{"meta":{"query_hash":"ebf19a7e050d","filters":{"venue":"Journal of academic language and learning"},"cohort_total":3,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":3,"exported":3,"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/ebf19a7e050d","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Journal+of+academic+language+and+learning"},"results":[{"id":"W2109640497","doi":"","title":"Rhetorical genre theory and academic literacy","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of academic language and learning","topic":"Discourse Analysis in Language Studies","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":50,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Rhetorical question; Interpretation (philosophy); Literacy; Perspective (graphical); Action (physics); Repetition (rhetorical device); Sociology; Element (criminal law); Discourse community; Linguistics; Rhetorical modes; Epistemology; Computer science; Philosophy; Political science","score_opus":0.0165706978116509,"score_gpt":0.3083419952953892,"score_spread":0.2917712974837383,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2109640497","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.087030046,0.03485099,0.045251418,0.04123236,0.0011175262,0.00009609581,0.0001492254,0.00013444632,0.79013795],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9612378,0.009653362,0.0087452885,0.0019140071,0.0014351885,0.00014642537,0.00010292824,0.000082861014,0.01668213],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9951239,0.003261748,0.00020943154,0.00032640365,0.0008413322,0.00023726179],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98217577,0.014191137,0.0011501225,0.00073377317,0.0010919323,0.0006572277],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005061583,0.00032943932,0.00058080733,0.006377401,0.002697269,0.00709491,0.00083808525,0.00209367,0.0047521275],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014956307,0.00018568957,0.00041826066,0.0033665167,0.018028075,0.008772406,0.0027983603,0.002476373,0.0007076235],"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":[0.000009388878,0.000017064493,0.00073968794,0.0001192191,0.0000053628664,0.00009037479,0.009774861,0.00016774582,0.000092482594,0.9729611,0.0014345674,0.014588118],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014560281,0.000021351914,0.00121966,0.0003559301,0.000009009166,0.00020455432,0.00511771,0.00068958884,0.00014746145,0.94790095,0.04430855,0.000010651839],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013895789,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010898147,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.00709491,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0039016844,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019301551,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.028308868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2146175970","doi":"","title":"Probing normalized institutional discourses about writing: The case of the doctoral thesis","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of academic language and learning","topic":"Discourse Analysis in Language Studies","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":69,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Rhetorical question; Government (linguistics); Sociology; Academic writing; Professional writing; Vision; Pedagogy; Higher education; Perspective (graphical); Psychological intervention; Political science; Psychology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.01916321907251048,"score_gpt":0.28543804810820544,"score_spread":0.266274829035695,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2146175970","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5262009,0.006727304,0.05629043,0.124010496,0.0013292803,0.0003463416,0.00011784827,0.00028806092,0.28468946],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9882284,0.00076262467,0.00415668,0.0018265415,0.00021999216,0.00009954956,0.000025685238,0.00012356034,0.0045570503],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.86457795,0.11343949,0.0031208622,0.0054151723,0.009454198,0.0039923745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.80928874,0.16104466,0.008429056,0.009610228,0.006838154,0.0047891545],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06962252,0.0008635087,0.001249444,0.0047637606,0.05006667,0.032987207,0.0047696573,0.010724812,0.0027603537],"category_scores_gemma":[0.12309609,0.0010517571,0.0011772375,0.0043800487,0.12690245,0.021618037,0.023617089,0.019469697,0.0005182395],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000016545424,0.000017326973,0.00039056048,0.00006095501,0.000006151789,0.0007892958,0.852845,0.00009202555,0.00033985867,0.14162253,0.00081039144,0.0030093275],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035396522,0.00004262548,0.00074756105,0.00047977734,0.000021619784,0.0009948567,0.8000501,0.0006264229,0.0012387546,0.06918102,0.12651616,0.00006581332],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011424078,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012851921,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94993335,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026063813,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019683396,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36820346},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2803987840","doi":"","title":"Using digital peer observation to balance professional development and performance evaluation","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of academic language and learning","topic":"Reflective Practices in Education","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Collegiality; CLARITY; Process (computing); Peer feedback; Professional development; Computer science; Psychology; Process management; Pedagogy; Business","score_opus":0.0843463409123782,"score_gpt":0.4553213590818707,"score_spread":0.3709750181694925,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2803987840","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.28355584,0.0019361958,0.62663245,0.005611517,0.0013461257,0.017872235,0.0005725827,0.0023024285,0.06017062],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.55693936,0.001078075,0.40918192,0.000920472,0.000631273,0.0175409,0.00041346293,0.0007157611,0.012578764],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.84956896,0.10703055,0.006027799,0.008787215,0.025481598,0.0031039163],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.81842726,0.09551124,0.014303438,0.024980657,0.040073447,0.006703816],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09405232,0.0013504776,0.0010945976,0.0055654603,0.0039943038,0.0048254584,0.0030162153,0.0012355614,0.0061397995],"category_scores_gemma":[0.16481361,0.00086011714,0.00070971204,0.0028353664,0.0037138138,0.0051085115,0.012275743,0.0027478351,0.0022531108],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00093785085,0.0017368089,0.01757031,0.0019698592,0.00016912392,0.00081981136,0.1102133,0.003203899,0.021261511,0.0077006845,0.011811416,0.82260543],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0016274867,0.011798805,0.08836456,0.0067498595,0.0005939786,0.0025124901,0.1726863,0.03558309,0.075330645,0.059525948,0.544107,0.0011198659],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022757873,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0047100466,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09405232,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0032728128,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009405216,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4974022},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}