{"meta":{"query_hash":"0fc5a2647482","filters":{"venue":"Legal Studies"},"cohort_total":27,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":27,"exported":27,"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/0fc5a2647482","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Legal+Studies"},"results":[{"id":"W1507354143","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2010.00167.x","title":"The case of ‘losses in any event’: a question of duty, cause or damages?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Causation; Damages; Plaintiff; Scrutiny; Tort; Argument (complex analysis); Duty; Event (particle physics); Relevance (law); Appeal; Scope (computer science); Law; Law and economics; Duty of care; Raising (metalworking); Political science; Business; Liability; Economics; Engineering; Computer science; Medicine","score_opus":0.052535518684242756,"score_gpt":0.4218381476761031,"score_spread":0.36930262899186034,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1507354143","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":[0.12796322,0.013664913,0.069067344,0.38857344,0.0031663605,0.00018898495,0.00012602554,0.00006664122,0.39718306],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9495309,0.0025196197,0.004471128,0.026535042,0.0026835322,0.00013915585,0.000030453137,0.00003887894,0.014051214],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98224133,0.0075579635,0.0009848323,0.002176544,0.005208342,0.0018309295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97038865,0.022812959,0.002192442,0.0022873394,0.0016750923,0.00064352073],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025567267,0.00050126313,0.0016073863,0.0016023223,0.006383939,0.009102994,0.004076192,0.022060974,0.0033181263],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05061991,0.0006795287,0.0013348737,0.0011763099,0.053217046,0.022402547,0.00811905,0.015155276,0.0005463757],"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":[0.00002039841,0.00001815688,0.00055398117,0.00004902465,0.000020870079,0.0009081116,0.0030042755,0.00021576895,0.00013541963,0.9872164,0.003497428,0.0043602223],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001574441,0.000037363086,0.00090235315,0.00022000777,0.000028454522,0.0013148407,0.0029973262,0.0006619115,0.00026925726,0.9523736,0.041142642,0.000036594844],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0034345035,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002619761,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.025567267,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003720959,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003707614,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13521421},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1605381589","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2012.00243.x","title":"An inconvenient truth: barriers to truth recovery in the aftermath of institutional child abuse in Ireland","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Military, Security, and Education Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":80,"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":"Queen's University; Queen's University Belfast","keywords":"Irish; Context (archaeology); Blame; Transitional justice; Economic Justice; Accountability; Child protection; Sociology; State (computer science); Criminology; Agency (philosophy); Law; Political science; Public administration; Social psychology; Social science; Psychology; History","score_opus":0.030858312818407247,"score_gpt":0.3312081396001303,"score_spread":0.30034982678172306,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1605381589","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":[0.91962916,0.0016243318,0.00055546634,0.036430415,0.00014573036,0.00006366209,0.000027748694,0.000012984966,0.041510545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9963108,0.000628634,0.00011882422,0.0015832549,0.000023982615,0.000020177751,0.000008267014,0.00000781382,0.0012982715],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.97534275,0.014136473,0.0012740382,0.0007145153,0.0016522018,0.0068799406],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96714425,0.019108672,0.00581916,0.0013935037,0.0031832708,0.003351208],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020949068,0.0001981139,0.0006693065,0.0016151152,0.020101795,0.015574886,0.003210416,0.004243261,0.0036599021],"category_scores_gemma":[0.062898904,0.0005869145,0.0004432998,0.002469512,0.02670606,0.008411681,0.01715153,0.008486362,0.00035117753],"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":[0.00007555699,0.00008370386,0.018393567,0.0002071412,0.000016118123,0.0030721303,0.90447146,0.00014158427,0.00021143084,0.051951755,0.003082931,0.018292652],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004796901,0.000035514066,0.0074504353,0.0002902683,0.000007871872,0.00039816793,0.97806084,0.00008075771,0.00009432902,0.0026063689,0.010948945,0.000021692591],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12776811,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19088115,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12776811,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025205646,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024579125,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.25404882},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1965454850","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2003.tb00208.x","title":"Confidence and the constructive trust","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":71,"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":"Constructive; Constructive trust; Law; Declaration; Legitimacy; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Commonwealth; Computer science; History; Process (computing)","score_opus":0.037412194110403495,"score_gpt":0.3505393579168602,"score_spread":0.3131271638064567,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1965454850","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":[0.06239829,0.010244568,0.13538194,0.14787705,0.001425151,0.00020404966,0.00014079337,0.00012200652,0.6422062],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98114955,0.0012201807,0.0049532494,0.005667704,0.000486216,0.00010631076,0.00001535884,0.000025784484,0.006375702],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9700162,0.016292652,0.0016557788,0.0029863114,0.0066241515,0.0024249454],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94450074,0.03697462,0.0063168285,0.0054258853,0.004655943,0.0021259554],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025893934,0.00051805825,0.00085619505,0.0025041397,0.0064350776,0.013415809,0.0017900408,0.00938131,0.004470996],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06293241,0.0006393773,0.0009580252,0.0016020141,0.097873,0.014555332,0.012486877,0.011390217,0.0005931287],"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":[0.0000030526774,0.0000027255185,0.000089174886,0.000012313547,0.0000030219678,0.000024513669,0.0005894047,0.000054624234,0.000019264171,0.9977234,0.0003323813,0.0011461453],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013042401,0.000015159608,0.000146479,0.00006671569,0.000005286651,0.000073445524,0.00035379178,0.00017821521,0.00008143957,0.9877072,0.011347847,0.000011256064],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0035238857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00202903,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.025893934,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0059964033,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006241827,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13694191},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1972815280","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2009.00138.x","title":"The common law and international law – a dynamic contemporary dialogue","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"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":"Law; Commonwealth; Common