935,0.0020359394,0.93486893,0.011275443,0.027453028],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013870472,0.0002985506,0.061697226,0.00080628117,0.00008815508,0.0012102273,0.016503548,0.0052925143,0.005504331,0.08214039,0.8259171,0.00040296858],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82721037,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9142614,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17278963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04767355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12228263,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3476144},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W130846176","doi":"","title":"The legitimacy of judicial review in South Africa's new constitutional dispensation : insights from the Canadian experience","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Judicial review; Constitution; Justiciability; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Legitimacy; Judicial activism; Bill of rights; Separation of powers; Power (physics); Judicial independence; Human rights; Politics","score_opus":0.08105821159474702,"score_gpt":0.32022101388525787,"score_spread":0.23916280229051085,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W130846176","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.23341341,0.017795416,0.0018821852,0.35071343,0.0007714542,0.00012831685,0.0001660607,0.000073383,0.39505634],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9683887,0.0042596175,0.0006689005,0.010230826,0.00013883277,0.0000256976,0.000018456865,0.000039355422,0.0162296],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97872466,0.006039605,0.00068602595,0.0015250146,0.006395517,0.0066291234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9425521,0.03296503,0.0023049377,0.0018329702,0.014267763,0.006077276],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025919475,0.00039352663,0.0007840456,0.0041734874,0.06936559,0.019804634,0.0024192159,0.0077360542,0.006143182],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05923288,0.0007642971,0.00049487344,0.0058463844,0.044182375,0.005338666,0.005513798,0.012105985,0.00032168088],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009908719,0.00005016459,0.003360009,0.00015730626,0.000022741006,0.001895612,0.2092784,0.00043227203,0.0007031935,0.73243994,0.027242837,0.024318354],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011480798,0.000066652596,0.015193936,0.0007791761,0.00007480001,0.00096931844,0.15059173,0.001044483,0.00091154093,0.054564066,0.77530444,0.00038504312],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97861904,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98787785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17672268,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17672268,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.21292108,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.954885},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1486351790","doi":"","title":"Child pornography and the Internet - a comparative perspective","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology","field":"Psychology","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":"Statutory law; Child pornography; Pornography; The Internet; Internet privacy; Political science; Context (archaeology); Perspective (graphical); Public relations; Law; Business; Computer science; History; World Wide Web; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.08609911759901616,"score_gpt":0.35070398490040033,"score_spread":0.26460486730138416,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1486351790","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":[0.40453994,0.046103,0.0006263788,0.015607907,0.00023164484,0.00003153461,0.00011139017,0.000016790476,0.5327314],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9533807,0.033846445,0.00026173185,0.0012029944,0.00012133011,0.00003148734,0.0000433486,0.000010646013,0.011101249],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99897146,0.00068780157,0.000021671829,0.000035639667,0.00011199562,0.0001715118],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980781,0.0013729051,0.0002316426,0.000059003243,0.00014407534,0.000114219554],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010655619,0.00021872681,0.00028228157,0.002840198,0.0029439072,0.0042677904,0.00044458776,0.0014909926,0.009408207],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0031926876,0.00015975449,0.000150728,0.0035757837,0.0061296793,0.0033875548,0.0019606526,0.0013626628,0.00027928015],"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":[0.00007977122,0.00020820316,0.0144514,0.00060156337,0.000023397048,0.0043680333,0.21009521,0.00012194044,0.000446782,0.7197994,0.0068330765,0.042971272],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002569327,0.00024016059,0.04331205,0.0020338001,0.000056127876,0.0061956965,0.3967467,0.0001962337,0.00067759113,0.02895411,0.5215345,0.000027292655],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012075193,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.020816194,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012075193,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0036040603,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010551623,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.031473577},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1495708875","doi":"","title":"Vindicatory approach to the award of constitutional and public law damages : contemporary Commonwealth developments","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Law; Supreme court; Appeal; Damages; Commonwealth; Plaintiff; Political science; Jurisdiction; High Court; Charter; Common law; Constitution","score_opus":0.1572053411510131,"score_gpt":0.35008155756813136,"score_spread":0.19287621641711827,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1495708875","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":[0.040348846,0.026330156,0.012335277,0.078542,0.0012457642,0.0000811836,0.000056868572,0.000070655326,0.84098923],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8809319,0.013349678,0.004950362,0.017813105,0.0018057275,0.00020886313,0.00004583308,0.00008738946,0.080807164],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9761303,0.0056819567,0.0011492375,0.003728563,0.009953855,0.0033561357],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889305,0.0055148844,0.0007495759,0.0014440836,0.0026304873,0.0007305555],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014498584,0.00045800346,0.0006955516,0.0046949172,0.010381497,0.02502722,0.004763783,0.016154373,0.006562151],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022886693,0.0010441352,0.000999237,0.0040981346,0.07374114,0.010677088,0.01139914,0.016464692,0.00067312253],"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":[0.0000018873591,0.0000063488837,0.0000639307,0.00001568178,0.0000021599958,0.000034890767,0.0007368744,0.00009585921,0.0000361255,0.99442357,0.0010358987,0.0035467423],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002026818,0.000089088026,0.0024341114,0.0007400565,0.000028327955,0.0002490326,0.002200278,0.00082142133,0.00035977317,0.70926934,0.2836913,0.00009706134],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12376431,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13555747,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12376431,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.041728105,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02498636,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.30276006},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1526263999","doi":"","title":"Combating