{"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":"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":[0.8112328,0.00034576812,0.000016755814,0.009517634,0.000091307724,0.0005138786,0.0000044762423,0.000014543063,0.17826284],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99784154,0.000040769024,0.000010560367,0.00022532593,0.00017648985,0.000030543306,0.0000048596876,0.000008114096,0.0016618288],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99899477,0.00002201136,0.00042097303,0.00016927707,0.00025888244,0.00013406014],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991344,0.000034034754,0.00040268095,0.000056472494,0.00035590422,0.000016500102],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00040913993,0.00013026541,0.00017916411,0.00015493973,0.00022132382,0.0003372805,0.00022094362,0.000046300527,0.00019769311],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000040699633,0.00007687505,0.000045180826,0.00029781373,0.00017051771,0.0007766041,0.000028904522,0.0003274779,0.00003641507],"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":[0.0072477097,0.0014371022,0.050138924,0.00015111595,0.0003760754,0.000004909863,0.0988233,0.00116316,0.002988693,0.81767535,0.0025635883,0.017430048],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0043953396,0.000063021915,0.15677214,0.00024533362,0.00011557372,0.00004995704,0.061478756,0.034731057,0.00014690704,0.020566765,0.72104454,0.00039062282],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010231041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.015745033,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7971086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011072735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000048301834,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8786097},"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":"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":[0.09025494,0.08025177,0.00016867621,0.018155249,0.00066000666,0.00044478438,0.00017867582,0.000007622055,0.8098783],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99744743,0.0016064949,0.000030353343,0.00025496806,0.00035372545,0.0000040717077,0.0000025704223,0.0000014694583,0.00029892396],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99880934,0.00014576616,0.0003818645,0.00009133913,0.00044310713,0.00012857915],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990188,0.00030663636,0.00022086353,0.000050516304,0.0003044342,0.00009877478],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002706415,0.000082462284,0.00018845993,0.00003144188,0.00096316956,0.00007117985,0.0003411306,0.000028565946,0.00036946416],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012896363,0.000048182606,0.00006880234,0.00016001979,0.0021277878,0.00017719404,0.00002037262,0.00015079221,0.000025679828],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.00007532413,0.000026060945,0.0020860806,9.79758e-7,0.000076322875,0.0000042540823,0.09211814,0.000021756081,0.0000069471425,0.9021173,0.0014352198,0.0020316117],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039098033,0.000032757413,0.00511336,0.0004578193,0.000032250355,0.0000030840054,0.0222049,0.000021704032,0.0000070479427,0.10399537,0.86762667,0.0001140533],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07729814,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.31035376,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90719247,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000107841195,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00056130206,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9288462},"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":"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":[0.6419984,0.0075300722,0.00029247892,0.0018554511,0.00048238414,0.00018340551,0.00006277046,0.000021741807,0.34757328],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9963851,0.00006524942,0.00009580316,0.00020467547,0.0001777294,0.000010204149,0.0000024763601,0.000007964148,0.0030507934],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.998806,0.00021965588,0.00040658415,0.00020503128,0.00020614656,0.0001565714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987645,0.00022250836,0.00040177,0.0001264291,0.00041012868,0.00007464714],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00026501092,0.00017659122,0.00042901104,0.00017434922,0.00021942865,0.00003903148,0.00033792268,0.00007571394,0.00033166452],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000016149528,0.0001114056,0.00012689624,0.00012594102,0.0018345886,0.00011258733,0.0000848029,0.00045454086,0.000041716128],"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":[0.0010426013,0.0002600279,0.0062356126,8.649853e-7,0.00072521647,0.000038372,0.15995558,8.483091e-7,0.000022446657,0.82931,0.0022835624,0.00012487207],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.017842162,0.0020287668,0.03996522,0.0001438073,0.0003733807,0.0073847687,0.534626,0.00019534823,0.00036988952,0.08124903,0.31500217,0.0008194616],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0003121966,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00010045273,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.74806094,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029845913,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000011790949,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67596185},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12281516,0.0025662908,0.0035590339,0.006641734,0.00022604049,0.00028129204,0.00020021827,0.000008935885,0.8637013