{"meta":{"query_hash":"709f209e2cbe","filters":{"venue":"Obiter"},"cohort_total":38,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":38,"exported":38,"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/709f209e2cbe","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Obiter"},"results":[{"id":"W107021197","doi":"","title":"Double inchoate crimes : serving a useful purpose or double trouble? : Déry v The Queen; Attorney General of Canada et al, Interveners [2007] 213 CCC (3d) 289 (SCC) : cases","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment","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":"Possession (linguistics); Incitement; Law; Stalking; Harm; Criminology; Political science; Queen (butterfly); Legislation; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0607728268755498,"score_gpt":0.3230944197212049,"score_spread":0.2623215928456551,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W107021197","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":[0.10480064,0.029931536,0.0008646111,0.31608737,0.0018031277,0.00024384931,0.000977547,0.00012642541,0.54516494],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.52783936,0.010491085,0.0008056786,0.22999282,0.0006623669,0.00018712599,0.00030497453,0.000078626,0.22963788],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980586,0.00020996243,0.000051805753,0.00014389622,0.0006139587,0.00092177716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99855787,0.00031839559,0.000115403804,0.000045447,0.00038050386,0.0005823916],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011173306,0.00059718365,0.00026716653,0.00075062475,0.013025835,0.0045836293,0.0017903552,0.010497443,0.0066016475],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0036429083,0.0005781317,0.00026587996,0.00092105486,0.005496245,0.0016329436,0.0026226556,0.005551981,0.00087871664],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007449772,0.00009552241,0.01353852,0.00013569367,0.00002216442,0.0026650433,0.020618295,0.00028173486,0.00043049885,0.1355629,0.7969561,0.029618952],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013824455,0.00006792054,0.06598767,0.0011237621,0.000101767095,0.0016877168,0.048953537,0.0007995584,0.0009653097,0.016418459,0.86358255,0.0001736017],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9104008,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9789604,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08959919,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018197661,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05350459,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18025368},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1483718433","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v34i3.12000","title":"HUNG OUT TO DRY? ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE REPORTING DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE ACT 38 OF 2001","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Duty; Money laundering; Privilege (computing); Law; Professional conduct; Position (finance); Confidentiality; Commission; Business; Order (exchange); Legal profession; Political science; Finance","score_opus":0.032096614025555255,"score_gpt":0.3345268899074748,"score_spread":0.30243027588191956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1483718433","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07195556,0.008419454,0.005322434,0.39029214,0.0011152338,0.00019867875,0.00038886708,0.00008007858,0.5222275],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7748299,0.004335542,0.0047978503,0.09299213,0.00056921353,0.00038133402,0.00012529512,0.00005467332,0.12191402],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97055954,0.012400398,0.0019467842,0.0019584731,0.0073059676,0.0058288593],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96123374,0.025254043,0.005099346,0.0030502337,0.0039721285,0.0013905516],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025279127,0.00027178848,0.0003603143,0.00063068507,0.008769122,0.01236513,0.0018816099,0.014805349,0.007625167],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07373036,0.0006280898,0.00034655957,0.0012238141,0.0085356105,0.008983654,0.004077023,0.0094946055,0.0018077443],"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":[0.000027431872,0.000025104144,0.0023878363,0.00006513985,0.0000039130978,0.00061983534,0.025190711,0.00009873097,0.00031637296,0.91251343,0.044699132,0.014052408],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004385942,0.00007677862,0.013744869,0.0018331384,0.000034716646,0.0020062774,0.022372762,0.0009496807,0.0017741271,0.11161131,0.8453982,0.0001542052],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0891791,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10664461,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0891791,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009133022,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02697743,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17732006},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W148526578","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v34i1.12093","title":"THE CRIME OF DEFAMATION – STILL DEFENSIBLE IN A MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY?","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"Law; Conviction; Context (archaeology); Political science; Freedom of the press; Commonwealth; Freedom of thought; Constitution; Democracy; Criminal law; Human rights; Reasonable