{"meta":{"query_hash":"5d3a1342978c","filters":{"venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family"},"cohort_total":20,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":20,"exported":20,"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/5d3a1342978c","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=International+Journal+of+Law+Policy+and+the+Family"},"results":[{"id":"W2028132958","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebt012","title":"Protection Against Unilateral Dispositions of the Family Home - An Irish Perspective","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Legislation; Irish; Legislature; Veto; Law; Position (finance); Perspective (graphical); Family law; Political science; Common law; Business; Politics","score_opus":0.027985795494629186,"score_gpt":0.3344826306900675,"score_spread":0.3064968351954383,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2028132958","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":[0.12174046,0.0035883023,0.0061830245,0.0726332,0.0007629961,0.00009315037,0.00016438906,0.000053171843,0.7947813],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92083573,0.0029808779,0.0024147737,0.013689545,0.0003797181,0.000094498944,0.000069401474,0.000028522127,0.059506904],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9880391,0.0040150913,0.0005530732,0.0011709173,0.0024485153,0.003773337],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9957961,0.0014582515,0.00045845244,0.00070917985,0.000814854,0.00076328876],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010615062,0.00033164865,0.0005390661,0.0011458216,0.0075280746,0.009984871,0.0024951962,0.0055604195,0.004420069],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010760116,0.00048437787,0.0010568534,0.0007301512,0.02683301,0.0052174297,0.009095028,0.0076595,0.00072826416],"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":[0.000018276796,0.00003100511,0.0021573924,0.00003415725,0.0000067095343,0.00037703215,0.009744145,0.00030913242,0.00019310396,0.9729475,0.004580026,0.009601593],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009435073,0.00030263033,0.020264156,0.0019374484,0.000113731236,0.0016500374,0.077610224,0.0011586108,0.002640115,0.30575827,0.588148,0.00032238988],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.142373,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1426642,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.142373,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016143518,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02619497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28308856},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2030536740","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebr014","title":"Children's Experiences with Family Justice Professionals in Ontario and Ohio","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Child Welfare and Adoption","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":43,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal; Queen's University; Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Economic Justice; Psychology; Mental health; Mythology; Social work; Social psychology; Political science; Law; Psychiatry","score_opus":0.03246308992886996,"score_gpt":0.31290730709302095,"score_spread":0.28044421716415097,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2030536740","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":[0.9885654,0.00064505223,0.000075734504,0.0038798386,0.00009809759,0.000047210786,0.00009501445,0.0000073541414,0.006586279],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9917122,0.00078820554,0.00020217344,0.0012624579,0.0000240331,0.000064791544,0.000070945534,0.000015260612,0.005860039],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99174964,0.002192148,0.00032259984,0.0006056491,0.0016852226,0.0034448016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9904739,0.0017706241,0.0015099746,0.00021115843,0.0019939211,0.004040404],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036432806,0.0005020205,0.00095743116,0.0014551724,0.035409387,0.0063204654,0.0021636023,0.0022633118,0.0048832805],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008371815,0.00086499756,0.0006369896,0.0025021452,0.011354989,0.002459406,0.0088510895,0.0043063546,0.00028810307],"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":[0.00001938539,0.000034946686,0.013653701,0.000034581335,0.0000051020124,0.0011716451,0.9808766,0.00001014997,0.00015906717,0.00041838075,0.0012387757,0.002377576],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000024794988,0.00002263047,0.010898051,0.000056705572,0.0000033427314,0.00018608192,0.97959125,0.000008873974,0.0000312229,0.000046009463,0.009140062,0.000013359084],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8660384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9623537,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13396162,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.056069545,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050230402,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40681493},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2059075898","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/16.2.145","title":"Context and Inclusivity in Canada's Evolving Definition of the Family","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":23,"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":"Family law; Charter; Commission; Context (archaeology); Legislature; Inclusion (mineral); Interdependence; Law; Political science; Sociology; Gender