{"meta":{"query_hash":"8fea5b6be457","filters":{"venue":"Indian Journal of Constitutional Law"},"cohort_total":3,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":3,"exported":3,"export_cap":100000,"truncated":false,"label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12"},"permalink":"https://metacan.xera.ac/q/8fea5b6be457","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Indian+Journal+of+Constitutional+Law"},"results":[{"id":"W1544802020","doi":"10.61238/ijcl.2009.03.1.09","title":"Judicial Review of the State’s Anti-Terrorism Activities: The Post 9/11 Experience and Normative Justifications for Judicial Review","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Indian Journal of Constitutional Law","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Terrorism; Political science; Judicial review; Law; Legislation; Judicial activism; Normative; Supreme court; Competence (human resources); Human rights; State (computer science); Psychology","score_opus":0.020671360037597702,"score_gpt":0.3301918417934683,"score_spread":0.30952048175587055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1544802020","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":[0.46957436,0.07861784,0.003480207,0.3030378,0.007643316,0.006580202,0.0018506484,0.000049830214,0.1291658],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98868525,0.003987155,0.000073727955,0.006720159,0.00039162952,0.000009266423,0.000004457887,0.0000020405857,0.00012629213],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99851125,0.00017560327,0.0005338092,0.000084462066,0.0005486024,0.00014628131],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981653,0.00024851642,0.0006590056,0.00009654592,0.0007606732,0.0000699774],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00090223097,0.000090077825,0.00024504118,0.00003973074,0.0010783451,0.000040722,0.00040479063,0.000034992918,0.00011828389],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003452407,0.000052779207,0.00017017378,0.0000950671,0.0024362195,0.00042026752,0.000014887181,0.00016263369,0.0000020089092],"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":[0.000009605217,0.000031484553,0.00002517129,0.00014503523,0.000019955285,0.000003232359,0.0029229915,0.0000022989689,0.00001830474,0.99565506,0.00096598314,0.0002008774],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00079587003,0.00026187152,0.004907317,0.031723488,0.00034744007,0.0003746144,0.0013010058,0.0000031905797,0.0004810425,0.32098004,0.6384176,0.00040652067],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00011491594,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00026880458,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.67467505,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007128577,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010355539,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8976352},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7165390870","doi":"10.61238/ijcl.2021.10.1.03","title":"Proportionality and Burden of Proof: Constitutional Review in India","year":2021,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Indian Journal of Constitutional Law","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":"Proportionality (law); Supreme court; Burden of proof; Deference; Standard of review; Constitutional law; Judicial review; Skepticism","score_opus":0.02619840040560061,"score_gpt":0.3051970979898971,"score_spread":0.27899869758429646,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7165390870","genre_codex":"review","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":[0.039222974,0.52616256,0.00084153836,0.036852885,0.0042447955,0.001681261,0.0011841977,0.000018222461,0.38979158],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9729298,0.024626998,0.00043199165,0.0011232771,0.00078648725,0.000010528415,0.000022423603,0.000004657405,0.00006385773],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9943861,0.0006090404,0.002313767,0.0003988339,0.0018032519,0.0004890194],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99480194,0.000467055,0.0015100943,0.0001590785,0.002670839,0.0003909861],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027154335,0.0003394069,0.0011778327,0.00023171613,0.00076841016,0.00006902573,0.0003543099,0.00026049252,0.001031847],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0016313157,0.00032767924,0.00039223794,0.0010602765,0.033471975,0.0007894772,0.00016339649,0.00073608605,0.000015186852],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000080333586,0.00034939466,0.009598722,0.00058183935,0.00031914952,0.0014202972,0.0007377316,0.00006234384,0.000068675145,0.98547983,0.00041207482,0.0008895804],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0049261805,0.00045308514,0.024124451,0.04153865,0.0010158186,0.009106806,0.0048972946,0.0000062327854,0.0009825461,0.44650096,0.46495548,0.0014924944],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00042949323,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00031413184,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9337068,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00034360922,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016500248,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999175},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7165400790","doi":"10.61238/ijcl.2021.10.1.05","title":"Government Copyright in School Textbooks and the Fundamental Right to Education","year":2021,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Indian Journal of Constitutional Law","topic":"Data Privacy and Cybersecurity","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":"Realisation; Government (linguistics); Quarter (Canadian coin); State (computer science); Right to education; Inequality; Digital divide; Pandemic","score_opus":0.008646942087978218,"score_gpt":0.273284606827271,"score_spread":0.2646376647392928,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7165400790","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":[0.31791973,0.0086712055,0.0002304721,0.058348037,0.005932284,0.00084846263,0.0005435323,0.000006210587,0.6075001],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9938556,0.00032921208,0.00032469563,0.0042598746,0.0006318946,0.000006280158,0.0000055304026,0.0000033571594,0.0005835533],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971306,0.00056462496,0.000716374,0.00021476485,0.0010861021,0.00028753572],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99843156,0.0003038059,0.0003708417,0.00016898519,0.00024232364,0.00048248915],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017593678,0.00016042858,0.00031336426,0.000058585272,0.0009088117,0.00040585958,0.00041908852,0.00010924447,0.002377514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004594578,0.00012244213,0.00013395077,0.0002789341,0.0044494434,0.00077695376,0.0001441185,0.00054641435,0.00008174983],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00023873548,0.00027302667,0.002032031,0.0000118231055,0.00007476415,0.00019585868,0.0040969257,0.000005728414,0.000030440568,0.98789114,0.003970698,0.0011788447],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0025208665,0.00006823601,0.0018987657,0.00056055933,0.00007830553,0.00085648894,0.011006365,0.0000024717847,0.00034959483,0.064437866,0.9179965,0.0002239678],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00034871206,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0023584764,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9234533,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00066732615,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006030941,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996039},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}