{"meta":{"query_hash":"c6b302a918d6","filters":{"venue":"ICL Journal"},"cohort_total":8,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":8,"exported":8,"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/c6b302a918d6","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=ICL+Journal"},"results":[{"id":"W2206016767","doi":"10.1515/icl-2010-0103","title":"Learning From Others: The Scalia-Breyer Debate and the Benefits of Foreign Sources of Law to U.S. Constitutional Interpretation of Counter-Terrorism Initiatives","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Torture, Ethics, and Law","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":"Jurisprudence; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Terrorism; Torture; Constitutional interpretation; Political science; Constitutional law; Strengths and weaknesses; Value (mathematics); Sociology; Human rights; Psychology","score_opus":0.02660857607916999,"score_gpt":0.3010301254287254,"score_spread":0.2744215493495554,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2206016767","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":[0.09919316,0.004599868,0.005398831,0.23612039,0.0006839656,0.00002612102,0.00003376822,0.000041756484,0.65390223],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98288155,0.00056669116,0.00041873867,0.011084387,0.00026492687,0.000009409479,0.000005535326,0.000020572232,0.0047482825],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9921749,0.005080889,0.00012576711,0.0005790738,0.0010974557,0.0009418817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9830778,0.013521457,0.0006368864,0.0006927929,0.0014924421,0.0005785488],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014103293,0.00030172066,0.0005195125,0.0018253783,0.014806621,0.016284449,0.0012277926,0.008578016,0.003280645],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014636211,0.00021223375,0.00044078293,0.001436947,0.041742075,0.007070002,0.00438273,0.011365845,0.00025672113],"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":[0.000010244384,0.000011439405,0.00026616154,0.000010362126,0.0000045180145,0.00012973235,0.01277565,0.00009843508,0.00006132548,0.9796189,0.0036243529,0.0033888328],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048101756,0.00004662111,0.0018619167,0.000546237,0.000051024523,0.00022551409,0.058418196,0.0011112405,0.0008138969,0.7624197,0.17439552,0.00006208555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.060442705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09585121,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.060442705,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01521439,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009306649,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1201818},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2249289710","doi":"10.1515/icl-2014-0104","title":"The New Zealand Food Bill and Global Administrative Law: A Recipe for Democratic Engagement?","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"World Trade Organization Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Democracy; Accountability; Political science; Criticism; Corporate governance; Law; Public administration; Administrative law; Global governance; International law; Commission; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics; Economics; Management","score_opus":0.03798736611554968,"score_gpt":0.3298010267148228,"score_spread":0.2918136605992731,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2249289710","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":[0.034969985,0.0022787673,0.010139186,0.25269982,0.0004979752,0.00010269411,0.000027803471,0.00007709073,0.6992067],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9211199,0.0013231611,0.0055032796,0.017344955,0.00032481135,0.00021674708,0.000028321594,0.0000912076,0.054047663],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9878643,0.006927358,0.00027377202,0.00086314324,0.0024035568,0.0016677898],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98954296,0.006090544,0.0009797931,0.0012995063,0.0012420712,0.00084518077],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01482024,0.00045257033,0.0005443891,0.0014891402,0.009220802,0.019519627,0.001665748,0.009547497,0.013677457],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016672784,0.00033788907,0.0007157844,0.0017383802,0.07218278,0.015543239,0.009706675,0.009832739,0.0009989352],"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":[0.0000054077027,0.000013990631,0.00028494664,0.000021369206,0.0000016361938,0.00012268756,0.007338688,0.00009578612,0.00006812564,0.9839797,0.00475289,0.003314791],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033963424,0.00003195227,0.0021022887,0.00041459734,0.000009866157,0.00015981971,0.027333694,0.00078551477,0.00024531997,0.5583167,0.41052565,0.00004072145],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06604303,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08861624,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06604303,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020766553,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017731082,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15067261},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2556221961","doi":"10.1515/icl-2015-0104","title":"The Place of the Niqab in the Courtroom","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Multiculturalism; Law; Witness; Accommodation; Charter; Citizenship; Political science; Reasonable accommodation; Sociology; Freedom of religion; Psychology; Human