studies","score_opus":0.04102726335986378,"score_gpt":0.2980762770370748,"score_spread":0.257049013677211,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2059075898","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":[0.2513765,0.038188938,0.0058666347,0.23758478,0.0016634284,0.0001374656,0.0006039455,0.00008568073,0.46449265],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9765697,0.004729262,0.0010009469,0.0064361026,0.00007150884,0.000030480509,0.000045267163,0.00003138796,0.011085392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.98994267,0.002333136,0.0003548963,0.0008162455,0.0038377962,0.0027152286],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897343,0.001886523,0.00047550705,0.00034372456,0.004308481,0.0032514941],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0053833905,0.00037843978,0.0006086804,0.0037072473,0.04022001,0.018374668,0.0029390824,0.003586597,0.0058650244],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012227491,0.00042177425,0.00042900417,0.0066102874,0.04088388,0.0057305046,0.009227667,0.0061766915,0.0001868791],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000032039326,0.000015453777,0.0044849664,0.0000755656,0.00001367512,0.00039076214,0.092552125,0.00047576777,0.0001938141,0.8637859,0.018067978,0.01991198],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000036157217,0.000031829793,0.029489705,0.0018429256,0.00004835363,0.00040303936,0.24326359,0.0009244167,0.00025917412,0.13447991,0.588939,0.00028188707],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99413526,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99628395,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2006563,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.2006563,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.30435663,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9271254},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2089722476","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebl018","title":"Conceiving Parents Through Law","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Reproductive Health and Technologies","field":"Medicine","cited_by":36,"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":"Family law; Reproduction; Sociology; Law; Psychology; Social psychology; Political science; Ecology","score_opus":0.047326292776962986,"score_gpt":0.39640947325238995,"score_spread":0.34908318047542697,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2089722476","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":[0.11670357,0.015456295,0.042680733,0.1911328,0.0013164168,0.00015279908,0.00020670581,0.00016640291,0.63218427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9408119,0.0037337434,0.005412699,0.008437653,0.00017206772,0.000056953508,0.000039230013,0.000042832595,0.041293025],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99581736,0.0025183654,0.000082766936,0.00045303715,0.00055384065,0.00057466386],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99650204,0.0017758214,0.00025921644,0.00033720356,0.0006108361,0.00051492284],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0074908617,0.00028175724,0.00034528066,0.0008541299,0.010633642,0.008190179,0.0010967829,0.0035319186,0.0047693113],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010300292,0.0002488047,0.00021886763,0.00067001965,0.036219247,0.009559246,0.003899208,0.0040867864,0.0005529515],"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":[0.0000029279397,0.0000049106015,0.001028439,0.000007898278,0.0000010663672,0.00019685228,0.060294386,0.000040960822,0.00007176388,0.9239579,0.0047451947,0.009647723],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007315409,0.000029552008,0.0019114268,0.00048114272,0.000009251663,0.0005799114,0.09707147,0.00031341208,0.0002837259,0.37252632,0.5267563,0.000030096036],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10712171,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.122696236,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10712171,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012442204,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016452936,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.21299636},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2109720334","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebt017","title":"Family Law Reform in (Neoliberal) Context: British Columbia's New Family Law Act","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Legal guardian; Family law; Law; Context (archaeology); Law reform; Political science; Best interests; Guardian; Relocation; Dispute resolution; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.024046559922244557,"score_gpt":0.3120802885177703,"score_spread":0.28803372859552573,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2109720334","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":[0.2186636,0.024723014,0.0019904126,0.32541865,0.0025243831,0.00019777287,0.0006745511,0.00012709803,0.4256805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82490706,0.0071874633,0.0019476189,0.057113998,0.00021707508,0.00014242841,0.00018931711,0.000045894158,0.10824908],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9939418,0.0012377751,0.00016045435,0.0004423222,0.0022198658,0.0019978422],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935209,0.0017850258,0.00026266105,0.00030018957,0.002559222,0.001572026],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033603404,0.00029114736,0.00038776823,0.0014768316,0.01827141,0.009712575,0.0018804498,0.0047980146,0.0035848694],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011273044,0.00037195787,0.00023767968,0.0022560058,0.012795787,0.0019203813,0.0029619008,0.0065161865,0.00032701454],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005168714,0.00011777988,0.010071068,0.0002065753,0.000023631734,0.0016526056,0.045030843,0.0015660478,0.0008064437,0.714866,0.1590264,0.066580884],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000036137717,0.000030560077,0.035656072,0.0006645106,0.00002822394,0.00023847733,0.02166387,0.0009627177,0.00032405477,0.02153928,0.91869617,0.0001599018],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9910733,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99539256,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83207774,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16792223,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2103681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9650923},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2265908887","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebv007","title":"Positions