{"meta":{"query_hash":"755576d66a22","filters":{"venue":"Journal for Juridical Science"},"cohort_total":14,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":14,"exported":14,"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/755576d66a22","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Journal+for+Juridical+Science"},"results":[{"id":"W146917027","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v29i3.2898","title":"Exploring fairness in health care reform","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Human Rights and Development","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 Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Scrutiny; Deference; Accountability; Affirmative action; Health care; Health equity; Political science; Economic Justice; Public economics; Health policy; Law; Economics","score_opus":0.13537996061567764,"score_gpt":0.3948435848409313,"score_spread":0.25946362422525365,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W146917027","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":[0.049807698,0.027244153,0.08518721,0.45632675,0.0022634426,0.00024846173,0.00007902655,0.00004194763,0.37880135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9538796,0.0049293446,0.012533571,0.019030562,0.001846332,0.00029050384,0.000024396206,0.000025988631,0.0074396646],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9359811,0.048842,0.0010532422,0.0026823233,0.006327697,0.005113559],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95420957,0.037098795,0.0022807436,0.0022515121,0.0028919517,0.0012674386],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.065652914,0.0005598811,0.001221524,0.0028770182,0.012118742,0.01239877,0.0021683644,0.0095775835,0.0044724373],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06177161,0.00039070332,0.0011436723,0.0024874664,0.054638747,0.01594309,0.014105084,0.009197874,0.00028484638],"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":[0.0000053779772,0.000007064796,0.00009629546,0.000016135202,0.0000030967117,0.000014248705,0.00084681803,0.00029236265,0.000011277933,0.99589765,0.00042406062,0.0023855858],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009316259,0.000011190785,0.0001027935,0.000065779175,0.0000035081237,0.0000074633135,0.0006063339,0.00031723196,0.000028525428,0.99091154,0.007931311,0.0000049737255],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008200361,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00530809,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.065652914,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0158004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018396785,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34720993},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1595545527","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v31i1.2922","title":"An international perspective of restorative justice practices and research outcomes","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Theology; Art; Philosophy","score_opus":0.1251056966468923,"score_gpt":0.5630817214649989,"score_spread":0.4379760248181066,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1595545527","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":[0.07272978,0.12762173,0.018775884,0.23525588,0.004595771,0.00047575438,0.001328699,0.00016413699,0.53905237],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8293077,0.104827784,0.019267228,0.017910011,0.002862888,0.0022051823,0.0009029963,0.00028795577,0.022428267],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.95289195,0.034744512,0.0031581572,0.0029599553,0.0038831718,0.0023622871],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9384656,0.03616556,0.009238093,0.0033768392,0.009021959,0.0037319541],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.058376685,0.00085724046,0.0008833921,0.010091963,0.004376536,0.017473508,0.0016099112,0.0026720348,0.008274622],"category_scores_gemma":[0.050275143,0.00031720652,0.00072658097,0.017629815,0.022311116,0.015452573,0.009101218,0.005541381,0.0012172497],"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":[0.00008298968,0.00025991828,0.012113219,0.0021247717,0.00006945331,0.00031984373,0.08449933,0.00037661256,0.0004175899,0.78664833,0.01735374,0.095734075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041516298,0.0005853718,0.03907879,0.012924491,0.00011019588,0.0009701992,0.32375532,0.0003553576,0.0008182736,0.20995162,0.41128182,0.00012696223],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0041372674,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029309415,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.058376685,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008028405,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010573806,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3087291},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1907220870","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v32i2.2940","title":"The role of public policy in the nonenforcement of foreign judgments arising from gambling debts in South African courts: A comparative overview","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"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":"Comity; Enforcement; Debt; Political science; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Foreign policy; Jurisdiction; Public