{"meta":{"query_hash":"bee526e7a9cc","filters":{"venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law"},"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/bee526e7a9cc","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=New+Zealand+journal+of+public+and+international+law"},"results":[{"id":"W2211073227","doi":"","title":"Indigenous Autonomy and Justice in North America","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","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":"Indigenous; Autonomy; Project commissioning; Economic Justice; Publishing; Sociology; Environmental ethics; Self-determination; Political science; Indigenous rights; Public administration; Social science; Law; Ecology","score_opus":0.01867803837209676,"score_gpt":0.29511080247661914,"score_spread":0.2764327641045224,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2211073227","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":[0.4112808,0.025568385,0.00058211666,0.09252776,0.00044638134,0.000030039057,0.000021825199,0.000022059861,0.46952066],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.982241,0.0033794183,0.00016316882,0.004082558,0.00008913653,0.00001704406,0.000005670984,0.000006834142,0.010015196],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99808574,0.0006364394,0.000044352164,0.00019186054,0.00034122608,0.00070035056],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99879766,0.00036478913,0.00014153084,0.000051865427,0.0002388512,0.00040522343],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012905943,0.00012392,0.00028372018,0.0007700305,0.018167203,0.0044174935,0.00049945933,0.0019882538,0.0023629856],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0021776657,0.00010352022,0.00012838983,0.00085823017,0.02262883,0.0025955094,0.006660162,0.00324236,0.00008512379],"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":[0.000027225718,0.00008031948,0.006097874,0.00011050957,0.0000151339855,0.0008583432,0.357234,0.00021587411,0.0004329229,0.58285356,0.0126114,0.0394628],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034066972,0.000060090537,0.048538785,0.00065551564,0.000029859184,0.00065895956,0.2748145,0.0002887066,0.0002493677,0.20482302,0.46977744,0.00006968564],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.39447963,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6569372,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.39447963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015969241,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01723835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.784367},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2217361879","doi":"","title":"Rights-vetting in New Zealand and Canada: Similar Idea, Different Outcomes","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":15,"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":"Vetting; Charter; Legislation; Project commissioning; Law; Political science; Politics; Bureaucracy; Publishing; Obligation; Bill of rights; Public administration; Human rights; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.03275547374255387,"score_gpt":0.3047101050061511,"score_spread":0.2719546312635972,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2217361879","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":[0.65290207,0.00319371,0.002212003,0.021175357,0.00020273242,0.00039367029,0.0010368804,0.00006688154,0.3188166],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9835777,0.0009414699,0.001294544,0.0015094645,0.000024680521,0.00006240181,0.00039448374,0.00004370964,0.012151569],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9748039,0.0025094815,0.00066923455,0.0014989015,0.013972438,0.0065460177],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96304727,0.0077441554,0.0058367853,0.0016810638,0.01716191,0.004528742],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012617586,0.0003941854,0.00085710234,0.0062605534,0.014212895,0.010420978,0.0017017478,0.0017915632,0.004878808],"category_scores_gemma":[0.049742106,0.00037709344,0.0011583545,0.013027232,0.012560411,0.004826003,0.005431076,0.004462822,0.00020642465],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003930801,0.00037440297,0.31506038,0.00042941765,0.00029103426,0.0012108886,0.09257296,0.001681513,0.00095798983,0.4616297,0.021116767,0.10428188],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001252174,0.000156795,0.75454396,0.0005684609,0.0003205333,0.00032641413,0.105481446,0.0022884456,0.0013963096,0.018530622,0.115911245,0.00035052872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9919761,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9947956,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15313394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15313394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14060129,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9822446},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2220102439","doi":"","title":"A Comparison of the Impact of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Judicial Review of Administrative Action","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Charter; Project commissioning; Law; Bill of rights; Publishing; Political science; Judicial review; Sociology; Public administration; Human