impermissible tax avoidance through efficient administrative approaches : what SARS can learn from its Canadian counterpart","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Legislature; Tax avoidance; Audit; Business; Revenue; Public economics; Compliance (psychology); Administrative law; Law and economics; Tax credit; Accounting; Public administration; Economics; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.15560253708327026,"score_gpt":0.3024698905645749,"score_spread":0.14686735348130464,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1526263999","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":[0.042986576,0.022915347,0.0055339374,0.4434659,0.0011765326,0.0000851374,0.00033501993,0.00015066023,0.48335096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73683083,0.07679569,0.016277574,0.035599176,0.0009008853,0.000043039985,0.00040259582,0.00012654149,0.13302371],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9968566,0.00045764213,0.00006870418,0.00021887287,0.0015135217,0.0008847815],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99452907,0.0007543235,0.00025734882,0.00030798154,0.0032328314,0.00091842894],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030883981,0.0005179817,0.00047939044,0.0015841374,0.0076481067,0.00720377,0.0012214634,0.0018589444,0.007891827],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0062472066,0.00019956847,0.00045578406,0.002414407,0.007851475,0.004511656,0.0020791967,0.004429465,0.00089756085],"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":[0.00008082153,0.00013453251,0.011981865,0.00054891227,0.000034423527,0.0004993601,0.007143578,0.0015944175,0.000670508,0.6647382,0.08770654,0.2248669],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022728538,0.00009368323,0.023466509,0.0010063673,0.000057263474,0.0003752137,0.021026673,0.0016959491,0.0009824368,0.055541705,0.89559066,0.00014083127],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94628733,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9730733,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053712666,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044624068,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1253517,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32377177},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1590395160","doi":"","title":"Constructive appropriation - the key to constructive expropriation? Guidelines from Canada","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Expropriation; Appropriation; Constructive; Law; Doctrine; Law and economics; Constructive trust; Jurisprudence; Business; Political science; Economics; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.07304676549471395,"score_gpt":0.34265128982788245,"score_spread":0.2696045243331685,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1590395160","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0041444246,0.06756808,0.019937404,0.32146522,0.0020763278,0.0005071096,0.0004977335,0.0003095285,0.5834941],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.29653347,0.15688762,0.111527234,0.18309511,0.0011066851,0.0012687712,0.00067077193,0.0007287452,0.24818155],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9849871,0.0027826864,0.0015617384,0.0010122053,0.0072133043,0.0024429804],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98326874,0.005085077,0.00043183184,0.00094248104,0.008733583,0.0015382845],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01100035,0.0010255738,0.0010994682,0.0037352373,0.010171002,0.010442953,0.0048089717,0.0129324645,0.004757579],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022894308,0.00092268025,0.00084384397,0.0039193947,0.015625479,0.0060221627,0.005247048,0.012680408,0.0014054506],"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":[0.000017404856,0.000041569394,0.0003861766,0.0003881875,0.000008642997,0.0005202415,0.004577805,0.0009081181,0.00037639102,0.8391503,0.10304365,0.05058136],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018575645,0.000012036376,0.000806269,0.001986275,0.000019378052,0.00021113109,0.0016790711,0.00040418483,0.00044306874,0.09304572,0.90128756,0.000086752705],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9201989,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9524294,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07980108,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.063470215,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1865712,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4605108},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1596394876","doi":"","title":"Justiciability and standing to challenge legislation in the Commonwealth: a tale of the traditionalist and judicial activist approaches","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Justiciability; Law; Adjudication; Constitutionality; Judicial review; Political science; Legislation; Constitution; Complaint; Judicial discretion; Common law; Politics","score_opus":0.21682462579469947,"score_gpt":0.3520220948740729,"score_spread":0.1351974690793734,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1596394876","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":[0.12414139,0.01368471,0.053358797,0.1820699,0.001423121,0.00018190315,0.000036843645,0.00004659717,0.62505674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631593,0.002209072,0.0044752588,0.007882265,0.00080605916,0.000107721695,0.000011815539,0.000034843346,0.02131364],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9911327,0.0039452063,0.00031655317,0.00080814294,0.0024975939,0.0012997823],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936878,0.003793341,0.00051494467,0.0007500182,0.0008610264,0.00039281248],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008605726,0.00039019185,0.0005427069,0.0022739344,0.007902386,0.010078287,0.0017461776,0.0060109445,0.0019850442],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012010846,0.00030081504,0.0006579326,0.0012824861,0.1201846,0.010192122,0.008981299,0.011052088,0.00019492704],"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":[0.0000010038041,0.000002990659,0.000047717203,0.000004622381,7.868939e-7,0.000017552706,0.0021913948,0.000040173327,0.000028072476,0.9963766,0.00029249207,0.0009966402],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009894979,0.000021415164,0.00057864,0.00013638796,0.000004203068,0.000081644095,0.004408714,0.0002462463,0.000197179,0.93040997,0.063889794,0.000015914458],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011887871,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017952098,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011887871,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008576139,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012072026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.062224567},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1916008992","doi":"","title":"Seeking