administration; Economics; Finance","score_opus":0.1112529788754521,"score_gpt":0.4212934574958366,"score_spread":0.3100404786203845,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1907220870","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":[0.4178128,0.17910312,0.0024899512,0.036385443,0.00028464771,0.0001428326,0.000108271124,0.000013506652,0.36365932],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9393153,0.05592136,0.00036512912,0.0009860555,0.00012376797,0.000038378916,0.000018419989,0.0000062479357,0.0032253999],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99653035,0.00172441,0.00016911568,0.00011578675,0.0004936615,0.0009665774],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99066657,0.006794911,0.0012733681,0.00019507276,0.00082275685,0.0002473903],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004987648,0.00021568213,0.00033945564,0.0064297686,0.004722778,0.00906915,0.0005292073,0.0018964137,0.003541354],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011747015,0.00036445976,0.0002995538,0.0071822354,0.008944399,0.004885021,0.0028039091,0.0024865095,0.00021105786],"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":[0.00008400794,0.00009087392,0.013285491,0.0017633018,0.00005212014,0.0017320171,0.05239255,0.00085074664,0.00045614532,0.86299694,0.0022758422,0.06401998],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006291047,0.00041194094,0.16233294,0.014549934,0.00031455533,0.0040170443,0.230916,0.0022244104,0.0030586694,0.15895404,0.42302933,0.00012819654],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.018152103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.028665883,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.018152103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00982202,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010082826,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07126415},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1933453569","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v36i2.3018","title":"Pecuniary interests and the rule against adjudicative bias: The automatic disqualification or objective reasonable approach?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Commonwealth; Constitution; Theology; Political science; Law; Philosophy; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.09870584771046623,"score_gpt":0.3610285210144931,"score_spread":0.2623226733040269,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1933453569","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":[0.09185032,0.01125248,0.29899114,0.18790852,0.0019335648,0.00057205086,0.00023258281,0.00017430358,0.40708515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93430907,0.0012973252,0.039112777,0.017174955,0.00085093686,0.00031791214,0.00005037518,0.000049992832,0.006836623],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.93982065,0.024328295,0.004366163,0.005452076,0.021793334,0.0042394856],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9572,0.027482843,0.0045539658,0.0047790846,0.0050717425,0.0009123009],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04386534,0.0004739659,0.0010966454,0.0025338093,0.0044747777,0.010775846,0.0046847207,0.010101548,0.0029981565],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08204658,0.0005637737,0.001216589,0.0015860143,0.03582482,0.014092318,0.005115452,0.012001751,0.0006144102],"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":[0.000007087684,0.00000769148,0.00027878303,0.000029187653,0.000007882294,0.000035560774,0.0006637756,0.000096460506,0.000082879116,0.9937304,0.000538055,0.004522197],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004764281,0.00004725051,0.00092684873,0.00034305724,0.000028375825,0.00015765121,0.00095140026,0.0010643037,0.0005380956,0.97481346,0.021029515,0.000052332227],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009354524,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.018642278,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04386534,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006995089,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012349127,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23198485},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1934157515","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v33i1.2951","title":"Gronde vir die weiering van toegang tot inligting soos van toepassing op openbare instellings (deel II)","year":2008,"lang":"af","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"","keywords":"Theology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.053831095083939316,"score_gpt":0.354117746080132,"score_spread":0.3002866509961927,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1934157515","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013686638,0.02012195,0.01832695,0.020415327,0.00636843,0.00023044707,0.0016849878,0.00032102544,0.9188443],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.20076877,0.017328667,0.0145850545,0.0052183643,0.0016204156,0.00046136233,0.0011834665,0.0011280171,0.75770587],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9956974,0.0010697334,0.00030856012,0.00055121875,0.0017265175,0.00064651726],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99873465,0.00062494766,0.00012734039,0.00016283093,0.00024815003,0.00010203479],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021913094,0.0009930937,0.0006842812,0.0014231299,0.003982703,0.013039788,0.0012739246,0.0042590476,0.09508735],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008029477,0.000729503,0.0005802518,0.0018323271,0.004331868,0.004856931,0.0051995153,0.0053853