law; Political science; Municipal law; Human rights; Comparative law; International law; Skepticism; Public law","score_opus":0.032364902208471456,"score_gpt":0.34104309433132235,"score_spread":0.3086781921228509,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1972815280","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":[0.023321392,0.16523086,0.0066986843,0.40310094,0.003540152,0.000030487166,0.00007661703,0.000057969733,0.3979429],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8208018,0.08516563,0.0037641881,0.05518825,0.012322761,0.00009590544,0.00006792385,0.00016421817,0.022429392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9845238,0.010303617,0.00032132195,0.0011811235,0.0024952742,0.001174939],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9800336,0.015963675,0.00075064093,0.0010675725,0.00086512393,0.0013194075],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013016906,0.00050135487,0.001111305,0.0060872277,0.014254584,0.03482635,0.001844898,0.012447332,0.0054640844],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009599941,0.00046582677,0.0004589129,0.009854675,0.098768495,0.035852797,0.007726364,0.014902835,0.00046583256],"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":[0.0000023767764,0.0000064243877,0.000055417426,0.000022217244,0.0000018321188,0.000033237884,0.010283629,0.000044048586,0.000025477468,0.98247415,0.0038726653,0.0031783697],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000718471,0.000021969514,0.00053838815,0.0004651789,0.000004010718,0.00016282641,0.034279704,0.00022071734,0.00004125956,0.53499204,0.42924297,0.000023811228],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008904627,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011041279,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03482635,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018398078,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009317611,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.133488},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1995581034","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00182.x","title":"Is breach of confidence a fiduciary wrong? Preserving the reach of judge-made law","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Fiduciary; Duty; Law; Doctrine; Conflation; Hacker; Independence (probability theory); Political science; Computer security; Philosophy; Computer science; Epistemology","score_opus":0.09780596430543234,"score_gpt":0.39822027612726757,"score_spread":0.3004143118218352,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1995581034","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":[0.06842713,0.0070424704,0.019782813,0.49449095,0.0009052448,0.000050372182,0.0001062631,0.000060628307,0.40913403],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9661244,0.0016924514,0.0015649878,0.020773957,0.0003296108,0.00003832948,0.000017434264,0.000033062563,0.00942572],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9697893,0.011832244,0.0014163252,0.0026422776,0.0088949585,0.0054248064],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93374914,0.042647235,0.0063457307,0.0067160237,0.0069605075,0.003581254],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026904138,0.000306449,0.0011623928,0.002349651,0.009622549,0.020908939,0.0025441211,0.019144656,0.0049812156],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10334908,0.00052941137,0.0007073878,0.0021846895,0.08782954,0.024524262,0.00990119,0.014511965,0.0012473922],"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":[0.000009170175,0.000015504136,0.0008068443,0.000024874402,0.000007038236,0.00011182625,0.006029652,0.00008452027,0.00007226886,0.9840571,0.003687547,0.0050936216],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012090569,0.00003262661,0.0014025774,0.00034188252,0.000009877092,0.00022381885,0.011520049,0.00028161233,0.00024668584,0.937438,0.048455365,0.000035384794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01805996,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012563216,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026904138,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007667333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01583505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1422844},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2003922734","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2008.00081.x","title":"Rights-based justifications for the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Plaintiff; Law; Law and economics; Political science; Strict liability; Liability; Sociology","score_opus":0.09846264614462974,"score_gpt":0.362582794066692,"score_spread":0.2641201479220623,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2003922734","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":[0.04482499,0.0032237777,0.08206892,0.06379977,0.0007767593,0.00016903521,0.00032405506,0.00011198039,0.8047008],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95149726,0.0011890924,0.009972931,0.004362164,0.001438105,0.00023675816,0.00012453418,0.00008486438,0.031094251],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9889064,0.003883121,0.00061358063,0.001585787,0.0034897947,0.00152132],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9860422,0.008263701,0.001449607,0.0020024045,0.0016182906,0.000623856],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012716786,0.00075581606,0.0009044351,0.0036085201,0.0049827755,0.008273413,0.002879443,0.014607754,0.015073414],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017440597,0.0007047444,0.0020730186,0.0011208582,0.033738077,0.013434347,0.006134983,0.010103297,0.001624285],"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":[0.0000014461813,0.000004971346,0.000020765901,0.00000493761,0.0000010632865,0.000018177612,0.000081604114,0.000058630674,0.000013701529,0.9993543,0.00023288411,0.0002075136],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001702455,0.000006139532,0.00013228403,0.000038337657,0.0000047133394,0.000050186994,0.00009727472,0.00062902656,0.00008559016,0.9892691,0.009662313,0.0000080717555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00278049,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029194162,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015073414,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005685317,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00289839,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06725359},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2018708350","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2007.00078.x","title":"The basis of the remoteness rule in contract","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":11,"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":"Doctrine; Identification (biology); Action (physics); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Actuarial science; Business; Economics; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.05856460324819201,"score_gpt":0.342642214587948,"score_spread":0.284077611339756,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2018708350","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":[0.039161015,0.003954461,0.33677977,0.025670776,0.00049817195,0.0002824501,0.00012927507,0.00010474237,0.5934194],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89790124,0.0017518135,0.070448406,0.0035736822,0.0008949043,0.00046156975,0.00006955077,0.00008678488,0.024812102],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9846318,0.0061776005,0.00081993773,0.0023580112,0.0049135615,0.0010991963],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9854527,0.009706469,0.0010047035,0.0018891543,0.0015191707,0.000427786],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016205883,0.0004885461,0.0008478933,0.0016284061,0.004498895,0.007342513,0.0021581529,0.006821948,0.006994652],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023057653,0.00059813523,0.00126017,0.0011853504,0.040425897,0.0113514615,0.0045920257,0.008544816,0.0012284173],"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":[0.0000014675177,0.0000020235893,0.00002519905,0.000004825085,8.403569e-7,0.000015433076,0.00010053632,0.00011584215,0.000018250137,0.9990258,0.00010784739,0.00058188295],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007487483,0.000006542618,0.000049439783,0.000021674265,0.0000014664583,0.000041778836,0.000048114714,0.0005050281,0.00004579598,0.99563295,0.0036353185,0.000004472989],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0029943958,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0012523857,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.016205883,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038205525,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004982875,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08570588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2027430988","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2005.tb00270.x","title":"Revisiting pure economic loss: lessons to be learnt from the Supreme Court of Canada?