Taken by Judges and Custody Experts on Issues Relating to the Best Interests of Children in Custody Disputes in Québec","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Family Dynamics and Relationships","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université Laval; University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Child custody; Best interests; Psychology; Relevance (law); Ideology; Social psychology; Law; Criminology; Political science; Politics","score_opus":0.03355166571764596,"score_gpt":0.35431235521343385,"score_spread":0.3207606894957879,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2265908887","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":[0.9673372,0.0016283,0.00045970792,0.008798117,0.000090507485,0.00008297746,0.00006133365,0.0000111909385,0.021530673],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.994087,0.00047107032,0.0003343705,0.00092655804,0.000013373933,0.00002738036,0.00002235841,0.000005416136,0.004112424],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.98007923,0.009288748,0.00063842325,0.0013025268,0.0036823237,0.0050088344],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95925653,0.020534465,0.0027549875,0.0005646822,0.010594634,0.0062947855],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019452672,0.00036150235,0.0006606791,0.0023490812,0.036318876,0.007934101,0.0025739279,0.0035918974,0.0029209657],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02846751,0.0006622959,0.00032619995,0.0028436007,0.015551698,0.0012197735,0.0032175682,0.003693432,0.00012852863],"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":[0.00013311932,0.000052992433,0.056209367,0.00016481131,0.000037891055,0.003734068,0.9001432,0.00044189792,0.002509304,0.00965329,0.0076749306,0.019245196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024413745,0.000066167224,0.0956928,0.0004992056,0.000040431936,0.00035716823,0.86001086,0.00070636946,0.0006749982,0.0009023012,0.04090719,0.000118149685],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9689283,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.989094,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12128662,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12128662,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10261254,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8800002},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2564531045","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebx002","title":"Cohabitation, Law Reform, and the Litigants","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Family Dynamics and Relationships","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":"Cohabitation; Plaintiff; Legislature; Legislation; Unjust enrichment; Duration (music); Law reform; Political science; Law; Property (philosophy); Common law; Business; Demographic economics; Economics; Restitution","score_opus":0.031969344300304604,"score_gpt":0.3577228666456351,"score_spread":0.32575352234533045,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2564531045","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":[0.9739173,0.0008987217,0.00008678761,0.0075010564,0.000021998972,0.00001913248,0.000012533897,0.0000016292786,0.017540988],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99799085,0.00022518911,0.000014795659,0.0005739661,0.0000068191493,0.000004111946,0.000005433077,9.2511067e-7,0.0011778839],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99483794,0.0015246703,0.00010143837,0.00025257247,0.00089203176,0.0023913023],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99583817,0.0009902037,0.0010415456,0.00012975102,0.0006947718,0.0013055141],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030281805,0.00010011659,0.00029145813,0.0010942353,0.01405824,0.003763738,0.00076895906,0.0014995907,0.0030034375],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010926898,0.000148577,0.00015881192,0.0013334404,0.011178632,0.0017670526,0.0037130218,0.002319249,0.00014871874],"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":[0.00017513809,0.00026374718,0.44692624,0.00006193255,0.000049054164,0.003061745,0.40738457,0.0002889233,0.0010103185,0.07040046,0.006213011,0.06416481],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019486448,0.000107448715,0.38513342,0.0001447158,0.000024865618,0.0004995698,0.5835539,0.00023971472,0.00032218616,0.0042978628,0.025621228,0.000035608027],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5239251,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.680295,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5239251,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016191998,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015368465,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9577572},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2760568154","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebx008","title":"Views of the Child Reports: The Ontario Pilot Project","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Children's Rights and Participation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University; Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Confidentiality; Toolbox; Economic Justice; Psychology; Child custody; Social justice; Medical education; Political science; Public