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99846923,0.000028031718,0.000787722,0.0002912447,0.00017455574,0.0000062343092,0.000004315005,0.0000024500396,0.00023619893],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999081,0.0001270293,0.0002900469,0.000070541144,0.0003064279,0.00012493636],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99910146,0.00013235264,0.00027572992,0.00005263964,0.00025704273,0.00018076765],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00073429977,0.000068594374,0.00015041,0.000047789752,0.00048047933,0.0000650848,0.00027890384,0.000028838464,0.000019920262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000029475503,0.000046295576,0.00003453625,0.00008462266,0.0010903738,0.00028639892,0.00008264364,0.00012869186,0.000010804544],"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":[0.000016194017,0.00012234219,0.012784572,0.0000023876262,0.00006984553,1.1943797e-7,0.01693147,0.000002465885,0.0000223762,0.9689938,0.0009372016,0.00011725686],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024420294,0.000024047757,0.0049258685,0.000018569928,0.000008937894,0.0000072147122,0.022243896,0.000010358837,0.000028602302,0.0020845393,0.97033274,0.00007103723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002771672,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00014862751,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9693955,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000042115444,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015658443,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4017528},"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":"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":[0.7960862,0.004977765,0.0003587359,0.0034384255,0.0011917189,0.00020626804,0.00015791366,0.00002236261,0.19356063],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99730897,0.000023041213,0.0002234554,0.00065651245,0.001064425,0.000004076676,0.000027942568,0.000012868518,0.00067869714],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988828,0.000035414774,0.00038301002,0.00014605268,0.00030359655,0.0002491816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988133,0.00007304734,0.00060404354,0.000072658244,0.00036715338,0.000069817776],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00026357602,0.00018132635,0.00026832244,0.00011145503,0.0002863198,0.0006223313,0.00025406774,0.00004890906,0.00041141393],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000052706375,0.00014687318,0.00007762991,0.00012421758,0.00011327107,0.0016517045,0.0000513899,0.00023520563,0.00014279035],"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":[0.00057656266,0.0009257419,0.035340913,0.00008267182,0.0011362792,0.00004236819,0.13027015,0.0012812644,0.0017392212,0.8143523,0.011147145,0.0031053727],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0010704279,0.000056615478,0.0033685884,0.00038304893,0.000086828106,0.000017313334,0.086828075,0.006936392,0.0009204493,0.0024264993,0.8974375,0.00046825033],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011301621,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012242922,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8862904,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000083758896,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000049750422,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99528223},"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":"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":[0.68274975,0.0004410065,0.02533078,0.021529086,0.0015125085,0.0005413818,0.00056411535,0.000017772756,0.26731357],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9950808,0.00001136364,0.0031317673,0.0003898506,0.00088830956,0.000003793719,0.0000042392817,0.0000041430085,0.00048572695],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987785,0.00007985145,0.00042677994,0.00011826214,0.00046594144,0.0001306539],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99771684,0.00032873405,0.00038796174,0.00007057671,0.0013716904,0.00012421746],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005986827,0.00008785237,0.00015068553,0.000040501745,0.0004953072,0.000100239966,0.00030808346,0.000034223765,0.00008032969],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001674145,0.000060445356,0.00004358223,0.00012987979,0.00026626227,0.00016326598,0.00004531114,0.00014775364,0.000016291726],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.00016175736,0.000039840983,0.0028010316,8.2360566e-7,0.00023191117,0.0000033045783,0.08233311,0.00011917524,0.00051967555,0.9072296,0.0032010928,0.0033586659],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00045920647,0.00003959575,0.003542053,0.000031778494,0.000033543034,0.0000074377854,0.16379029,0.00009279925,0.0005265502,0.04341278,0.7879024,0.00016158594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14494938,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.34618258,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86381686,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018509472,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028985442,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8607445},"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":"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":[0.87857664,0.00039491782,0.0006339067,0.008693857,0.00006575909,0.00023904262,0.000082169354,0.0000017192751,0.11131199],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9996931,0.00002659905,0.000107060754,0.000051716062,0.000077070865,0.0000048933125,5.603257e-7,0.000001684544,0.