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Supreme court; CLARITY; Law; Transparency (behavior); Common law; Position (finance); Test (biology); Convergence (economics); Political science; High Court; Law and economics; Economics","score_opus":0.05625833674962344,"score_gpt":0.33725167220055585,"score_spread":0.2809933354509324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2027430988","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":[0.04050023,0.124178104,0.005980403,0.62903255,0.0035308546,0.00006723633,0.00044938567,0.000089654044,0.19617158],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78313637,0.07458599,0.0060076755,0.11051095,0.0019248896,0.000054988282,0.00022416835,0.00013538286,0.023419611],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9829699,0.0023027074,0.0005467402,0.0012158856,0.008836344,0.004128401],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9770737,0.008384467,0.000732592,0.0006820094,0.011367246,0.0017598734],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012079946,0.0006612338,0.001293145,0.0053655375,0.018573035,0.020167982,0.0047731875,0.0076407013,0.0033078261],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030503966,0.00052910513,0.0008250975,0.0077034547,0.038541712,0.010560345,0.0060324157,0.012674516,0.0003346092],"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":[0.000019307174,0.00001800234,0.0016346095,0.0001631606,0.000029593448,0.00031961076,0.007812935,0.0006958279,0.00011087678,0.9202123,0.037615642,0.031368006],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000066378976,0.000029882387,0.0139777735,0.0025094585,0.00015629458,0.00028372137,0.034145683,0.0022794034,0.0004752669,0.4652203,0.480528,0.00032792147],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99328256,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9952152,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16568048,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16568048,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31606725,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9676924},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2039722319","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00142.x","title":"Environmental monitoring of government — the case for an environmental auditor","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Regulation and Compliance Studies","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":"Audit; Accountability; Accounting; Government (linguistics); Argument (complex analysis); House of Commons; Business; Environmental audit; Chief audit executive; Joint audit; Value (mathematics); Audit committee; Internal audit; Public administration; Political science; Law; Medicine; Computer science","score_opus":0.030866168625972717,"score_gpt":0.2507681898323116,"score_spread":0.21990202120633887,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2039722319","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":[0.12651317,0.005375464,0.011819334,0.57357675,0.00074675493,0.00018338846,0.000046862337,0.00021874561,0.28151956],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9521316,0.0017063046,0.003095818,0.024607802,0.00048626293,0.00013479963,0.00002004539,0.000052854994,0.017764425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.91158587,0.05658555,0.0023844708,0.0050502312,0.0128728775,0.011521073],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8657502,0.08446174,0.013122455,0.010381855,0.017354107,0.008929628],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.056546632,0.00022470113,0.0006396168,0.0021340249,0.020464482,0.021602426,0.002383399,0.014954945,0.0027794973],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10313387,0.000847399,0.00061259983,0.0035363166,0.03541798,0.015254636,0.009578348,0.015665708,0.00042815844],"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":[0.00009012015,0.00009906799,0.013528965,0.00009859672,0.000027871098,0.000707765,0.017593732,0.0007549324,0.0003368448,0.8643157,0.03581549,0.06663092],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000108221815,0.0002592588,0.021796444,0.0013465206,0.00005982313,0.000952387,0.02393247,0.0050856667,0.0015349924,0.37546867,0.5692512,0.00020442452],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.053461984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.046165563,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.056546632,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014538652,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03677753,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.29905075},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2045372520","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00573.x","title":"History's living legacy: an outline of ‘modern’ historiography of the common law","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"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 Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Historiography; Interpretation (philosophy); Politics; Principal (computer security); Law; Legal history; Sociology; Period (music); History; Social science; Political science; Aesthetics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.05606189682910321,"score_gpt":0.3080389669174809,"score_spread":0.25197707008837766,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2045372520","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":[0.03267111,0.32448325,0.016348787,0.05643763,0.0031298273,0.00006877321,0.00024690415,0.00009573362,0.5665181],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7468906,0.18147017,0.0056037656,0.0048331046,0.005076238,0.00013541577,0.00020844632,0.0001404874,0.055641703],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99891233,0.0006089203,0.000040273033,0.00012190281,0.00021225668,0.00010437068],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988129,0.0006857725,0.00014591523,0.00011848781,0.00013762653,0.00009930551],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018108573,0.00042954285,0.0003118157,0.0048124897,0.004057013,0.00898275,0.0010314398,0.0014516652,0.004358443],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0026661148,0.00024343168,0.00019485549,0.0054392107,0.026304586,0.010653958,0.0027665643,0.0025904484,0.0004588377],"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":[0.0000039526053,0.0000070592346,0.00033090025,0.00008989399,0.0000031816705,0.0000625108,0.015249214,0.00011608443,0.000042763153,0.96730316,0.0039479677,0.012843397],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000026114296,0.000015982763,0.0011283124,0.0006262637,0.0000037610178,0.00016368504,0.011408738,0.00013388612,0.00007025639,0.31371322,0.6727238,0.000009389001],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008969901,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011338166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.00898275,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008616293,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0048416564,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.062515914},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2067349740","doi":"10.1111/lest.12086","title":"Stanley