rights","score_opus":0.08819755292381076,"score_gpt":0.3964468918595072,"score_spread":0.30824933893569645,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2220102439","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":[0.25273392,0.018458182,0.000878878,0.06996892,0.0008283469,0.00035977838,0.0008964521,0.000045822813,0.6558297],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9722188,0.0052057803,0.00046373994,0.007096429,0.00034851301,0.00010127693,0.0002336354,0.000033676348,0.014298201],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.89143467,0.020891156,0.0026030375,0.0022300682,0.06908255,0.013758477],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8140961,0.10754971,0.014931631,0.0042622965,0.0496505,0.009509726],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03493964,0.00035203315,0.000780001,0.008649721,0.0062189815,0.010320976,0.0024425327,0.003936561,0.00892164],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1857174,0.0005989176,0.0010444133,0.00930435,0.011784121,0.0035667163,0.0040493943,0.0053141234,0.0005303483],"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":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0014022293,0.000558383,0.07916673,0.0009317102,0.000516522,0.001342812,0.024192931,0.003356076,0.001120985,0.5796555,0.1178576,0.18989842],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005427431,0.0007174479,0.73155725,0.001315266,0.0006988473,0.00034700643,0.015692951,0.0015170596,0.0012563444,0.02675358,0.21928912,0.00031238934],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8532042,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9351666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14679581,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.068670854,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.107631944,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49824423},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2272968454","doi":"","title":"Judicial Review of the Executive - Principled Exasperation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","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":"Cabinet (room); Project commissioning; Statutory law; Law; Management; Publishing; Queen (butterfly); Judicial review; Political science; Operations research; Engineering; Economics","score_opus":0.030568537566160955,"score_gpt":0.3255545468062269,"score_spread":0.29498600924006596,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2272968454","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":[0.03520915,0.046183333,0.02113976,0.3983864,0.012975949,0.0003126886,0.00040062037,0.000178867,0.48521328],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7421599,0.018709723,0.009426234,0.1339035,0.0135085825,0.00027211642,0.00024087197,0.00015576518,0.0816234],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9565449,0.013324831,0.0037552363,0.005202295,0.015874133,0.005298675],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9226211,0.044284154,0.003590999,0.0068739285,0.020731522,0.00189835],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.049568687,0.00035599375,0.0010305621,0.0019511386,0.00505459,0.0103956945,0.0029078615,0.016069274,0.003215813],"category_scores_gemma":[0.13135494,0.00069497176,0.0006416524,0.0016355423,0.010620151,0.0048718587,0.0042131166,0.013990412,0.0010600409],"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":[0.0000550377,0.000022418168,0.0010494952,0.0001634375,0.000047588976,0.0007661853,0.0018046313,0.0002690656,0.00038104944,0.8397284,0.12757492,0.028137678],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000558162,0.00005691088,0.0026492903,0.00085668213,0.000100389945,0.00050830044,0.0009863873,0.0007980694,0.0014626605,0.36736324,0.62508804,0.00007423584],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009896811,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017262181,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.049568687,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0057895794,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018536452,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26214737},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2398323668","doi":"","title":"Review and appeal in civil aviation de-licensing regimes: A comparative study of New Zealand, Australia and Canada","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"International Law and Aviation","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":"Appeal; Civil aviation; Tribunal; Project commissioning; Publishing; Aviation; Political science; Law; High Court; Engineering; Management; Public administration; Economics","score_opus":0.05168192377283623,"score_gpt":0.3332089948969639,"score_spread":0.28152707112412767,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2398323668","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":[0.8856806,0.013495107,0.0002718533,0.009196472,0.00014396674,0.00041520808,0.00024449034,0.000031553114,0.09052073],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98216945,0.006050508,0.00021342702,0.0015510237,0.000047766964,0.000091845744,0.00010566128,0.000023001476,0.009747389],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.97358006,0.0039026455,0.0015236862,0.0015197743,0.014491614,0.004982376],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9042583,0.038769078,0.01160132,0.001876108,0.03457019,0.008924985],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014224357,0.00026429933,0.0011973133,0.0070474697,0.014528941,0.012328631,0.0023419042,0.0025380468,0.0064309444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.098674156,0.0005563616,0.00058595504,0.0127958665,0.008559358,0.003935538,0.004897693,0.002644798,0.00036847513],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.0011260993,0.00083848846,0.18552995,0.0026164872,0.0003497684,0.0054865507,0.538115,0.00091879535,0.0024549565,0.090817146,0.034211762,0.13753496],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015158541,0.00038399766,0.5419718,0.0010045691,0.00024728122,0.0010736721,0.2639659,0.0008820629,0.0005816063,0.002453736,0.1869922,0.00029160478],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96936125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9832585,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09623196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09623196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1497383,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.698215},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}