000037298916],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992455,0.0002079304,0.00019607003,0.00007100467,0.00021441907,0.00006504188],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99939954,0.00027035037,0.00016748358,0.00004209238,0.00008332717,0.0000371778],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007361804,0.000048604677,0.00010879501,0.000027888476,0.00031190028,0.000052030267,0.00012832912,0.000020033327,0.000010259791],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007405753,0.00003012065,0.000024988973,0.0000895209,0.00034860626,0.000110826375,0.000018652572,0.00011742683,3.2265655e-7],"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":[0.000025094036,0.00008773092,0.0024516643,0.0000034680963,0.000014542616,1.8792205e-7,0.06862836,0.000030088098,0.000034992332,0.92844427,0.00004093274,0.00023868818],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0016470349,0.00034645956,0.10818798,0.00021696869,0.00009029593,0.000028550838,0.32185474,0.0006738407,0.00013858992,0.33249184,0.23399852,0.0003252074],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00022429216,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019868657,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5959524,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000036411355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003661877,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23989162},"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":"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":[0.5916862,0.00061485387,0.0057919067,0.2648527,0.0025162322,0.0018750413,0.000110369336,0.000028518067,0.13252419],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99459076,0.000027519838,0.00009990665,0.0023125962,0.0014109251,0.000017266952,7.323261e-7,0.000005846486,0.0015344494],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99752164,0.0004522817,0.00063175755,0.00020688066,0.0009094147,0.00027801358],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99776304,0.00067803677,0.0004805915,0.00021817333,0.0006618998,0.00019826376],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017783142,0.00017349287,0.0003455856,0.00008350072,0.0009680645,0.00063393847,0.0019532084,0.000051131123,0.00029469124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033108372,0.000082186416,0.00019595286,0.0003213572,0.00027859956,0.00043456798,0.00020683112,0.00031568436,0.000074564836],"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":[0.018577658,0.0005087047,0.00069581793,0.000009881685,0.000582226,0.00003249648,0.5038586,0.00043222107,0.0013897283,0.26703376,0.2023743,0.0045046173],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0014838135,0.00067738345,0.0006470097,0.0001652784,0.000080978665,0.0000143345105,0.016261373,0.0000484493,0.0005185876,0.0130092595,0.9669204,0.00017315357],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000724686,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0042427666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7645461,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007015103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001316687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7445667},"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":"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":[0.4229782,0.0022835599,0.000111415946,0.019578524,0.00016236011,0.00027183423,0.0001134974,0.0000058671117,0.55449474],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.996217,0.00012204497,0.000057676483,0.00025686165,0.00014456529,0.000006007452,6.7810714e-7,0.0000033993645,0.0031917384],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99860436,0.00042541302,0.00032934398,0.000081685735,0.00042719126,0.00013203763],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989082,0.0004919903,0.00025379958,0.00012500175,0.0001739377,0.00004702262],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001066765,0.00008369307,0.00015121537,0.000032437467,0.0004274005,0.00012072066,0.00078279135,0.000032477677,0.0002880524],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000054285858,0.000040524632,0.00006830559,0.00014356298,0.00093680766,0.00017032893,0.000096470205,0.0002328387,0.0000066463735],"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":[0.00009288949,0.00011957348,0.008532528,0.0000022128606,0.00008873047,0.0000016745607,0.54225165,0.00004559363,0.000029669776,0.44346714,0.0013447308,0.00402363],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00054546434,0.00013051866,0.0074896454,0.00009423976,0.000054446147,0.000015342295,0.21593153,0.000036969835,0.00003766968,0.051590595,0.72393656,0.00013703597],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00015232242,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0003582532,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7225918,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004814738,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007393873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34517068},"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":"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":[0.84459245,0.0002208713,0.00031386362,0.0041763093,0.00088333566,0.0004130097,0.00021417186,0.000005663461,0.14918034],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990477,0.000007691258,0.00006278035,0.000044816163,0.00016010621,0.0000048263864,9.691239e-7,0.0000031072625,0.00066799816],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982747,0.0003431532,0.0005138155,0.00013332488,0.00060453295,0.00013048884],