Fish on Philosophy, Politics and Law, by Michael Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, vii + 355pp (£60 hardback). ISBN: 9781107074743.","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Fish <Actinopterygii>; Sociology; Philosophy; Law; Media studies; Political science; Fishery; Biology","score_opus":0.031293583026202006,"score_gpt":0.271008895156151,"score_spread":0.239715312129949,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2067349740","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00015333375,0.9503041,0.0007744166,0.021907063,0.0034994937,0.000015474912,0.00025095814,0.00008670681,0.023008442],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0067901774,0.7941976,0.0021971555,0.0054272898,0.0040376815,0.00007498593,0.00048071798,0.00023187694,0.18656254],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992275,0.00019339296,0.00007233717,0.00012364265,0.00032488166,0.000058351263],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987501,0.00064047,0.00012857438,0.00007079213,0.00028169813,0.00012835875],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019067355,0.0021826033,0.0011983961,0.004518619,0.0013271696,0.0036540003,0.0014531147,0.002956245,0.049237803],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0038846277,0.0014227796,0.0006271507,0.0056425,0.0026429635,0.009031833,0.0019921474,0.0032348838,0.026564585],"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":[0.000022274995,0.000010546174,0.00007816787,0.00049620226,0.000009561489,0.00003453607,0.00031762323,0.00012998398,0.000097898905,0.011410656,0.91978586,0.06760664],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000070846418,0.000006589445,0.0005052512,0.0009866322,0.0000049490714,0.00011329937,0.00028472542,0.000055392386,0.00006604876,0.012534986,0.9854254,0.000009556695],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.017547159,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.037512835,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.049237803,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0033869587,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003937793,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16471684},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2087436012","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00240.x","title":"Supreme Courts, independence and democratic agency","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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 Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Independence (probability theory); Judicial independence; Argument (complex analysis); Principal (computer security); Democracy; Agency (philosophy); Political science; Sociology; Medicine; Politics","score_opus":0.043377433642921605,"score_gpt":0.3255763760675642,"score_spread":0.28219894242464255,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2087436012","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":[0.043988395,0.010487182,0.007359146,0.078330174,0.00055354135,0.00002840688,0.00006218957,0.00002722632,0.8591637],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96149373,0.0024388784,0.00087882846,0.0056530703,0.00072277326,0.000036642534,0.000032220254,0.000021095242,0.028722858],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99077016,0.0041856407,0.00022693229,0.0010886928,0.0018695741,0.0018590434],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9900289,0.0061037927,0.00095572975,0.0010792766,0.0009880145,0.0008442619],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007946669,0.00028579874,0.0004578581,0.0014980535,0.009607301,0.00918735,0.000899311,0.0036488585,0.006678753],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014900638,0.00028915593,0.00038740574,0.0015057485,0.03717289,0.0065128505,0.0065534525,0.0072039026,0.0007742211],"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":[0.0000030676626,0.0000042499632,0.00009231838,0.000005858476,0.0000021193505,0.000013122646,0.0005600264,0.00005438335,0.000016622293,0.9964005,0.0014104354,0.0014373452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018234437,0.000010806822,0.00071473303,0.00006065799,0.0000055195583,0.000032217704,0.00080628775,0.00010094699,0.00009162762,0.92880106,0.06935022,0.000007655887],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008236184,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011306944,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009607301,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005692046,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0063051144,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04202652},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2088623055","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2005.tb00685.x","title":"Citizenship and family life in Ireland: asking the question ‘Who belongs’?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"European and International Law Studies","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":"Citizenship; Deportation; De facto; Immigration; Naturalization; Residence; Political science; Vulnerability (computing); Politics; Law; Subject (documents); Sociology","score_opus":0.04424618320583968,"score_gpt":0.34145960821035637,"score_spread":0.2972134250045167,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2088623055","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":[0.6465928,0.012338138,0.00046371226,0.20254894,0.00064452866,0.000031657746,0.000117363634,0.000027434859,0.1372354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98797137,0.0026064138,0.00012681856,0.005855261,0.00009304828,0.000025391957,0.00003157104,0.00001027564,0.0032798194],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928744,0.004328922,0.00024669254,0.00031659214,0.0004943385,0.0017390273],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99396354,0.002214646,0.0008646585,0.00026652173,0.0007047819,0.0019859448],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0076952614,0.00020628907,0.00047275593,0.0017749488,0.011237915,0.008705222,0.0014147251,0.0034034208,0.0025391637],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0129251685,0.0003195388,0.00041195742,0.0018310229,0.03294211,0.010778129,0.008055584,0.004208506,0.00036596018],"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":[0.000045923705,0.00008199694,0.027592646,0.000111301626,0.0000153991,0.0011338873,0.84636295,0.00010028239,0.00007697561,0.074550495,0.022676168,0.027251914],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000607367,0.000022644204,0.015788112,0.00024409185,0.0000044060275,0.0003918087,0.9207967,0.000058665908,0.000031510583,0.011236212,0.051387366,0.000032355998],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17499627,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20493458,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17499627,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018947717,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013043803,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34795535},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2091752406","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00167.x","title":"Casaubon's ghosts: the haunting of legal scholarship","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Scholarship; Legal formalism; Mainstream; Legal realism; Law; Pride; Political science; Sociology; Legal profession; Comparative law; Black letter