doubt; Declaration; Politics; History","score_opus":0.025238675265186618,"score_gpt":0.3045188644110031,"score_spread":0.2792801891458165,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W148526578","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.039833434,0.019561004,0.006542896,0.5269864,0.0030931453,0.000020943822,0.00010550834,0.000060284423,0.40379637],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.904535,0.006362984,0.0013625874,0.040916033,0.0036345734,0.000042726588,0.000059214693,0.00009992294,0.042986915],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9931772,0.0033345085,0.00014258495,0.00094302645,0.0012000321,0.0012026024],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.994749,0.002252694,0.0005337201,0.0012744599,0.00055736664,0.00063274323],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007235685,0.00025546222,0.00051241566,0.00097127486,0.0089721475,0.015560621,0.0012979519,0.007997439,0.013022843],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014404856,0.00028546757,0.00030681703,0.0011034838,0.060927477,0.027916381,0.0046946723,0.012421556,0.0017772949],"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":[0.0000050755643,0.0000073741066,0.000098533375,0.000011773433,0.0000021677413,0.00002461003,0.0017972109,0.000039202503,0.000021552672,0.98930746,0.0054929187,0.0031919626],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000072260295,0.0000098798455,0.00026246556,0.00011382629,0.0000020749867,0.000050821087,0.0026944045,0.00010986016,0.00006237154,0.8528214,0.14385466,0.000011052531],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005761071,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0065282057,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015560621,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0058799256,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0042203725,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04356575},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1485560714","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v33i3.12130","title":"PROTECTING A WIFE FINANCIALLY AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE – A COMPARISON BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICAN WOMEN MARRIED IN TERMS OF SOUTH AFRICAN CIVIL LAW AND ISLAMIC LAW, WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE MAHR","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Wife; Islam; Law; Civil law (Civil law); Sharia; Family law; Marriage law; Sociology; Property (philosophy); Political science; Public law; History","score_opus":0.023699945893548076,"score_gpt":0.26153280056410455,"score_spread":0.23783285467055648,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1485560714","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":[0.9900699,0.0013730952,0.00006671261,0.0007108716,0.000018840858,0.000013148235,0.000021036742,4.2829623e-7,0.007725978],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99707246,0.0015331213,0.000043145425,0.00014069652,0.000008691259,0.00000770489,0.000013030673,8.627616e-7,0.0011803135],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9995054,0.00019449579,0.000034309727,0.00002547709,0.000093019415,0.0001472933],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99942744,0.00024950525,0.00015112734,0.000016169719,0.00006149229,0.000094324656],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00062579743,0.000107319065,0.000211681,0.0011707842,0.0025582195,0.0008683777,0.0002034621,0.00034615147,0.004159223],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002803231,0.00013936871,0.00015702247,0.0011518609,0.0015114559,0.0009993907,0.0015012588,0.0004945983,0.00023269503],"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":[0.00049912586,0.0003542277,0.39905247,0.0005482866,0.00006253844,0.005763559,0.470737,0.00012297329,0.003145655,0.034184862,0.00122803,0.08430127],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023639073,0.00053893594,0.41051182,0.00037796737,0.000031140735,0.0032748133,0.5587523,0.00009138327,0.0005238532,0.0016342524,0.024217408,0.00002254413],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010489562,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02329889,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010489562,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009812653,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010948948,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.020856977},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1510579985","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v32i1.12319","title":"AT LAST A SOUTH AFRICAN PROPER LAW OF DELICT Burchell v Anglin 2010 3 SA 48 (ECG)","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Delict; Law; Common law; Locus (genetics); Haploinsufficiency; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Comparative law; Private law; Biology; Genetics","score_opus":0.027810237544735033,"score_gpt":0.2834699522834022,"score_spread":0.25565971473866717,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1510579985","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.059717212,0.0075722425,0.0027180586,0.08954744,0.0046914266,0.00047624751,0.00074575766,0.00018701275,0.83434457],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.27262497,0.002009555,0.0016883486,0.11098775,0.00063247024,0.00036264714,0.00025352417,0.0000819769,0.61135876],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99838686,0.0003201108,0.00010621387,0.0003254266,0.00034399517,0.00051747705],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991942,0.00035722877,0.000079948404,0.000071321374,0.00020233689,0.00009498618],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014375993,0.0004162478,0.00025529665,0.0005078594,0.004586125,0.0029397237,0.00084828364,0.0076251742,0.017715726],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0035295663,0.00050786935,0.0005016878,0.00041108145,0.0027191732,0.0019623057,0.0023718972,0.007827064,0.003008874],"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":[0.00007889102,0.00006293413,0.0034543616,0.00031844058,0.000024847348,0.0025361197,0.010460467,0.0001567371,0.0026770302,0.72297615,0.2291513,0.02810272],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026374915,0.00006498214,0.0058739767,0.00042111697,0.000026157686,0.00084896805,0.0016072439,0.00012046384,0.00084050203,0.016590187,0.9735274,0.00005270339],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.049448002,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12850367,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.049448002,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040964885,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005199207,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.098320365},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1513938139","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v34i2.12036","title":"CURRENT ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DAMAGES LITIGATION: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF RECENT COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Damages; Commonwealth; Law; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Political