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969003,0.0007913042,0.001145766,0.00018749632,0.00092517916,0.000049933504],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001171506,0.000115079216,0.00033234255,0.00007717239,0.0006750887,0.00006037308,0.0005482548,0.00007454162,0.000043617063],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019923829,0.000058331785,0.00034917658,0.00035173428,0.0017947095,0.00014238313,0.000050030816,0.00036596952,0.0000013600367],"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":[0.0006423641,0.00016114638,0.0021753516,0.0000055294386,0.00044930915,1.5535026e-7,0.04433918,0.00023770756,0.001741441,0.9498011,0.00039469605,0.00005200924],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0039261156,0.002369672,0.04043558,0.0009092181,0.0022516076,0.000017436805,0.25819013,0.0021313955,0.028373802,0.14739989,0.51323736,0.0007578056],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00080604415,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0075386264,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80240124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005198175,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010544547,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6612682},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.049502995,0.0027672104,0.00088178675,0.010308003,0.0014097077,0.0003550739,0.00006467187,0.00000945149,0.9347011],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9981723,0.000048433303,0.00010357154,0.00011297198,0.00025009975,0.0000045463808,7.106982e-7,0.0000037016362,0.0013036609],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984661,0.00044533712,0.0003285318,0.00011891751,0.0004956664,0.00014548862],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99715805,0.0009821485,0.00043297815,0.00008510695,0.0012498301,0.00009190966],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007500848,0.00011459202,0.00022850248,0.00004558744,0.0011727435,0.00013299288,0.0003947317,0.00004746542,0.00013507219],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016453055,0.00006111839,0.000096506665,0.00012648504,0.0010306927,0.00020285673,0.000021927333,0.0002703975,0.000016120413],"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":[0.00031422256,0.000048474267,0.00004217291,6.086266e-7,0.00019848117,0.0000010690766,0.17029716,0.00004142045,0.000017627392,0.8279192,0.0010967085,0.000022887694],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007578636,0.00021542564,0.00020630004,0.000041411196,0.000044196175,0.000005160359,0.21054304,0.0000142272265,0.00055665564,0.05680239,0.7307076,0.00010575322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005665086,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011546161,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9486693,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000096884956,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010626396,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9019913},"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":"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":[0.94937056,0.002307432,0.00070586876,0.037460767,0.0003566958,0.00031374503,0.000053158776,0.0000035424778,0.009428241],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99806327,0.00014970805,0.00014160082,0.000547965,0.0002705938,0.0000069260964,1.8993973e-7,0.0000030681454,0.00081668585],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988502,0.00020423227,0.0002526583,0.00011768689,0.00046491867,0.000110279136],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99736977,0.0018918362,0.0002343693,0.00006220608,0.00034124122,0.00010059742],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005637758,0.000086187974,0.0001843784,0.000021472277,0.0005048678,0.0003621442,0.0004108325,0.00002375581,0.00022057249],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00048676893,0.00004368722,0.00003082695,0.00006501088,0.00038545285,0.00028088602,0.00010053029,0.00015071551,0.000013233289],"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":[0.013031315,0.00018676934,0.015103668,0.0000112490725,0.0011135185,0.00002745617,0.39586198,0.00022818893,0.0003050651,0.47917885,0.078704,0.016247936],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.009036139,0.00023141425,0.016100805,0.00036794363,0.000095696436,0.000020687188,0.07470246,0.00024197232,0.00008648149,0.07156642,0.8272139,0.00033611554],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21551147,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5748465,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7485099,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004351316,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016645815,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7897125},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9689349,0.0006112963,0.0021495,0.0006009791,0.000069430396,0.0002662385,0.0003037639,0.0000039876963,0.027059918],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9983354,0.000022515018,0.001299923,0.000027440297,0.00012012418,0.000005673015,0.0000058946966,0.0000041635767,0.00017887293],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99873656,0.00016231286,0.0006332535,0.00009252404,0.0002540085,0.00012135731],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977092,0.00066516135,0.0007492209,0.000046732137,0.0007672025,0.00006246467],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008666117,0.000086164946,0.0003644013,0.000088411995,0.00015444674,0.000041360283,0.00023760939,0.000036142,0.00003592346