access to the confidential records of a third party: the accused's right to a fair trial v the third party's right to privacy","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Confidentiality; Right to privacy; Conviction; Constitutional right; The Right to Privacy; Political science; Law; Third party; Information privacy; Privacy laws of the United States; Right to a fair trial; Public disclosure; Internet privacy; Human rights; Supreme court; Computer science","score_opus":0.10869781096703321,"score_gpt":0.38302469648797116,"score_spread":0.274326885520938,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1916008992","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.20858046,0.008858027,0.013666192,0.1876368,0.0010520337,0.00019493561,0.00016173143,0.00006301249,0.5797869],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9545757,0.0016945415,0.0013531268,0.022644138,0.00043025086,0.00010908823,0.000017544802,0.000020281139,0.01915538],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9873466,0.0052597844,0.000658262,0.001074901,0.0025888144,0.0030715796],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9750469,0.020220028,0.00133932,0.0012672447,0.0014503172,0.0006762429],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015855953,0.00038414408,0.00096127973,0.0011594275,0.009409247,0.010669409,0.0018753454,0.023484055,0.0036771114],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03691733,0.0005868968,0.0010095581,0.0011105118,0.026454678,0.0067124576,0.006144078,0.015504863,0.0004609544],"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":[0.000036401027,0.00002040001,0.00066086143,0.000029927765,0.000014472962,0.000724416,0.004151344,0.0001362303,0.00027316733,0.9891411,0.0025414196,0.0022702299],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019233335,0.00017875404,0.0033992026,0.0007692858,0.0002734847,0.0021172706,0.0092686955,0.0016685219,0.0037420783,0.86481714,0.1133974,0.00017579652],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.027504131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025427904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.027504131,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005154361,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009236681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08385527},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W195398862","doi":"","title":"HIV / AIDS and equal opportunities in the workplace : the implications of the Employment Equity Act","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"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":"Redress; Statutory law; Legislation; Equity (law); Affirmative action; Political science; Employment discrimination; Equal employment opportunity; Sociology; Law","score_opus":0.16456644923569405,"score_gpt":0.3841107808934568,"score_spread":0.21954433165776274,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W195398862","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.045515444,0.04403462,0.0019574566,0.5485229,0.0026772437,0.00007232143,0.000035429344,0.000011305577,0.35717332],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8162557,0.030244902,0.0017407812,0.10862314,0.0027158458,0.0001964642,0.000017666776,0.000021093345,0.040184435],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98844135,0.0059702597,0.00035076583,0.00047960787,0.0017751325,0.0029828548],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99284333,0.00540298,0.000531056,0.00020353195,0.00029766822,0.0007213907],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00694037,0.00038688022,0.0004071153,0.0008636852,0.015153206,0.015406973,0.0014903956,0.015620088,0.00494715],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009693277,0.00033150453,0.00057248684,0.0012884849,0.038349144,0.008046616,0.009392085,0.012066563,0.00046612302],"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":[0.000009130269,0.000030130246,0.00036931122,0.00005548035,0.0000018086924,0.00029092477,0.0077721947,0.00009933159,0.00006193698,0.98082274,0.0041668303,0.006320184],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003606086,0.00013328371,0.0057804445,0.002658269,0.000021492342,0.0007154856,0.05309632,0.0005404821,0.00041202852,0.59041286,0.34610668,0.00008666653],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019379685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025054146,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.019379685,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007949952,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017169047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.057681203},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2261008081","doi":"","title":"The need for clarity on whether 'suspects' may rely on section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 : a comparative law analysis","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Constitution; CLARITY; Law; Adversarial system; Duty; Political science; Section (typography); Interpretation (philosophy); The Republic; Constitutional law; Sociology; Epistemology","score_opus":0.09916064664287683,"score_gpt":0.3490144440462874,"score_spread":0.24985379740341057,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2261008081","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":[0.13172941,0.044262808,0.017533863,0.25302178,0.0010347497,0.00012894085,0.00021237618,0.000034808338,0.55204135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96612877,0.008255209,0.0036630016,0.014704752,0.00031720006,0.00009742912,0.000062920684,0.000025450732,0.0067453883],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9835624,0.010148057,0.00067396765,0.0010332239,0.0027694772,0.0018129605],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.949374,0.045070127,0.0016067444,0.001077783,0.0024927622,0.00037859927],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0246556,0.00041364407,0.000694154,0.005904886,0.011582145,0.014463837,0.0022854828,0.00999811,0.0063208123],"category_scores_gemma":[0.050507315,0.00061232725,0.0006656716,0.004733333,0.047217995,0.018559579,0.0050909277,0.0095985625,0.0004671267],"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":[0.000007028551,0.0000044177177,0.00029792366,0.00006007526,0.0000034068853,0.00013834667,0.015423381,0.00005431531,0.00008162019,0.9791949,0.0010495568,0.0036849794],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033782482,0.00008793526,0.0061896974,0.0030593968,0.000081616636,0.00073516497,0.08894624,0.0005169272,0.0013037215,0.61880815,0.2801183,0.00011908969],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0673254,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.069418564,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0673254,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017674267,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018027691,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13386708},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2285295340","doi":"","title":"The