{"meta":{"query_hash":"f2fc3eb4b315","filters":{"venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies"},"cohort_total":38,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":38,"exported":38,"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/f2fc3eb4b315","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Journal+of+Empirical+Legal+Studies"},"results":[{"id":"W1536165996","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01210.x","title":"Do Joint Parenting Laws Make Any Difference?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Family Dynamics and Relationships","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":24,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Entitlement (fair division); Presumption; Child custody; Discretion; Mediation; Law; Family law; Conciliation; Political science; Psychology; Criminology; Economics","score_opus":0.2996618889400789,"score_gpt":0.40561464637138017,"score_spread":0.10595275743130128,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1536165996","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":[0.94078785,0.0033732,0.00018278333,0.0035387385,0.0013129828,0.000074224496,0.0000019228944,0.000018178534,0.050710138],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99590313,0.0010468718,0.001130389,0.00019254221,0.00043171388,0.0000014409845,1.2639333e-7,0.0000064407946,0.0012873329],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984683,0.00019286161,0.0004953245,0.00010784232,0.00046266345,0.0002730167],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99886346,0.00020419962,0.00033746535,0.00007486112,0.00038051207,0.00013947568],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010397651,0.00010290898,0.00031601204,0.000089480156,0.0006191385,0.0000694455,0.00019230518,0.00008128895,0.000034961253],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009838585,0.00006835405,0.00018963178,0.0002271364,0.00033128457,0.0001334173,0.00007997175,0.0003667765,0.000011493528],"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":[0.00005688048,0.00040006323,0.8209054,0.000029226594,0.0005415284,0.00016815242,0.07927062,0.000009202167,0.000096759875,0.08294398,0.007518388,0.008059785],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00037650444,0.00023597825,0.884438,0.00016548739,0.00010772736,0.000016027563,0.0367179,0.00003215178,0.0000086301225,0.026860368,0.050811276,0.0002299942],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001768974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005683795,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06353255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010687312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012063502,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4761975},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1574187393","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01241.x","title":"Property Rights, Resource Access, and Long‐Run Growth","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Natural Resources and Economic Development","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":15,"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","funders":"","keywords":"Property rights; Supreme court; Economics; Stock (firearms); Resource (disambiguation); Per capita; Supreme Court Decisions; Proxy (statistics); Microeconomics; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.1521234812437365,"score_gpt":0.3030523322902792,"score_spread":0.15092885104654272,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1574187393","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":[0.83657694,0.037220545,0.00013660581,0.006949853,0.00086725206,0.00020117787,0.000011818061,0.000023413078,0.11801242],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9927898,0.0019057115,0.0009249491,0.000992806,0.0002681341,0.000003397683,4.5500295e-7,0.000014564629,0.0031001735],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99849236,0.000017255386,0.0009231577,0.00023992697,0.000058904192,0.00026839232],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99896437,0.00006876457,0.0006086248,0.000108948625,0.00009779022,0.00015148644],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006027207,0.00017250379,0.0006370486,0.0001771997,0.00017284512,0.000099173725,0.00032460497,0.00007399146,0.00015153816],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00025199552,0.00010630848,0.00013936646,0.00014046226,0.00014538443,0.00053170254,0.00025215815,0.00028894626,0.0000510607],"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":[0.00032316122,0.00024810073,0.852228,0.00009912382,0.0010250843,0.00018563944,0.0039444314,0.0000025511292,0.0000019386744,0.021808809,0.11669047,0.0034427098],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006790121,0.0002746093,0.23390493,0.0000532606,0.000022176619,0.00010090114,0.00013262314,0.00001755549,0.00007510679,0.03725575,0.7271992,0.00028490135],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001291735,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000033205168,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.618323,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012330174,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000019035913,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4335134},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1932150760","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01272.x","title":"Race and Selective Enforcement in Public Housing","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Crime Patterns and Interventions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":40,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Trespass; Enforcement; Law enforcement; Race (biology); Criminology; Public housing; Business; Nexus (standard); Law; Political science; Engineering; Sociology","score_opus":0.2193499402849032,"score_gpt":0.4822578547904881,"score_spread":0.2629079145055849,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1932150760","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":[0.9681663,0.006761496,0.00013885387,0.009988593,0.0004015229,0.000060570204,5.844715e-7,0.0000050166423,0.014477071],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9983361,0.0006397922,0.00012186467,0.00019875693,0.00038039082,0.0000014242125,4.3725137e-8,0.00000282438,0.00031879882],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99909943,0.00013109186,0.00026575112,0.000049008297,0.00022325548,0.00023144545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994351,0.00013612834,0.00013358798,0.000024910589,0.00017003268,0.000100235484],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010010469,0.00005418883,0.00018338335,0.000096976444,0.00022137102,0.000056602832,0.00006144149,0.000026660997,0.000084220585],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005539772,0.000040479823,0.00007146473,0.00017941525,0.000129799,0.00056157314,0.00005110048,0.00016143783,0.0000026048895],"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":[0.00002202426,0.00028556903,0.918257,0.000012108431,0.00016432162,0.000008199361,0.042233776,0.0000028194777,0.000035139332,0.008402497,0.024265595,0.006310977],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005454608,0.00029912984,0.23655587,0.00011451337,0.00004789052,0.0000131933,0.047359984,0.000006139849,0.00008523385,0.00084906735,0.7139726,0.00015090183],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00031056063,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008835413,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.68970704,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020289705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004462484,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17026293},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1941399481","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01212.x","title":"Incorporation Law, Ownership Structure, and Firm Value: Evidence from Canada","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Corporate Finance and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":16,"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; HEC Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Expropriation; Endogeneity; Corporate governance; Shareholder; Voting; Business; Value (mathematics); Enterprise value; Context (archaeology); Accounting; Economics; Law; Market economy; Finance; Econometrics; Political science; Politics","score_opus":0.11444881419225482,"score_gpt":0.2854516471605041,"score_spread":0.17100283296824925,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1941399481","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":[0.9922075,0.0036914798,0.000054038275,0.0027691266,0.0006169135,0.00005099086,0.0000063919424,0.0000070470787,0.00059646065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951282,0.00016763048,0.00030410607,0.0032942903,0.0010470139,8.057919e-7,7.7998914e-7,0.000007907898,0.000049258088],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989817,0.000013408571,0.00037028556,0.00014134063,0.00034877757,0.00014448407],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987238,0.00010781638,0.0007153043,0.00009075144,0.00034428068,0.000018062403],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00018027636,0.0001380001,0.00029448105,0.00003808016,0.00014135646,0.00007285576,0.00015715318,0.00003728257,0.000028805101],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003661427,0.00009497493,0.000044617205,0.00019521207,0.00008994955,0.0015044918,0.00009317308,0.00018832371,0.0000030504257],"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":[0.0002652048,0.00003514606,0.9357089,0.000075968186,0.00014955607,0.00024467317,0.00026775367,0.00003250519,0.00014896622,0.0047149165,0.056899715,0.0014567224],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00034390928,0.000049629853,0.9381953,0.00022706858,0.000110012166,0.000008280841,0.00018547321,0.00004800082,0.00017619481,0.014147928,0.046328977,0.00017923697],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.31991494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.34198174,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.022066802,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007870613,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010792855,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6846138},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1972118969","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01145.x","title":"Universal Health Insurance and the Effect of Cost Containment on Mortality Rates: Strokes and Heart Attacks in Japan","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Global Health Care Issues","field":"Health Professions","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":"Incentive; Subsidy; Quarter (Canadian coin); Business; Medicine; Medical emergency; Actuarial