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008750006,0.000074004085,0.000072419534,0.00011817804,0.0004576583,0.00019130799,0.000033495708,0.00012875133,0.00000220664],"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":[0.0006481785,0.0006452743,0.041926473,0.00004644054,0.00039984085,9.2954076e-7,0.40767574,0.0062783095,0.001364319,0.5397653,0.00037846898,0.00087074336],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0112275705,0.0014470533,0.039587557,0.0015929017,0.00016703509,0.000020098843,0.5137561,0.021145113,0.004358711,0.06470123,0.34072784,0.0012688001],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0015806044,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012193886,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.47506404,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006530825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000115689814,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.68044746},"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":"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":[0.7514404,0.00052773155,0.00050965545,0.12541799,0.00022271328,0.0003325822,0.000015859394,0.000007859978,0.12152519],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99773896,0.00001863403,0.00013003204,0.0008093398,0.00050742255,0.000016121852,3.9935935e-7,0.0000033139204,0.0007757846],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99860436,0.00020811814,0.00031375466,0.00010554448,0.0005795487,0.00018867324],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998862,0.00040191202,0.00015687729,0.000069058864,0.00039632237,0.000113791066],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010010393,0.00008275841,0.00012334487,0.000055085242,0.00053303706,0.00026309863,0.00058405596,0.000023368686,0.00008361915],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018823017,0.000046279565,0.000046544123,0.0001572075,0.00016005305,0.0003077722,0.000038106427,0.00015338355,0.00004721385],"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":[0.0004571521,0.00018346602,0.0005759475,0.0000038327835,0.00004520916,0.0000085397405,0.78737617,0.0009949087,0.000087200955,0.200953,0.0065171705,0.0027973887],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019259687,0.0001558115,0.000835839,0.000059148773,0.000024669129,0.00000719159,0.096661024,0.0001708233,0.00019099309,0.0044311257,0.8971787,0.00009208927],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00024727103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008372185,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89066154,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000064021944,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000414068,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46718755},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.96173954,0.0065534445,0.00034131506,0.001473429,0.00014591486,0.00018377294,0.00019045422,0.0000038817425,0.029368263],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9993862,0.0001006021,0.00016889095,0.000020267407,0.00005306412,0.0000049893847,6.212577e-7,0.0000031917755,0.00026221137],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987509,0.00019338322,0.00040917704,0.00011483488,0.00036491337,0.00016678133],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998796,0.00050277147,0.00032408294,0.000063181666,0.00022539728,0.00008856791],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004938834,0.00010032949,0.00024839918,0.0000704515,0.00030145288,0.000046543177,0.00020921856,0.00003154508,0.000026170097],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006203594,0.000060294813,0.000019162288,0.0001339061,0.0020231607,0.00020522128,0.000057078054,0.00019188346,7.554419e-7],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.00047512876,0.00018648422,0.4568331,0.0000086219325,0.0001601349,0.00001635483,0.4213946,0.000043598728,0.000109379034,0.11950382,0.0001801172,0.0010886866],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0057317587,0.00060081924,0.08496698,0.00093925116,0.00006998496,0.0000244751,0.3239372,0.00021160692,0.00009379882,0.014765358,0.5680985,0.00056025124],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.032676876,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.30542383,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5679184,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014208184,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00026155094,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9737646},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9804527,0.000289182,0.00070767483,0.00111383,0.000069206624,0.000036070945,0.000011787824,0.0000066426305,0.01731286],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.998452,0.0000777548,0.00089876016,0.00027118897,0.000041888936,0.0000010018717,0.0000019341264,0.0000031694597,0.00025230768],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99944323,0.00003032446,0.00019491088,0.00009793699,0.00016300438,0.00007057016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99968314,0.000032177308,0.00016966755,0.000037373997,0.000016189982,0.000061431114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00010624182,0.000078142606,0.00011043626,0.00003522785,0.00011661484,0.00002591857,0.00010566845,0.000030953503,0.00048341573],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000008539188,0.00006343464,0.000031855387,0.000028812101,0.00022683844,0.00023140514,0.000059509155,0.00009257151,0.00010745829],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0011681226,0.005046146,0.3651262,0.00003836517,0.0024450715,0.00022519646,0