313,0.025015326],"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":[0.00005351865,0.00004178528,0.00025863756,0.00037523513,0.000014836669,0.0004945516,0.008867842,0.00040249404,0.0014347633,0.7911356,0.13162792,0.06529278],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000069369603,0.0000068076674,0.00014990746,0.00021545743,0.000004001178,0.00011855433,0.0008105567,0.00007273773,0.00046592604,0.014301555,0.9838357,0.000011936941],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01999831,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0209766,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09508735,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040964107,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005165381,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3180989},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1969839827","doi":"10.4314/jjs.v28i1.27135","title":"Groepsgedingvoering - die voorstel van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie vir die sertifisering van 'n groepsgeding","year":2004,"lang":"af","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"","keywords":"Die (integrated circuit); Theology; Philosophy; Engineering","score_opus":0.04650540702735572,"score_gpt":0.35488767523740283,"score_spread":0.3083822682100471,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1969839827","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":[0.012816998,0.0041824663,0.0017213002,0.023129603,0.0014448967,0.00015694147,0.0017011248,0.00013637547,0.9547103],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.062402997,0.0016552695,0.0014701234,0.008044504,0.00028632695,0.0001221233,0.0008232046,0.00012289065,0.92507255],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99735117,0.00035331218,0.00015500517,0.00038990917,0.00095502706,0.00079552655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992107,0.00023254329,0.000074974705,0.00008627981,0.0002682767,0.0001272856],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014051053,0.0004255478,0.0002483776,0.0004896641,0.0043376344,0.00455763,0.000698079,0.003119771,0.092906736],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0034094136,0.00036878526,0.00040569887,0.0008204084,0.0023436097,0.0025899038,0.0024056414,0.0036374056,0.02365719],"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":[0.000079432204,0.00008269888,0.0024321047,0.0002270544,0.0000143054,0.00029442305,0.009275832,0.00015316975,0.002421051,0.48214388,0.44266367,0.06021235],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000005085031,0.00001548852,0.003474032,0.00005307058,0.0000031724285,0.00004104819,0.001044435,0.000013093765,0.00042452133,0.0029316244,0.9919829,0.000011546747],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16286561,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3204503,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16286561,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038682004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010613519,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32383525},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2278178224","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v29i2.2894","title":"Die Class Proceedings Act van Ontario — ’n voorbeeld van wetgewing vir die regulering van Suid-Afrikaanse groepsgedingvoering","year":2004,"lang":"af","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Promulgation; Legislation; Commission; Law; Statutory law; Class (philosophy); Theology; Political science; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03768844067980392,"score_gpt":0.27359243293170205,"score_spread":0.23590399225189812,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2278178224","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02228851,0.015059761,0.0032835933,0.05996781,0.00215089,0.00039420425,0.0028087802,0.00015615983,0.8938903],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1426195,0.0060971174,0.0038013794,0.011979145,0.0003200475,0.0003162274,0.00092832965,0.00014289697,0.8337954],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99308586,0.0005095863,0.00024497483,0.00038616455,0.0042831684,0.001490243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99738437,0.0006193853,0.00027171764,0.00020900775,0.0010231932,0.0004923715],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027560033,0.00045393477,0.00030245623,0.0008727171,0.010286883,0.007499439,0.0011047749,0.004505,0.02005898],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0065567903,0.00075894373,0.0003344281,0.0017878269,0.005518376,0.0017084309,0.0023018902,0.004533884,0.00326826],"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":[0.00008355619,0.00003247294,0.0018398076,0.00020645368,0.000017536959,0.00065111835,0.009259807,0.00034183788,0.0017784407,0.5940882,0.34316772,0.04853301],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000066325247,0.0000031238444,0.0016083793,0.000048336075,0.00000277605,0.000020416193,0.00034136281,0.000022676517,0.00016684816,0.001852208,0.99591225,0.000014947637],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94350666,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96930254,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.056493342,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04324253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09912533,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.313748},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2527759247","doi":"10.18820/24150517/jjs41.v1.5","title":"Die strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid van regspersone: Lesse uit Kanada","year":2016,"lang":"nl","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Regulation and Compliance 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":"Political science","score_opus":0.03340037909171334,"score_gpt":0.2839854300215252,"score_spread":0.25058505092981187,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2527759247","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":[0.09520117,0.059258778,0.012901273,0.05840019,0.002800248,0.00009135873,0.00075035315,0.00027301355,0.77032363],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6799594,0.021123441,0.0047689923,0.0031042858,0.00026623867,0.000059356666,0.00027793008,0.0003557873,0.29008466],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99575776,0.0008687293,0.00016367584,0.00045538027,0.0020110176,0.00074333185],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869007,0.00043865107,0.00013376621,0.00010426549,0.00045757138,0.00017565572],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016721602,0.00045644707,0.0005860947,0.0009553855,0.006282497,0.008970753,0.0012883905,0.002392044,0.028565183],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0040734173,0.00057134015,0.00031142295,0.0011845925,0.004683974,0.0031448982,0.0031398868,0.0042004087,0.0034805422],"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":[0.00009441977,0.00010367273,0.0023343768,0.0005808751,0.000038826845,0.0011779784,0.03920981,0.001357301,0.0017929825,0.73822427,0.056277826,0.1588076],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008711496,0.000012248072,0.0012916375,0.0004402155,0.000014600217,0.00026854998,0.0065448927,0.0002626607,0.0006892377,0.01958227,0.97085,0.000035044046],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4288479,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5037071,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5711521,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012997042,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020568619,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.85270345},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2795423455","doi":"10.18820/24150517/jjs42.v2.5","title":"Can law avoid creating culture and religion in its own image? The context for diversity, religion and culture in MEC for Education: KwaZulu-Natal and Others v Navaneethum Pillay: Reflections a decade later","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Constitution; Diversity (politics); Context (archaeology); Sociology; Conscience; Law; Ambivalence; Political science; Epistemology; Social psychology; Psychology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.02303375758220615,"score_gpt":0.3737030121332806,"score_spread":0.35066925455107445,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2795423455","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":[0.1331827,0.02113343,0.0015466487,0.56387913,0.0025851002,0.00013351605,0.00005039494,0.000019916983,0.27746916],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89190775,0.003278475,0.0006154227,0.058795884,0.00041085988,0.00012673928,0.000014029394,0.000022887127,0.044827946],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962314,0.0014959059,0.00014274736,0.00034957618,0.00055358134,0.0012268206],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99828374,0.0011490042,0.00015386096,0.000114934934,0.00014553031,0.00015288989],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044734757,0.0002923746,0.00034563112,0.00048302696,0.012044811,0.00712042,0.0012559216,0.008834744,0.0035946816],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006377319,0.00035935803,0.00041449073,0.0004998551,0.023309726,0.0078014294,0.005541016,0.010899778,0.00033193367],"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":[0.000021569049,0.000022507842,0.00066659256,0.00010072655,0.000007479471,0.00057402306,0.04586378,0.00006156921,0.0008453294,0.93069386,0.012097555,0.009045053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004360069,0.00008034106,0.008346942,0.00079776003,0.000028938315,0.00047797814,0.068443544,0.00014610928,0.0015677009,0.12440399,0.7955425,0.00012057183],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07795373,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1372928,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07795373,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01222892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0084401425,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15499997},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7147116020","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v30i2.2915","title":"Revisiting the judicial role in the allocation of healthcare resources: on deference, democratic dialogue and deliberation","year":2005,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Adjudication; Deliberation; Argument (complex analysis); Health care; Deliberative democracy; Judicial review; Function (biology); Value (mathematics)","score_opus":0.028953187304734385,"score_gpt":0.34485750977645174,"score_spread":0.31590432247171735,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7147116020","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16394697,0.019974785,0.07835232,0.42628688,0.0011969627,0.00017948517,0.000038704293,0.000042732918,0.30998114],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98602146,0.0017072246,0.0030385978,0.00649648,0.00023391498,0.00006088493,0.000004978217,0.000015114694,0.0024213966],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.877747,0.09737467,0.0025103923,0.003985828,0.009554768,0.008827232],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8647261,0.11977263,0.004627556,0.0039897165,0.0049476842,0.0019362516],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09530855,0.00050954224,0.0010537499,0.0030667942,0.01585913,0.023130063,0.003573603,0.0117236925,0.0021509174],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08797858,0.0006017421,0.00077256805,0.002165358,0.13220438,0.021613754,0.017522097,0.013579014,0.00031073668],"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":[0.000013579461,0.000009489036,0.00022644288,0.00005740583,0.000004528971,0.00010962036,0.025980895,0.00027160294,0.00008606195,0.9686779,0.00056850666,0.003994081],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031652216,0.00003182693,0.00046334747,0.0005133021,0.000014247476,0.00011313775,0.027504908,0.0007261386,0.00040932503,0.9184213,0.051738877,0.000031932457],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009790373,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011328977,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09530855,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013681272,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025779044,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50404584},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7147147736","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v31i1.2918","title":"Polygyny and HIV/AIDS: A health and human rights approach","year":2006,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Marriage and Sexual 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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Polygyny; Dignity; Human rights; Redress; Human sexuality; Population; Domestic violence; Reproductive health; Condom","score_opus":0.039657513158494834,"score_gpt":0.3619056714644127,"score_spread":0.3222481583059179,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7147147736","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06638268,0.040909115,0.063502796,0.35445434,0.0021393974,0.0002344027,0.0001517973,0.000037031255,0.47218844],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94341165,0.013531872,0.009868644,0.013410595,0.0021739393,0.00021830961,0.0000413447,0.000015636137,0.017328007],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99381304,0.004734172,0.000117550684,0.0003538394,0.0005558084,0.00042569838],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99385285,0.0043675774,0.000470296,0.0003508199,0.00041151993,0.0005469663],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00895509,0.0003920143,0.0004276441,0.0025228397,0.0044129994,0.005156729,0.001352233,0.0037871087,0.004743065],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007224629,0.00022545911,0.00036243818,0.0010873631,0.043756004,0.0060425056,0.0051233913,0.004693801,0.0002569018],"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":[0.0000028455127,0.000018363333,0.0008817502,0.000026416405,0.0000038748562,0.00008259367,0.0028426745,0.000086270884,0.00003069074,0.99087197,0.00065241306,0.0045001903],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008488425,0.000053134936,0.0022052783,0.00031950817,0.000011877917,0.00025197607,0.007375835,0.0004976735,0.000080419275,0.9255797,0.06360368,0.000012295749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006699626,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0069020404,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.00895509,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040957783,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007604524,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.047359586},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7147256335","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v32i2.2944","title":"Gronde vir die weiering van toegang tot inligting soos van toepassing op openbare instellings (deel I)","year":2007,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Legislation; Appeal; Freedom of information; Promotion (chess); Interpretation (philosophy); Statutory law","score_opus":0.03694009050939181,"score_gpt":0.37725761096028226,"score_spread":0.3403175204508905,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7147256335","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":[0.020516705,0.024806838,0.025274655,0.025198163,0.0058891214,0.0002501174,0.0015032525,0.0003747929,0.8961864],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31723684,0.02423733,0.018827032,0.0050552157,0.0016981965,0.00041863348,0.0012270767,0.0010260768,0.63027346],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99523264,0.0014192486,0.00036088633,0.00051736546,0.0019097604,0.00056002225],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99826753,0.0009474269,0.00017406256,0.00016901127,0.0003041341,0.00013772555],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002395616,0.0008026478,0.0006164341,0.001523953,0.004165965,0.01247141,0.0012202872,0.00399798,0.075064175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009983777,0.00072017784,0.0004736933,0.0020040218,0.004442448,0.0052469615,0.00582513,0.0046962923,0.01927442],"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":[0.00005687133,0.00004686494,0.00040872724,0.00052869105,0.000017199347,0.0006531695,0.011429793,0.00049266615,0.0015656675,0.7882818,0.10928839,0.08723014],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007812368,0.000010386311,0.00021943044,0.00028733767,0.0000054939937,0.00017937217,0.001393236,0.000118273754,0.0006577767,0.022685891,0.9744173,0.000017737146],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016219944,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.020156348,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.075064175,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0035159911,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005393375,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.25111473},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7147615037","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v42i1.3807","title":"Religion