rights of child witnesses versus the accused's right to confrontation : a comparative perspective","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Torture, Ethics, and Law","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":"Perspective (graphical); Law; Political science; Balance (ability); Human rights; Absolute (philosophy); Psychology","score_opus":0.08490094580724163,"score_gpt":0.3681039643595466,"score_spread":0.283203018552305,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2285295340","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":[0.100887366,0.02964114,0.003972051,0.04831431,0.0005683919,0.00003933604,0.00006276464,0.000010367901,0.8165042],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9610595,0.016390188,0.0008966584,0.0037197762,0.0005816805,0.000066514156,0.000030712847,0.000014479719,0.017240427],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952291,0.0032761863,0.00009256722,0.0001604065,0.00049273483,0.0007490323],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99257046,0.0060373163,0.0004161924,0.00023855433,0.00045892416,0.0002785594],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0055538504,0.00035636182,0.0004984014,0.0023482698,0.004689902,0.0070588673,0.0009534886,0.0063168094,0.008532971],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011019768,0.00025685897,0.00034591032,0.0012353972,0.022269895,0.007929992,0.0036342512,0.004203483,0.00048458113],"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":[0.000017042625,0.000014581361,0.00028974493,0.00008077548,0.000005304343,0.00046433476,0.017575895,0.00007997737,0.00018313741,0.9751844,0.0011155657,0.004989397],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000036415397,0.00019064847,0.0057326555,0.002718356,0.000051577215,0.0027221944,0.10498707,0.0004097833,0.0008691421,0.62840307,0.25383186,0.000047243462],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0042131287,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0046969564,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.008532971,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0029213573,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017730404,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.029371977},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2522412034","doi":"","title":"Face-coverings, demeanour evidence and the right to a fair trial : lessons from the USA and Canada","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Jury Decision Making Processes","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":"Witness; Credibility; Law; Face (sociological concept); Political science; Value (mathematics); Identity (music); Empirical evidence; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology; Computer science; Social science","score_opus":0.10479166315283875,"score_gpt":0.35775310585954884,"score_spread":0.25296144270671006,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2522412034","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":[0.14277965,0.027453791,0.0037452022,0.322183,0.0011586444,0.00023801232,0.00038331142,0.00005753645,0.50200087],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.898674,0.018359452,0.004721636,0.030317528,0.00019446836,0.00012357792,0.00014152288,0.00006924329,0.047398537],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98862666,0.0023916778,0.00042991468,0.000909892,0.0034495909,0.0041922443],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9675992,0.015945345,0.00083896227,0.0009299325,0.01030677,0.004379821],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014734878,0.00040875011,0.0010608258,0.0019388803,0.018790618,0.014108944,0.0030262864,0.009050948,0.008716682],"category_scores_gemma":[0.051908687,0.00050828536,0.0006422299,0.0030578543,0.012959628,0.005489009,0.0049183853,0.010694121,0.0004115806],"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":[0.00027285604,0.00018495104,0.009919313,0.00031218276,0.00007566331,0.001700504,0.015780762,0.0019776628,0.0003088292,0.81396604,0.048788913,0.106712356],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00053456007,0.00022174137,0.037110005,0.0041602394,0.00037629082,0.00082472485,0.05179472,0.0061415085,0.0015251708,0.3048251,0.59185064,0.0006353224],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9866952,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9947925,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08929322,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08929322,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23339875,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.64787066},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2561384485","doi":"","title":"Problems arising in compensating unconcious plaintiffs for loss of amenities of life: a comparative survey","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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; Plaintiff; High Court; Appeal; Common law; Political science; Trial court; Position (finance); English law; Precedent; Sociology; Economics","score_opus":0.16089085258807517,"score_gpt":0.3683810508009158,"score_spread":0.20749019821284065,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2561384485","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.42844868,0.31240898,0.004433735,0.048908,0.0007478218,0.00018552356,0.00020983613,0.000036376663,0.20462102],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83155584,0.15332957,0.0016692035,0.0052522467,0.00059778785,0.000087106986,0.00015984355,0.0000276496,0.007320748],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.98610747,0.00610511,0.0012922874,0.000970503,0.0035839593,0.0019407514],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95138294,0.03498962,0.0050011724,0.0009516264,0.0062725637,0.0014019995],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021557858,0.00031502187,0.0006545328,0.0078026033,0.0071722353,0.008224355,0.0021177821,0.0065874713,0.0050705695],"category_scores_gemma":[0.053788908,0.00058451144,0.00076778245,0.010225536,0.0076499344,0.008610767,0.004470173,0.003449623,0.0006124323],"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":[0.0005285314,0.0012687373,0.09752048,0.003758671,0.00015027,0.0039041585,0.07198682,0.0015396602,0.0011313919,0.32219148,0.022356827,0.473663],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007082678,0.0018294998,0.21000217,0.007180437,0.00021198214,0.008913489,0.2474627,0.0013049893,0.0019991458,0.032301597,0.4885355,0.0001877447],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015445712,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.031768728,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021557858,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0072598835,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006731735,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.114010155},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2567059005","doi":"","title":"The