relations; Medicine; Law; Criminology; Engineering","score_opus":0.09454657027648862,"score_gpt":0.39249080634773736,"score_spread":0.29794423607124876,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2760568154","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":[0.96908265,0.0003937606,0.00050477334,0.0047168974,0.00006268017,0.00085836503,0.0008146857,0.000037338945,0.023528805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97815734,0.0010840421,0.0022951013,0.0010510505,0.000031674113,0.001068308,0.0005171338,0.00006040515,0.01573483],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9700974,0.016287524,0.000906954,0.001031946,0.008510138,0.0031659713],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95070887,0.015738811,0.0044540083,0.0044199983,0.018992608,0.005685702],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.030841613,0.00056450034,0.0004658254,0.0019661093,0.0154038835,0.003994374,0.0023658245,0.0014336893,0.0033369134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03962412,0.0007599417,0.00044769788,0.0032568383,0.008086995,0.0018280065,0.0053649624,0.002456997,0.00041455572],"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":[0.00013282451,0.00021794719,0.03726212,0.00012391746,0.0000137551,0.0016778706,0.9263137,0.000060370367,0.0022075996,0.0019018342,0.0096466765,0.020441351],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039867493,0.00030254468,0.10114561,0.0001881779,0.000020346757,0.00039647092,0.79957855,0.00011345717,0.0015892866,0.00020928516,0.096343234,0.00007318154],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92302305,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96173275,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.076976955,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06638336,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09207835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48164725},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2980370897","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebz013","title":"One Parent, Three Parents: Judges and Ontario’s All Families Are Equal Act, 2016","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Champion; Legislation; Discretion; Law; Variety (cybernetics); Diversity (politics); Family law; Political science; Psychology","score_opus":0.055754113234218874,"score_gpt":0.3267932573809631,"score_spread":0.27103914414674424,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2980370897","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":[0.4470147,0.0067212954,0.0006158341,0.22999258,0.0012313176,0.00018716152,0.0011764732,0.00004432027,0.3130162],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8744006,0.0020227863,0.00037428862,0.011959425,0.0001628504,0.0000660066,0.00016765152,0.000022846105,0.11082364],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99467963,0.00070397154,0.000167557,0.00041726933,0.0022148879,0.0018166793],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9874014,0.0033596302,0.0007560271,0.00039509797,0.004720578,0.0033672452],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0057583274,0.00016373661,0.0002573929,0.00068906334,0.0311704,0.0053953147,0.0013930538,0.0034701333,0.00681156],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016963063,0.0003570435,0.00021215828,0.0012608796,0.0072326367,0.0014469298,0.0025072598,0.0039585945,0.00040561942],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00021257755,0.00011381093,0.07002321,0.00021316008,0.000033531844,0.0029922982,0.18482944,0.00048634663,0.0014752893,0.31453708,0.3759693,0.04911399],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047437676,0.000049175516,0.13834539,0.0003974272,0.000043857282,0.0002690951,0.07292746,0.00032722222,0.000539769,0.0066452557,0.7803018,0.00010621508],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98471767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9966323,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13485335,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13485335,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17865233,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9784341},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3204919874","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab038","title":"<i>Legal Recognition of Non-Conjugal Families: New Frontiers in Family Law in the US, Canada and Europe</i>, Nausica Palazzo","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies","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":"Variety (cybernetics); Heading (navigation); Diversity (politics); Law; Sociology; Family law; Family ties; Political science; Genealogy; History; Geography","score_opus":0.031181710097383703,"score_gpt":0.3077276335350605,"score_spread":0.2765459234376768,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3204919874","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03066629,0.20898317,0.001808958,0.24518126,0.003925194,0.00006749407,0.00009349993,0.00006288195,0.50921124],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66315824,0.12123334,0.0010372213,0.03653166,0.0018293443,0.000090492154,0.000092931536,0.00010778479,0.17591901],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987716,0.000401541,0.000018605513,0.00008548486,0.00039444276,0.0003283323],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99911946,0.00038577546,0.000058573532,0.000031040687,0.0002190764,0.00018608631],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013105395,0.00028611362,0.00029737529,0.0008243694,0.012318764,0.008024722,0.0010736054,0.0022208907,0.0037773848],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0019432802,0.0001762018,0.0001717565,0.0014059821,0.017880062,0.004236133,0.0018332467,0.00409082,0.000303534],"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":[0.000013755486,0.00002591773,0.0010129604,0.00013637453,0.000004365233,0.00028027262,0.07010005,0.00016143927,0.00012117133,0.6513767,0.2360137,0.040753268],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000029189969,0.0000070773413,0.002808305,0.00049720035,0.00000306338,0.0001757171,0.043068215,0.0001203688,0.0001147155,0.026661776,0.9265243,0.000016325184],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7197903,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8344831,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.28020972,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.036641784,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03947102,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.56371987},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4210682962","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac008","title":"Urgent