and the exercise of public authority","year":2017,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Religion and Society Interactions","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":"Variety (cybernetics); Politics; State (computer science); Neutrality; Ethnography; Public authority","score_opus":0.05397175854745563,"score_gpt":0.40553120756813466,"score_spread":0.35155944902067904,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7147615037","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":[0.09575208,0.0040055565,0.0020723534,0.038406353,0.00021778485,0.000024625511,0.00003905725,0.000026989661,0.85945517],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.988846,0.0005041933,0.00017232049,0.00055675383,0.000065631735,0.0000058274754,0.000006768505,0.0000062424065,0.0098362025],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99511,0.0018806603,0.00010212703,0.00025473716,0.0011580662,0.0014944728],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951161,0.0027238394,0.00055874366,0.0003801566,0.00069657597,0.0005245381],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006132765,0.00015245039,0.00032548115,0.0014688133,0.010763974,0.009706217,0.0012131319,0.0031515004,0.005078288],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00949509,0.00021701035,0.0003046592,0.0016037525,0.0366476,0.0032450533,0.0033708757,0.003037997,0.00030259523],"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":[0.000007225444,0.0000104161545,0.0005715492,0.000009499605,0.000002938342,0.00004993698,0.0078510605,0.00019843689,0.00006145031,0.9866491,0.0014694879,0.0031187064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028863129,0.000021384043,0.008167794,0.0001457387,0.000013521287,0.000056290308,0.012014424,0.00059647224,0.00017626196,0.8619736,0.1167762,0.000029476956],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.23477867,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.27975705,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.23477867,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017130163,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020275082,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46682423},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7147707594","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v28i1.2858","title":"Groepsgedingvoering — die voorstel van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regskommissie vir die sertifisering van ’n groepsgeding","year":2003,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Journal for Juridical Science","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","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":"Promulgation; Commission; Legislation; Certification; Class (philosophy); Class action","score_opus":0.03937184074087862,"score_gpt":0.2945533595771468,"score_spread":0.25518151883626816,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7147707594","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":[0.049945537,0.029346505,0.01383605,0.08796289,0.0056584235,0.0001390667,0.00047667316,0.00021071445,0.81242406],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45176387,0.016235018,0.008405498,0.008989504,0.0009274282,0.000109145156,0.00045061103,0.0003886361,0.51273024],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971693,0.0006914917,0.00015773707,0.00029170065,0.0010642579,0.0006255554],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989203,0.0004945202,0.00012461722,0.00012120154,0.00018443156,0.0001549912],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021625124,0.000371189,0.00026271405,0.00068703154,0.0045622787,0.0062680906,0.00090796704,0.0029113144,0.035341382],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0061673606,0.00035552232,0.00022848032,0.0008178646,0.0029488995,0.003753145,0.0037090338,0.003978697,0.005131077],"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":[0.000053391603,0.000047063764,0.0013381972,0.00018155872,0.000012315664,0.0006181447,0.012624662,0.00058988674,0.00095266785,0.70231235,0.14972006,0.13154985],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000035760002,0.000008464993,0.00074453955,0.00011258943,0.0000026525786,0.00013040726,0.002023838,0.000076943,0.0004189509,0.012006648,0.9844588,0.000012678384],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06678871,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08378776,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06678871,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003981708,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008878087,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13279992},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}