rights","score_opus":0.04297987057629569,"score_gpt":0.332259574693555,"score_spread":0.2892797041172593,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2556221961","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":[0.27417332,0.0019623712,0.008246415,0.042353615,0.0006520239,0.000074323376,0.000109559725,0.000059950704,0.67236835],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9869033,0.00015020772,0.00037250784,0.0014558994,0.000037640675,0.000008398322,0.0000100389825,0.000013500956,0.01104848],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98810834,0.0042175082,0.00026979402,0.0011598867,0.002829892,0.00341462],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99292773,0.0031762517,0.00045612265,0.00040981802,0.0014616478,0.0015683868],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0058172424,0.00017133825,0.0004249012,0.0018290691,0.034815565,0.017845228,0.0020720717,0.004725973,0.012840625],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014068944,0.00048583746,0.00034317287,0.0015740119,0.033036307,0.0046960916,0.008019088,0.0076814224,0.000844335],"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":[0.00003506549,0.000028750545,0.0034638909,0.000033944267,0.000009322068,0.0016083628,0.06012902,0.00024442695,0.00073171814,0.91365576,0.009343857,0.010715893],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040234616,0.00008138584,0.02068079,0.001134083,0.00005075274,0.0009188246,0.27396467,0.0015926514,0.002000103,0.17914921,0.5201675,0.00021979082],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.48207787,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.64070666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.48207787,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02890259,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029819487,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9585437},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3035318609","doi":"10.1515/journal-2019-0052","title":"Judicial Review (Departmentalism) vs Supremacy: The Connection to a 17th Century Debate and a Dilemma for Today","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","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":"Constitution; Supreme court; Judicial review; Law; Legislature; State (computer science); Separation of powers; Sovereignty; Unitary state; Political science; Dilemma; Power (physics); Judicial activism; Interpretation (philosophy); Supremacy Clause; Enumerated powers; Judicial interpretation; Law and economics; Federalism; Sociology; Philosophy; Politics; Epistemology; Mathematics","score_opus":0.0444017283513609,"score_gpt":0.32340335831165345,"score_spread":0.27900162996029254,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3035318609","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.025703484,0.07152136,0.002321729,0.6710463,0.0023642585,0.000014990451,0.00006896095,0.000033213208,0.22692564],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81716233,0.032342702,0.0023898385,0.092619576,0.010095356,0.00006200093,0.00005363856,0.000100973164,0.045173466],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928421,0.0032781286,0.00023377166,0.00071205513,0.0018314753,0.0011026107],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886241,0.0075739007,0.00067715184,0.00042197295,0.0018389315,0.00086388376],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014849447,0.00023974263,0.00053254137,0.002919727,0.01026885,0.016300444,0.0015790617,0.011707363,0.004097331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01167261,0.00037771947,0.0004211907,0.0019861052,0.05032496,0.011211548,0.0022225736,0.010035045,0.00055037526],"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":[0.000005802015,0.000008018754,0.00008758371,0.000013100516,0.000001917788,0.000046408568,0.003113324,0.000031909804,0.0000406305,0.98487306,0.008586218,0.0031921463],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024834457,0.00001514206,0.0007526853,0.00038687393,0.0000064005426,0.00012534625,0.004601707,0.00022283607,0.00018370911,0.46773887,0.5259035,0.000038054284],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.053222507,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.053072687,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053222507,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029864553,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013886981,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2166835},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3115008139","doi":"10.1515/icl-2020-0008","title":"<i>Ius puniendi</i> and Constitution: A Comparative (Canadian-German) Perspective","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Policy","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":"Constitution; German; Obligation; Law; Human rights; Criminalization; Political science; Perspective (graphical); State (computer science); Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.10749336901517181,"score_gpt":0.4086710427120665,"score_spread":0.3011776736968947,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3115008139","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":[0.04028916,0.021790802,0.0022304715,0.03319743,0.000438745,0.00003536013,0.00035988272,0.000032308217,0.9016259],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97099495,0.006081211,0.0011535683,0.0024477723,0.00010251035,0.000020892723,0.00008535395,0.00001569689,0.019097926],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9947003,0.0014494633,0.00009212746,0.0004134541,0.0013620888,0.0019826074],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99829847,0.00068905903,0.00012365487,0.00008915347,0.00062493514,0.0001748069],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033176108,0.0003861223,0.00043595774,0.0046478244,0.014386629,0.00998398,0.0015053806,0.0030943544,0.0077511203],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004669183,0.00023668738,0.00037356996,0.0063836104,0.024595732,0.0030145424,0.0022336151,0.0031032278,0.00021638369],"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":[0.000004997234,0.0000028208938,0.00015734187,0.000025110028,0.0000028728246,0.000044829303,0.0019324857,0.00010271545,0.000034865414,0.99305576,0.0026249543,0.0020112358],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030054523,0.000035945282,0.013889265,0.001208233,0.00009772329,0.00030009256,0.026038025,0.0009907793,0.00059719366,0.2609228,0.6957724,0.000117537784],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.939984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96089405,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10027693,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10027693,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045821063,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7275635},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3185515804","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0008","title":"The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Policy","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":"Supreme court; Law; Constitutional court; Political science; Jurisprudence; Legislation; Constitutional law; Constitutional review; Constitutional