science; Economics; Geography","score_opus":0.0899652005005557,"score_gpt":0.5237263794844247,"score_spread":0.433761178983869,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1972118969","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":[0.9583034,0.010429829,0.0000021233614,0.02990314,0.00024930303,0.00075625785,0.000014620205,0.000005935868,0.00033537782],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9935179,0.0023164789,0.00003286246,0.003978645,0.00011400436,0.0000059268855,3.3167564e-7,0.000005062168,0.000028797605],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964588,0.0017161883,0.0009257987,0.0001524882,0.0003851447,0.00036155037],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99623305,0.002721558,0.000571082,0.000117861026,0.00018755996,0.00016887183],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028799833,0.00016799942,0.0010466707,0.00007852933,0.00033183137,0.000006928416,0.00009424553,0.00007489579,0.0000031739178],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00086934835,0.00009127253,0.00007289091,0.00015663674,0.00031364267,0.00011313117,0.0000610856,0.00075741264,0.0000019128267],"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":[0.002165846,0.00006233834,0.9829359,0.00025012824,0.00007613832,0.000013896193,0.004384408,0.000016486669,0.0000075998432,0.00043758363,0.0087533,0.0008963547],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0047612316,0.003979399,0.979987,0.0008575923,0.00001938636,0.000007447261,0.005341822,0.000010163831,0.000016690388,0.00013836815,0.0048151272,0.00006577657],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0006690691,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005452646,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.035214476,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038623533,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015509415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37219855},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1974865494","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00081.x","title":"Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award? Post‐Verdict Haircuts in Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988–2003","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Kellogg's (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Verdict; Jury; Plaintiff; Medical malpractice; Damages; Psychology; Law; Medicine; Actuarial science; Malpractice; Business; Political science","score_opus":0.13477822103301826,"score_gpt":0.52219806871887,"score_spread":0.3874198476858517,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1974865494","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":[0.6939046,0.022795822,0.00015648636,0.2712681,0.0070918053,0.0005705601,0.000010208365,0.00005282428,0.004149624],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9628488,0.011522281,0.00090024935,0.020275118,0.0029275652,0.000011505092,0.0000031207246,0.00004419384,0.0014671629],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9911296,0.0019289025,0.0028438508,0.0004323545,0.0024324658,0.001232859],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9772378,0.017852942,0.001356424,0.00038578463,0.002141978,0.0010250583],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013330248,0.00040790794,0.0014074824,0.00038841637,0.00060720625,0.00008643137,0.0005185512,0.000582136,0.0012992119],"category_scores_gemma":[0.109868884,0.0002449594,0.00025318688,0.0010158389,0.00056288677,0.002260538,0.00039791391,0.0046468126,0.0003467458],"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":[0.0035730386,0.0018985396,0.67866576,0.00089879776,0.0008859811,0.019011091,0.018444093,0.0000032515456,0.000023322513,0.0017241966,0.24828522,0.026586711],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0017545213,0.00090513757,0.13218132,0.0017931405,0.00018059301,0.00062452105,0.060779218,0.000004356371,0.000023225606,0.00037685066,0.80108285,0.00029424287],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00056578836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0021865463,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5527977,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00061722676,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019327288,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99961376},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2002433399","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01162.x","title":"Capital Flows and Hedge Fund Regulation","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Corporate Finance and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":37,"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":"Business; Hedge fund; Finance; Capitalization; Open-end fund; Investment fund; Robustness (evolution); Cost of capital; Economics; Microeconomics; Institutional investor; Profit (economics); Market liquidity","score_opus":0.07175906070194905,"score_gpt":0.31300027080744014,"score_spread":0.2412412101054911,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2002433399","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":[0.98349667,0.0031722984,0.00011735922,0.0108199455,0.00031650526,0.00004295993,6.2681755e-7,0.000010362909,0.00202328],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99561214,0.00020069239,0.00012275213,0.002112116,0.001660649,3.8665286e-7,3.3943877e-7,0.0000045377546,0.00028635375],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99925494,0.0000048692295,0.00029893176,0.00009710621,0.00021347021,0.00013068452],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992611,0.000030115134,0.00037834374,0.000057635447,0.0002621263,0.000010720765],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00019945185,0.000103307015,0.00024955906,0.000072895185,0.00011641359,0.00009717177,0.000074732314,0.000030542895,0.000011867647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014579525,0.00007464697,0.00006970788,0.00019636632,0.000038476075,0.0011673161,0.000036120287,0.00012340207,0.000016974476],"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":[0.0008006998,0.0004953225,0.46561074,0.00021880977,0.00031785644,0.00048874214,0.00084130606,0.00044193215,0.002067179,0.028109571,0.4328401,0.06776775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00046023578,0.0000818398,0.791289,0.000057936864,0.000044131968,0.000018209017,0.00010755087,0.00011706405,0.000009805563,0.0068077273,0.20090231,0.00010423485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000016114485,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000039303144,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3256782,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000282774,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000013031642,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3044015},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2045704255","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00034.x","title":"The Irrelevance of Direct Bankruptcy Costs to the Firm's Financial Reorganization Decision","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Banking stability, regulation, efficiency","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":21,"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":"Bankruptcy; Business; Finance; Indirect costs; Economics; Microeconomics; Actuarial science; Accounting","score_opus":0.0359171997451788,"score_gpt":0.3109992275759567,"score_spread":0.2750820278307779,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2045704255","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":[0.93001175,0.033890996,0.004646765,0.028211635,0.0013156217,0.00024090434,0.000019341109,0.00001118138,0.0016517991],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9967162,0.0011276366,0.0011129167,0.00036597176,0.00049806765,0.0000029315079,2.4839207e-7,0.000011296903,0.00016474024],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99825186,0.000049629314,0.0011400416,0.00018380117,0.00016870988,0.00020598256],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99746317,0.0010179381,0.0007557914,0.0002624473,0.0004538804,0.00004676356],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018704482,0.00012260549,0.00041737498,0.000100836936,0.00038960602,0.00005946835,0.00039916704,0.000053799195,0.000020581032],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007903428,0.000074407864,0.00014845534,0.00066921755,0.00014852772,0.00022718812,0.00011372307,0.00019387499,0.00003782545],"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":[0.00066528044,0.0009462453,0.48026955,0.000055532724,0.00046314535,0.000007680391,0.009805516,0.023139965,0.00006203455,0.09362601,0.18130828,0.20965075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002914235,0.0002469424,0.52345884,0.00004901253,0.000014105679,0.000008023607,0.00007788406,0.00037309685,0.00009428799,0.0060147787,0.46925429,0.00011731208],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000016046544,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00017667696,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.28794602,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00031944996,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005393951,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9461712},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2077351741","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00128.x","title":"Medical Malpractice Review Panels and Medical Liability System Cost, Timeliness, and Efficiency: A Cross‐Sectional Study","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","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":"Sunnybrook Health Science Centre","funders":"","keywords":"Malpractice; Actuarial science; Panel data; Medical malpractice; Statutory law; Tort reform; Payment; Tort; Defensive medicine; Business; Medicine; Liability; Cross-sectional study; Accounting; Economics; Finance; Econometrics; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.22107375875981147,"score_gpt":0.5481335006616314,"score_spread":0.32705974190181986,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2077351741","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":[0.87704474,0.035240874,0.000114596354,0.08399371,0.0013480713,0.001142223,0.000006085783,0.0000501121,0.0010596032],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9649146,0.026801096,0.00016349978,0.0059447885,0.0017300989,0.000065920125,9.3593275e-7,0.000018356313,0.0003606979],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9899071,0.0031420277,0.0027253882,0.0004742913,0.0032133695,0.0005378226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98266023,0.01328727,0.001071264,0.0002862157,0.001620118,0.0010749263],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016838565,0.00030664197,0.0014559863,0.00009674123,0.0012354484,0.00002547066,0.00034314702,0.00037550618,0.000823581],"category_scores_gemma":[0.099081695,0.00018905177,0.00015220254,0.00037110236,0.0011274879,0.00052999693,0.000512271,0.0028624763,0.000057451332],"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":[0.00043041253,0.0011654071,0.96764976,0.0037931562,0.0003239879,0.0012387541,0.0026959758,5.0110793e-7,7.930657e-7,0.00017585057,0.021418752,0.0011066707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0030264857,0.0013474422,0.72164905,0.0044097174,0.00036796485,0.002985517,0.008662843,0.00016674267,8.4427825e-7,0.000048690916,0.25703833,0.000296376],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00016296825,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000039773113,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24600069,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024595024,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014711168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999438},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2084571232","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00122.x","title":"Alternative Methods of Appellate Review in Trade Remedy Cases: Examining Results of U.S. Judicial and NAFTA Binational Review of U.S. Agency Decisions from 1989 to 2005","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"World Trade Organization Law","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":"Agency (philosophy); Free trade agreement; Political science; Law; Settlement (finance); Judicial review; Dispute resolution; Standard of review; Law and economics; Economics; Free trade; International