science; Charter; Jurisprudence","score_opus":0.07882269416384635,"score_gpt":0.4100255463537328,"score_spread":0.33120285218988643,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1513938139","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":[0.5615671,0.03756386,0.0026157666,0.14669864,0.00055989885,0.00016907117,0.0004177797,0.00004223403,0.25036553],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98170704,0.008081225,0.00032164992,0.0057141734,0.00024876095,0.00004926949,0.000077005614,0.000035203528,0.0037657246],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98702,0.0054582753,0.0006608927,0.001210593,0.0024074416,0.0032427562],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96507794,0.028418291,0.003318281,0.00072771584,0.0015347636,0.00092305895],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010673018,0.00031299007,0.00054182566,0.005893496,0.021833215,0.022874499,0.0022995633,0.007200108,0.005051515],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029372923,0.0006388528,0.00068877375,0.010877638,0.031529695,0.009951075,0.008029154,0.010983575,0.0002465702],"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":[0.000041030675,0.000063538944,0.007912948,0.00031981198,0.000029753164,0.0029149917,0.2724061,0.000581554,0.00045974687,0.6929877,0.008372933,0.013909928],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000219907,0.00008065433,0.046232548,0.0019269853,0.000059601025,0.0009032611,0.4743288,0.00050147594,0.0006245702,0.09140949,0.38374647,0.00016415882],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1586835,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.28791538,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1586835,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033056792,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01782402,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3155197},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1536826666","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v27i3.14358","title":"SECTION 60 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 1998: WILL A COMPARATIVE APPROACH SHAKE THIS JOKER OUT OF THE PACK?","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Corporate Law and Human Rights","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Harassment; Jurisprudence; Section (typography); Equity (law); Context (archaeology); Meaning (existential); Labour law; Law; Sociology; Liability; Common law; Political science; Law and economics; Business; Psychology; History; Advertising","score_opus":0.06232965483382663,"score_gpt":0.25752140839399074,"score_spread":0.1951917535601641,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1536826666","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":[0.0123796845,0.050792936,0.0025161668,0.41444334,0.0051276716,0.00004246523,0.00012727373,0.000022078986,0.51454836],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5521169,0.039365303,0.004860539,0.2197407,0.009165368,0.00029848886,0.00032423317,0.00013854014,0.17398998],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9900608,0.004455908,0.00026482993,0.0007303627,0.0030666057,0.0014214833],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99248177,0.0046921074,0.00041073203,0.00028190887,0.0016338906,0.00049944484],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0120509565,0.0004646777,0.0007232946,0.002265019,0.0067499243,0.012342225,0.0018441201,0.014120171,0.01215851],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018670043,0.00033691523,0.00060146063,0.0026568612,0.013766079,0.013864724,0.0030158742,0.008675206,0.001700864],"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":[0.000016594966,0.000029090901,0.00022670986,0.00006256118,0.0000032031485,0.000065462526,0.0022842095,0.000048386333,0.00010198305,0.93848944,0.045744553,0.012927804],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033544737,0.000098754484,0.004241243,0.0019567078,0.000015842706,0.00016079316,0.012144356,0.00026231084,0.00024543086,0.2572248,0.72357005,0.00004611993],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.036362752,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05075352,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.036362752,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010776792,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009996373,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07819146},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1547440466","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v32i2.12258","title":"HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: PERPETRATOR AND SERVICE PROVIDERS’ LIABILITY","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","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":"Cyberspace; Liability; The Internet; Hatred; Service provider; Service (business); Political science; European union; Internet service provider; Law; Business; Sociology; Internet privacy; Computer science; Politics; International trade","score_opus":0.01938135336999929,"score_gpt":0.23803109722956314,"score_spread":0.21864974385956384,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1547440466","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":[0.8828386,0.00569099,0.007534028,0.009375347,0.00015404334,0.0001808698,0.00021442185,0.000032869768,0.09397875],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9939177,0.0018070348,0.00062787574,0.0005117818,0.000068339556,0.000033919565,0.000043213702,0.0000059133,0.002984131],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99256647,0.0037989472,0.00058494206,0.00041975008,0.0018255505,0.00080419035],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96884656,0.017056236,0.0097514745,0.0013657126,0.0019657926,0.0010141142],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005028037,0.00031755542,0.00039517303,0.003358787,0.003753443,0.0034769732,0.00052355434,0.0019221223,0.006528005],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031750433,0.00027261637,0.00027314396,0.001962119,0.0035651897,0.004635162,0.003763724,0.002141664,0.0008342309],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.00019150415,0.00029547137,0.52388996,0.000876367,0.000094031755,0.010136955,0.17158265,0.00049475627,0.0019772067,0.115438856,0.011051251,0.16397104],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017815559,0.00041828735,0.40928718,0.0038061312,0.0001855,0.046179898,0.41232768,0.0065684477,0.005814599,0.037612885,0.0776271,0.00015449278],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025863317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0025992452,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.006528005,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001372929,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0009919088,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.026591122},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1550168670","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v32i3.12241","title":"THE