right; German; Constitution; History","score_opus":0.03208285660061638,"score_gpt":0.36712312565907856,"score_spread":0.3350402690584622,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3185515804","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":[0.64404917,0.014585593,0.0019986674,0.060148627,0.00039578843,0.00017251432,0.0006573481,0.00004345934,0.2779488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9909478,0.0011959912,0.0003771477,0.0029685337,0.000019060099,0.0000149900625,0.00004994063,0.000008714623,0.004417913],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99174315,0.0014719212,0.0002216727,0.00056346506,0.002489928,0.0035097827],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9898509,0.0037622126,0.00060382724,0.00023747706,0.0031227549,0.0024228538],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062430957,0.00020151386,0.0004183067,0.0036566018,0.013948271,0.009881352,0.0020079184,0.0025722953,0.0035117422],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016870297,0.00031057824,0.00041760367,0.0031080167,0.01739048,0.0017656116,0.0040267077,0.0045392113,0.00011936091],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006543615,0.00006722728,0.013851388,0.00010205519,0.000039548402,0.0006787303,0.017643685,0.0011145271,0.0003895963,0.93669355,0.009044328,0.020309992],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013979957,0.00016690063,0.3017059,0.0030809073,0.00031711344,0.0008208614,0.15923329,0.005757037,0.0028484291,0.1050461,0.42029607,0.00058757875],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9814431,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9911383,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14781229,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14781229,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.139027,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98841697},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3185707320","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0003","title":"Public Employees Restrictions on Political Activity in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"Politics; Impartiality; Government (linguistics); Human rights; Public service; Public administration; Neutrality; Democracy; Balance (ability); Political science; Law; Dignity","score_opus":0.14218280279160908,"score_gpt":0.33101466611121866,"score_spread":0.18883186331960958,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3185707320","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":[0.8765963,0.0010676632,0.00024630365,0.0059279986,0.00006296261,0.0000492909,0.00020748563,0.000023888908,0.11581809],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9873893,0.00042082425,0.000109093344,0.00097358687,0.000011812987,0.00001808574,0.00005242539,0.000008333714,0.011016614],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927832,0.00063667493,0.00020615305,0.00035346634,0.0025994598,0.003421112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9849132,0.00476445,0.0015865393,0.000535396,0.004699651,0.0035007708],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029685688,0.00014593088,0.0002907468,0.0018991025,0.013694662,0.00588555,0.0011529527,0.0012223242,0.0045054234],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010343492,0.0003139641,0.00022525758,0.0028977164,0.007459447,0.0010394636,0.0031908322,0.0024166992,0.00018739872],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.0004083881,0.0002466543,0.21806197,0.00037145076,0.00007734168,0.0032528436,0.23261605,0.0013130149,0.0034994266,0.3738474,0.04623273,0.12007269],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000044056163,0.00007670287,0.514951,0.0005940967,0.000065645814,0.00034072954,0.17046455,0.0010334427,0.0017056442,0.003968992,0.30657315,0.00018201729],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99077845,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99550664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0771018,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0771018,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10282014,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55941534},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4249658205","doi":"10.1515/icl-2019-0052","title":"Judicial Review (Departmentalism) vs Supremacy: The Connection to a 17th Century Debate and a Dilemma for Today","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"ICL Journal","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Constitution; Supreme court; Judicial review; Law; Separation of powers; Legislature; State (computer science); Unitary state; Sovereignty; Political science; Judicial activism; Power (physics); Interpretation (philosophy); Dilemma; Enumerated powers; Judicial interpretation; Philosophy; Politics; Epistemology; Mathematics","score_opus":0.0444017283513609,"score_gpt":0.32340335831165345,"score_spread":0.27900162996029254,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4249658205","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.025703484,0.07152136,0.002321729,0.6710463,0.0023642585,0.000014990451,0.00006896095,0.000033213208,0.22692564],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81716233,0.032342702,0.0023898385,0.092619576,0.010095356,0.00006200093,0.00005363856,0.000100973164,0.045173466],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928421,0.0032781286,0.00023377166,0.00071205513,0.0018314753,0.0011026107],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886241,0.0075739007,0.00067715184,0.00042197295,0.0018389315,0.00086388376],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014849447,0.00023974263,0.00053254137,0.002919727,0.01026885,0.016300444,0.0015790617,0.011707363,0.004097331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01167261,0.00037771947,0.0004211907,0.0019861052,0.05032496,0.011211548,0.0022225736,0.010035045,0.00055037526],"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":[0.000005802015,0.000008018754,0.00008758371,0.000013100516,0.000001917788,0.000046408568,0.003113324,0.000031909804,0.0000406305,0.98487306,0.008586218,0.0031921463],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024834457,0.00001514206,0.0007526853,0.00038687393,0.0000064005426,0.00012534625,0.004601707,0.00022283607,0.00018370911,0.46773887,0.5259035,0.000038054284],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.053222507,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.053072687,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053222507,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029864553,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013886981,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2166835},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}