accused's right to be present: a key to meaningful participation in the criminal process","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","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":"Law; Political science; Human rights; Fair trial; Right to a fair trial; Criminal court; Criminal trial; Criminal procedure; Key (lock); Process (computing); International law; Computer security","score_opus":0.13665797964209617,"score_gpt":0.41582747773424333,"score_spread":0.2791694980921472,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2567059005","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09892034,0.011478966,0.029497005,0.2404662,0.0017689422,0.00019313864,0.000066585184,0.00008980573,0.6175191],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9676129,0.0020859942,0.0038770286,0.008599714,0.00068728527,0.00016802238,0.000018579563,0.000031672065,0.01691875],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.978459,0.01279745,0.0010367195,0.001895789,0.0035921144,0.0022189186],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9715507,0.015961997,0.0032114093,0.0026048548,0.0028256723,0.0038452568],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019256355,0.00039848668,0.0010409198,0.0011606098,0.011417575,0.013860956,0.0018106143,0.015719268,0.0064946725],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038521644,0.0007028506,0.00063800096,0.0005802717,0.05889783,0.015397954,0.014888791,0.015135604,0.0013894023],"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":[0.000036821904,0.0000641785,0.0009216588,0.00009448646,0.000013959074,0.0007627038,0.0265782,0.00008608113,0.00083065784,0.9532441,0.0030575362,0.014309531],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000082877195,0.00028622927,0.003821881,0.0015871243,0.00009287924,0.0059691733,0.032227688,0.00033909627,0.0022191508,0.7263078,0.22691777,0.0001483776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0015834837,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0020790664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.019256355,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0018259778,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0077448473,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10183853},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2606686253","doi":"","title":"The constitutional phenomenon of parliamentary privilege and immunity in South Africa : a comparison with jurisdictions in Britain, Canada and France","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Parliament; Law; Privilege (computing); Political science; Legislation; Doctrine; Politics","score_opus":0.02747202688656342,"score_gpt":0.2822475937560583,"score_spread":0.2547755668694949,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2606686253","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.70213914,0.006426032,0.00070807367,0.00644201,0.000063582935,0.000041039504,0.000079446305,0.000013849519,0.28408673],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99568605,0.000742852,0.00009678491,0.00033756037,0.000013134326,0.000012759834,0.000010284514,0.000007813421,0.0030927358],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9955526,0.0010133912,0.000115065704,0.00031754634,0.000679435,0.0023218377],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99647444,0.0018106105,0.0006380571,0.00017771834,0.0004978738,0.00040138423],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018983858,0.00020493186,0.00042404523,0.0038232703,0.011514871,0.007855919,0.00073986687,0.0015049872,0.003218734],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007098075,0.00027970198,0.00034949725,0.0054574884,0.018524548,0.0026122686,0.0046026087,0.0027346315,0.00016459786],"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":[0.000077406585,0.00002150315,0.01351415,0.00016465958,0.000031144602,0.0015386866,0.15812749,0.00017757501,0.0013809234,0.8093241,0.0013035843,0.014338744],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007595242,0.00010023751,0.31708172,0.0013731851,0.00019281286,0.0020138915,0.24907553,0.00052646064,0.0021674088,0.040714663,0.38650942,0.00016861246],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5461369,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.56989306,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45386308,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023512064,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017178077,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.91307193},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2607346612","doi":"","title":"Environmental audits and self-incrimination","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses","field":"Environmental Science","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":"Self-incrimination; Privilege (computing); Statute; Audit; Legislation; Law; Subject (documents); Political science; State (computer science); Criminal procedure; Business; Accounting; Computer science","score_opus":0.04317527136752848,"score_gpt":0.26601087274227625,"score_spread":0.22283560137474778,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2607346612","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.47481674,0.01090462,0.011214954,0.054791275,0.0003523897,0.00007392878,0.00009208661,0.000029136227,0.44772488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9878088,0.0020174303,0.00059402856,0.0013063625,0.00010827787,0.000013585368,0.000007839696,0.0000038355374,0.008139732],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99360365,0.0031239535,0.00025289162,0.000390225,0.0016207127,0.0010086177],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9612919,0.026414022,0.007220698,0.0011669674,0.0031984576,0.00070792605],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050327717,0.00017465987,0.0003039516,0.002092474,0.0032914756,0.0040179244,0.0006935132,0.0025586209,0.0039050812],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022067742,0.00021390143,0.0003109287,0.0015078865,0.012081351,0.004532619,0.003221184,0.0020046702,0.0002305597],"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":[0.000027352553,0.000045947705,0.009576388,0.000055118944,0.000010158651,0.00029108577,0.0030638785,0.00039434264,0.000072990384,0.9685291,0.0012744915,0.016659155],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035254663,0.00015061031,0.032510955,0.0005495482,0.00006671008,0.0010733625,0.010592036,0.002054296,0.0016719723,0.86452204,0.08669943,0.00007381035],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011235477,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012249285,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011235477,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0028980703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0044973227,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.026616216},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2731186053","doi":"","title":"The