{"meta":{"query_hash":"e60e1366ea22","filters":{"venue":"Judicial Review"},"cohort_total":5,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":5,"exported":5,"export_cap":100000,"truncated":false,"label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12"},"permalink":"https://metacan.xera.ac/q/e60e1366ea22","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Judicial+Review"},"results":[{"id":"W1570120334","doi":"10.5235/jr.23.2.1","title":"Standing Space Only in the CJEU: Comment on &lt;I&gt;Inuit TapiriitKanatami v European Parliament and Council&lt;/I&gt;","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Judicial Review","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Political science; Space (punctuation); Law; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.07731161660712133,"score_gpt":0.3230648305755056,"score_spread":0.2457532139683843,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1570120334","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016870106,0.0059761484,0.0010650466,0.8649472,0.007802447,0.00008352646,0.00023593211,0.00013881536,0.10288088],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.06963759,0.0007676835,0.0003807953,0.90182495,0.003023193,0.000086644315,0.00005071386,0.00008778687,0.024140552],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98800975,0.002291772,0.0008805311,0.001853337,0.003819702,0.003144825],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96909595,0.024004573,0.0012537354,0.00078992016,0.0035104316,0.0013454049],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016984664,0.0007555457,0.0013397398,0.0013356616,0.017043848,0.011538647,0.0055781845,0.0789455,0.006823625],"category_scores_gemma":[0.055592373,0.0011035873,0.0014436371,0.0025102347,0.009374355,0.0071271025,0.0045416057,0.035545297,0.002369722],"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":[0.00013876785,0.00006287381,0.002067143,0.00021297338,0.00004217671,0.0027336688,0.008166339,0.00022882527,0.00093274703,0.254122,0.724524,0.0067684343],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012959009,0.00011470395,0.006519444,0.0011383104,0.00015004053,0.0006296868,0.008491478,0.0007871569,0.0037746977,0.040807452,0.93711746,0.00034006446],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10116656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18283038,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10116656,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008884789,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013366589,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20115536},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2181249333","doi":"10.5235/108546811799320844","title":"Judicial and Political Decision-making: The Uncertain Boundary","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Judicial Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"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":"Simon Fraser University","keywords":"Politics; Judicial opinion; Boundary (topology); Judicial review; Political science; Judicial activism; Law; Law and economics; Sociology; Mathematics","score_opus":0.07119389565167876,"score_gpt":0.3685869565634812,"score_spread":0.29739306091180245,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2181249333","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0061855074,0.30781507,0.031077128,0.57015127,0.0029825377,0.00008158724,0.00033825616,0.000074815274,0.0812938],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.74114126,0.13014849,0.018195676,0.08559357,0.017987678,0.00047585784,0.00023653854,0.00012723065,0.0060936706],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.94578755,0.034301836,0.002548722,0.0030124541,0.012193158,0.0021561338],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8003088,0.17529204,0.0068965037,0.005001417,0.010608942,0.0018923227],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0600047,0.00090044964,0.0019237706,0.0041413126,0.006722878,0.018721841,0.002397009,0.013196424,0.005385132],"category_scores_gemma":[0.15168163,0.0010734214,0.0010348236,0.0045016245,0.04221447,0.03150027,0.00600985,0.014596139,0.0014241054],"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":[0.00005759364,0.0000164327,0.00032485698,0.0002302272,0.000033907185,0.00010688348,0.001267106,0.00065771246,0.00006328906,0.9358345,0.041647878,0.019759605],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021877826,0.00000862253,0.0003604788,0.00035279302,0.000013729809,0.000033701857,0.00030430677,0.0003366267,0.000046982266,0.9732484,0.025253609,0.000019002113],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00618537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0101622725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0600047,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010758472,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012868822,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31733894},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2334211255","doi":"10.5235/108546812801228149","title":"The Incoherence of Judicial Review in Canada","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Judicial Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial review; Political science; Judicial opinion; Judicial