trade; Sociology; Payment","score_opus":0.23842577969837625,"score_gpt":0.4881777595488758,"score_spread":0.24975197985049957,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2084571232","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16910271,0.7336757,0.00074942963,0.08998587,0.0007381963,0.001054592,0.0001838458,0.000012724418,0.0044969176],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49035254,0.49275973,0.015718676,0.000919246,0.00018623951,0.0000022855093,0.0000021285166,0.000010267305,0.00004889046],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99580616,0.0009810743,0.0018980631,0.0001984748,0.0009278484,0.00018836124],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946682,0.0030984182,0.0012969648,0.00012377345,0.0006695403,0.00014309499],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033727554,0.00014322998,0.0011111324,0.00021733154,0.00013230613,0.0000052258865,0.00028701752,0.00005216053,0.00006522614],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022482073,0.000114078706,0.00012866355,0.0012425196,0.00048752787,0.0002325828,0.00010291027,0.0002235893,9.2244943e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0020770428,0.0050194724,0.09575823,0.011172673,0.0043927,0.002126153,0.2086084,0.00044751968,0.0061572185,0.02399241,0.4391987,0.20104946],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004563469,0.0018241726,0.3696205,0.11959268,0.0009608384,0.00018882977,0.0036732778,0.000017128918,0.0032099877,0.0048235324,0.49060026,0.0009253437],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005221581,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00045671326,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3212498,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001211321,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034730198,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.985752},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2107540882","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01207.x","title":"Settlement at Policy Limits and the Duty to Settle: Evidence from Texas","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":14,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Kellogg's (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Settlement (finance); Plaintiff; Actuarial science; Liability; Damages; Duty; Harm; Tort; Economics; Duration (music); Incentive; Liability insurance; Business; Insurance policy; Law; Payment; Finance; Political science","score_opus":0.3485872869177174,"score_gpt":0.5371381870422434,"score_spread":0.18855090012452597,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2107540882","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":[0.6099094,0.0062189405,0.000032469987,0.38051426,0.0005975079,0.00034218933,0.000013999339,0.000010515003,0.002360699],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96323746,0.0034960771,0.0013032369,0.0275345,0.002200134,0.000022679102,4.6239674e-7,0.000012849282,0.0021925955],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99681824,0.0011248833,0.0009227572,0.00018865374,0.0005735409,0.00037194882],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99015355,0.008338219,0.00048196985,0.00023160852,0.00045344763,0.00034122227],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002745465,0.00016046663,0.00059580524,0.00007047574,0.00053864263,0.000013291385,0.0002701408,0.00009443638,0.0006786779],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024516765,0.00007739879,0.0001089634,0.00021287895,0.00034041726,0.00025524775,0.00047574053,0.00081636244,0.0002304055],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0028933971,0.0001748761,0.3963281,0.0001561152,0.0005663705,0.00007180665,0.08179649,8.900668e-7,0.000058711146,0.0016379463,0.51421356,0.0021017294],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0014583615,0.00062342425,0.3898585,0.00078970805,0.00022855471,0.00001182647,0.010751162,0.000003845313,0.00008283769,0.0034340671,0.59261334,0.00014436075],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009864612,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00040526292,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.35332805,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002422674,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024086719,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98370016},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2110943459","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01239.x","title":"Mechanisms for Eliciting Cooperation in Counterterrorism Policing: Evidence from the United Kingdom","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Crime Patterns and Interventions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":133,"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":"York University; Open Society Institute; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Procedural justice; Terrorism; Legitimacy; Law enforcement; Perception; Sample (material); Economic Justice; Criminology; Political science; Community policing; Enforcement; Social psychology; Psychology; Law; Politics","score_opus":0.5508604380521529,"score_gpt":0.5116323480429372,"score_spread":0.03922809000921568,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2110943459","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":[0.97050375,0.0004767157,0.0154003585,0.012530576,0.0006069655,0.00015600643,0.000005434058,0.000007903965,0.0003123194],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9977652,0.00012751724,0.00056922605,0.0010789525,0.0003823464,0.0000073432902,5.1695133e-7,0.0000053295516,0.000063561296],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988338,0.00020444152,0.00045858833,0.00008843224,0.00023626223,0.00017850436],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984279,0.0007588509,0.0002538723,0.00006207764,0.00045326448,0.000044002412],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011773264,0.00007688664,0.0002021258,0.00008016649,0.0003969509,0.00007090278,0.00023315569,0.000041832365,0.00007849037],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0017319736,0.000047797672,0.0001369993,0.00022615891,0.000111203044,0.00033114394,0.000043019987,0.00017855327,0.0000025720537],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.0007028572,0.0008305738,0.19056183,0.000056481385,0.0009689574,0.00007160827,0.6414011,0.000101885016,0.004723404,0.071301885,0.08345458,0.005824789],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004392337,0.0043130796,0.38238397,0.0075954287,0.0008406747,0.000033083885,0.32982177,0.00227336,0.0037006105,0.087508336,0.1759345,0.0012028324],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026608184,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012827483,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31157938,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013618547,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000057594665,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9798737},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2111199343","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00022.x","title":"Disappearing Trials? A Comparative Perspective","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":59,"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":"Jurisdiction; Perspective (graphical); Incidence (geometry); Geography; Period (music); Political science; Criminology; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.27536854473739786,"score_gpt":0.39585725643722913,"score_spread":0.12048871169983127,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2111199343","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":[0.7688035,0.059035372,0.0038862738,0.017779935,0.0046292804,0.00046918562,0.00007050466,0.00003860716,0.14528736],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9969895,0.00073429226,0.00033311834,0.0003646338,0.0014125829,0.0000049676037,3.2044784e-7,0.000013430034,0.00014716621],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99748766,0.000062938765,0.0018584166,0.00024846764,0.000069476606,0.0002730584],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99762666,0.00028760254,0.0015975416,0.00012950017,0.00022895483,0.00012976505],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020169422,0.00016229005,0.0018666564,0.00019476516,0.00018823161,0.00010477534,0.00022211672,0.00007731763,0.00003786112],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013452283,0.00015944702,0.0005263449,0.00018516576,0.00025767015,0.0004651385,0.00007680137,0.00030101233,0.0001708295],"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":[0.00025794146,0.00035868876,0.02346538,0.000028665332,0.0021395998,0.000057111316,0.022161577,0.0009472348,0.000018519248,0.94358623,0.0068525914,0.00012644462],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004640966,0.0011350138,0.015661934,0.00018931988,0.000096779055,0.000104161896,0.024821976,0.000035381483,0.00025225617,0.8663873,0.08606541,0.000609474],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004536649,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00013396397,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.22818601,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008665647,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006487473,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6502061},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2139397807","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00007.x","title":"A Broken System: The Persistent Patterns of Reversals of Death Sentences in the United States","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":false,"ca_institutions":"Sunnybrook Health Science Centre","funders":"","keywords":"Sentence; State (computer science); Psychology; Political science; Econometrics; Economics; Computer science; Natural language processing","score_opus":0.10445471226182046,"score_gpt":0.3953407969997022,"score_spread":0.29088608473788174,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2139397807","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":[0.98833233,0.0020332325,0.00010051493,0.009000312,0.00014596187,0.000072905845,0.0000041777075,0.000002482764,0.00030808442],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9972581,0.0023238603,0.000029624112,0.00023513514,0.0001108089,0.000002078395,2.939676e-7,0.0000021228195,0.000037924317],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983319,0.0003526844,0.00050895946,0.00006777139,0.00059540896,0.00014326691],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99829894,0.0006322212,0.00042114366,0.00008598829,0.0005302549,0.00003144421],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013414565,0.000074069496,0.00031866285,0.00014885173,0.00025486184,0.000029626462,0.00031286944,0.000027782035,0.000004929324],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004666511,0.000034837227,0.00029429566,0.00066448754,0.00023051145,0.000102784325,0.000035427136,0.00017329957,6.10623e-7],"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":[0.00024546502,0.0007842009,0.24446607,0.00037630665,0.0018848336,0.00014381528,0.72977626,0.013935346,0.0000467083,0.0051035485,0.001767121,0.0014703051],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001729171,0.00025955428,0.007548585,0.00025690513,0.00056709116,0.000016556338,0.9881908,0.000022061226,0.000018290037,0.00009113122,0.002813386,0.000042720876],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.037492964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013066923,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2584145,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014664132,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010087347,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9689165},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2153327433","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01263.x","title":"Does