litigant in person and the access to justice dilemma : quo vadis South Africa","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Phenomenon; Status quo; Dilemma; Political science; Law; Adversary; Economic Justice; Common law; Norm (philosophy); Sociology; Law and economics; Computer security","score_opus":0.09857682815585109,"score_gpt":0.35440460100717075,"score_spread":0.25582777285131963,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2731186053","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.40446103,0.026126629,0.0034710583,0.23922485,0.00086610194,0.00009708048,0.00003700755,0.000012407568,0.32570386],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9768957,0.004857465,0.00045145542,0.0065151867,0.00015736048,0.00003232717,0.0000045653946,0.000006045426,0.011079901],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99760866,0.0012146238,0.00009874935,0.00017731084,0.00028061084,0.0006200329],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998052,0.0010742057,0.0002807792,0.000082596176,0.00011861046,0.00039182554],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032883848,0.00026481718,0.00033848648,0.0009403994,0.011680717,0.008208082,0.00061291433,0.0043846467,0.0053103413],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0057002916,0.00019937826,0.0002625791,0.0010783471,0.018686047,0.0071619106,0.0075112386,0.004371452,0.00025588684],"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":[0.000020048315,0.000035013167,0.0022673802,0.00014643445,0.000009960857,0.0029724743,0.12993467,0.000101282654,0.00045510198,0.85144395,0.002837291,0.009776404],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033814304,0.00008593364,0.006399261,0.0011584613,0.000030098707,0.003942737,0.2989058,0.00040878236,0.0004752104,0.3898504,0.2986594,0.00005010783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007241075,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011293131,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011680717,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0032125681,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0062035727,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.023308933},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2803031062","doi":"","title":"The limits of police deception in obtaining a confession from a suspect who is neither arrested nor detained : the Canadian Supreme Court leads the way","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Suspect; Confession (law); Deception; Law; Supreme court; Interrogation; Power (physics); Psychology; Face (sociological concept); Criminology; Self-incrimination; Criminal procedure; Political science; Sociology; Privilege (computing)","score_opus":0.13040775523057196,"score_gpt":0.37581766269111194,"score_spread":0.24540990746053998,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2803031062","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":[0.14609955,0.033266466,0.007128856,0.35785314,0.001171414,0.00013020521,0.00023797849,0.0000613342,0.45405096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9545905,0.0077331443,0.0025177235,0.020804903,0.00049296353,0.000061453145,0.00003455224,0.000035162488,0.013729625],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97703075,0.0065398198,0.00080143893,0.0016601909,0.009547263,0.004420626],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9435635,0.035147354,0.0015650104,0.0024736642,0.01452563,0.0027248766],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025430916,0.0005266131,0.00090748223,0.0026356117,0.026124509,0.021013653,0.0036465414,0.0103614405,0.002398866],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06582975,0.0007615257,0.00059137767,0.002026822,0.054189734,0.009191097,0.0054696016,0.014626017,0.00036430362],"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":[0.00012839664,0.00003345104,0.004941496,0.00014260043,0.000053209664,0.0008937748,0.030948197,0.00082077674,0.0004726236,0.90316117,0.02278257,0.03562165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015099568,0.00018483693,0.029286545,0.005166367,0.0005169519,0.0010794112,0.08055354,0.0052871793,0.003033888,0.5569143,0.3169732,0.0008527486],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93720794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95751995,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06279206,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05803546,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10158436,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42107874},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3157906344","doi":"10.25159/2522-3062/5307","title":"The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Indigenous; Duty; Law; Supreme court; Obligation; Political science; Convention; State (computer science); Notice; Ceremony; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.10975294987985741,"score_gpt":0.35698417075444955,"score_spread":0.24723122087459215,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3157906344","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.048649553,0.14370796,0.0012523584,0.055346936,0.0011361804,0.00007578441,0.00045561674,0.000040412186,0.7493352],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7548833,0.16917409,0.0016754468,0.01329616,0.00052890135,0.00006955397,0.00028840773,0.00008517998,0.059999086],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9859638,0.0016447041,0.00030859635,0.00087489147,0.0073271403,0.0038807706],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9896125,0.0024211193,0.00049088395,0.00025296194,0.006149626,0.0010729255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0051008803,0.0006744032,0.00070822623,0.0090900995,0.03967248,0.013982844,0.0031052995,0.004966586,0.0068338513],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010747779,0.00066217565,0.0007046736,0.021196928,0.021629537,0.004113481,0.0035495006,0.0058045844,0.00043558364],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000030315268,0.000035396606,0.0043395185,0.00064371893,0.00003309313,0.00074755173,0.05655898,0.0003742246,0.00025407414,0.8394842,0.05530637,0.042192575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009809181,0.000030939682,0.030866306,0.0014541985,0.000076105985,0.00058065896,0.05163762,0.0003690302,0.00022670729,0.013668855,0.90093356,0.00014609777],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99599,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99779737,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.25816697,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.25816697,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25465408,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8604212},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W317289987","doi":"","title":"The