.18276629,0.005129895,0.05867073,0.3463238,0.010844612,0.022215595],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.008199803,0.0015255373,0.47703233,0.0001461323,0.00048024883,0.0012595645,0.03384141,0.0017780612,0.00819714,0.14935774,0.31706056,0.0011214805],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000025317277,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003343536,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30621594,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000066627865,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000052559844,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.52930635},"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":"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":[0.32321036,0.011496699,0.002291301,0.09171881,0.0019935113,0.0010204584,0.00026742442,0.000039424132,0.56796205],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9964733,0.000110012996,0.000087437365,0.00017554159,0.00045196342,0.000011730389,1.7264578e-7,0.000007864815,0.0026819422],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982518,0.00041253289,0.00036944784,0.00016895823,0.00052521116,0.00027207832],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99758756,0.0014058485,0.0003098983,0.000113565606,0.00041117932,0.00017193341],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013584001,0.0001350698,0.0002530836,0.000081382284,0.0006953456,0.00047573252,0.00084743096,0.000047191326,0.000085986685],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006033381,0.000060666476,0.00007806662,0.00019565801,0.0011702458,0.00039986224,0.00015364739,0.00020878052,0.000043246444],"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":[0.00062899943,0.000038353755,0.0015685128,0.000002987181,0.00010199517,0.000009190322,0.7007781,0.000008077151,0.000037537535,0.29387742,0.0014500624,0.0014987193],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0018069531,0.00011247154,0.0010592521,0.00015886725,0.00006817191,0.0000068575005,0.15273815,0.00006764715,0.000030553932,0.01819847,0.82555586,0.00019671951],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00024903417,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0007849913,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8241058,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000099165896,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006371483,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53481066},"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":"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":[0.91326445,0.00051900145,0.00003517309,0.035546817,0.00025593585,0.00014387579,0.000048211867,0.0000023932646,0.050184138],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9986321,0.00010388631,0.000016575996,0.00017942014,0.00027213758,0.0000027904334,7.5454676e-7,0.0000044952913,0.0007878465],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876475,0.0002661786,0.00030379515,0.00009508078,0.00039252447,0.00017764288],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99816334,0.000633425,0.0005101009,0.00014936527,0.00045610336,0.0000876678],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010360697,0.00009118693,0.00017182535,0.00003936247,0.0018784668,0.0003616429,0.000821846,0.00004654256,0.000098836616],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001881502,0.0000452438,0.00007356571,0.000054997705,0.00079708,0.00024209265,0.00004417489,0.00024168544,0.000010699621],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.00086049055,0.000096393094,0.10077561,0.000004638731,0.00031979475,0.000011040089,0.6779401,0.00006615433,0.0011992701,0.20934166,0.005156801,0.00422809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0015596475,0.0003240416,0.210083,0.0008096701,0.00012844476,0.000013761859,0.34493014,0.002056868,0.0006165283,0.024772618,0.4143539,0.00035138096],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.27989447,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.87493116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5950367,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011066861,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019246234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99942094},"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":"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":[0.05972086,0.020413835,0.0007906221,0.02154602,0.0013600489,0.0008819775,0.0004779933,0.00002161522,0.894787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99324346,0.00012853739,0.0006815271,0.0010674814,0.00046904376,0.000018243367,0.0000040904756,0.000008474322,0.0043791668],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99774855,0.00050357607,0.00043684966,0.0002042116,0.0007345766,0.00037223144],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.996935,0.0006303221,0.00025902316,0.00018281772,0.0014998242,0.0004929861],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010566775,0.00016483522,0.00032924121,0.00007845716,0.0021986703,0.00062690745,0.0009213401,0.000060438724,0.000113525806],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030576286,0.00010016354,0.00011199109,0.00038599342,0.00049198535,0.00015051271,0.00012279293,0.00035331456,0.0002168446],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.00005755812,0.000069006106,0.00037498865,0.0000023276855,0.00021088823,0.000011377419,0.8090068,0.00015566286,0.000008654619,0.18231705,0.0075630685,0.00022261037],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018757646,0.00005601542,0.00033025097,0.0000417445,0.000024837318,0.000017161869