Tort Law Deter Individuals? A Behavioral Science Study","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":41,"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":"Tort; Sanctions; Variety (cybernetics); Liability; Strict liability; Joint and several liability; Tort reform; Law; Economics; Political science; Psychology; Actuarial science; Law and economics","score_opus":0.13115569724284648,"score_gpt":0.3604201102486919,"score_spread":0.22926441300584544,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2153327433","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":[0.9812335,0.0032913121,0.000025534393,0.00068737793,0.0044510458,0.0002058165,0.00002161498,0.000013075459,0.010070743],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.997397,0.00009015784,0.00017420217,0.00049067824,0.0016487665,0.000009570525,2.1803889e-7,0.000017818491,0.00017157612],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975054,0.0000371713,0.0014700906,0.00027091103,0.00016301873,0.0005533687],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982544,0.0000927646,0.00097446225,0.00022784396,0.000179647,0.00027087834],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029766131,0.000176192,0.0009367019,0.0002492651,0.00039637947,0.00023523736,0.0004532024,0.0000688433,0.00006606831],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023711451,0.00013573228,0.00023327886,0.0002687323,0.0006480323,0.0016151811,0.00023173829,0.00026509003,0.00012235348],"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":[0.000018754017,0.000737047,0.9635524,0.000008209839,0.00019426688,0.000009968834,0.005103954,0.0000020409568,0.000007367652,0.028962275,0.0012563557,0.00014735166],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0023290014,0.0021945755,0.6607901,0.000063229374,0.00016372759,0.00007813363,0.011569903,0.000008371287,0.00020971132,0.023881847,0.29780427,0.0009071366],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00040942806,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00015262293,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30276233,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038063558,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000047868223,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5535001},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2316695912","doi":"10.1111/jels.12035","title":"Empirical Analysis of Data Breach Litigation","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":170,"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":"Army Research Office; Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst; York University","keywords":"Plaintiff; Data breach; Redress; Class action; Business; Harm; Odds; Credit card; Securities fraud; Information privacy; Law; Actuarial science; Internet privacy; Payment; Finance; Political science; Supreme court","score_opus":0.17447292920618368,"score_gpt":0.43496213656724647,"score_spread":0.2604892073610628,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2316695912","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":[0.4916258,0.008370325,0.44787768,0.03663247,0.0013049194,0.00022658687,0.000030073914,0.000092317816,0.013839857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99060315,0.00026511517,0.0077736303,0.0009691929,0.00023803738,0.0000010646564,0.000004187998,0.000004877037,0.00014073447],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976841,0.00017452796,0.00093608524,0.00027328645,0.0007061808,0.00022580486],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99745053,0.00074788614,0.00050553546,0.00062646065,0.00057273277,0.000096864154],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013978076,0.00015938462,0.0008321843,0.000325772,0.00015049035,0.0000607088,0.0011918081,0.00004701271,0.000010312948],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007811083,0.00010846827,0.00028646342,0.0012441482,0.00015953403,0.0009828659,0.0009463567,0.00020741677,0.000004658186],"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":[0.00021374208,0.0014786704,0.4384211,0.00019951846,0.032024693,0.0000813496,0.013915282,0.0020629438,0.00051996514,0.05133865,0.36013538,0.09960871],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0015000023,0.0015662026,0.47701135,0.00012844025,0.003945434,0.000043656193,0.0009373813,0.03306109,0.00064923865,0.0041585257,0.4763944,0.0006042723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000050049628,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00006348253,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49897736,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055256343,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000055851007,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44232076},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2334777707","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00109.x","title":"A Quarter‐Century of Summary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District Courts","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":21,"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":"Trilogy; Summary judgment; Supreme court; Plaintiff; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Law; Expansive; Quarter (Canadian coin); Civil procedure; Trial court; Political science; Psychology; History","score_opus":0.05306115369832261,"score_gpt":0.3166783985502088,"score_spread":0.2636172448518862,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2334777707","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":[0.85742056,0.061443213,0.00069753145,0.00794347,0.0038915428,0.00033516614,0.00005891773,0.000013194002,0.06819642],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9944637,0.0039188,0.00025663554,0.00059818185,0.00066177186,0.0000022890742,0.000001179611,0.000014823245,0.000082650186],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99687827,0.000048716793,0.00235369,0.00023040574,0.00011457233,0.0003743295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970095,0.0006528685,0.0018754771,0.00015232505,0.00017579322,0.00013400688],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025289473,0.00016329299,0.0010965031,0.00029762465,0.00009293864,0.000055120254,0.00022000028,0.00010885142,0.000021103286],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010035933,0.00017413699,0.00028207383,0.0002181758,0.00015300186,0.0005600716,0.000076109,0.00032858376,0.000024645276],"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":[0.0016682894,0.0026367786,0.80843526,0.00026450533,0.0019922305,0.00068541005,0.0108231865,0.00025069874,0.00006037221,0.08092901,0.0881388,0.0041154507],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00438609,0.0019822714,0.1921157,0.00034914102,0.00007788152,0.0001861845,0.010961887,0.00007407549,0.00015424746,0.01995252,0.7689782,0.00078182534],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00048867427,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002744085,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.68083936,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004779084,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000051819567,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71011},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2590918633","doi":"10.1111/jels.12140","title":"Unintended Consequences: The Regressive Effects of Increased Access to Courts","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":20,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Unintended consequences; Legislature; Damages; Law; Business; Trial court; Economics; Political science; Supreme court","score_opus":0.12183951220767718,"score_gpt":0.35964508921304755,"score_spread":0.23780557700537036,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2590918633","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":[0.9216479,0.011499199,0.00043233554,0.038523514,0.004123545,0.0005178084,0.00005514264,0.00001063201,0.02318989],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99714744,0.0008610812,0.00006702416,0.001145699,0.00056512497,0.000009447273,2.261235e-7,0.000012793082,0.00019116342],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99822634,0.00005800853,0.001172582,0.00020709081,0.000084700565,0.00025125817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9960675,0.0004595762,0.0026183669,0.00040347723,0.0003083558,0.00014269451],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010464496,0.00014846562,0.0010710839,0.00013293051,0.0004372698,0.0003217307,0.0010269332,0.00007646452,0.00001561554],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0042423457,0.00011566764,0.00026946267,0.00007365249,0.0012446402,0.0007160301,0.0002707849,0.00021844103,0.000025090658],"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":[0.00069577195,0.00041938628,0.4792852,0.00046090016,0.00347836,0.00039501092,0.0053890655,0.00012350362,0.00023208928,0.39347762,0.11495493,0.0010881453],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00413782,0.0019117454,0.3918839,0.0012740195,0.00020951107,0.00014363498,0.0015942553,0.00007197819,0.0050530788,0.42962041,0.16321395,0.00088568684],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010683511,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00018973861,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08740129,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001542651,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007666453,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.507879},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2767571406","doi":"10.1111/jels.12161","title":"Triaging the Law: Developing the Common Law on the Supreme Court of India","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional 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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisdiction; Political science; Precedent; Original jurisdiction; Majority opinion; Supreme Court Decisions; Law of the case; Court of equity; Common law; Salience (neuroscience); Concurring opinion; Court of record; Citation; Psychology","score_opus":0.18992218102264155,"score_gpt":0.42942458305424364,"score_spread":0.23950240203160209,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2767571406","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.2466452,0.006396515,0.000017185626,0.55929327,0.0013664005,0.00026023854,0.000005413191,0.000009820788,0.18600594],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9931088,0.0011255381,0.000020214522,0.004786767,0.00086960156,0.000004886336,4.700402e-8,0.0000035448227,0.00008059612],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981296,0.00034268852,0.00042938674,0.000085994296,0.00077718566,0.00023515148],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966129,0.002149186,0.00060696626,0.000181269,0.00041228696,0.00003741199],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025766918,0.000115639225,0.00035506077,0.000017068875,0.0074689277,0.00018026456,0.00090493145,0.0000399238,0.000008375295],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0015176149,0.000044551703,0.0001968642,0.00010247901,0.004102625,0.00020888392,0.00024797316,0.00040421446,0.0000058452174],"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":[0.000053796524,0.000030970452,0.007544211,0.0000026749753,0.00033159013,0.000009858178,0.008106343,0.000004851345,0.000004798927,0.9738088,0.009506585,0.00059551833],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00037073667,0.00014515844,0.066985,0.00023776873,0.00013922254,0.000008179102,0.027119739,0.0000012927692,0.00013663572,0.14353395,0.7611781,0.0001442254],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031126514,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007775206,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8302749,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011045532,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018823704,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99860764},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2886473766","doi":"10.1111/jels.12186","title":"A