activism; Law","score_opus":0.03762319479688505,"score_gpt":0.32732337396518735,"score_spread":0.2897001791683023,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2334211255","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14044078,0.0642982,0.003089977,0.5621472,0.0018482163,0.00021249926,0.0017324806,0.00013393977,0.22609673],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9286272,0.01471877,0.0013809932,0.029619688,0.00046864786,0.00007144762,0.00019181779,0.00007354442,0.024847941],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9636312,0.0040706825,0.001168398,0.0018343227,0.019351281,0.009944106],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9231031,0.020494139,0.0049286555,0.0011156425,0.039974056,0.01038437],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015431702,0.00027497404,0.0008387459,0.0041706404,0.030002847,0.01191606,0.0025225747,0.0042513176,0.00583397],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06998363,0.00079379114,0.00047598744,0.009885357,0.012934236,0.0032190597,0.0045934473,0.00826261,0.00033038415],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00015909088,0.000057986137,0.030021222,0.00044856532,0.00013927606,0.00074511615,0.01789788,0.0016861111,0.0003837876,0.5903961,0.2735827,0.08448212],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022504343,0.00010938722,0.22200245,0.0017576875,0.0003030752,0.00035453905,0.019188264,0.0039826347,0.0011447439,0.08711526,0.6633521,0.00046490392],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99556905,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99826485,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24985513,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.24985513,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.470551,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.87006176},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2773082658","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2014.11426821","title":"Standing Space Only in the CJEU: Comment on <i>Inuit TapiriitKanatami v European Parliament and Council</i>","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Judicial Review","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Political science; Law; Space (punctuation); Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.06891814079131052,"score_gpt":0.32130604427298765,"score_spread":0.2523879034816771,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2773082658","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00083040504,0.0024283107,0.00016067245,0.97303087,0.01364654,0.000036307592,0.00028981979,0.000056150275,0.009520972],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.004405706,0.00046361994,0.000119808275,0.985302,0.0047726873,0.00006293213,0.000055233326,0.000043191732,0.0047747996],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97174364,0.004403874,0.00332996,0.003454455,0.011708437,0.0053596953],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.92436147,0.04949994,0.0044811573,0.0015475187,0.015687069,0.004422792],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.024978444,0.001404764,0.0030030364,0.0021219137,0.01739488,0.01445586,0.0147324335,0.15268409,0.011554293],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11120472,0.0022347483,0.0033916817,0.004733715,0.011820604,0.011606418,0.0072823046,0.070544586,0.007035627],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000040807867,0.000013179104,0.0002042874,0.00009826966,0.000013188962,0.00037629233,0.0008974693,0.000030277371,0.00014630538,0.01032229,0.9866747,0.0011828688],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018277047,0.00008679547,0.0042758244,0.0011527629,0.00013439223,0.00036326208,0.003780638,0.00032656753,0.0010916274,0.014810079,0.97347724,0.00031810292],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14268643,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.23208573,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8573136,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015697047,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031472415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2837118},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4402448089","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2024.2392371","title":"The Case for Fiduciary Duties in Public Law or when Public Law Duties are not Enough …","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Judicial Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Fiduciary; Law; Public law; Political science; Business; Duty","score_opus":0.16772162785650016,"score_gpt":0.39804062913449695,"score_spread":0.2303190012779968,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4402448089","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0065378672,0.009629345,0.0036756187,0.666251,0.005647478,0.000037106573,0.00010369862,0.00008991673,0.30802798],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4279985,0.0047178236,0.0041169235,0.4374428,0.009228948,0.0001693843,0.00011526575,0.00019429433,0.11601601],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9760933,0.009723605,0.00069776294,0.0034179825,0.0058221323,0.0042452333],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97924346,0.012421368,0.001846393,0.0020001563,0.003449786,0.0010388368],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020449165,0.00044823613,0.0007650808,0.0009170509,0.012364834,0.01129829,0.001987725,0.025704034,0.011286707],"category_scores_gemma":[0.052076638,0.0007456981,0.0006456095,0.0008747489,0.032750037,0.014111736,0.004740529,0.02037418,0.0041100895],"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":[0.00001536422,0.0000079127985,0.00015835938,0.000040073788,0.0000056068257,0.00009280109,0.0013970144,0.000019006506,0.00008833407,0.82334065,0.1709771,0.0038576797],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023632943,0.00002036141,0.00090181135,0.00041463738,0.00001780704,0.00040418576,0.002285169,0.00015942939,0.00037402983,0.41261366,0.58273405,0.00005120596],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011419485,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.021831341,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.025704034,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0057906224,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01160883,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10814679},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}