{"meta":{"query_hash":"eb0a39bc95f3","filters":{"venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse"},"cohort_total":5,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":5,"exported":5,"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/eb0a39bc95f3","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=International+Journal+of+Legal+Discourse"},"results":[{"id":"W2771314859","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2017-0016","title":"Legal system: an additional variable in the analysis of short-term diachronic evolution of legal terminology","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","topic":"linguistics and terminology studies","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":7,"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":"Terminology; Variation (astronomy); Term (time); Linguistics; Political science; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0334637849087395,"score_gpt":0.31933818333143976,"score_spread":0.28587439842270024,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2771314859","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":[0.95742095,0.0002367946,0.00019055577,0.0007988918,0.0027404558,0.000098858465,0.001893363,0.0000065161494,0.03661364],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99805236,0.000013403832,0.0000648373,0.00002580944,0.0014058497,0.0000067599317,0.00008484455,0.000007858499,0.0003382784],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982883,0.00010001604,0.000762634,0.00014513316,0.00052922394,0.00017470121],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99776894,0.0001490986,0.0009375663,0.00028336616,0.00082655007,0.000034485005],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00044257852,0.00014140214,0.0004513899,0.00052443997,0.00021597109,0.00021152828,0.001045247,0.000053213433,0.00053452124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00020153567,0.000098260025,0.00026788164,0.000039175877,0.0008245988,0.0008436385,0.00009902972,0.00025333939,0.0000018443329],"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":[0.000117448864,0.00042285115,0.010898174,0.000019526504,0.0019066194,0.0002568298,0.001746043,0.00018003077,0.0000949117,0.9830835,0.0008018126,0.00047228916],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0033072266,0.0014508852,0.8645881,0.0009615031,0.0053013787,0.0007569028,0.024826966,0.0062202783,0.00014400482,0.0071689757,0.08450688,0.0007668965],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017872069,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0037216581,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9759145,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013843444,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024343298,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5852633},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2884221379","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2018-2005","title":"The stories we tell victims: Victim participation and outreach programs at the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","topic":"Cambodian History and Society","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Environment and Climate Change Canada","keywords":"Outreach; Economic Justice; Prioritization; Public relations; Bridging (networking); Political science; Restorative justice; Work (physics); Relevance (law); Narrative; Sociology; Criminology; Law; Business; Engineering; Computer security","score_opus":0.025277311966495557,"score_gpt":0.3681620508621119,"score_spread":0.3428847388956163,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2884221379","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":[0.9652137,0.00090269116,0.000019647701,0.025647182,0.0012630476,0.00016138871,0.0000074958875,0.0000043980576,0.0067804065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99763525,0.0004405011,0.000026124939,0.00015410397,0.0007259525,0.000008824878,0.0000015869516,0.0000055069645,0.0010021424],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99829656,0.0003236293,0.00033694206,0.000088990055,0.0007794458,0.0001744616],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987589,0.0003401205,0.00036238978,0.000112263544,0.0003706944,0.000055649423],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018242828,0.000084570005,0.00011407247,0.000032454765,0.00067634415,0.00019646563,0.0004816801,0.00005011325,0.00004113213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016942657,0.000044336837,0.00011443961,0.00010741493,0.0019925018,0.0004247152,0.00004451904,0.00021935585,0.0000034457469],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005680561,0.0004816261,0.07299077,0.000008546041,0.00027475535,0.00007806701,0.83143175,0.000051461615,0.00024016331,0.045963306,0.018996445,0.028915081],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00076602976,0.0004129218,0.051286943,0.00014247216,0.00010543531,0.00008063338,0.22902772,0.00013420408,0.00012070609,0.0017740715,0.71595436,0.0001945209],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009428382,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010032768,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6969579,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022621478,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023248859,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73414564},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3114910121","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2020-2039","title":"The semiotic puzzle: Authentic languages & international law","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Law; Meaning (existential); Interpretation (philosophy); Legal translation; Human rights; Convention; Political science; Linguistics; International law; Context (archaeology); Sociology; History; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.022216810164276315,"score_gpt":0.3688770784409022,"score_spread":0.3466602682766259,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3114910121","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":[0.2556829,0.00044418708,0.0016291891,0.31992728,0.012028808,0.00023558548,0.00008412744,0.00007713901,0.40989077],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97771007,0.0000695381,0.00021706252,0.001885485,0.0050350316,0.000002165,0.000011831067,0.000014473249,0.015054344],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973658,0.00014270264,0.00050676963,0.00014377068,0.0016129797,0.00022799063],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99813014,0.00024657327,0.00042956808,0.000096090094,0.0008953452,0.00020225473],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006271842,0.0001274974,0.00015049451,0.00007673566,0.00047865885,0.00068125373,0.0017405488,0.00005652914,0.00086297415],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00046045272,0.00008732479,0.00024493528,0.000053770815,0.0005113417,0.00078974536,0.00009512666,0.00034291504,0.00018145278],"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":[0.000114639064,0.00006545362,0.00015927046,0.0000014228883,0.000264298,0.00013178587,0.0037536514,0.00004973964,0.00012349089,0.9886351,0.005860297,0.00084083324],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005608851,0.000041180534,0.0004880414,0.00005822001,0.00004060661,0.00005605495,0.001704571,0.00007028466,0.00012129558,0.030387552,0.9663205,0.00015077215],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004034347,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0021691937,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96046025,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017716426,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023093315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9448962},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125260050","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2017-0002","title":"Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","topic":"Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":11,"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 Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Defeasible estate; Argument (complex analysis); Interpretation (philosophy); Statutory interpretation; Defeasible reasoning; Epistemology; Meaning (existential); Statutory law; Inference; Computer science; Mathematics; Political science; Law; Philosophy; Programming language","score_opus":0.014672029550764227,"score_gpt":0.3397208606678457,"score_spread":0.32504883111708144,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125260050","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":[0.7912658,0.0001301362,0.20423885,0.0015132218,0.0020736053,0.00007053309,0.0000068378636,0.0000056927042,0.0006953391],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9948297,0.00004884225,0.004761464,0.000046737077,0.00014526401,0.0000012504391,0.0000021542955,0.0000039802107,0.00016061014],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988471,0.000038156944,0.00041592994,0.000106455285,0.00051865977,0.00007364683],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982227,0.000029921703,0.0011518997,0.00017332273,0.00036917883,0.000052990417],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00032486112,0.00007564852,0.00013040834,0.00015563396,0.000069565394,0.00032271305,0.00070514984,0.000025738937,0.000011162936],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010679239,0.00006427675,0.000067113586,0.00001857186,0.000063665815,0.0026564542,0.000110368506,0.000082160754,0.0000029212367],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.0005794959,0.001003654,0.14555272,0.000120285884,0.0013960005,0.0002580307,0.01116738,0.000605788,0.100948215,0.29722828,0.0023686618,0.4387715],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0069694906,0.0006907354,0.8429687,0.0013612034,0.00010989958,0.0003975815,0.0011721629,0.074190214,0.057341497,0.0060759,0.0081490725,0.00057357154],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000056385208,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0000085365855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.69741595,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000048851438,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006904589,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31119293},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4311446111","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2022-2072","title":"Politics behind the law: unveiling the discursive strategies in extradition hearings on Meng Wanzhou","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":12,"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":"National Social Science Fund of China; Zhejiang University","keywords":"Politics; Cognitive reframing; Injustice; Adjudication; Power (physics); Context (archaeology); Law; Economic Justice; Political science; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.027032623383448497,"score_gpt":0.3498941774991905,"score_spread":0.322861554115742,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4311446111","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":[0.71644753,0.00051161513,0.000117721385,0.17809536,0.0029562472,0.00016879824,0.00005858112,0.000009314161,0.10163482],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9975555,0.000061989806,0.0000094927145,0.0009909077,0.0011521331,0.00000923949,0.0000025351428,0.0000039545475,0.0002142553],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981466,0.00021444779,0.000270301,0.00008181497,0.0011142414,0.00017261245],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99930024,0.00024272338,0.00019946609,0.000052265113,0.00016714336,0.00003816116],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00079593254,0.00007517565,0.000097718,0.00007239249,0.0011453248,0.0002045952,0.00058362674,0.000016157115,0.00010153417],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009011854,0.000045150933,0.00011003357,0.00008811676,0.0007052463,0.00044667046,0.00008147051,0.0004608192,0.0000032222254],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000045380497,0.0001016995,0.0004126345,3.4915644e-7,0.00006130824,0.000066768116,0.012075518,0.0031104982,0.000020850288,0.9830469,0.0006034159,0.0004547099],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00073127245,0.00022430909,0.015467155,0.000104252016,0.000053887088,0.00009235482,0.4076959,0.00007247247,0.000049663064,0.4079724,0.16733015,0.00020620582],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009440967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0047618398,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5750745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003409563,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004563622,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99715525},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}