cartoon controversy : a note on freedom of expression, hate speech and blasphemy","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":25,"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":"Blasphemy; Dignity; Freedom of religion; Freedom of expression; Islam; Expression (computer science); Law; Denial; Human rights; Political science; Multiculturalism; Freedom of the press; Sociology; Philosophy; Psychology; Computer science; Theology; Psychoanalysis","score_opus":0.017245770251611343,"score_gpt":0.2480359473883886,"score_spread":0.23079017713677727,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W317289987","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.27498555,0.04413407,0.022166181,0.16496779,0.00731408,0.00008344135,0.00007848119,0.0001308909,0.48613954],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9662308,0.0040050657,0.0013907372,0.008987233,0.001576922,0.000030606276,0.000014757367,0.000030316616,0.017733684],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995414,0.002502629,0.000103733546,0.0003574699,0.0011862757,0.0004358695],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862031,0.011556449,0.00093556725,0.00043006157,0.00062082737,0.00025398255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003928012,0.00037002677,0.00032999192,0.0012662973,0.0064581977,0.010890703,0.00067961623,0.0045158463,0.0032118994],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013807904,0.00025056297,0.00024848204,0.0013566609,0.020244218,0.005790765,0.002814206,0.0042753518,0.000325672],"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":[0.000058689384,0.000023523813,0.0017326948,0.00013555118,0.0000079916,0.00077577226,0.09646309,0.00013890988,0.000541032,0.83442616,0.02061165,0.045085013],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002486207,0.00009218951,0.009399686,0.0009319837,0.00003352926,0.0017624587,0.09699054,0.0016200284,0.0023513339,0.16686657,0.71983284,0.000094000345],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00907863,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013198033,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010890703,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0022213187,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019649456,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.02077353},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3214149329","doi":"","title":"Journal Note: The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Indigenous; Duty; Law; Supreme court; Obligation; Political science; Convention; State (computer science); Notice; Ceremony; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.10264183273506347,"score_gpt":0.2852095054719395,"score_spread":0.18256767273687605,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3214149329","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":[0.020231247,0.07163327,0.0010451123,0.20125668,0.0038454407,0.00005985453,0.00072054274,0.000041886375,0.701166],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5555147,0.08349306,0.0019901742,0.08837667,0.0033173289,0.000066875764,0.0005332139,0.00018041326,0.26652753],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9923693,0.0007199188,0.00012397223,0.0005464452,0.0043498636,0.0018904174],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.994114,0.0015620847,0.00022425079,0.00013602225,0.003231656,0.0007320519],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002582535,0.00047961462,0.00043549042,0.0038613528,0.031087194,0.0124223465,0.0021464252,0.005563236,0.0128057],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005931235,0.00041097487,0.00047962696,0.009329842,0.019293852,0.0034076532,0.0025871561,0.0050492673,0.00094163755],"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":[0.000019831761,0.000028334254,0.0029011394,0.00039126765,0.000015382384,0.0003743217,0.029581467,0.0001676222,0.00023184648,0.5900019,0.3505114,0.025775492],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000041579287,0.00000931932,0.009404044,0.00035075672,0.000017840674,0.00016535977,0.014728711,0.00007741259,0.000100268706,0.00766076,0.96743894,0.00004244138],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98844916,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99524754,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10647265,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10647265,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1686326,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7725167},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W34542512","doi":"10.3390/ejihpe10030058","title":"Negotiating a standard material transfer agreement under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: issues and concerns for Africa","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"International Maritime Law Issues","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada","keywords":"Negotiation; Treaty; Indigenous; Agriculture; Latin Americans; Political science; Realm; Genetic resources; International trade; International law; Law; Business; Ecology; Biotechnology; Biology","score_opus":0.031362871750597966,"score_gpt":0.2588762413583042,"score_spread":0.22751336960770627,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W34542512","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.81074065,0.0011558468,0.008445142,0.052002173,0.00018195948,0.00024777988,0.00003371997,0.00002545931,0.12716724],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9878109,0.0005029013,0.0016268572,0.0021191575,0.000017793358,0.000041789695,0.000008332376,0.00000845646,0.007863794],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99349844,0.0026791664,0.00020915565,0.0003310783,0.0011209787,0.0021612346],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9911993,0.005926343,0.00081227213,0.00043595422,0.00074734207,0.00087883073],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013965486,0.00026927624,0.00023839484,0.0007871508,0.016909538,0.007665008,0.0012441961,0.0039737415,0.0031014904],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019619158,0.00026925368,0.00017683565,0.0013239665,0.011975194,0.0038582839,0.0033109353,0.003421894,0.00018835817],"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":[0.00011275221,0.00012836981,0.018942337,0.00020118205,0.000009572035,0.005049268,0.4874837,0.0008307657,0.005272554,0.39453113,0.005738431,0.081699975],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028693054,0.00012460983,0.014083552,0.00055921345,0.000017929508,0.0011420364,0.64561355,0.00081523455,0.0034918631,0.045428738,0.2886219,0.00007270813],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16539697,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.25602093,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16539697,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01822133,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032552555,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32886857},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4296719230","doi":"10.25159/2522-3062/9428","title":"Considering