law","score_opus":0.13637137564472432,"score_gpt":0.456736296431363,"score_spread":0.3203649207866387,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2091752406","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":[0.010256322,0.027067881,0.0022423468,0.8553537,0.0062067565,0.000015029334,0.000033024717,0.00012461044,0.09870035],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69219863,0.025918394,0.009034702,0.16630696,0.007819658,0.00014595292,0.000055386914,0.00040877605,0.09811151],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.988468,0.0067823566,0.00025216988,0.0009623052,0.0025104259,0.0010247378],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.970831,0.017563816,0.0011291145,0.0025922975,0.0032428298,0.004641021],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0146660665,0.00038986842,0.00089264533,0.003123313,0.029336091,0.022914447,0.0019285089,0.011979985,0.008306782],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038452316,0.00041417987,0.00052536343,0.0036576581,0.05648579,0.019012945,0.010223467,0.014153152,0.0013569677],"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":[0.000022603968,0.000009986467,0.0001970011,0.00008040696,0.0000040656905,0.00016588398,0.017167633,0.00007800343,0.000037450234,0.84970844,0.11290292,0.019625578],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016563923,0.000012512576,0.00022487859,0.00048040572,0.0000042703805,0.00027341154,0.014445783,0.00023556624,0.00006639163,0.2909653,0.6932522,0.000022829065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04682504,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08820636,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9706639,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022531012,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03144377,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16347468},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2135616196","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00255.x","title":"The doctrine of informed consent: does it exist and has it crossed the Atlantic?","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":35,"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":"Doctrine; Autonomy; Duty; Law; Informed consent; Context (archaeology); Bioethics; Duty of care; Legal doctrine; Value (mathematics); Political science; Medicine; History; Alternative medicine; Computer science","score_opus":0.1150022491504285,"score_gpt":0.4203610046556388,"score_spread":0.3053587555052103,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2135616196","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":[0.0056466134,0.053749822,0.008186062,0.8830099,0.0022745046,0.00002196359,0.000021589962,0.000019395115,0.047070213],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5589842,0.07076783,0.0128443,0.33468464,0.011959087,0.00023241126,0.000061758,0.00012264254,0.0103430655],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9263658,0.045373388,0.0029236667,0.0039041606,0.017714428,0.0037185873],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8611009,0.11431689,0.006237243,0.006443178,0.006993276,0.0049084094],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09545737,0.00044231795,0.0020147467,0.0016379739,0.0080571575,0.016943388,0.0043551726,0.022728547,0.0034544065],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11058376,0.0007230613,0.00095874065,0.0028192983,0.14923972,0.045043133,0.00908514,0.028799133,0.00092686596],"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":[0.0000071959025,0.000008182849,0.00017809513,0.00007872864,0.000003559958,0.000060678358,0.0027870922,0.000026267178,0.000031442614,0.9842987,0.0033532614,0.009166757],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002021704,0.000032006054,0.0003530765,0.0017143218,0.000009485671,0.00029791825,0.0047415267,0.000121077916,0.00010351138,0.8903028,0.1022727,0.00003140098],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011213292,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007899646,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09545737,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010717149,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02513055,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50483286},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2147152902","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2012.00242.x","title":"Policy-based reasoning in duty of care cases","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"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":"Duty; Welfare; Interpersonal communication; Economic Justice; Imperfect; Duty of care; Sample (material); Psychology; Political science; Sociology; Law; Law and economics; Social psychology","score_opus":0.0574952330479269,"score_gpt":0.3888278032987518,"score_spread":0.33133257025082485,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2147152902","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":[0.18310136,0.00363648,0.23139162,0.11462574,0.0007911787,0.0010026108,0.00023335777,0.00010653252,0.46511117],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9659548,0.0006167049,0.021585008,0.0062669087,0.0002109362,0.00027038783,0.00006609092,0.000026946607,0.0050023105],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.880072,0.06656301,0.007032703,0.0084863035,0.02647645,0.011369508],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8592956,0.11948402,0.00614302,0.0047389157,0.008813475,0.001524995],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.117209196,0.000542701,0.0013750539,0.0054831216,0.013144749,0.015356534,0.006055957,0.012602881,0.0048416313],"category_scores_gemma":[0.14662577,0.0011171965,0.0014379703,0.003093047,0.033293102,0.015155932,0.008738046,0.009474787,0.00049962604],"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":[0.000008916542,0.000019847274,0.0009276628,0.000038194357,0.000010217866,0.0002668244,0.0064843404,0.0009484801,0.00009979927,0.98732495,0.0008285502,0.0030420981],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003156557,0.00001706582,0.0014348008,0.00044104786,0.000021418671,0.00018179462,0.010394501,0.004045915,0.0005816155,0.9436916,0.03909515,0.00006340142],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.065572985,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.048414897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.117209196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030111559,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0342807,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6198689},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2162797822","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00138.x","title":"Illegal transactions: chaos or discretion?","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Commission; Statutory law; Discretion; Commonwealth; Law; Law reform; Judicial discretion; Political science; Common law; Judicial review","score_opus":0.05893827733802574,"score_gpt":0.3834800210036837,"score_spread":0.32454174366565797,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2162797822","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":[0.25906268,0.011363042,0.046001986,0.23689759,0.0006616616,0.00011319647,0.0002039285,0.00011732657,0.44557852],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9860217,0.001714466,0.0020891821,0.0020124114,0.00036799474,0.00004710346,0.000027279491,0.000024598661,0.007695165],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99198276,0.00384444,0.0005316053,0.00085415336,0.0017578651,0.0010292289],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9666353,0.020989323,0.0049470123,0.0038463587,0.0019789096,0.0016031547],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0067165536,0.00019362148,0.000596795,0.0024770459,0.0042915405,0.011683865,0.001197705,0.002961267,0.0040545114],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027100265,0.00036279875,0.00039140135,0.0022881723,0.05649504,0.015038206,0.007300179,0.0036064307,0.0005551385],"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":[0.000007761472,0.000005622641,0.0007511293,0.000022984093,0.0000020118166,0.00006638103,0.0054175,0.0002482647,0.000036196107,0.98734903,0.0013715678,0.004721548],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008017409,0.000015160777,0.0016257844,0.00017940512,0.0000038103196,0.0001268992,0.008073289,0.0009208812,0.000056601006,0.9505401,0.038431466,0.000018596182],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0055506933,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00609675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011683865,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004604154,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0050934665,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.03552091},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2346217348","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00251.x","title":"Judges