JURISDICTION OF THE LABOUR COURT IN INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF WORKPLACES OUTSIDE SOUTH AFRICA","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Corporate Governance and Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Adjudication; Jurisdiction; Law; Appeal; Labour law; Political science; Conflict of laws; International law; Pleading","score_opus":0.013634705260043808,"score_gpt":0.21323299023680928,"score_spread":0.19959828497676546,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1550168670","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":[0.22741237,0.0071637826,0.016157025,0.07804544,0.00097069953,0.00018970307,0.000110933244,0.000046578203,0.6699035],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97839874,0.00081054436,0.001205035,0.007738157,0.00034019022,0.00010502973,0.000019522991,0.000024233093,0.011358587],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95999277,0.01999243,0.0029781745,0.00328407,0.0056053307,0.008147257],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95796597,0.029989352,0.0022486493,0.0035916832,0.0036925618,0.0025117248],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028486123,0.00026965802,0.00086286466,0.0014571957,0.014191798,0.021922786,0.0029776928,0.0124365045,0.00714585],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06900007,0.0010213976,0.00076771545,0.0016574726,0.022248259,0.0116607845,0.011234906,0.0127088735,0.0009328168],"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":[0.000040802766,0.000019984273,0.0015714878,0.00005161722,0.000016106218,0.0009165777,0.018045465,0.0003144134,0.00057496,0.967681,0.0031342888,0.007633257],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020900882,0.00019866518,0.010710056,0.0036880025,0.00025211732,0.0021942616,0.057182357,0.0031603104,0.0024948406,0.5859755,0.3336203,0.00031455542],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.033247784,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.030324526,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.033247784,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007639867,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01406148,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1506508},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1553136995","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v33i3.12146","title":"THE PURPOSE AND AMBIT OF THE OFFENCE OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH S v Molefe 2012 (2) SACR 574 (GNP)","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Law; Dignity; Political science; Statutory law; Statute; Context (archaeology); Constitution; Memorandum; Criminology; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.01943973870665325,"score_gpt":0.2838164968300847,"score_spread":0.2643767581234314,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1553136995","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":[0.10203065,0.0040716035,0.0029511158,0.14285254,0.0029504576,0.00017908445,0.00032107387,0.00009117128,0.74455225],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66636163,0.0026558025,0.0019053217,0.14844157,0.0011293804,0.0002791297,0.00010863616,0.000063935695,0.17905463],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99482995,0.0011002193,0.00025910104,0.00072422525,0.0017763509,0.0013101388],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99800557,0.0011177178,0.00020903943,0.00011603681,0.0003706332,0.0001810601],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041799173,0.00037373256,0.00038063436,0.0008033063,0.008517954,0.005846997,0.0020382875,0.014507472,0.003825946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011340705,0.0006621393,0.0005472648,0.00055865804,0.010689909,0.0021760624,0.0038385557,0.012569089,0.000864682],"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":[0.00002891824,0.000028326529,0.0023421675,0.000062880405,0.00001123434,0.0019727675,0.01470148,0.00012443426,0.0007335644,0.9097036,0.056809776,0.0134809315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048621638,0.00014113134,0.011768323,0.00121602,0.000060598442,0.00257259,0.014203635,0.0005214035,0.002216487,0.08404308,0.88303274,0.00017542385],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1789721,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2696331,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1789721,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008152015,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011285153,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3558607},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1572964298","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v30i2.12437","title":"JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE DETERMINATION OF POST-DIVORCE CHILD SUPPORT: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MAINTENANCE ACT 99 OF 1998 AS COMPARED TO THE CANADIAN FEDERAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES OF 1997","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Legislation; Discretion; Interpretation (philosophy); Obligation; Child support; Government (linguistics); Welfare; Duty; Judicial interpretation; Political science; Law; Family