Rose by Any Other Name: Understanding Judicial Decisions that Do Not Cite Precedent","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"CITES; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Judicial opinion; Foundation (evidence); Phenomenon; Philosophy","score_opus":0.2462212841917908,"score_gpt":0.43611650463903234,"score_spread":0.18989522044724155,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2886473766","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":[0.6009174,0.041203268,0.008526387,0.122055106,0.009555752,0.0007134685,0.000107992906,0.00014485535,0.21677579],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9925624,0.0025223584,0.00017835067,0.0018461684,0.0024367443,0.000004034176,1.9028226e-7,0.000010114401,0.00043960672],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997369,0.00020012792,0.00052821817,0.0002151878,0.0012225611,0.00046492898],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979333,0.00082229485,0.0003665966,0.000085933956,0.00057333906,0.0002184854],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001132176,0.00019133496,0.00051277794,0.00011167179,0.0021830937,0.00016791662,0.00031939134,0.000103395505,0.0001471809],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0020632965,0.00013679269,0.00025363136,0.00040319987,0.0021987588,0.00041416328,0.00017101821,0.00029710412,0.000047895533],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0010024175,0.0006348021,0.078830115,0.000009266404,0.002024083,0.00011702877,0.043279815,0.000008374641,0.00032493114,0.22430082,0.6427553,0.0067130057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007783044,0.00056508905,0.006670892,0.00027242085,0.00017153811,0.000017317183,0.032987103,0.0000021813116,0.00014227247,0.06104758,0.89701515,0.0003301452],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0006855258,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022754718,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.39164507,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00066989363,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028929047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99911594},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2894910955","doi":"10.1111/jels.12227","title":"Entrepreneurs’ Legal Status Choices and the C Corporation Survival Penalty","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Corporate Finance and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"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":"Corporation; Corporate governance; Business; Limited liability; Supreme court; Limited partnership; Finance; Actuarial science; Economics; Accounting; Law; General partnership; Political science","score_opus":0.04339464939446907,"score_gpt":0.2933446869079912,"score_spread":0.24995003751352213,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2894910955","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":[0.98326147,0.002740401,0.000048435068,0.0075936774,0.0013059505,0.0001434872,0.0000023016194,0.000011317739,0.0048929695],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99503356,0.00068780704,0.000029446,0.0017158578,0.0013390653,0.0000021200913,9.050698e-7,0.000009214143,0.0011820265],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987448,0.000029980112,0.00043239287,0.00015567824,0.000426016,0.00021115242],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99829173,0.00022410633,0.0009449539,0.00011769143,0.00040689996,0.000014634629],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006026612,0.00015071212,0.0004247953,0.00006295417,0.00015650498,0.00028455595,0.00016040874,0.000032003223,0.000033360742],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00036245087,0.00008407466,0.000116367686,0.00025758048,0.00016382895,0.001715236,0.00013310586,0.0002395039,0.00005131138],"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":[0.0008822785,0.00007370192,0.9492454,0.00009107605,0.00017852872,0.000047182242,0.00014528203,0.00017909489,0.0000589791,0.02756585,0.01981236,0.0017202528],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0020216894,0.000050079238,0.48231527,0.000053073927,0.00008413614,0.000010861187,0.00028498386,0.00015051822,0.000008313632,0.0016977758,0.5132053,0.000118025106],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004515864,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002251474,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4933929,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000031946573,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000416417,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34284648},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2896956484","doi":"10.1111/jels.12207","title":"Lawyers at the Peak of Their Careers: A 30‐Year Longitudinal Study of Job and Life Satisfaction","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Healthcare Policy and Management","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":17,"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":"Job satisfaction; Quarter (Canadian coin); Psychology; Life satisfaction; Longitudinal study; Demographic economics; Demography; Social psychology; Medicine; Sociology; Economics; Geography","score_opus":0.15335977859018254,"score_gpt":0.35387608137072274,"score_spread":0.2005163027805402,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2896956484","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":[0.98711336,0.0053224503,0.000012691598,0.005592048,0.00028692282,0.00020157975,0.000016889579,0.000002375856,0.0014516774],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984724,0.0010229591,0.000024335166,0.00022633825,0.00009659144,0.000002766415,1.08820174e-7,0.0000070359483,0.00014748375],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987653,0.00005196886,0.00079817115,0.00013794933,0.00009765728,0.00014898814],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99874926,0.00020206822,0.0007075362,0.00015339107,0.0001238745,0.00006387287],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008096946,0.00010466249,0.0005868346,0.00012564917,0.000083533116,0.000015109896,0.000112218266,0.00003590035,0.000054350094],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023989302,0.00006953177,0.0001115914,0.00014011381,0.0000912518,0.00013343313,0.00015495974,0.00017027672,0.00001345887],"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":[0.0000948692,0.00009686517,0.9858409,0.00010094109,0.0005963253,0.000002573995,0.0052509275,0.000060246395,0.000003140193,0.00487337,0.0026868286,0.000392992],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008313975,0.0012154109,0.9704214,0.000032188156,0.00003246996,0.0000044558556,0.01138897,0.000012317258,0.000008449007,0.0007700916,0.015203543,0.00007930993],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001847242,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0011564627,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015419522,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010414711,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000023073697,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28354234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2910887493","doi":"10.1111/jels.12208","title":"Damage Caps and Defensive Medicine: Reexamination with Patient‐Level Data","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Kellogg's (Canada)","funders":"National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute","keywords":"Defensive medicine; Medicine; Malpractice; Medical malpractice; Psychological intervention; Medicare Part B; Tort reform; Health care; Liability; Emergency medicine; Finance; Economics; Tort; Nursing","score_opus":0.32886428631838477,"score_gpt":0.5338800208500991,"score_spread":0.20501573453171434,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2910887493","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":[0.9308533,0.0023416863,0.000044476074,0.061985094,0.0006311418,0.0002975537,0.000012568975,0.000009354852,0.003824812],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9929533,0.000716024,0.0008262186,0.004012406,0.000569226,0.000003451732,0.0000064702263,0.000011376792,0.00090151274],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976265,0.00054075924,0.00072875357,0.00021569004,0.00063956785,0.00024876415],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.994075,0.0037884056,0.00066332734,0.0003301732,0.0009676194,0.00017547423],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015227435,0.00013810134,0.00056802353,0.00008565325,0.00023474333,0.0000077297045,0.00020934045,0.00009501416,0.00023010552],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009822261,0.00007281847,0.000023070628,0.00017340084,0.00025435703,0.0005868793,0.00030671814,0.0008791005,0.000039498642],"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":[0.0008520092,0.00021720621,0.58484066,0.0008133659,0.0005682337,0.00020445176,0.03247902,0.0000035187247,0.0001302881,0.0008765767,0.3723386,0.0066760983],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0022441063,0.0030713656,0.2850964,0.0013185644,0.00028174807,0.000050718965,0.09890399,0.000056908444,0.0000071936192,0.00047842608,0.60830444,0.0001861255],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00011421271,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00012610335,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29974422,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007635579,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017446268,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9985184},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3020830203","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x","title":"To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: <i>Is</i> that the Question?