and politics: an essay from Canada","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"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","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Law; Supreme court; Government (linguistics); Political science; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.029224881557690305,"score_gpt":0.2996854901820406,"score_spread":0.2704606086243503,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2346217348","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":[0.0060487655,0.21038789,0.00034794482,0.5530874,0.0071427696,0.000053579253,0.00037008736,0.000026837535,0.22253473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.247918,0.1701553,0.0010183996,0.22720005,0.00354605,0.00017349914,0.00028599857,0.00022088055,0.34948185],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9948277,0.0007416046,0.00012245038,0.00046268626,0.0021171588,0.0017283818],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9950197,0.001994721,0.00014040564,0.00009698356,0.0019030437,0.00084515614],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003208968,0.0007255117,0.0007509052,0.0029063523,0.043865323,0.015260377,0.0024860697,0.011058761,0.0075136316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009584711,0.00080098753,0.00043405933,0.0075480305,0.019404663,0.0048354454,0.0026830814,0.009795468,0.0010275494],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000020116926,0.000024389094,0.00091665797,0.00020042196,0.000009396218,0.00032188726,0.015168713,0.00020920238,0.00012356191,0.28186306,0.6874425,0.013700119],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013915973,0.0000037457692,0.0028761486,0.00063049805,0.000007856859,0.00006118161,0.0108181415,0.00007406823,0.000063166655,0.01450342,0.97091424,0.00003349139],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.983227,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9929669,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8130157,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.18698429,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18537763,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.942983},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2562963395","doi":"10.1111/lest.12145","title":"Exercising discretion in the context of dependent employment: assessing the impact of workload on the rule of law","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"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":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Regina","funders":"","keywords":"Discretion; Context (archaeology); Work (physics); Workload; Rule of law; Public law; Law; Government (linguistics); Accountability; Private law; Political science; Economics; Engineering","score_opus":0.07023885008892738,"score_gpt":0.3025441416311244,"score_spread":0.23230529154219703,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2562963395","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":[0.99946624,0.000027862983,0.000027442833,0.000031355557,0.0000012156848,0.000004408833,0.000012884615,3.6220843e-7,0.00042837454],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9998227,0.00002692495,0.00003110496,0.000009784361,0.0000025182871,0.0000033429212,0.000023042236,5.00841e-7,0.000080254984],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978707,0.00081370486,0.00009478159,0.00018050533,0.00049769017,0.00054261216],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9860897,0.0037867697,0.0049563893,0.0007204282,0.0011467418,0.003299981],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019922412,0.00028449163,0.0003666708,0.00093657,0.0017267533,0.002199255,0.00089074555,0.0006849679,0.001138918],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013388439,0.000287469,0.00025752228,0.0007406633,0.0022436716,0.000641731,0.0020890187,0.001020198,0.0002510867],"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":[0.00020717905,0.0006487699,0.9804047,0.000021493353,0.000043205753,0.00016536415,0.009308066,0.00028287788,0.0009773459,0.0002369254,0.00012017014,0.0075839376],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000033523727,0.00009451663,0.9941326,0.000007065523,0.000006089816,0.000023309925,0.00518752,0.00022065363,0.00006711008,0.00009738411,0.00015327436,0.0000071524505],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12378967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.24792545,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12378967,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0028079012,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0028448284,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24613827},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2771805912","doi":"10.1017/lst.2017.17","title":"Comparison in intersectional discrimination","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":29,"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":"Disadvantage; Race (biology); Selection (genetic algorithm); Racism; White (mutation); Sociology; Gender discrimination; Psychology; Social psychology; Computer science; Gender studies; Artificial intelligence; Economics","score_opus":0.1855808202657577,"score_gpt":0.4900491910479882,"score_spread":0.30446837078223055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2771805912","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":[0.07910609,0.0054581654,0.076101616,0.023026295,0.0008045705,0.00020464028,0.000099565324,0.00006572944,0.81513333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9821868,0.00072413235,0.008300255,0.0020898583,0.00011746135,0.000120478966,0.000030317291,0.000025123612,0.006405648],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.94622815,0.036475264,0.0015481982,0.0032367136,0.009545929,0.0029657145],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95201653,0.0349513,0.0030951987,0.0043590334,0.0047290763,0.00084886246],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03095839,0.0004129894,0.00097652245,0.005580137,0.009148717,0.011056747,0.0028889135,0.0039046768,0.00870208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04982805,0.00033304785,0.000948366,0.0045967447,0.057379536,0.012730814,0.014229855,0.005439438,0.00049474754],"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":[0.000009227783,0.0000050547687,0.00064562605,0.000033598673,0.0000058826886,0.000091136375,0.0042367843,0.000081356455,0.00003359877,0.989716,0.00052053214,0.004621259],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015413474,0.00006959649,0.0022942028,0.0007272354,0.00002735729,0.00036201294,0.014201596,0.00085115,0.0005787301,0.9079606,0.07287505,0.000037107224],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0076460913,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0058898907,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03095839,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007294496,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004966155,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16372555},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2781337439","doi":"10.1017/lst.2019.3","title":"UK post-Brexit trade