law","score_opus":0.027946106230464327,"score_gpt":0.32231501797889267,"score_spread":0.29436891174842833,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1572964298","genre_codex":"review","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":[0.025205621,0.71516186,0.0069582565,0.053072803,0.0019316319,0.0002547257,0.00016071125,0.000026991964,0.19722737],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.27229398,0.6615002,0.008068707,0.020235933,0.0031861812,0.00036353615,0.00022116047,0.000057189623,0.034073103],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99112284,0.0029951043,0.00070412375,0.0006491928,0.0029435207,0.0015851432],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99462765,0.003963808,0.0003611078,0.00011680812,0.0008177195,0.00011279982],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008131975,0.00047413647,0.0008247996,0.005848627,0.0050675464,0.009667952,0.002237146,0.0063798395,0.0023982476],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010866757,0.000786699,0.00096561655,0.0066574807,0.00877187,0.0043546143,0.002902073,0.006714175,0.00047375495],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000034695277,0.000054156957,0.0017843698,0.0013228455,0.000022954255,0.0010478424,0.011448345,0.000733283,0.0008329543,0.87528664,0.012498581,0.09493335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020442685,0.00014152897,0.015509224,0.006653575,0.000041367173,0.0010389785,0.007119867,0.0007841143,0.0010233443,0.05722412,0.91034067,0.00010290395],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16755468,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20276204,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8324453,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02232102,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.021563817,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3331588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1599648220","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v33i3.12131","title":"MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN THE WORKPLACE – A JOSTLING OF RIGHTS","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Religion, Gender, and Enlightenment","field":"Arts and Humanities","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":"Accommodation; Duty; Reasonable accommodation; Legislation; Jurisprudence; Law; Pluralism (philosophy); Labour law; Democracy; Political science; Law and economics; Diversity (politics); Phenomenon; Sociology; Business; Psychology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03828939394755745,"score_gpt":0.23717641414802787,"score_spread":0.19888702020047042,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1599648220","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":[0.21423693,0.0020577745,0.034449913,0.10693582,0.0008530467,0.00012299656,0.000056300218,0.00012845236,0.6411588],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96549237,0.00021503151,0.0028718128,0.0051973327,0.00020170637,0.00004760972,0.000016979327,0.000024631263,0.025932446],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98617536,0.0071400665,0.00046143847,0.0012425953,0.0028041282,0.0021764117],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98898274,0.003070283,0.0011080743,0.0032869445,0.00098055,0.0025714396],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013181753,0.00023068393,0.0003948827,0.00064900913,0.008727591,0.0059946417,0.0012480797,0.00317511,0.0077838353],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015364194,0.00030356352,0.0005073712,0.00042353515,0.03509231,0.006246316,0.015154586,0.005933288,0.0007694033],"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":[0.00002380673,0.00006688252,0.0020431953,0.00003433538,0.000010696684,0.00020403943,0.051378887,0.00009867586,0.0013560856,0.90982544,0.0038873449,0.03107058],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048095528,0.00022849569,0.00796195,0.0004277821,0.00001688159,0.00094506866,0.054260146,0.00038168643,0.0010929191,0.6118573,0.32272652,0.00005317428],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0037637684,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006887971,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.013181753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0029116354,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0076770945,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06971264},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2261125889","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v30i3.12409","title":"THE REVISED CANADIAN TEST FOR THE EXCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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; Test (biology); Law; Constitution; Political science; Economic Justice; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.06271134722376055,"score_gpt":0.34468097125984165,"score_spread":0.2819696240360811,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2261125889","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":[0.025433118,0.008289008,0.06737862,0.15961982,0.0064418674,0.0011369959,0.006712631,0.00054109964,0.7244469],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63124263,0.0059257406,0.16986437,0.09946665,0.002596268,0.0013575187,0.0025584504,0.0002892344,0.08669908],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.8932401,0.0147470785,0.009057433,0.011470692,0.06328382,0.008200842],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.89232624,0.029473202,0.0039291135,0.0072802664,0.06299779,0.0039933366],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.043857843,0.0011534898,0.0021167647,0.009411353,0.012050787,0.012215881,0.0094435755,0.0152798,0.0086697135],"category_scores_gemma":[0.13109551,0.0011700289,0.0032537468,0.006224477,0.032648623,0.0073280456,0.0075345435,0.014602737,0.0019869742],"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":[0.000119535645,0.000026521977,0.002691382,0.00031008798,0.00009302027,0.0004732193,0.0012257085,0.0005722673,0.0006250088,0.917403,0.05426948,0.022190668],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005327494,0.00016546946,0.014592735,0.00202541,0.0006119187,0.001818575,0.0019432293,0.0045065507,0.003418895,0.4540358,0.51537746,0.0009713117],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75363547,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.78848743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24636453,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.045797233,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15478408,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4956308},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2281213616","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v26i2.14750","title":"COMMUNITY LEGAL WORKERS IN ONTARIO: A PARALEGAL CASE STUDY","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Outreach; Legislation; Corporate governance; Context (archaeology); Political science; Community organization; Public administration; Community standards; Economic Justice; Community development; Public