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":57,"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":"Presumption; Legal service; Economic Justice; Legal profession; Political science; Business; Law","score_opus":0.3002855949768109,"score_gpt":0.5415371594144396,"score_spread":0.24125156443762868,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3020830203","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.124425694,0.0002924157,0.00013812531,0.8521605,0.0015928372,0.00019960427,0.000004602984,0.000021752274,0.021164449],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8782521,0.00048174456,0.0012546502,0.0993261,0.0015263486,0.000010984373,1.6364376e-7,0.000009113233,0.019138817],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980348,0.00030330615,0.00043210472,0.00013339274,0.0008302865,0.00026613113],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9972036,0.0011152436,0.0002441794,0.00014142973,0.0010658939,0.00022967],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015143305,0.00011596052,0.00025685647,0.00010951484,0.0014167622,0.0001661282,0.00035998176,0.00005558406,0.0002665817],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0051011983,0.00006455696,0.000108636086,0.0009909484,0.00024701218,0.00071614876,0.00007713753,0.00048148242,0.00020332792],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016634726,0.0001328533,0.0051254374,0.0000028741572,0.00009731201,0.000027611715,0.06784365,0.000014095418,0.000024970408,0.009325342,0.91636133,0.00087818335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012812494,0.00016546744,0.013461197,0.000022250186,0.000029275032,0.00003956433,0.013034712,3.1772663e-7,0.00012044697,0.00026678646,0.9726308,0.0001010701],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00076167146,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001355762,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7538264,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019732957,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00081073574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99988323},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121178051","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01247.x","title":"The Value of Capital Market Regulation: IPOs Versus Reverse Mergers","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"preprint","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Corporate Finance and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"York University; Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations; Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Initial public offering; Context (archaeology); Humanities; Capital market; Political science; Economics; Welfare economics; Accounting; Finance","score_opus":0.07164956170675067,"score_gpt":0.31825691782839516,"score_spread":0.24660735612164447,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121178051","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":[0.9022982,0.03149476,0.00014675279,0.030153133,0.01833066,0.00043314666,0.000024934827,0.00003131009,0.017087117],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9908052,0.0020954346,0.00015687589,0.0003900079,0.0051080757,0.000006055714,0.0000019631668,0.000023712226,0.0014126367],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978564,0.00003792064,0.00090632425,0.00018332552,0.00070482027,0.00031124658],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9956956,0.00032304876,0.0027411648,0.00028687713,0.00093232404,0.000020995683],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011479286,0.00027512404,0.00066529046,0.000096892654,0.00023376707,0.000110410285,0.00046263754,0.00013132874,0.00006331149],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00097346044,0.0001751963,0.00044282278,0.00026397407,0.00023351163,0.00073613325,0.00060933456,0.0006097739,0.000021096674],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0022009416,0.00017820041,0.038679652,0.0005814241,0.0015086272,0.000063186504,0.00034088097,0.0014743491,0.000027180771,0.006651287,0.9453749,0.0029193377],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011382593,0.0000614513,0.25636774,0.00051662483,0.0006822415,0.000005204658,0.00063443417,0.0001769158,0.000017740607,0.0036657492,0.73638856,0.0003450877],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00016319784,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00007886864,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21768808,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013955907,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000117192925,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7144298},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121915089","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01204.x","title":"An Empirical Examination of the Governance Choices of Income Trusts","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Corporate governance; Business; Accounting; Jurisdiction; Finance; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.13504073181063656,"score_gpt":0.4267307255811078,"score_spread":0.2916899937704712,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121915089","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":[0.97947484,0.00084111776,0.000049942584,0.0028643846,0.0002367366,0.000109221386,0.00000778329,0.0000061495193,0.016409794],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984764,0.00035341622,0.000519918,0.00012543719,0.00024862518,0.0000028297543,7.918499e-8,0.00000508636,0.00026819724],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.998241,0.0002791096,0.00058712123,0.000102746926,0.0006350688,0.00015497446],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980743,0.00025987744,0.0008560711,0.00016259328,0.00056544505,0.000081713886],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010439705,0.00008794733,0.00031885222,0.000035070596,0.00025144135,0.000015381649,0.00054352486,0.000065941844,0.00003829144],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007592888,0.000052457413,0.0001682493,0.00041441908,0.00061208126,0.00041663216,0.000092188755,0.00020968291,0.0000016010043],"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":[0.00015163387,0.0016144507,0.7800795,0.000100764606,0.00039661615,0.000008978718,0.10529108,0.000043279317,0.000989938,0.093902834,0.0032730089,0.014147937],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021379165,0.00022960496,0.94524676,0.000056977147,0.00005219652,0.0000024430126,0.0033576442,0.000011541998,0.0009962433,0.0016624999,0.04809634,0.00007393041],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00043632207,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006600583,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16516732,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009889839,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016013987,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22552389},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122772384","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00005.x","title":"Empirical Estimates of Filtering Failure in Court‐Supervised Reorganization","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":40,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Wilfrid Laurier University","funders":"","keywords":"Plan (archaeology); Sample (material); Empirical research; Type I and type II errors; Actuarial science; Estimation; Econometrics; Business; Computer science; Economics; Operations management; Statistics; Mathematics; Management; History","score_opus":0.061776660756633225,"score_gpt":0.31428681770066447,"score_spread":0.2525101569440312,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122772384","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":[0.9898276,0.0017513557,0.0007710089,0.005769496,0.00043016975,0.000085815875,0.0000013430168,0.000014582301,0.0013486269],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99728364,0.0001030263,0.001563855,0.00068827794,0.00031127973,0.0000013706526,7.6047337e-7,0.000014298692,0.000033521792],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99860656,0.000021622824,0.00070570427,0.00013399842,0.0003401402,0.00019198676],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986014,0.0001483975,0.00061916234,0.000095714015,0.00052109075,0.000014245323],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00046055362,0.00015563205,0.00046562377,0.00017532964,0.00007698698,0.00006302832,0.0001642381,0.000058889545,0.00005775131],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0018693949,0.00011948524,0.00010412794,0.00071542745,0.000076695986,0.00093938044,0.00007742519,0.00022576774,0.000009329994],"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":[0.00013057777,0.0003317922,0.9546171,0.0002886089,0.00012474485,0.00016312853,0.00044096896,0.000718425,0.002006494,0.0024950004,0.03813589,0.0005472652],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004251978,0.00033576842,0.5820678,0.0013991327,0.0003030154,0.00011546077,0.0033591248,0.0017173579,0.003875717,0.024478707,0.37719396,0.0009019796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003005657,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00010587266,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.37254933,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000060956787,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000047714555,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48724666},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122982036","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01251.x","title":"Will Tort Reform Bend the Cost Curve? Evidence from Texas","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":54,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Kellogg's (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Tort reform; Tort; Economics; Public economics; Actuarial science; Accounting; Liability","score_opus":0.3294400808438403,"score_gpt":0.5554552672090723,"score_spread":0.22601518636523205,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122982036","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":[0.7427545,0.030272584,0.00009969359,0.2176493,0.0035051967,0.00040657446,0.000009193892,0.000020432528,0.005282515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9822485,0.0032139677,0.00035125852,0.006442427,0.006224513,0.000016575743,7.1318175e-7,0.000013397914,0.0014886496],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99627024,0.0010274621,0.0011259258,0.00014205545,0.0008507426,0.00058357103],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886094,0.009336839,0.0007675585,0.00029946808,0.0006202076,0.0003665432],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043061236,0.00018120113,0.0006049619,0.000043013737,0.00064036495,0.000019173181,0.00039024782,0.00015158347,0.0009489774],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017638631,0.00008384275,0.00018084263,0.00020172802,0.0002675822,0.0016796584,0.00029115088,0.001754983,0.00029312004],"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":[0.00022422882,0.00019392022,0.78715044,0.00007822416,0.00029071394,0.000017872788,0.010597845,5.8220894e-7,0.00002064121,0.0005245117,0.19926175,0.001639285],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002286959,0.00016643273,0.31080046,0.00045863047,0.00013641448,0.0000070956826,0.011402735,0.0000018738214,0.000010700661,0.0004059593,0.67629886,0.00008215674],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007207829,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002293106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.47703707,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004920689,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024053305,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999643},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123791578","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01209.x","title":"The Paradox of “Fraud‐on‐the‐Market Theory”: Who Relies on the Efficiency of Market Prices?