,0.17378856,0.000029370418,0.00002094559,0.001519794,0.8238608,0.00012290999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.021660917,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.44334203,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9335226,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038363392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010448656,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991003},"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":"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":[0.7606407,0.0038184738,0.100251086,0.0036506013,0.0016838204,0.00037427267,0.00007825298,0.00004570997,0.12945709],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9970752,0.000029156785,0.0020688581,0.000032098265,0.0001443111,0.0000011600056,4.4892244e-7,0.0000033246647,0.0006454368],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99914354,0.00006195131,0.00029558997,0.00011507255,0.0002822915,0.00010154519],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990208,0.00020644929,0.00034222766,0.00009933156,0.0002841579,0.000047026937],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00023937236,0.000094563286,0.00016375884,0.00005064162,0.00017521116,0.00012976985,0.0003022879,0.000029325547,0.000007632638],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000020072857,0.00005843915,0.000057922352,0.00006184795,0.00014757001,0.00018901394,0.00006317731,0.00013598047,0.0000075521516],"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":[0.0018064867,0.00058221834,0.0010604112,0.000022224229,0.00046524894,0.00008645295,0.0135364,0.0015819507,0.15342686,0.78500307,0.0128115155,0.029617168],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.008237318,0.0031328779,0.0035117085,0.00074900966,0.000093070536,0.00056610367,0.004948365,0.036017038,0.30692312,0.17770563,0.45725048,0.00086529163],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00006776118,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00005675682,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6072974,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000019663063,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000015282121,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23830794},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0878149,0.0020478708,0.006517429,0.11023311,0.001615137,0.0014244149,0.0002453169,0.000035529338,0.7900663],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9414693,0.0000171843,0.0003698465,0.0561007,0.0017344871,0.000011257324,0.000011113347,0.000011591699,0.00027451562],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983456,0.00006481745,0.0005558674,0.00017648248,0.0006175365,0.00023971073],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978928,0.000113543225,0.00049419655,0.00009635088,0.0012444494,0.00015868629],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00053625193,0.00021232462,0.0003092227,0.00016396874,0.0009391977,0.0010129741,0.00086830015,0.00004022652,0.00026457148],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010853831,0.000120509525,0.00013395626,0.00029447975,0.00015115416,0.0005280815,0.00011960208,0.00043511283,0.00054065546],"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":[0.00039878645,0.00018838573,0.0005818849,0.000021054528,0.000511693,0.000017230339,0.09306941,0.0024155858,0.00012558924,0.81907386,0.083381295,0.00021523425],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00062145956,0.00010157635,0.00092215784,0.0000705224,0.00006235029,0.00007679858,0.014798394,0.0033319185,0.000028368911,0.0026558766,0.9771147,0.00021592266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033164157,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019105664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8937334,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014004564,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020750282,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987931},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9672294,0.0013469628,0.0033549326,0.0031590348,0.00042393227,0.0005626163,0.0029047308,0.0000112037615,0.021007184],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99698627,0.000041684365,0.0011197794,0.000074878364,0.00051332527,0.00002903978,0.000019189645,0.000009749652,0.0012060967],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99888355,0.000042674135,0.00035169523,0.00019778895,0.00038012626,0.00014417301],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993734,0.0002449989,0.00017013474,0.00004882013,0.00011295884,0.000049705246],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00019983198,0.00016446227,0.00020460007,0.000032420437,0.00022926432,0.0002445711,0.0002314952,0.000041496354,0.00017126596],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000012083024,0.00010279436,0.00006387504,0.000026151778,0.00024254034,0.00013547967,0.00006459544,0.00008288495,0.0000031932543],"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":[0.014556678,0.001278957,0.01079693,0.00009881917,0.0032868395,0.000028205637,0.057088524,0.017739838,0.048580498,0.7709429,0.0714667,0.0041350964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0060979207,0.004270278,0.009490716,0.00024468818,0.00023166667,0.00015932163,0.01287596,0.005282836,0.008425703,0.063233726,0.88902026,0.0006669057],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00014060845,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00036093808,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8175536,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008