relations; Law; Business; Geography","score_opus":0.10086474531232464,"score_gpt":0.400237994083749,"score_spread":0.29937324877142435,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2281213616","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":[0.89411354,0.0015389097,0.0007388954,0.011472501,0.00011259242,0.0003709913,0.00026873162,0.000025647625,0.091358155],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97057354,0.0018958347,0.00062457327,0.0014103906,0.000047155492,0.00013103796,0.00009055655,0.000020125683,0.025206752],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99679923,0.0007821783,0.000063758154,0.000178657,0.0007698007,0.0014063388],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99650735,0.0008521716,0.00041159996,0.00011527715,0.0006063217,0.0015072697],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015224767,0.00043343086,0.00041000947,0.0015826026,0.039061412,0.0030108786,0.0021847321,0.003327769,0.0057334746],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0038500763,0.00044019485,0.0002655448,0.0040666987,0.0077387337,0.0011433418,0.0034490936,0.0021438887,0.0004621494],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00010096321,0.00031681804,0.049003895,0.00031437218,0.000015705586,0.064050555,0.79779196,0.00052372756,0.0010832655,0.04251878,0.022390176,0.021889767],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003571185,0.00014348405,0.0414575,0.00033638606,0.000024029665,0.006491996,0.77892894,0.00078025815,0.00023511922,0.0020698002,0.16944727,0.000049514227],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9413482,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.988644,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07004943,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07004943,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06586289,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50824654},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2482086321","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v36i3.11595","title":"RECONSIDERING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILS","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Constitution; Legislature; Political science; Privilege (computing); Law; Legislation; Power (physics); Public administration; Politics","score_opus":0.29612549673656535,"score_gpt":0.32522373823901013,"score_spread":0.029098241502444777,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2482086321","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.21314344,0.00609483,0.0046888823,0.4777443,0.0016228391,0.00013398349,0.0001638364,0.000069189344,0.29633877],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9465058,0.0011346191,0.0014382536,0.021363145,0.0004903291,0.00006969131,0.00003762197,0.000030333314,0.028930223],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9864856,0.0043905936,0.0008931548,0.0009123547,0.00204468,0.0052735577],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98563206,0.0069045196,0.0011813857,0.0015734386,0.0023031621,0.0024054023],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01584238,0.0002933728,0.0005438982,0.0013874817,0.0162169,0.011096868,0.0020921135,0.009219422,0.007104382],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032447975,0.0005433573,0.00056152715,0.00114836,0.029099867,0.009170944,0.010182183,0.010516837,0.00069901004],"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":[0.000017059916,0.000026539388,0.002336304,0.000058866506,0.0000073242704,0.00037362686,0.030228056,0.00017316338,0.0004855677,0.9424371,0.013381592,0.010474733],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058721937,0.000072365176,0.011921824,0.0010579232,0.000051761766,0.00046965433,0.05874806,0.0005539504,0.0012817851,0.22714622,0.6985278,0.00010992894],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13256471,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.22280604,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13256471,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02040027,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03561241,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26358622},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2801111753","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v28i1.14290","title":"CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO SCHOOL RULES*","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Political science; Law; Law and economics; Computer science; Economics","score_opus":0.03890829450555221,"score_gpt":0.31985550496035153,"score_spread":0.2809472104547993,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2801111753","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":[0.028865319,0.004924907,0.010362794,0.26960775,0.0023407396,0.00017709899,0.00048006853,0.00013092678,0.6831104],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78555334,0.0023733408,0.0060886694,0.10975681,0.002289258,0.0003149617,0.00035125762,0.00015128135,0.09312112],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9660652,0.00901067,0.0020365522,0.005522161,0.010165791,0.0071996865],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97353595,0.015105152,0.0013772703,0.002820733,0.005134001,0.0020269444],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02885523,0.00043884324,0.0010392522,0.0012800973,0.015569727,0.020443097,0.0046815514,0.020026214,0.008628672],"category_scores_gemma":[0.043844867,0.0009051434,0.0011469005,0.0016424897,0.033695787,0.008157545,0.0076906052,0.026903065,0.0014877532],"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":[0.000004568831,0.000009185738,0.00014913446,0.00001031979,0.0000038070252,0.000043640914,0.0014474478,0.00011365293,0.000037401525,0.986188,0.010057174,0.001935699],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051323233,0.000035838995,0.0010587417,0.0002525823,0.000022381191,0.00012852345,0.003902988,0.0004938893,0.00037662697,0.56232953,0.4312683,0.000079202146],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13090527,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13912663,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13090527,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01836234,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031391997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26028663},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2980704029","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v39i2.11355","title":"UNTANGLING