{"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":"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":[0.9774054,0.00035215664,0.0014005455,0.0014500095,0.000274597,0.00009636371,0.000015114508,0.0000039596016,0.019001832],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99924135,0.000059705126,0.00015353729,0.00030015767,0.00021426492,0.0000013988559,5.9939543e-7,0.0000032392986,0.000025738043],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989697,0.0002769629,0.00025872863,0.00006716338,0.000331118,0.00009636524],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99863005,0.00069746125,0.00034017966,0.00005990066,0.00022712786,0.000045287285],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014110949,0.000057397698,0.00014536423,0.000028244343,0.0003690153,0.000054011765,0.00019437389,0.00007217285,0.00010951911],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00036649543,0.00003244691,0.000063354964,0.000049104056,0.0031207548,0.00020602967,0.000025548476,0.00037562955,7.5188433e-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":[0.00016992977,0.0000212498,0.017847592,0.0000061560213,0.00008202817,5.7481674e-7,0.22725147,0.0004327805,0.00063339947,0.75078905,0.000025724838,0.0027400188],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0066865054,0.0007083119,0.1596947,0.0016625423,0.0004564492,0.00009023419,0.35669056,0.0024686086,0.015366008,0.4138953,0.04156291,0.00071786135],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011807072,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022730073,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33689377,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000007808626,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000095758915,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995922},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.087506905,0.00090238405,0.013516609,0.79677546,0.0028806136,0.001555463,0.00003907857,0.00017433493,0.09664915],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99386466,0.0000658699,0.0015616664,0.00057259557,0.00080515543,0.0000026998998,6.6043737e-7,0.0000072350886,0.0031194899],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99897856,0.0002896936,0.00017212734,0.00009896019,0.0002285381,0.00023214844],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991315,0.00037957076,0.00012202705,0.000070504226,0.00008906532,0.00020734966],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010360237,0.00007016329,0.00008453719,0.000011178928,0.0017209647,0.00045801318,0.00018264097,0.000037183723,0.000047413338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005236453,0.000043225093,0.000032762146,0.00014874297,0.00018496752,0.0001768725,0.000017973172,0.00011957781,0.000005161684],"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":[0.000029398007,0.000021560469,0.0037535918,0.000002161165,0.00005662797,0.0000013129901,0.004062456,0.0000026803248,0.000024728924,0.9254602,0.057387736,0.009197546],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00061563967,0.00020737466,0.0030163531,0.000012482863,0.000025932562,0.000019005074,0.00090457033,0.0000151132,0.000060074562,0.14962196,0.8454201,0.00008136213],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000079061494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005167433,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9063577,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000058811256,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023012723,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99957865},"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":"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":[0.6163225,0.0014164969,0.000094306495,0.046537332,0.0013188059,0.0001903247,0.0000012687798,0.0000062686704,0.3341127],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99868095,0.00019139759,0.000010724545,0.00019490068,0.00027526362,0.0000013572325,4.9923063e-8,0.0000018281871,0.0006435008],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876493,0.00042418274,0.0001271127,0.000032195225,0.00052306615,0.00012850363],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99947345,0.00018225814,0.00011138688,0.00009811401,0.0000985938,0.000036203084],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028794624,0.000030517578,0.00004070561,0.000016311511,0.00047305855,0.00011983112,0.0004914027,0.000027393482,0.000006534421],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00046015292,0.000012029783,0.00004347625,0.00016266163,0.00020504474,0.000079615296,0.00001755837,0.00015768211,0.0000051126103],"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":[0.00007403998,0.00010794575,0.046358116,0.0000025783759,0.000016892982,0.000011154523,0.21466702,0.00040536746,0.00008995769,0.21075292,0.51255345,0.014960527],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0014428808,0.000112116046,0.063223965,0.000059767153,0.000035851608,0.00008869737,0.3280555,0.00023773006,0.0001744332,0.3784802,0.22794388,0.00014499296],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0019556785,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00752202,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3823585,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000052752614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00025565195,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4197464},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19106428,0.043703996,0.0012727529,0.74804074,0.0020810408,0.002100222,0.00007891244,0.0000834265,0.011574626],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9617102,0.014749891,0.00007111323,0.021492071,0.0019200392,0.000032218293,0.0000015928258,0.0000045140896,0.000018349396],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99912316,0.000111361354,0.00017777152,0.000117084724,0.00026226143,0.00020837918],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99949336,0.00010311254,0.000076389486,0.00003091431,0.00011561156,0.00018061609],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00050658046,0.000074595955,0.00015571162,0.000013558793,0.0015475072,0.00009802092,0.00012189477,0.000023451874,0.00008898248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047732194,0.00004982873,0.00007987984,0.00015960581,0.00016298855,0.000118667675,0.000045240165,0.00010391164,0.00001711485],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00091418973,0.00015656104,0.009375807,0.00018792883,0.00051519723,0.00008551895,0.03539377,0.000020445344,0.00060974975,0.40211278,0.42004824,0.13057981],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002999932,0.00013238168,0.0017547625,0.00020201191,0.00008194587,0.00002847349,0.0013474262,0.0000057676552,0.000019037472,0.0074337837,0.9885929,0.00010146484],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005390022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0007660976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7706459,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000054595454,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012516168