{"meta":{"query_hash":"8d19835913f4","filters":{"venue":"JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN"},"cohort_total":4,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":4,"exported":4,"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/8d19835913f4","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=JURNAL+HUKUM+DAN+PERADILAN"},"results":[{"id":"W2824491965","doi":"10.25216/jhp.1.1.2012.89-112","title":"ASPEK HUKUM CLASS ACTION DAN CITIZEN LAW SUIT SERTA PERKEMBANGANNYA DI INDONESIA","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN","topic":"Indonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"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":"Lawsuit; Class action; Law; Supreme court; Plaintiff; Political science; Jurisdiction; Action (physics); Assertion; Class (philosophy); State (computer science)","score_opus":0.03414312828693187,"score_gpt":0.3029877726609967,"score_spread":0.2688446443740648,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2824491965","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":[0.7815436,0.0023063417,0.00041549103,0.0031025393,0.00009219518,0.000049886774,0.00016028815,0.000013600384,0.21231598],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9748653,0.0012445069,0.00017988474,0.00031521774,0.000018527506,0.000024405235,0.00004385738,0.0000027318795,0.023305615],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9996439,0.00007548355,0.000023253418,0.000043255957,0.00013394633,0.00008009201],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99959785,0.00017069792,0.00009588425,0.000021913393,0.000046574354,0.00006709214],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005165455,0.00010225109,0.00014869634,0.00042642874,0.0025269468,0.0024479935,0.00021950503,0.00041500077,0.010107896],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00086326146,0.00009996234,0.00007411779,0.00049289083,0.0009871027,0.00071746757,0.00078825984,0.0009109913,0.00066004286],"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":[0.00022998582,0.0015710056,0.17745788,0.00091040175,0.000040324274,0.008019295,0.14628999,0.0004705288,0.00441948,0.30347785,0.035902902,0.32121035],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002134393,0.0002446703,0.40540886,0.0010084814,0.0000475527,0.0034812137,0.15066317,0.0007624208,0.0047958856,0.016758937,0.4167577,0.000049750706],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006303292,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016319845,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010107896,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0017695575,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022669132,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.03381431},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4416574082","doi":"10.25216/jhp.14.2.2025.401-424","title":"The Authority of Judges in The Application of Restorative Justice for Children in Indonesia","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN","topic":"Legal and Policy Analysis in Indonesia","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":"Institute on Governance","funders":"","keywords":"Restorative justice; Normative; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Law enforcement; Enforcement; Value (mathematics); Procedural justice","score_opus":0.019706144722887835,"score_gpt":0.3584676832629408,"score_spread":0.338761538540053,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4416574082","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":[0.91592276,0.001962075,0.0023511131,0.0038321104,0.00008372889,0.00017646217,0.00003452773,0.0000116570045,0.07562547],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.997584,0.00044646353,0.00071427727,0.00019718657,0.000017175978,0.000026771644,0.000005888251,0.0000038216904,0.0010043763],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97233844,0.015139791,0.0023133878,0.0017012598,0.0059954775,0.0025116927],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95984656,0.022426046,0.009475878,0.0009841671,0.0050075217,0.0022598593],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021853251,0.00016015135,0.000368626,0.0020932737,0.0063912394,0.0066837594,0.0009426281,0.0009961601,0.0015814888],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03622823,0.00040392374,0.00020550517,0.0014219425,0.007522085,0.0021347315,0.0028657836,0.0024400917,0.00016121773],"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":[0.00020961241,0.00022568967,0.31887284,0.000735639,0.00007848915,0.0047126357,0.45242473,0.0009956419,0.004254802,0.1230798,0.0029530758,0.091456935],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004182574,0.0002748459,0.3804724,0.001499313,0.0001416294,0.0021717623,0.50319153,0.0014117206,0.0039129024,0.025184317,0.08149908,0.00019864981],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013651904,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03306953,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021853251,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0058666677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011309632,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11557245},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4416574113","doi":"10.25216/jhp.14.2.2025.251-280","title":"Strengthening Courtroom Integrity in Indonesia","year":2025,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN","topic":"Indonesian Legal and Regulatory 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":"Best practice; Order (exchange); Supreme court; State (computer science); Face (sociological concept); Scope (computer science); Punitive damages; Strengths and weaknesses","score_opus":0.01658249002391061,"score_gpt":0.2973785621520803,"score_spread":0.2807960721281697,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4416574113","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":[0.7640608,0.0025973106,0.0031663487,0.0088017685,0.00014328268,0.00015598316,0.00014781476,0.000096559605,0.2208302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9899277,0.00080200465,0.0010726,0.0005656773,0.000019731295,0.00002281896,0.000032259348,0.000012222556,0.0075449073],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99792,0.00064713915,0.00019683994,0.00019538357,0.000707894,0.00033266057],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970034,0.00066334056,0.0010106708,0.0002509173,0.000525794,0.0005458843],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021551105,0.00014057284,0.00022526852,0.000862641,0.0053608166,0.0050247675,0.0009799625,0.00075003697,0.005664725],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003602345,0.0002354499,0.00013681086,0.0011472005,0.0028000507,0.0018318205,0.0025190364,0.001555604,0.00079710776],"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":[0.00017696003,0.0011129306,0.18230593,0.001088134,0.00005183588,0.008533018,0.1221128,0.0018687639,0.0075012,0.14197986,0.033404242,0.4998643],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040245824,0.00030742917,0.43142697,0.001851399,0.00007511578,0.0040250816,0.18186283,0.00347626,0.0059701744,0.022343539,0.34846532,0.00015565197],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012729586,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.024974134,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012729586,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004358968,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008639165,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.03162664},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4417156542","doi":"10.25216/jhp.14.3.2025.495-530","title":"Comparative Analysis of Judicial Statistics Reform","year":2025,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Transparency (behavior); Accountability; Raw data; Context (archaeology); Restructuring; Relevance (law); Foundation (evidence); Judicial reform","score_opus":0.056653028510641384,"score_gpt":0.40618761037732926,"score_spread":0.34953458186668784,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4417156542","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":[0.32382157,0.0112915365,0.0029340137,0.016511885,0.0004129435,0.00035501283,0.0006634201,0.00005597477,0.64395374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9865718,0.0023629759,0.0006878876,0.0016480295,0.00009430249,0.000106563,0.00019002543,0.000020950585,0.008317382],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9830238,0.008087891,0.00079221016,0.0011383014,0.003985533,0.0029724108],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97319204,0.013482289,0.0034700325,0.0017175949,0.0067322818,0.001405719],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0129359765,0.00022227898,0.0008792505,0.0039499216,0.0059498,0.0072567943,0.0017576923,0.002054376,0.014898895],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04014575,0.00027275155,0.0005884511,0.007269031,0.0057816003,0.0045999773,0.0039599016,0.0033552165,0.000770149],"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":[0.00019528008,0.0002056378,0.011289121,0.00076039747,0.00009118467,0.00087339693,0.017533708,0.0015884405,0.00031744008,0.9118565,0.013252035,0.042036753],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024715153,0.0004900307,0.18857308,0.0030844912,0.00055455987,0.00064489164,0.07472575,0.006181005,0.0028523752,0.09747453,0.6249787,0.00019344424],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02603414,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04036447,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02603414,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020632217,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01944611,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1496979},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}