Care Proceedings for New-born Babies in England and Wales – Time for a Fundamental Review","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":16,"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":"Interim; Harm; Political science; Medicine; Child protection; Population; Nursing; Family medicine; Law; Environmental health","score_opus":0.049685731142844344,"score_gpt":0.3818860813052129,"score_spread":0.33220035016236854,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4210682962","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00011020257,0.9981996,0.000017368451,0.0009999869,0.00029743914,0.000020753067,0.000009898265,0.0000017125966,0.0003431116],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0017045436,0.9971089,0.00010327907,0.0007637606,0.00016533486,0.000038593927,0.000013972397,0.0000014357653,0.00010013932],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99535406,0.0020168289,0.0010762085,0.00023255547,0.001095622,0.00022469011],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95974547,0.029550146,0.0036183158,0.00055365264,0.005743491,0.0007888805],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010172091,0.00053255435,0.0024231283,0.0041405694,0.0008512305,0.003452511,0.001412109,0.0030003851,0.0045505674],"category_scores_gemma":[0.035756625,0.0006437859,0.0012029484,0.0042197653,0.0014625987,0.0034574477,0.0013694565,0.0029424643,0.0007215594],"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":[0.00011475206,0.00011637453,0.0003484896,0.25905478,0.0002920479,0.000209318,0.0010696058,0.0001361457,0.00025582287,0.008731617,0.038605805,0.6910652],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000065206405,0.00028952683,0.0033819801,0.47548944,0.0006281696,0.0008244844,0.0015660773,0.000047810827,0.0001455892,0.0016475478,0.5158764,0.000037692356],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009267103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.022651605,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010172091,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040782676,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018052148,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.053795755},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4285178857","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac016","title":"Mothering Practices and Human Rights Abuses of Girls in Marginalized Contexts: Examining the Moral Culpability of Women who Abuse Children","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Intimate Partner and Family Violence","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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Culpability; Criminalization; Criminology; Sociology; Human rights; Psychology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.04203768626629395,"score_gpt":0.36626626945277185,"score_spread":0.3242285831864779,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4285178857","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":[0.9911533,0.0011418535,0.000080886064,0.001598472,0.000016885982,0.000014158569,0.000015226941,8.811984e-7,0.005978424],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99792516,0.0011126746,0.000054622044,0.0002562491,0.000014372935,0.000023330733,0.000009854709,0.0000027758626,0.000600828],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99519426,0.002727539,0.0001590898,0.0002466307,0.00046519178,0.0012072441],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99375653,0.0034374218,0.0017530154,0.00019992658,0.00030106705,0.0005520613],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036605857,0.00043157843,0.0007178905,0.0017977948,0.009455564,0.0063900156,0.0012999827,0.0016671362,0.003439004],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010232387,0.0005064401,0.00034897836,0.0016316351,0.015765898,0.005113792,0.009258696,0.0034148213,0.00025547465],"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":[0.00001735912,0.00006997514,0.045396455,0.00005132396,0.000009299441,0.0006573331,0.9444561,0.000012190429,0.00014311759,0.005050719,0.00021506615,0.0039210967],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000016507149,0.000031928626,0.022195673,0.000103062644,0.0000045395245,0.00040730144,0.97431594,0.000018744382,0.00007139962,0.0005272604,0.0023177678,0.0000047489043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.020568086,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.034002956,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.020568086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003955539,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003010272,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.040896714},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4289355304","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac013","title":"Experience with Ontario’s <i>Parenting Plan Guide</i> and <i>Template</i>","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Queen's University; The King's University","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Multidisciplinary approach; Plan (archaeology); Conciliation; Psychology; Mental health; Resource (disambiguation); Medical education; Nursing; Political science; Public