Mental Health Courts for South Africa: Lessons from Canada and the United States of America","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending","field":"Psychology","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":"Mental health; Criminal justice; Legislature; Therapeutic jurisprudence; Economic Justice; Mental illness; Law; Political science; Mental health law; Health care; Criminology; Medicine; Psychiatry; Psychology","score_opus":0.07616041130119866,"score_gpt":0.3342949621756237,"score_spread":0.25813455087442505,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4296719230","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12954801,0.030216726,0.00064626493,0.6970317,0.0021428487,0.00019327525,0.00017730099,0.000025678524,0.14001824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80632716,0.035333604,0.002375088,0.13104834,0.0005401019,0.00012718483,0.00012849826,0.00006178604,0.024058197],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.992953,0.0013533758,0.0001968664,0.0003032764,0.001204082,0.0039894218],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9786041,0.0060713952,0.0006654357,0.00024655275,0.005591589,0.008820923],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006943246,0.00052716,0.0006000343,0.0027496428,0.0410532,0.014928232,0.0028197446,0.009774784,0.0075980597],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020048622,0.00049539335,0.0008870922,0.0032501423,0.011600522,0.006249225,0.0072609894,0.014653627,0.00034862536],"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":[0.00018688539,0.00039790105,0.0324613,0.0008429451,0.00012308844,0.014775818,0.16507643,0.0011065131,0.00085664267,0.4926772,0.15256912,0.13892615],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012123677,0.000104460414,0.042047106,0.005047391,0.00016066777,0.0019519841,0.39404657,0.0007460535,0.00046793546,0.04427551,0.5107208,0.00031038772],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9687649,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.992618,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10941636,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10941636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.28763795,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.793875},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W71173951","doi":"","title":"Parole boards in South Africa: on the road to extinction? A comparative perspective","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Political science; Privilege (computing); Prison; Perspective (graphical); Law; Criminology; Public administration; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.08221764025382884,"score_gpt":0.3528631016499546,"score_spread":0.2706454613961258,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W71173951","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.44704017,0.05097636,0.0015598702,0.05538281,0.0005583047,0.00011138087,0.00010590217,0.000015975651,0.44424918],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9667977,0.018289888,0.00036426375,0.002605989,0.00008169523,0.00004990991,0.000029983426,0.000016130449,0.011764427],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9967212,0.0014033618,0.00007557775,0.00012106881,0.00034288652,0.001335879],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.996557,0.001582939,0.0006180028,0.00016061713,0.0005906237,0.00049077935],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027517553,0.00028542674,0.0003657652,0.004133246,0.012107307,0.005838477,0.00089374965,0.0017159226,0.01133154],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009422006,0.00028717917,0.00019556242,0.0047167055,0.010842626,0.0055758785,0.0055990135,0.0024066588,0.0003381965],"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":[0.00009538417,0.000042530683,0.005800754,0.0006499021,0.000013652282,0.0026266207,0.24558713,0.0001899533,0.00073198305,0.66606426,0.0056650904,0.072532736],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027041733,0.000092098664,0.035519697,0.0025405928,0.000028176963,0.0018024041,0.433625,0.00013968957,0.00055304857,0.026808545,0.49882823,0.000035379264],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.118368246,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.16919746,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.118368246,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011650863,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011888514,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23535854},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7123342568","doi":"10.25159/2522-3062/19686","title":"Trade Union Recognition and the Concepts of ‘Workplace’ in South Africa and the ‘Appropriate Bargaining Unit’ in Canada: Some Comparative Insights into Bargaining Constituencies and Protection of Minority Interests","year":2025,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Hospital for Sick Children; Dalhousie University; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce","keywords":"Context (archaeology); Trade union; Collective bargaining; Unit (ring theory); Labour law; Bargaining power","score_opus":0.07053977967398467,"score_gpt":0.2983700968472917,"score_spread":0.22783031717330704,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7123342568","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":[0.31961703,0.023521481,0.002441269,0.026573485,0.00020748994,0.00008945948,0.00013683495,0.000015497513,0.62739754],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9723911,0.0067516235,0.00091956154,0.0012385134,0.00001897598,0.000031786545,0.000043084532,0.000013759512,0.018591484],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9948258,0.0007104415,0.00009205442,0.00027342694,0.0013303906,0.0027678697],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982722,0.000601876,0.00017913134,0.00006006635,0.00055889814,0.00032787438],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019928045,0.0003645871,0.00047068816,0.0040871324,0.02880639,0.0086340625,0.0016254754,0.0024905768,0.003856477],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00475864,0.00031795347,0.0004930722,0.0062465495,0.015547421,0.0025892917,0.0042531225,0.0033611548,0.00019415555],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000043202443,0.000020765323,0.005113265,0.00014979434,0.000011398638,0.0006155546,0.092923805,0.000603901,0.00043436917,0.87380284,0.0034678436,0.022813307],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046542955,0.00005214264,0.08810066,0.001706667,0.00009358718,0.0007389481,0.3835413,0.0023344029,0.0012067594,0.0889767,0.4329614,0.00024091275],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9905284,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9958429,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15346467,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15346467,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1381986,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.981861},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}