{"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.911303,0.0024986514,0.017871834,0.001792316,0.000111505746,0.00008583984,0.001007067,0.00012243334,0.06520734],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9966808,0.00014190242,0.001820993,0.00004906491,0.000021491673,0.00003473173,0.0003288066,0.00008575249,0.00083639036],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99397534,0.003298628,0.0005243801,0.0007302089,0.0012068329,0.00026471243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9578315,0.029720929,0.004694294,0.002368224,0.0045902673,0.0007947894],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00656946,0.00018763509,0.0003597351,0.006191018,0.0020829807,0.0070972117,0.0011022766,0.0008027427,0.0047840276],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034111883,0.00020067288,0.00028704177,0.009132681,0.005770338,0.008419722,0.0040193843,0.0018121128,0.0004998394],"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":[0.00038040616,0.00009732881,0.11270147,0.0006557467,0.00010177061,0.0012974107,0.30025122,0.0010086717,0.0065016174,0.48685935,0.0031278408,0.087017216],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056212622,0.00027305115,0.4903636,0.001037534,0.00018011985,0.0021745393,0.16833128,0.014947099,0.0044056308,0.15525481,0.16271144,0.00026462096],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004440301,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0037751587,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0070972117,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004110798,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013858995,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.03474301},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.96974057,0.0009224582,0.00029224256,0.011370124,0.00007630855,0.0000636433,0.000049195256,0.000009764522,0.017475665],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99617296,0.0004753288,0.00008794161,0.0007486581,0.000015549436,0.000035032404,0.000013065249,0.000007065435,0.0024444298],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9933021,0.00493951,0.00011246636,0.00027649908,0.0003518909,0.0010174816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99471575,0.0034077119,0.000743153,0.00016047887,0.00019182751,0.00078103866],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038141331,0.00048715196,0.00043728168,0.0014599994,0.021663973,0.0068983184,0.0017552727,0.002840017,0.0056035444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01008482,0.0004952666,0.00012912022,0.0017796109,0.017581487,0.0047617354,0.008589451,0.003715568,0.00030126135],"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":[0.0000103958055,0.000017965871,0.002426477,0.000063911946,0.00000363863,0.0010281994,0.9879121,0.000022204827,0.00020028287,0.0038297488,0.0013926876,0.0030924259],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000015323102,0.00001204613,0.0019175693,0.00008706893,0.0000030577728,0.00013288308,0.98957753,0.000029875055,0.00010575476,0.00036163058,0.0077657374,0.000005403844],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0404987,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0707806,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0404987,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0077060135,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0067077447,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.080525935},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05773146,0.010465535,0.027055386,0.053330008,0.0005564682,0.00004404052,0.00007941171,0.00007491523,0.8506628],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9897467,0.0015002803,0.0020166964,0.0012464342,0.00022841335,0.000041426418,0.000021678614,0.000031082276,0.0051673735],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9827837,0.014446154,0.00019270522,0.0005466181,0.0015222424,0.000508563],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98855376,0.008239581,0.00091529597,0.0010071396,0.00092412217,0.00036013316],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007954673,0.0005074607,0.0005206453,0.0035226133,0.008305129,0.016557384,0.001103139,0.0031439732,0.004770781],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011147126,0.00020060247,0.0003857702,0.0044110594,0.08277475,0.011770802,0.006375147,0.0043427655,0.00036080065],"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":[0.000003826577,0.0000038555045,0.000055078362,0.000015460482,9.3656064e-7,0.000043314903,0.014803006,0.00004375633,0.000023299814,0.9832622,0.0005963256,0.0011488834],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013686361,0.000017518616,0.00043668546,0.00034625552,0.0000061855335,0.00024351424,0.070095725,0.00049376715,0.00022252488,0.80109274,0.12701514,0.000016301605],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0048505855,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003903453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.016557384,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008710223,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0042493925,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.063197374},"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":"methods","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":[0.07047251,0.0011071143,0.79872465,0.0068632048,0.00033902552,0.0003262762,0.0002672412,0.00030383616,0.12159612],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8342901,0.00036271088,0.15674545,0.00038163384,0.00012711166,0.0002759159,0.0002037002,0.00007149179,0.0075420244],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98160607,0.012726897,0.0010915191,0.001017961,0.00298216,0.0005754393],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97092575,0.020269202,0.0021782282,0.0028838457,0.003087507,0.0006556545],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015373646,0.0007897873,0.0007039097,0.0039176526,0.0025315667,0.0066736145,0.002141506,0.0052274205,0.007442537],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03908642,0.00064149254,0.0015255676,0.0027118733,0.010002454,0.013091081,0.0038387198,0.0032737884,0.00072361215],"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":[0.000009930457,0.000003956819,0.000046281984,0.000018799137,0.0000036505326,0.000027775588,0.0003440391,0.0011052892,0.00008484817,0.9968161,0.00018649097,0.001352936],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020594816,0.0000090414205,0.00005891593,0.00006805879,0.000007369406,0.0000413321,0.00017766892,0.015425209,0.0002909687,0.9759681,0.007923114,0.000009582322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011138184,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00086893054,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015373646,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0047311117,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001362374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08130461},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9871132,0.00024398406,0.0005177274,0.0006293706,0.00003153252,0.000036111378,0.0001277312,0.000009495195,0.011290942],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99664426,0.00010423217,0.00024356022,0.00003990359,0.000013752513,0.00001892699,0.0000775031,0.000008394564,0.0028495272],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.997129,0.0013650865,0.00013895638,0.00029930286,0.0006374672,0.0004301724],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930674,0.005133059,0.00067783747,0.00037080635,0.00042440122,0.00032648174],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031537903,0.00032630574,0.00041468654,0.004517026,0.0076609245,0.0039102426,0.00075451785,0.0008160959,0.0045905286],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007911591,0.00024174279,0.00016284025,0.004346008,0.0054735537,0.0021012533,0.003431557,0.0012611636,0.00020551575],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000053602176,0.00002762076,0.022894496,0.00017910657,0.000012640617,0.003315865,0.9366646,0.00013556766,0.0030984967,0.010954494,0.0017531466,0.020910325],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000003797266,0.000025592039,0.073900096,0.00018837313,0.000015617507,0.0003093079,0.8772949,0.00047957242,0.0014002929,0.0016741771,0.044677746,0.000030523606],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.036937613,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08514451,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9630624,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0052186307,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002162281,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07344526},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}