relations; Medicine; Psychiatry; Law; Mediation","score_opus":0.038377389262331744,"score_gpt":0.32988441375496086,"score_spread":0.2915070244926291,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4289355304","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":[0.8255141,0.0009541711,0.005407516,0.010271135,0.0002718034,0.00065524894,0.0009919704,0.00037477224,0.15555927],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88687545,0.0018216418,0.01078824,0.0020620557,0.000045915058,0.00032465122,0.0010390652,0.0003348574,0.0967082],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952029,0.0020517965,0.00017380809,0.00029855268,0.0014354342,0.00083753536],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99156475,0.0022229487,0.00047679644,0.0006813903,0.002297737,0.0027563286],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006761436,0.00032881397,0.00022136087,0.00070042803,0.010660202,0.002114181,0.0015641579,0.001125013,0.011439161],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013008878,0.0007347104,0.0003290614,0.0016148161,0.0033303893,0.0013817792,0.0026183769,0.0014984487,0.0013450346],"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":[0.00007838729,0.00044188555,0.025026921,0.0001518986,0.0000099196095,0.004226141,0.76694167,0.0004958708,0.0022396317,0.004293875,0.0871941,0.10889974],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025834775,0.00027010826,0.04934788,0.00029401088,0.00001395054,0.0009821021,0.29068315,0.0008964941,0.0009150773,0.0004991359,0.6559758,0.00009645685],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9095637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97761106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09043628,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03315781,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040891323,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24057788},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4290805179","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac014","title":"Family Court Responses to Claims of Parental Alienation in Quebec","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Family Dynamics and Relationships","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University; Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières","funders":"","keywords":"Alienation; Quarter (Canadian coin); Psychology; Family law; Psychological intervention; Family court; Psychosocial; Social psychology; Criminology; Political science; Law; Psychiatry; Geography","score_opus":0.031462736814688974,"score_gpt":0.3472758280890271,"score_spread":0.31581309127433815,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4290805179","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":[0.99345833,0.00035258083,0.00006480623,0.00073876104,0.00001798,0.000028324303,0.0004027957,0.000005532943,0.0049309786],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99771667,0.00021076624,0.00006261331,0.00025014076,0.000007353834,0.000010568516,0.00017334944,0.0000020717018,0.0015665299],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973687,0.0007059117,0.00016063487,0.00021199882,0.0010205307,0.0005322909],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98128086,0.00572284,0.008009263,0.0004723221,0.0033594316,0.0011552442],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025643946,0.000121203826,0.00020058756,0.0026466602,0.00423739,0.001292594,0.00094862125,0.00086199766,0.0042233877],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013869822,0.00017272598,0.00017850962,0.0025758604,0.0014149548,0.00034611963,0.0011379925,0.0007799687,0.00019438045],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009886578,0.00007855679,0.9393818,0.000102249556,0.0000616821,0.0072975466,0.027158808,0.00028630305,0.0007494433,0.00091643323,0.006873574,0.016994836],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006252146,0.00003055458,0.9751765,0.000103074904,0.00001157712,0.0011612942,0.01758635,0.00041081506,0.0002179575,0.000104954524,0.005166457,0.000024239058],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8683388,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94643366,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13166118,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01576196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0060720895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2648731},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4384519883","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad017","title":"Cohabitant protection on relationship breakdown in Ireland: A lesson in illusory justice?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Statutory law; Irish; Cohabitation; Jurisprudence; General partnership; Political science; Economic Justice; Law; Law reform; Common law","score_opus":0.062315521629999204,"score_gpt":0.36818286033509456,"score_spread":0.30586733870509536,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4384519883","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":[0.26086825,0.005282569,0.004004598,0.41991213,0.0014289118,0.00017763035,0.00015178864,0.000056419456,0.30811775],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9440498,0.0013463468,0.00089522684,0.03977191,0.00023438563,0.00009624527,0.000035398854,0.00002306657,0.013547747],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98460346,0.006296691,0.0005006581,0.0007971656,0.0021193824,0.0056827003],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98522085,0.0045521986,0.0012806325,0.0014067122,0.0025982875,0.0049412465],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014614166,0.00018329386,0.00057822646,0.0010046776,0.008732963,0.006281717,0.0031201139,0.0043391194,0.008984771],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034935314,0.00027347883,0.0005863505,0.0009279674,0.017494863,0.0068745683,0.014335036,0.008571672,0.0007285321],"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":[0.00029692662,0.00040791064,0.027126648,0.0004750065,0.000048864924,0.0022110383,0.08480954,0.0004957202,0.0009732545,0.6514253,0.07420424,0.15752551],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013540173,0.00057192025,0.05036879,0.0040850504,0.00008501996,0.0013982594,0.38083634,0.0010093342,0.0015447482,0.19506258,0.36467734,0.00022524694],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.116706066,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18849267,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.116706066,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012517024,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031112308,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23205352},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4389634029","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad024","title":"Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Child