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"The King's University","funders":"","keywords":"Class action; Endogeneity; Damages; Market efficiency; Economics; Profit (economics); Efficient-market hypothesis; Microeconomics; Financial economics; Stock market; Econometrics; Law","score_opus":0.09351026016447354,"score_gpt":0.2795344347899108,"score_spread":0.18602417462543724,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123791578","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":[0.53879166,0.015057903,0.00013908431,0.010303666,0.0017650018,0.0004007863,0.000054175922,0.000008531582,0.43347922],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9935124,0.0041940855,0.00002465805,0.0007107314,0.00032555353,0.000009939452,7.590166e-8,0.000017832237,0.0012047208],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99738836,0.00019687829,0.0017469277,0.00021137836,0.00014342421,0.00031300265],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936122,0.003283228,0.0024293133,0.0004269116,0.00018601988,0.00006235099],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0056891805,0.00019131623,0.000917216,0.00011728183,0.0004111505,0.00005177875,0.0007981104,0.00008394486,0.00024526697],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0026243739,0.00010498781,0.0004393643,0.00023696417,0.00092284824,0.00013673751,0.00012497992,0.0003642852,0.000035240693],"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":[0.0007896693,0.00031502993,0.024516158,0.000040377796,0.00087804976,0.000005525851,0.004559394,0.00001308826,0.0000028856714,0.8510054,0.11752333,0.00035110244],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0012436423,0.0031124416,0.10971984,0.00043672865,0.00011604058,0.00002477044,0.008535827,0.00019882638,0.0007416176,0.5602878,0.315013,0.0005694655],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000074449956,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000030019411,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45472077,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009380009,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000040742772,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42812788},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3163252776","doi":"10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01244.x","title":"The Price Effects of Event‐Risk Protection: The Results from a Natural Experiment","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Credit Risk and Financial Regulations","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","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":"Issuer; Comparability; Bond; Event study; Event (particle physics); Business; Actuarial science; Economics; Natural experiment; Bond valuation; Econometrics; Financial economics; Finance","score_opus":0.08069201403991479,"score_gpt":0.3007496494646755,"score_spread":0.2200576354247607,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3163252776","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":[0.933006,0.05777967,0.001258782,0.003082962,0.0026812742,0.00031447157,0.000035939018,0.0000075147786,0.0018333923],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9968312,0.0020784712,0.00027020826,0.000023251478,0.0005117019,0.000014214344,2.8593524e-7,0.0000067109427,0.00026400483],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986554,0.000054183358,0.0009086713,0.00013126797,0.00009596657,0.00015451225],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99778444,0.00061974383,0.001204968,0.00019615721,0.00015689101,0.000037784564],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007182308,0.00010773069,0.00035260047,0.00005408693,0.00037279737,0.000027585707,0.0002433495,0.000044335902,0.0000055308915],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0022689356,0.00005802261,0.0002413428,0.00020616826,0.00017911964,0.00013607988,0.00008150876,0.0003226476,0.000010555464],"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":[0.0116626,0.0040754164,0.26279846,0.00021252029,0.011309359,0.00020245774,0.23151873,0.00048494656,0.00074171106,0.22013806,0.15518673,0.101669],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001215923,0.0006554393,0.7794962,0.00006450591,0.000053133026,0.000009103117,0.0011438348,0.00014604205,0.0013248173,0.022511933,0.19322439,0.00015471462],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00039141843,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00005574428,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5166977,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000868009,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002650334,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28672937},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3208587775","doi":"10.1111/jels.12303","title":"The Canada Trademarks Dataset","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Intellectual Property 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":"Business","score_opus":0.12764257701088985,"score_gpt":0.4145328229771462,"score_spread":0.28689024596625634,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3208587775","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.051044643,0.058014687,0.000049068767,0.7741468,0.006658685,0.00020354979,0.00014041612,0.000018961731,0.10972321],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9787981,0.004370237,0.00015637328,0.0076964083,0.0016260248,0.0000018035875,0.0000037700024,0.000010420346,0.007336867],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981072,0.00040683275,0.0003766566,0.000089107554,0.0007395888,0.00028062178],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99759203,0.0014955434,0.00014446229,0.00010516952,0.0005436109,0.00011918546],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000998883,0.00007978511,0.00023000072,0.000012653408,0.0011412733,0.00010926042,0.00032904907,0.000037089154,0.000108996246],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0067750686,0.000042549033,0.00008122895,0.00023300941,0.0003936505,0.00015953234,0.00008952681,0.00036108764,0.0000061164005],"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":[0.000025760948,0.000021014006,0.00019986604,0.0000029651665,0.00016578462,0.000242015,0.0021270374,0.000003928481,0.0000107,0.002159355,0.9934176,0.0016239352],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009213117,0.000043461783,0.00024275841,0.000014956097,0.000026545396,0.000033593926,0.010984812,0.0000025526738,0.000116101655,0.00047637746,0.987904,0.000062698586],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.077769205,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.83869517,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92775345,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003558612,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022634782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.928372},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3210919575","doi":"10.1111/jels.12336","title":"Stay at home if you can: <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 stay‐at‐home guidelines and local crime","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Crime Patterns and Interventions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"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 Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Government (linguistics); Demographic economics; Exploit; Pandemic; Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Latin Americans; Work (physics); Business; Geography; Political science; Economics; Medicine; Computer security","score_opus":0.18317267320142022,"score_gpt":0.4493406635364326,"score_spread":0.26616799033501237,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3210919575","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":[0.96058667,0.016964588,0.00020217532,0.017762648,0.0014972287,0.00015907869,0.00013885336,0.000035077155,0.0026536658],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97077507,0.0015099677,0.00018935734,0.0025376033,0.0009352203,0.000015476437,0.000003461991,0.000022917797,0.024010956],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99660933,0.00044475988,0.00097307336,0.00029691096,0.0011497389,0.000526183],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99769557,0.00061178906,0.0004944062,0.00015182392,0.0006197977,0.0004266008],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016795803,0.00022818948,0.0006039549,0.0001855319,0.0022924906,0.0001226849,0.00040898306,0.00006900549,0.00087650894],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013910602,0.00018290056,0.0003870388,0.00033280367,0.00063571136,0.0002716893,0.0009301976,0.00047700634,0.000017607417],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006763657,0.00026525467,0.16931209,0.00004430176,0.0005070868,0.00025849536,0.02221163,0.00014400214,0.000074353025,0.00068259425,0.8049726,0.0014599467],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000651464,0.0006991864,0.023041554,0.000030338522,0.00012909221,0.00009584524,0.05566852,0.000023819854,0.00001734902,0.0010704234,0.9184421,0.00013035127],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002167704,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0033451358,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14627054,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0013986377,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00026472256,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990064},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4308441130","doi":"10.1111/jels.12338","title":"Should patients use online reviews to pick their doctors and hospitals?","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Kellogg's (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Sanctions; Malpractice; Discipline; Control (management); Medical record; Family medicine; Uncorrelated; Medicine; Medical malpractice; Service (business); Psychology; Actuarial science; Business; Medical emergency; Medical education; Political science; Law; Economics; Surgery; Management; Marketing","score_opus":0.3887285531217053,"score_gpt":0.5413272086344832,"score_spread":0.15259865551277796,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4308441130","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":[0.97592866,0.005390681,0.000011432089,0.014886783,0.002793557,0.0007754286,0.00012425223,0.000017603421,0.00007158615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9793559,0.002794681,0.0007858864,0.015718902,0.00052195764,0.000100831356,0.0000076079764,0.000027912292,0.0006863267],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961255,0.0011999962,0.0015080527,0.00021377049,0.000565526,0.0003871547],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99672896,0.0012406653,0.0008961471,0.00018288971,0.0006451635,0.00030619052],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009280025,0.00020175223,0.00076133147,0.00019648402,0.0012482564,0.000011815867,0.00017354927,0.00006490889,0.0001470296],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0033796856,0.00013433202,0.00013813979,0.0003755381,0.000055365417,0.00032212035,0.0005373492,0.0013927367,0.000017053108],"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":[0.00010519361,0.00007614897,0.85694283,0.0000972813,0.00006193242,0.000006436397,0.0056584114,0.000011700422,0.0000029030987,0.000028217295,0.13426097,0.0027479457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039012905,0.00086399313,0.56979537,0.00013822768,0.000020191264,0.0000028783352,0.0034345873,0.0000015248264,6.9135973e-7,0.000066563174,0.42519647,0.00008938582],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00012286619,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00014155777,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2909355,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006717496,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013568914,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9600705},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4309258126","doi":"10.1111/jels.12333","title":"Examining the effects of antidiscrimination laws on children in the foster care and adoption systems","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy","field":"Psychology","cited_by":6,"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":"Universität Zürich; University of Virginia; Tel Aviv University; University of Toronto; Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich; Hebrew University of Jerusalem","keywords":"Welfare; Foster care; Politics; Welfare state; Causal inference; State (computer science); Political science; Law; Public