520314,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000053565823,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.41918322},"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":"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":[0.90370744,0.013841798,0.0030321584,0.029055512,0.024727238,0.00084259984,0.013147973,0.000020194822,0.011625087],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984099,0.000026970314,0.00041156044,0.00067841023,0.00019306292,0.000013729794,0.000057563022,0.000012923779,0.00019582365],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99858683,0.0002475184,0.00051574834,0.00016516192,0.00030324762,0.00018148037],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982451,0.0005288407,0.000880209,0.00010114481,0.00014710535,0.000097575605],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00032102963,0.0001401793,0.00039570135,0.000100397774,0.00035019682,0.000027785021,0.00024542675,0.000015588972,0.00018895639],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000016876715,0.000103900245,0.00006840655,0.000097529104,0.00034012413,0.000042032174,0.00008694346,0.00022682648,9.5163466e-7],"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":[0.007011063,0.00044712838,0.0030125831,0.000019787542,0.003218201,0.00001824648,0.5609204,0.00087541767,0.00019009692,0.09941522,0.32345837,0.001413454],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00652112,0.00069040013,0.00074753776,0.00006686128,0.00007323521,0.00009204233,0.3483782,0.0016167042,0.000021362293,0.011570749,0.62998664,0.00023514427],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05337018,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.009518617,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30652827,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010446638,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009444269,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9529335},"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":"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":[0.15261807,0.0013756063,0.00026316382,0.0026323653,0.00047676417,0.00033922165,0.000056378096,0.000015700212,0.84222275],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99590236,0.000008459336,0.0002969839,0.0002199642,0.00026901055,0.000018878167,4.4528423e-7,0.000009501105,0.0032743884],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99755186,0.0007092808,0.0004624154,0.00025009754,0.0007218049,0.00030455887],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99808806,0.00043541228,0.00035803515,0.00013719795,0.00078447274,0.0001968107],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011536719,0.00019889425,0.00038073238,0.00019242054,0.000477511,0.00018895259,0.0005035372,0.00006879363,0.000523442],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003999424,0.00013766447,0.00012528083,0.0004287023,0.00049831177,0.00023333766,0.000053133608,0.0004612327,0.0002415945],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00017896593,0.00014086001,0.00048629008,5.5220113e-7,0.0000911149,0.0000070619076,0.6394912,0.0001466384,0.000028363202,0.35854617,0.0008519489,0.00003082417],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00061488926,0.00028978928,0.00036394145,0.000061520484,0.000021025022,0.0000035981345,0.5137794,0.00005187901,0.000116781644,0.020059511,0.46443418,0.00020345011],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00019643654,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000518633,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8432843,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00035884438,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012146738,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5731323},"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":"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":[0.97796196,0.009210622,0.00017410362,0.0009865237,0.00019290062,0.0005820349,0.00007150274,0.0000017446855,0.010818636],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990742,0.0006917007,0.000052926058,0.00007238437,0.000048188012,0.000011660612,0.0000022191016,0.0000032416579,0.000043453394],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99710226,0.0012212393,0.0009377389,0.00021179454,0.00035337606,0.00017360823],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975777,0.0009486769,0.0009688895,0.0000705225,0.0003619905,0.00007216478],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001464008,0.0002073719,0.000693009,0.00021919263,0.00038181077,0.00009634214,0.00022532763,0.000077723875,0.000010890461],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016718908,0.00012918065,0.00005080037,0.00039422538,0.0029891867,0.00037217903,0.00013321466,0.00049260305,8.6447585e-8],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0015134098,0.000080036516,0.0043839803,0.000024829107,0.00030712713,0.0000024895296,0.5324587,0.00007627934,0.0002088762,0.45991153,0.000005816933,0.0010269206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.012280482,0.00026996847,0.024736175,0.0018293983,0.00017462899,0.000005386204,0.7927382,0.004199753,0.00037040602,0.16173722,0.0013836543,0.00027471085],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11382593,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.36432612,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29817432,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013576572,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047118816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997241},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}