{"meta":{"query_hash":"1d61662c94aa","filters":{"venue":"LSE law review"},"cohort_total":4,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":4,"exported":4,"export_cap":100000,"truncated":false,"label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12"},"permalink":"https://metacan.xera.ac/q/1d61662c94aa","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=LSE+law+review"},"results":[{"id":"W2901064361","doi":"10.61315/lselr.25","title":"The Inadequacy of UK Moral Rights Protection: A Comparative Study on the Waivability of Rights and Recontextualisation of Works in Copyright and Droit D’auteurs Systems","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"LSE law review","topic":"Copyright and Intellectual Property","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Waiver; Moral rights; Section (typography); Law; Convention; Political science; Law and economics; Work (physics); Intellectual property; Sociology; Business; Engineering","score_opus":0.08910917853850718,"score_gpt":0.28020244294206387,"score_spread":0.19109326440355667,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2901064361","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":[0.6757726,0.05643603,0.0008545054,0.009796196,0.00024566022,0.00005966356,0.00015503765,0.000013956395,0.2566664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9840785,0.009178074,0.00021668035,0.0005402169,0.000028804767,0.000015341122,0.000045828445,0.000008329679,0.0058881207],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97888744,0.010081441,0.0011877334,0.0010331771,0.00671247,0.0020978118],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.965114,0.021984791,0.0036593792,0.0013369315,0.0072005857,0.000704299],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009856788,0.00017492038,0.00053583545,0.0062231235,0.004389883,0.008086678,0.0008682779,0.0017992029,0.0039567393],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03356369,0.0002725784,0.0002223924,0.010073045,0.007417517,0.0046038963,0.0030536347,0.0013666827,0.00036954187],"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":[0.00044112108,0.00016798502,0.040502846,0.003088589,0.00016127876,0.0037604282,0.29361796,0.00079892983,0.0013765107,0.32895085,0.019551069,0.30758244],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055318167,0.0003189701,0.2293196,0.003978203,0.00014937202,0.0016397306,0.25077206,0.0004499427,0.0014730657,0.008481694,0.50324035,0.000121703975],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2782302,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.39429942,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2782302,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029200148,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01092173,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55322146},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3023081599","doi":"10.61315/lselr.79","title":"How Can the Methodology of Feminist Judgment Writing Improve Gender-Sensitivity in International Criminal Law?","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"LSE law review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","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":"Dissenting opinion; Indeterminacy (philosophy); Law; Criminal law; Criminal court; Judicial opinion; Sociology; Political science; Criminology; International law; Epistemology","score_opus":0.18230844070233446,"score_gpt":0.38343104777857057,"score_spread":0.2011226070762361,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3023081599","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":[0.04720155,0.018446334,0.21510369,0.21333009,0.007490905,0.00044644895,0.00014146545,0.00026441136,0.49757513],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8504525,0.0071230354,0.10031714,0.016232591,0.0026934803,0.0005034495,0.0000685974,0.00032925906,0.022279996],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.82541066,0.14810164,0.003637311,0.004352953,0.015723743,0.0027736684],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.72275186,0.23585598,0.009830221,0.009301901,0.02075507,0.0015049834],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.14233391,0.00066638377,0.0009781516,0.0059171133,0.007410695,0.018171038,0.0029441197,0.0030327283,0.0044384594],"category_scores_gemma":[0.21059012,0.0005357494,0.0006346751,0.0039330153,0.042074677,0.012396003,0.0058760834,0.006671898,0.0007826642],"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":[0.000019197005,0.00002957459,0.0011480446,0.0003535022,0.000025294172,0.00013392566,0.046863873,0.0006343472,0.0002425182,0.83507216,0.011858708,0.10361887],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023349186,0.00007167235,0.0025408566,0.001382104,0.00002676819,0.00014934725,0.04077073,0.0017839827,0.0016719822,0.6685539,0.28292742,0.00009782716],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008057241,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016614715,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9925893,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010337661,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011132134,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.75274265},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4388980739","doi":"10.61315/lselr.574","title":"Questioning the Potential of the Forthcoming WIPO’s Diplomatic Conference on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources: Endless Negotiations Coming to a Successful End?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"LSE law review","topic":"Intellectual Property and Patents","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Misappropriation; Intellectual property; Traditional knowledge; Genetic resources; Negotiation; Compromise; Folklore; Law and economics; Transparency (behavior); Public domain; Indigenous; Business; Political science; Law; Public relations; Sociology; Biotechnology; Biology; Ecology; History","score_opus":0.08975247469920018,"score_gpt":0.2512166634122954,"score_spread":0.16146418871309526,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4388980739","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":[0.008475558,0.009072555,0.006775339,0.80830127,0.003172119,0.00005714166,0.00004386496,0.00003911907,0.16406295],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.53564745,0.012456084,0.010028943,0.3668833,0.005031035,0.0004618377,0.000082144696,0.0001618612,0.06924729],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9754376,0.010804525,0.0007332254,0.0018358321,0.0075294166,0.0036593995],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97278184,0.019994956,0.0015611497,0.0013734581,0.0027593996,0.0015292559],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.039024163,0.0006766656,0.00079386146,0.001439463,0.011885474,0.029776633,0.0037255597,0.036685884,0.005369458],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06006823,0.00061549916,0.0013078045,0.0013911487,0.029309796,0.026729807,0.008465252,0.036252987,0.0013654493],"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":[0.000006954778,0.000014003398,0.00006181117,0.00002384647,0.0000035834832,0.00011045662,0.0010986977,0.00008724773,0.000059225764,0.9816706,0.013265405,0.0035981047],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004513491,0.000043789336,0.0004081944,0.0005188667,0.000015313108,0.00015573291,0.0052651744,0.0005795899,0.0004375667,0.61642843,0.3760327,0.00006948095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009688248,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0080271065,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.039024163,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011363081,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020498142,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20638198},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4392891524","doi":"10.61315/lselr.666","title":"Fighting for IP Equity: A Zoom on the Forthcoming Who Pandemic Agreement","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"LSE law review","topic":"Biotechnology and Related Fields","field":"Medicine","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Pandemic; Zoom; Equity (law); Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); Business; Computer science; Political science; Medicine; Law; Physics; Infectious disease (medical specialty); Optics","score_opus":0.07197264315269193,"score_gpt":0.366656520615119,"score_spread":0.2946838774624271,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4392891524","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":[0.0025569324,0.032212656,0.004875837,0.78156227,0.003524598,0.0000923719,0.00007001476,0.00003275841,0.17507248],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.097232655,0.046446685,0.0068207695,0.7937513,0.007861143,0.00031641862,0.00009410229,0.000089682464,0.04738722],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9787618,0.010416609,0.0009312651,0.0014413074,0.0059595257,0.0024894224],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9699008,0.024560055,0.00094629603,0.00092672516,0.0027688087,0.0008974525],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03875191,0.0005493255,0.00082397833,0.002047482,0.0065516056,0.014365987,0.0027145804,0.026949424,0.0068982756],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024216268,0.0005006023,0.0016277232,0.0020571796,0.018827952,0.022849604,0.006117815,0.027249202,0.0013204701],"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":[0.0000056362956,0.000015188276,0.00012113844,0.00011044148,0.0000042630763,0.0002935866,0.0011484605,0.0001239479,0.00011702885,0.9411035,0.0465198,0.010437053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018217352,0.000038352227,0.0003811988,0.0012906321,0.000010552146,0.0002769444,0.0025421507,0.00028549478,0.00024318452,0.20561956,0.7892472,0.000046450747],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014309261,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02269429,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03875191,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008777607,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019504352,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20494217},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}