agreements and devolution","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"European Union Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"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":"Queen's University; Queen's University Belfast","keywords":"Brexit; Devolution (biology); Negotiation; Perspective (graphical); International trade; Business; Political science; Public administration; European union; Law; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.030537784909652827,"score_gpt":0.3196914709308446,"score_spread":0.2891536860211918,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2781337439","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":[0.5161676,0.004259932,0.0058384337,0.048984453,0.0005314725,0.00012940276,0.00017631163,0.00007282697,0.42383963],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9708618,0.0003966901,0.00046959173,0.0015213583,0.000031227242,0.000037050395,0.00003851114,0.000011419701,0.026632382],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98607767,0.006305617,0.00079513586,0.0011727205,0.0021896947,0.0034591972],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9850087,0.0080746785,0.002039299,0.0015040234,0.00246371,0.0009095586],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011526243,0.00021819983,0.00044970599,0.0018145553,0.0063409223,0.011390437,0.001105683,0.0068604113,0.0101176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023494942,0.00025192526,0.00045295985,0.0022608505,0.012666774,0.0044689886,0.011835569,0.0049989866,0.00071644946],"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":[0.00007972481,0.000021860662,0.0012182374,0.00007499315,0.000010002158,0.00059737294,0.017451128,0.0010983247,0.00029746708,0.96451765,0.0040397863,0.010593445],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013682977,0.00025401002,0.027035426,0.0011784001,0.00002667383,0.0006241776,0.065598324,0.002234943,0.0016430046,0.18881777,0.7123111,0.0001392358],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05151893,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.046906963,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05151893,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0254767,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010663356,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1848473},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2796386265","doi":"10.1017/lst.2017.11","title":"Autonomy and prenuptial agreements in Ireland: a relational analysis","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Autonomy; Irish; Commission; Common law; Law; Equity (law); Injustice; Sociology; Political science","score_opus":0.04825470394405566,"score_gpt":0.3693254662490878,"score_spread":0.3210707623050321,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2796386265","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":[0.583334,0.0007636345,0.008252493,0.007583646,0.000060611215,0.0002045381,0.00015894722,0.000022284821,0.3996198],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99672854,0.00013242185,0.0004449176,0.00013895518,0.000008682106,0.000024609659,0.000028158396,0.000006985662,0.0024867726],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9845035,0.008021011,0.0005531415,0.00088172115,0.0028804294,0.0031601796],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98303753,0.008931259,0.0032659234,0.0011703542,0.0023774356,0.0012175448],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0122668715,0.000204481,0.00033179953,0.0027261595,0.0061336923,0.011079436,0.0023409664,0.0013488226,0.009280377],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022510694,0.00025776078,0.0006267901,0.0032962365,0.019016622,0.007431348,0.0106071215,0.0027371426,0.00045718867],"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":[0.000053412063,0.00007463179,0.022842664,0.000104800376,0.000021941747,0.0005547941,0.13283807,0.0009122855,0.00013041287,0.8292751,0.0012740213,0.01191785],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000042289932,0.00009600571,0.056974098,0.00070725766,0.00006756262,0.00048146493,0.6373721,0.0045611584,0.00035808384,0.19989668,0.09935907,0.00008432573],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0832618,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06122801,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0832618,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02880583,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01452041,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2090019},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919726698","doi":"10.1017/lst.2019.6","title":"Revisiting the fraud exception: a critique of United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada 40 years on","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Argument (complex analysis); Law; Doctrine; Supreme court; Political science; Presentation (obstetrics); Underpinning; Sociology; Law and economics; Engineering","score_opus":0.04464865428380113,"score_gpt":0.337203370805331,"score_spread":0.29255471652152987,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2919726698","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":[0.045809317,0.027264593,0.0049262233,0.5662522,0.0037855664,0.00009042419,0.00034397058,0.00014468994,0.3513831],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6751427,0.011600214,0.00227161,0.24440151,0.003872746,0.00008581465,0.00008712414,0.00015213354,0.062386144],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97927845,0.0028219277,0.00074655924,0.0024655482,0.01087506,0.0038124642],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9761084,0.010749434,0.0009869284,0.00081918266,0.009818987,0.0015170389],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013014113,0.0005906448,0.0011124897,0.0053912164,0.0236512,0.020054005,0.0058476846,0.021520728,0.0025930763],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03354197,0.00075738673,0.0009823836,0.004829275,0.044631112,0.0059748394,0.0047458373,0.029833967,0.0004220041],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013721616,0.0000070873643,0.0005881633,0.000034114477,0.0000121526555,0.00034115958,0.00592693,0.00023320153,0.00006886682,0.9421368,0.04589037,0.0047473675],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049142298,0.00002863019,0.004297743,0.0016074177,0.00011609101,0.00023837782,0.009459143,0.001547247,0.0005646039,0.18927313,0.7925794,0.00023901043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9663975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9614694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9663975,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11594479,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13935393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84124225},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3108774314","doi":"10.1017/lst.2020.38","title":"An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","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":"Reputation; Welsh; Disadvantage; Law; Corporate law; English law; Political science; Business; Corporate