economics; Economics","score_opus":0.09411984896468889,"score_gpt":0.413301780346135,"score_spread":0.3191819313814461,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4309258126","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":[0.9696423,0.022711579,0.0000024876383,0.004092589,0.0010010942,0.00023701672,0.0000049801383,0.0000023869793,0.0023055559],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99830985,0.0004784092,0.000003202832,0.000701854,0.00037474572,0.000014791924,9.109506e-7,0.0000056737713,0.00011054489],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99829495,0.0008313828,0.00034153674,0.00008874897,0.0003129598,0.00013039866],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987337,0.00077679724,0.00028489027,0.0001051477,0.000079353325,0.000020108393],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006678259,0.00008001193,0.00022536358,0.00010969245,0.00027488513,0.000024885487,0.0001529056,0.000029072458,0.0000032625987],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017772743,0.000042088344,0.000052652464,0.00015580181,0.000073488925,0.0000674788,0.000069520436,0.00038621397,0.0000010570204],"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":[0.00026462512,0.00038501454,0.8027007,0.0007799275,0.00031296152,0.00008386646,0.1212645,0.00010096912,0.000027804484,0.004061633,0.059275627,0.0107423775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00063793897,0.0018962867,0.97560364,0.000049646227,0.000098028315,0.00012451861,0.01978724,0.0000014618662,0.0000024372312,0.00008584102,0.0016638421,0.000049107726],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00043729178,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000052460648,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17290296,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007792979,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002087109,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2114222},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4394757774","doi":"10.1111/jels.12380","title":"Rankings without U.S. News: A revealed preference approach to evaluating law schools","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"University of Toronto; Andrew W. Mellon Foundation","keywords":"Preference; Ranking (information retrieval); CLARITY; Legal education; Scope (computer science); Psychology; Mathematics education; Political science; Law; Sociology; Computer science; Statistics; Mathematics","score_opus":0.258648525459174,"score_gpt":0.4668240924227282,"score_spread":0.20817556696355421,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4394757774","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":[0.40645567,0.052665003,0.0022752443,0.06617808,0.0030267823,0.0008888514,0.000010686878,0.00019591989,0.46830377],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99151725,0.0007884298,0.0034917784,0.0018429009,0.0017028349,0.000021696345,2.2821901e-7,0.000008985808,0.0006259136],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973283,0.00027573784,0.00060258416,0.0002568105,0.0011641537,0.0003724086],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99838954,0.00040372805,0.00015704734,0.00007688153,0.0007698787,0.0002029246],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00198013,0.00017605725,0.00053467945,0.00011360188,0.0009840128,0.0003360329,0.00030862185,0.0000695585,0.000014833071],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0024713497,0.00012117555,0.0002197569,0.0006812274,0.0005106098,0.00061623816,0.00015432484,0.00048701273,0.000050512313],"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":[0.00030008145,0.00032045422,0.02209443,0.0001480406,0.0017852376,0.00015550618,0.044409126,0.0001964228,0.0002523355,0.82955754,0.08262959,0.018151214],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007813921,0.0007525833,0.008770335,0.001752373,0.0005212078,0.00006451192,0.042357862,0.000062248444,0.000025383844,0.11852659,0.8257338,0.000651735],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016229795,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00079468347,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.74310416,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00032027537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005329291,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7568331},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4405649322","doi":"10.1111/jels.12404","title":"Patents Used in Patent Office Rejections as Indicators of Value","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Intellectual Property and Patents","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Trademark; European patent office; Novelty; Patent office; Value (mathematics); Metric (unit); Assertion; Business; Patent troll; Quarter (Canadian coin); Subject (documents); Patent application; Intellectual property; Computer science; Marketing; Political science; Law; Patent law; Psychology; Commerce; Library science; History","score_opus":0.2554220099689555,"score_gpt":0.3405438970153245,"score_spread":0.08512188704636903,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4405649322","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":[0.9839218,0.0030413028,0.000059740112,0.0027243586,0.0015993167,0.00011748768,0.0000015719412,0.000024487481,0.00850992],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9980652,0.00018746934,0.000027520658,0.00071135093,0.00057012774,0.0000028103511,9.906979e-7,0.00001561438,0.00041895165],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99847883,0.00003485018,0.0006987131,0.00014838614,0.00043125905,0.0002079671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992315,0.00017272322,0.0002525698,0.00007571273,0.00024988793,0.000017582892],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005850297,0.00014956112,0.0003902452,0.000710011,0.00009740446,0.00010392523,0.00018426184,0.00006643411,0.000105808576],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007586811,0.000096359,0.00020354697,0.0010897499,0.0000761922,0.00067681674,0.00013470251,0.0004043779,0.00015349236],"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":[0.0038067717,0.0045043337,0.6137284,0.0048220754,0.006107635,0.0035974202,0.012881036,0.0041749086,0.002649548,0.028687749,0.2737392,0.04130093],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0031898725,0.0012297647,0.1687895,0.0044817626,0.0009341769,0.00014872498,0.0065287603,0.003492978,0.0019654504,0.010763767,0.7973784,0.0010967825],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00037735328,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000032053984,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.52363926,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008276385,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000058144276,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39294058},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4409716856","doi":"10.1111/jels.12413","title":"Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading <scp>AI</scp> Legal Research Tools","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":92,"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":"Stanford Law School; University of Toronto; Fordham University","keywords":"Hallucinating; Automatic summarization; Legal psychology; Typology; Lexis; Computer science; Legal case; Legal research; Psychology; Data science; Artificial intelligence; Social psychology; Law; Political science; Sociology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.32529834317271256,"score_gpt":0.5757539876260013,"score_spread":0.2504556444532887,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4409716856","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":[0.688195,0.0041675908,0.0024453304,0.13093427,0.0021930332,0.0004326283,0.0000047418157,0.000034887693,0.17159255],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9935347,0.00035032653,0.0007446281,0.0006458233,0.00065247994,0.0000063276934,1.2212543e-7,0.000008167616,0.0040574283],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99492764,0.0015585988,0.0010959368,0.0002290724,0.0016650559,0.00052368786],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97941273,0.015871668,0.00045492264,0.00032056624,0.0038385927,0.00010154214],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012736402,0.00014191984,0.0005425516,0.00023898183,0.0018127991,0.0004803458,0.0010681652,0.00013996667,0.00001870298],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10312831,0.00009249943,0.00024869834,0.0014893215,0.002706222,0.0014710885,0.0003936469,0.0011810922,0.000010924852],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006992786,0.0007763413,0.09836544,0.0001759487,0.00060174376,0.00008555009,0.050890118,0.0016922033,0.0010470027,0.37126437,0.45284542,0.022185933],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017563342,0.0002567167,0.01078339,0.00040894878,0.00009748155,0.0000053519784,0.07641403,0.00019414967,0.0040139193,0.074768975,0.83279115,0.0000902322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007257888,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008106252,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.37994576,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00062070007,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0009959702,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994867},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4411214515","doi":"10.1111/jels.12419","title":"In the Eye of the Beholder: How Lawyers Perceive Legal Ethical Problems","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"University of Toronto","keywords":"Fiduciary; Professional conduct; Harm; Legal ethics; Professional responsibility; Scholarship; Perception; Political science; Legal profession; Affect (linguistics); Politics; Law; Interdependence; Public relations; Social psychology; Psychology; Duty","score_opus":0.07652903511287192,"score_gpt":0.31965008511180304,"score_spread":0.24312104999893114,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4411214515","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":[0.5998057,0.012900789,0.00014623048,0.32903817,0.0036565815,0.0004926046,0.000042838386,0.000007730375,0.053909324],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99268824,0.00080597575,0.000031154334,0.005030216,0.00038480607,0.000009216485,2.0203969e-7,0.000009286947,0.0010409153],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979806,0.00013842032,0.0012876241,0.0002113172,0.000110222165,0.00027182605],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99832726,0.00038805263,0.0008602961,0.00024854566,0.00013421454,0.000041651743],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002197232,0.00014825867,0.00088142755,0.00016923303,0.00019057505,0.00010798764,0.0006309011,0.00019279541,0.000015808419],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00087700086,0.00010288573,0.00042248893,0.00038299538,0.0005146075,0.00028413953,0.00013748491,0.0009027311,0.000009035649],"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":[0.00009895376,0.00035936563,0.28138036,0.00019356956,0.00081406964,0.000029008834,0.009865369,0.00035087066,0.000034758923,0.59200954,0.114671856,0.00019229496],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0015131328,0.00035107022,0.13430461,0.00028317588,0.000067735884,0.000030111101,0.005363239,0.000110882516,0.00006521916,0.10146605,0.756152,0.00029278724],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00040159567,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00053181377,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.64148015,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002143987,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008910438,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4195558},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}