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99975234},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16493534,0.00089937256,0.00007643763,0.057974957,0.00026450504,0.00011136132,0.000022501605,0.000024366722,0.77569115],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.995488,0.0001086482,0.00012001257,0.0032551694,0.000799618,8.118355e-7,4.4735998e-7,0.0000020821287,0.00022522191],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999297,0.000108454755,0.00009654829,0.000095513155,0.00016430166,0.00023817085],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990536,0.000044255143,0.000048678114,0.000030800533,0.0001266875,0.0006959609],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00016407995,0.00006437053,0.00011112788,0.000043297816,0.00095084746,0.00018083146,0.00011003781,0.00004025431,0.00036283556],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006859777,0.000059843132,0.00003930966,0.00013868911,0.0004513938,0.00022394936,0.000012592797,0.00022940298,0.000094848125],"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":[0.00001999457,0.000007798124,0.0006883335,0.0000016368423,0.000019397454,0.000100888006,0.12942503,0.0000026357263,0.00003984203,0.85549825,0.0137415975,0.00045460812],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00027388026,0.00007182438,0.0009962696,0.00001126284,0.000023651099,0.00014171153,0.043484457,0.000021727803,0.000030481497,0.004756587,0.95007014,0.00011799117],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04690084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06958402,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93632853,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015798661,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007943992,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.95944595},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9788008,0.0011067415,0.0000079585,0.013007426,0.00022302002,0.00004405977,0.000010849835,0.0000022019847,0.0067969444],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9985988,0.00022109435,0.000019285944,0.0003350699,0.00020871531,7.9859166e-7,2.5394027e-7,0.0000014399551,0.00061453227],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991871,0.0001302389,0.00013108464,0.0000755703,0.0002481775,0.00022781391],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993226,0.0002631399,0.000043098553,0.000037090107,0.00008292934,0.00025115014],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004323819,0.000051287152,0.00007746483,0.000024888375,0.00078346353,0.00020180838,0.00008687207,0.000026145995,0.00013385118],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00026119343,0.000035582016,0.000017151906,0.0001359308,0.00013675072,0.00010329827,0.000028133663,0.00017241936,0.0000027210867],"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":[0.00021171683,0.00008624863,0.17699392,0.000021752392,0.00014669186,0.003439885,0.016059993,0.00009458885,0.008023305,0.6967521,0.061530847,0.036638997],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004306055,0.000025933956,0.5328762,0.00007385831,0.000020264928,0.0011058439,0.0017725229,0.00003550413,0.0003251358,0.0013364326,0.46182558,0.00017210092],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.32420075,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.895437,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6954156,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003107204,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0041760784,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7408184},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.96054757,0.000015126062,0.00017083423,0.035118546,0.00044336592,0.0000426287,0.0000047434078,0.000006209328,0.003651004],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984538,0.00003442432,0.000014612735,0.0003374057,0.0004066615,0.0000013973978,5.479798e-7,0.0000031505917,0.0007480084],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985459,0.0005149601,0.00012589878,0.00009198695,0.00035555125,0.0003657236],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99916357,0.00036924268,0.000045442346,0.00008416881,0.00009773303,0.00023983877],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004637466,0.000055513665,0.0001022035,0.00007434962,0.0007388021,0.00024431324,0.00012983341,0.00004728632,0.00018757215],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003761857,0.00003651953,0.000033569802,0.00040716384,0.0018692358,0.00015294542,0.0000195314,0.0003941678,0.000003234083],"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":[0.000012196736,0.000034702403,0.038245548,6.481905e-7,0.000011966261,0.00008977854,0.00043835575,0.0000049538894,0.000007131658,0.95924115,0.0017027749,0.00021081777],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0046239775,0.00009534656,0.45737413,0.00008941609,0.00006612279,0.0003083893,0.009201569,0.00013461214,0.00023912662,0.18228187,0.34510982,0.00047561168],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.886964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9606766,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.77695924,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00045789898,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001468183,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.68872774},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19106428,0.043703996,0.0012727529,0.74804074,0.0020810408,0.002100222,0.00007891244,0.0000834265,0.011574626],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9617102,0.014749891,0.00007111323,0.021492071,0.0019200392,0.000032218293,0.0000015928258,0.0000045140896,0.000018349396],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99912316,0.000111361354,0.00017777152,0.000117084724,0.00026226143,0.00020837918],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99949336,0.00010311254,0.000076389486,0.00003091431,0.00011561156,0.00018061609],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00050658046,0.000074595955,0.00015571162,0.000013558793,0.0015475072,0.00009802092,0.00012189477,0.000023451874,0.00008898248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047732194,0.00004982873,0.00007987984,0.00015960581,0.00016298855,0.000118667675,0.000045240165,0.00010391164,0.00001711485],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00091418973,0.00015656104,0.009375807,0.00018792883,0.00051519723,0.00008551895,0.03539377,0.000020445344,0.00060974975,0.40211278,0.42004824,0.13057981],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002999932,0.00013238168,0.0017547625,0.00020201191,0.00008194587,0.00002847349,0.0013474262,0.0000057676552,0.000019037472,0.0074337837,0.9885929,0.00010146484],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005390022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0007660976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7706459,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000054595454,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012516168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99975234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}