governance; History; Finance","score_opus":0.3751401205529468,"score_gpt":0.34647645570874536,"score_spread":0.028663664844201464,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3108774314","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8225855,0.0032169311,0.0010503528,0.0075665405,0.000060071765,0.0003670585,0.00029516502,0.000017869916,0.16484044],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9806189,0.0015111092,0.0009078629,0.0013779429,0.000010769758,0.00007296714,0.000109696164,0.000011223881,0.015379623],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9892426,0.0015038699,0.00025924196,0.0003886672,0.004673374,0.0039323815],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98030704,0.0055495338,0.0014679859,0.00044306004,0.009201607,0.0030307441],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004048629,0.00033557098,0.0004902504,0.0045738816,0.011346405,0.005900554,0.0018198799,0.0015094401,0.0031300755],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018265553,0.00040186584,0.00062466285,0.005382201,0.0046123187,0.0012981854,0.003187311,0.0029269923,0.00013873783],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005259931,0.000459614,0.23413563,0.00094468077,0.00033470604,0.0034466633,0.09157322,0.0040896176,0.0028193735,0.5249371,0.018064385,0.11866896],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012404803,0.00039604073,0.6666692,0.0011468088,0.0006457405,0.0009150712,0.13642393,0.0053899814,0.0023952767,0.012520388,0.1730092,0.00036424157],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9863668,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99520916,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10258383,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10258383,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11119563,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7443013},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123047564","doi":"10.1111/lest.12110","title":"Obligations in the shade: the application of fiduciary directors' duties to shadow directors","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Fiduciary; Shadow (psychology); Discretion; Law; Test (biology); Power (physics); Business; Law and economics; Accounting; Economics; Political science; Psychology; Duty","score_opus":0.045843469942528595,"score_gpt":0.36345810189706035,"score_spread":0.31761463195453177,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123047564","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":[0.08219871,0.0018084686,0.01623387,0.02381872,0.00037283075,0.0000562806,0.000034220135,0.000032597974,0.87544423],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9644225,0.00043567677,0.0020733525,0.0049590743,0.00017821578,0.000039104594,0.00001193673,0.000019260247,0.027860763],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99032146,0.003044693,0.00026922007,0.00090314576,0.0035995287,0.0018620474],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9914915,0.0047239535,0.0006470961,0.0008739385,0.001591369,0.0006721423],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007046362,0.00022947213,0.00045055198,0.0014375747,0.0074283825,0.0054056,0.0011352202,0.0029885068,0.00429099],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021473201,0.0003700109,0.00042743213,0.001025419,0.0341755,0.0060892333,0.0062588956,0.0049362048,0.00041875057],"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":[0.0000033269864,0.0000043604064,0.00039039232,0.0000065378217,0.0000010570192,0.000060947372,0.004079343,0.000064140084,0.000048560392,0.9913703,0.0011194714,0.002851437],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040189414,0.00004044811,0.0062702196,0.00023796472,0.0000191478,0.0002837689,0.008849176,0.0010022635,0.0005520064,0.8101487,0.17250104,0.00005509301],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0892143,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1090792,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0892143,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009717173,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012227243,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17739004},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4322770748","doi":"10.1017/lst.2023.1","title":"Security interests and knowing receipt","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","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":"Receipt; Property (philosophy); Liability; Context (archaeology); Doctrine; Security interest; Law and economics; Business; Point (geometry); Law; Political science; Sociology; Accounting; Epistemology","score_opus":0.07946423820398954,"score_gpt":0.40716223397991647,"score_spread":0.32769799577592695,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4322770748","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":[0.22318618,0.003135113,0.07078217,0.04478405,0.00022016608,0.00016753154,0.00012966024,0.00006375892,0.6575313],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99331397,0.00038126518,0.001102794,0.0007821666,0.000060536648,0.000024781222,0.000011287424,0.0000052589107,0.004317965],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9900497,0.0049131424,0.0008465714,0.0010112798,0.0020136628,0.0011655971],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96935946,0.018846493,0.004198371,0.003757315,0.0028377664,0.0010006295],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011680766,0.00024500248,0.0005555493,0.0018008334,0.0048746103,0.0074195885,0.0012973696,0.006364982,0.0065975175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02347457,0.00039476223,0.00066743727,0.0013896815,0.040557593,0.010737169,0.007262341,0.00599942,0.00057893066],"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":[0.0000057674397,0.000010392079,0.0005158909,0.000017580616,0.0000039863717,0.0001834437,0.002166231,0.00013962357,0.00008038625,0.9951421,0.00028794204,0.0014466917],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000150118385,0.000044715503,0.0013441226,0.00029728303,0.000024304258,0.00052029564,0.004145115,0.0007066976,0.00054100837,0.97193325,0.020405175,0.000023055862],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0054486883,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029781742,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011680766,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005488423,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005564326,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.061774552},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4404977473","doi":"10.1017/lst.2024.28","title":"Bringing the idea of the environment to law: a comparative study of early environmental law textbooks","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Environmental law and policy","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":"Australian Research Council","keywords":"Law; Environmental law; Political science","score_opus":0.046356225448984364,"score_gpt":0.33709337419130014,"score_spread":0.29073714874231577,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4404977473","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":[0.89815396,0.004854663,0.00064131897,0.004206195,0.00008479223,0.00009044888,0.00014649917,0.000015124493,0.09180704],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99296063,0.0022647725,0.00030878474,0.0003948321,0.0000267598,0.000035618654,0.000074150536,0.000022988756,0.003911411],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99257267,0.004155506,0.00038772012,0.0003316324,0.002036409,0.0005160255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94934136,0.03440094,0.0048749456,0.0008620524,0.009125686,0.00139507],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007911841,0.00018079368,0.0006074179,0.012687776,0.004549436,0.0076335175,0.0012477873,0.0012926931,0.005532779],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045776296,0.00032526927,0.00012362648,0.01764257,0.0134929,0.0073377155,0.004005841,0.0018497726,0.00026833697],"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":[0.00003536599,0.0000773556,0.012113564,0.0003670381,0.000008532776,0.00054597843,0.9082666,0.00007990664,0.00028355257,0.058684416,0.0020869528,0.017450742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010009998,0.000063052816,0.08466895,0.0012951603,0.000016636102,0.00022974785,0.8032357,0.00019650717,0.00033105264,0.004089869,0.105835095,0.000028157525],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09307374,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19697519,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09307374,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025142567,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0071597304,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18506396},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}