Abuse and Trauma","field":"Psychology","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Health Sciences Centre","funders":"National Institute for Health and Care Research","keywords":"Randomized controlled trial; Randomization; Intervention (counseling); Hindsight bias; Best practice; Psychological intervention; Economic Justice; Medicine; Psychology; Family medicine; Political science; Nursing; Law; Social psychology","score_opus":0.04883326152579963,"score_gpt":0.3245925051070547,"score_spread":0.27575924358125503,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4389634029","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"methods","domain_codex":"methods","domain_gemma":"methods","model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":"methods","domain_consensus":"methods","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0076506943,0.07883572,0.29085922,0.44052604,0.07725469,0.0904536,0.000667097,0.0011843476,0.012568545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.11024134,0.014864249,0.50557035,0.19223313,0.010438832,0.16353546,0.00016745101,0.0003680521,0.0025811552],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.14694661,0.800387,0.026638169,0.0063820286,0.018017743,0.0016284187],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.23385146,0.7087823,0.014498102,0.026575217,0.013675215,0.002617718],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.6258406,0.0023715252,0.0077302544,0.00423295,0.0050577926,0.017616095,0.006589447,0.029065812,0.0048189526],"category_scores_gemma":[0.6542984,0.0023556645,0.0080034565,0.003429117,0.025889387,0.015621812,0.006435138,0.028361544,0.0016373176],"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":[0.012363735,0.0012524825,0.002125025,0.080734804,0.0072204596,0.0013029728,0.018124714,0.0048656045,0.0020514294,0.5335272,0.09331682,0.24311462],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.037551478,0.008272315,0.0014417017,0.17404339,0.0048257443,0.0007224296,0.0030016927,0.01908466,0.0036232364,0.42161402,0.3249624,0.0008569145],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0019698518,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0018133257,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3741594,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008769595,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024466915,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46140522},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391975176","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebae004","title":"Child support and income inequalities: a cross-continental comparison from welfare design to judicial implementation","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Social Policy and Reform Studies","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":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Agence Nationale de la Recherche","keywords":"Welfare; Inequality; Economic inequality; Public economics; Economics; Political science; Demographic economics; Mathematics; Law","score_opus":0.04720538233803346,"score_gpt":0.4360260783765567,"score_spread":0.38882069603852326,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391975176","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":[0.9816543,0.0017298637,0.00047494486,0.00040861435,0.000016442771,0.000039744424,0.00041776177,0.000005322595,0.015252925],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99868816,0.00023609394,0.00013245665,0.000060930557,0.0000062207746,0.000020624564,0.00020551437,0.0000049471632,0.00064506405],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99293786,0.0039103776,0.00017477345,0.00058763305,0.0011357702,0.0012536076],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9913127,0.0040661683,0.0014328604,0.0005833408,0.0021531126,0.00045185568],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005654522,0.00015680611,0.00038121067,0.0031899787,0.0017485988,0.0026335607,0.0006552359,0.00046403432,0.0033095353],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015553719,0.00012270265,0.00032924218,0.0041308184,0.0026085752,0.00079734926,0.0029733146,0.0004960804,0.00017993926],"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":[0.00053484016,0.00025332146,0.9030803,0.00018827498,0.0005071672,0.00017397267,0.023320682,0.0009600077,0.0006689935,0.018735638,0.0016792323,0.049897633],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009740009,0.00010683375,0.98194224,0.00012981526,0.000054246608,0.000020426713,0.013211409,0.00021769095,0.00019717538,0.00039251338,0.003706604,0.000011391417],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.24889179,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.27939355,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24889179,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005857459,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002414539,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4948861},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4405222990","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebae020","title":"Enforceability of mahr under a sha<i>rīʿa</i> law-based contract in New Zealand: a comparison with United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Islamic Finance and Banking Studies","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":"Law; Kingdom; Political