THE REQUIREMENT OF GOOD FAITH IN THE DERIVATIVE ACTION IN COMPANY LAW (Part 1)","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"National Research Foundation","keywords":"Faith; Appeal; Law; Supreme court; Statutory law; Fair dealing; Action (physics); Jurisprudence; Meaning (existential); Political science; Sociology; Good faith; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.08262122442472057,"score_gpt":0.3696140038897634,"score_spread":0.2869927794650428,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2980704029","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":[0.13457683,0.014691986,0.019565616,0.08542519,0.0010228893,0.00019779334,0.00006147182,0.000042928696,0.7444153],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9671642,0.0023552019,0.0025470979,0.009110542,0.00036031462,0.00008107744,0.000009275078,0.000017905619,0.018354427],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9924077,0.0030858673,0.00042531898,0.0008226986,0.0019479201,0.0013105021],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9839982,0.013098121,0.0009532375,0.00069259485,0.0010048386,0.00025316761],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008287768,0.0003446767,0.00049834204,0.0013640424,0.0069406824,0.011089319,0.0012741581,0.009396407,0.0031174542],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014064176,0.0005487765,0.0006651674,0.00079697446,0.0462451,0.008182614,0.0039602476,0.0100926785,0.00041993184],"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":[0.0000032306098,0.0000056182403,0.00010675094,0.000025604419,0.0000017667369,0.00014587131,0.0031025615,0.000056351622,0.00014376474,0.99445724,0.0006412048,0.0013101832],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003229917,0.00014431732,0.0036207833,0.00088763784,0.0000405522,0.0007354542,0.012381579,0.0009954686,0.0032331115,0.8334131,0.14443775,0.00007789569],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012791096,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013838528,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012791096,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007259973,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0074480446,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05267507},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2981107737","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v39i3.11326","title":"UNTANGLING THE REQUIREMENT OF GOOD FAITH IN THE DERIVATIVE ACTION IN COMPANY LAW (Part 2)","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Faith; Law; Appeal; Supreme court; Fair dealing; Statutory law; Action (physics); Jurisprudence; Meaning (existential); Political science; Sociology; Good faith; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.08242535669262861,"score_gpt":0.369411996836841,"score_spread":0.2869866401442124,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2981107737","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":[0.14889592,0.013494343,0.028296165,0.10459526,0.00151463,0.00025748857,0.000091695445,0.00006243599,0.70279205],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9580631,0.0018350137,0.0036511272,0.013181365,0.0004959127,0.00010425235,0.000012931137,0.000022152828,0.02263417],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9916693,0.003309794,0.00046025706,0.00096941664,0.0021553936,0.0014357906],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9800283,0.016817806,0.00096626196,0.0007921103,0.0011238805,0.00027158254],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009109022,0.00032860183,0.0005526514,0.0013807103,0.0054821777,0.011646807,0.0014081991,0.010158945,0.00324632],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015815282,0.0005716373,0.00084740546,0.0006873895,0.035655882,0.008638737,0.0035885507,0.009421877,0.00045472383],"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":[0.0000050780054,0.000007067439,0.0001468674,0.000030022884,0.0000024572118,0.00020043134,0.003488335,0.00008218746,0.00018656366,0.99310476,0.0010015123,0.0017447198],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039246057,0.00016479679,0.00439093,0.0010369392,0.00004463268,0.0009185781,0.011064335,0.0014355523,0.0039746547,0.79926634,0.17756455,0.00009943007],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009319495,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.009960004,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011646807,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006172598,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006340838,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.048173666},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3139949028","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v41i1.10546","title":"Contractual Capacity and the Conflict of Laws in Common-Law Jurisdictions (Part 2): Australasia, North America, Asia and Africa","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Jurisdiction; Law; Common law; Conflict of laws; Comparative law; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Private law; Position (finance); Municipal law; Choice of law; Public law; Business","score_opus":0.043301375399198275,"score_gpt":0.27123275677887093,"score_spread":0.22793138137967267,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3139949028","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":[0.36736497,0.058360532,0.004620541,0.020565929,0.00046346564,0.00011857407,0.00004147976,0.000013210338,0.54845124],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9906165,0.0045447242,0.0005732064,0.00065425585,0.00008425311,0.000041041403,0.000010465802,0.000004747273,0.003470855],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99622226,0.0018414281,0.00017577715,0.00019789205,0.00075720774,0.0008054318],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961128,0.0022407416,0.00075121614,0.00014365048,0.00036941803,0.0003821122],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003137531,0.0002515458,0.00028417475,0.0022411668,0.0053182305,0.006958047,0.00067847787,0.0017809956,0.0034773585],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0059866034,0.00017746807,0.00029717345,0.0031127557,0.019519964,0.0061380775,0.0040929476,0.0022463303,0.000106488056],"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":[0.000010838161,0.000025779484,0.002256195,0.00012932195,0.000006774894,0.00033454335,0.08277881,0.00015490025,0.00023605392,0.8985303,0.0014096379,0.014126808],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028574825,0.0001612492,0.045121785,0.002617741,0.000034059176,0.002290095,0.27318838,0.00086405565,0.00062455225,0.3643456,0.31065378,0.00007010531],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023235366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02353826,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.023235366,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0054428927,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0055541163,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.046200275},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3150636024","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v41i1.10549","title":"Electricity