science; Biology","score_opus":0.031540284267300864,"score_gpt":0.2924168718455855,"score_spread":0.26087658757828464,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4405222990","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":[0.9520039,0.00037015352,0.00024562978,0.0006902273,0.000011501325,0.00012285209,0.00014026818,0.000010333188,0.046405233],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99666214,0.00022514422,0.00023681523,0.0000673812,0.000003104982,0.000015950285,0.000052092746,0.0000039746137,0.0027334252],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99610895,0.00034828408,0.00030566336,0.00026086567,0.0018794932,0.0010967972],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99119085,0.0013506605,0.0028107942,0.000568528,0.002898911,0.0011802474],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032684603,0.0001190279,0.0004108789,0.0018546777,0.0023284713,0.0029655644,0.0009011101,0.000545346,0.003073315],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010735173,0.00023655382,0.0003438026,0.0022585306,0.0033127454,0.00093900436,0.0015423043,0.0010109032,0.00016940899],"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":[0.0012719583,0.0009721669,0.6385951,0.00070670043,0.00029678582,0.005654688,0.053756446,0.0035512873,0.008085048,0.15192226,0.0076305605,0.12755689],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009143551,0.00026084544,0.9354568,0.00021796988,0.00012208079,0.00054388924,0.024044387,0.0029279254,0.00093643717,0.0012542044,0.034055497,0.00008860815],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93668455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9556195,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06331545,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019824184,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.021627387,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14383519},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4407591516","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebaf003","title":"Unblocking the implementation of altruistic surrogacy in Portugal: inclusive legal reform proposals through a comparative analysis","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Reproductive Health and Technologies","field":"Medicine","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":"Legalization; Portuguese; Political science; Presidential system; Strengths and weaknesses; Public administration; Law and economics; Law; Sociology; Politics; Psychology","score_opus":0.03264502392212487,"score_gpt":0.4474482634525465,"score_spread":0.41480323953042164,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4407591516","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":[0.56572634,0.0066127614,0.0065134168,0.01574483,0.00023100314,0.00030825144,0.00020765245,0.000028529581,0.40462726],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.993133,0.001180069,0.0020240394,0.0007568236,0.000039438142,0.00006410723,0.000031974032,0.0000087521175,0.0027618627],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9900844,0.006613655,0.0002873501,0.0004307375,0.0013156818,0.0012680935],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.985508,0.010514394,0.0012702213,0.0010793592,0.001252081,0.00037586063],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015082386,0.00018584031,0.0004611155,0.0019286998,0.004353306,0.0052067763,0.0009362364,0.001812293,0.004447311],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020817881,0.0001801008,0.0005042105,0.002773755,0.0055008624,0.0026241515,0.0029592898,0.0016342315,0.00013996066],"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":[0.00016197732,0.0001376759,0.0071772235,0.000684762,0.00003574365,0.001145289,0.027372582,0.001993697,0.00029255994,0.91098446,0.0024211237,0.04759285],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021701993,0.00083754497,0.11384238,0.00895507,0.00036143936,0.0017072374,0.2567008,0.011562517,0.0034260019,0.13909791,0.46315455,0.00013752554],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.031854346,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.060665697,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031854346,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016357152,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016854677,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4410347839","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebaf014","title":"Parental union in Quebec: a model for recognizing cohabitants?","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","topic":"Social Policies and Family","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":"University of Oxford","keywords":"Psychology; Political science; Theology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03528852351554066,"score_gpt":0.37134858586319863,"score_spread":0.33606006234765795,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4410347839","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":[0.31368926,0.0023229362,0.014943322,0.07618351,0.00042276326,0.00023563125,0.0011097221,0.00009569838,0.5909971],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9678211,0.0005268954,0.0015567596,0.0022218702,0.000050426792,0.000058598052,0.00014029368,0.00001195508,0.027612137],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998892,0.0003758793,0.000014449906,0.000117139214,0.00013579435,0.00046479856],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99821895,0.00045362438,0.00015429193,0.00012223901,0.0006042115,0.00044657433],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013175507,0.000318234,0.00033620707,0.0010956733,0.008945028,0.004263171,0.0021133681,0.002487393,0.01826455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0036193565,0.00016529493,0.00048859545,0.0014454486,0.004902646,0.0019857849,0.0017683712,0.0018621995,0.00062659563],"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":[0.000054098102,0.00008868387,0.024978492,0.000025087656,0.000017552698,0.00057281356,0.009113359,0.0038589474,0.00011810973,0.9293681,0.016731087,0.015073761],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021759197,0.00020037578,0.09140152,0.0009162127,0.00022753458,0.0008823509,0.1039002,0.1014761,0.0004332404,0.34036767,0.35977182,0.00020548706],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9702307,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9788325,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.044887412,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044887412,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027596835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32568246},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}