Theft in South Africa: Examining the Need to Clarify the Offence and Pursue Private Prosecution?","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Electricity Theft Detection Techniques","field":"Engineering","cited_by":5,"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":"Electricity; Statutory law; Legislation; Government (linguistics); Business; Context (archaeology); Law; Engineering; Political science","score_opus":0.01964106993845125,"score_gpt":0.20410547978106364,"score_spread":0.1844644098426124,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3150636024","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":[0.6204201,0.022138087,0.0042151236,0.19309273,0.0006962128,0.0004970861,0.00008404823,0.000017499548,0.15883927],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96630657,0.014169481,0.0017394006,0.0087042665,0.00008697964,0.00010031738,0.000020409598,0.000013186187,0.00885941],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99716955,0.001333937,0.00015408888,0.00011797561,0.00031846334,0.0009060625],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98555297,0.009970827,0.001776615,0.00024355033,0.0017195273,0.0007364258],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0059989053,0.00036288332,0.0003102784,0.0027087259,0.010670437,0.0058224406,0.0011139303,0.0043934733,0.006279402],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023576539,0.0003728285,0.00029591084,0.0025293794,0.0075116614,0.0077584106,0.004170997,0.0047768815,0.0004374874],"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":[0.00017845925,0.00028617666,0.05003267,0.0027428314,0.00004236819,0.024854623,0.3469542,0.0007424763,0.0030844335,0.38773417,0.021307202,0.16204041],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029518904,0.00011685334,0.031615034,0.0043755444,0.00006798557,0.0051719714,0.7926732,0.00056250574,0.0013190495,0.0268834,0.13713454,0.000050470873],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.039596014,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11763129,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.039596014,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0071674427,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017314069,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07873112},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3167561673","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v40i2.11229","title":"An Analysis of Mandatory Auditor Rotation Requirements in South Africa in light of International Legislative Trends","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","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":"Accounting; Auditor independence; Audit; Joint audit; External auditor; Audit plan; Business; Quality audit; Chief audit executive; Transparency (behavior); Auditor's report; Corporate governance; Audit committee; Internal audit; Finance; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.016588323646509338,"score_gpt":0.24313186956986974,"score_spread":0.2265435459233604,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3167561673","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":[0.90725464,0.0041042096,0.0016769322,0.0053270357,0.000108060594,0.00033515046,0.0009094174,0.000029700885,0.08025487],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98800176,0.0034747322,0.0008494369,0.00083336007,0.0000449297,0.000114168695,0.0003571396,0.000024713892,0.006299913],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9933123,0.0013663925,0.00059044623,0.00041380036,0.0016997148,0.0026173822],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98036,0.008296961,0.006719011,0.000543487,0.0033590167,0.00072162115],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0051779514,0.00025019582,0.00030962864,0.003953942,0.0018990953,0.003543384,0.0009698763,0.0007564058,0.0036491372],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024557034,0.00042757049,0.0004422851,0.008082403,0.0011819764,0.0016817878,0.0014615656,0.0012236311,0.00035462293],"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":[0.0012796572,0.00031151294,0.41971976,0.004235988,0.00011744316,0.011639328,0.071873516,0.0067784525,0.014896427,0.2266089,0.015771527,0.22676748],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004222177,0.00024680703,0.7862936,0.0015354096,0.00009108716,0.001869605,0.048054643,0.0014052995,0.00411178,0.002476714,0.15379065,0.00008224144],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.055420447,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07312855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.055420447,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006625955,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008700471,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.110195756},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3179505124","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v39i3.11341","title":"EXTRA-CURIAL STATEMENTS BY A NON- TESTIFYING CO-ACCUSED, THE CANADIAN SUPREME COURT AND CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICA","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Law; Hearsay; Appeal; Supreme court; Political science; Economic Justice; Statement (logic); Common law; Law of the case; Court of record; Original jurisdiction","score_opus":0.0769069062069869,"score_gpt":0.36522825698616346,"score_spread":0.28832135077917653,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3179505124","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":[0.3601085,0.024677956,0.0011476125,0.22664736,0.0016948777,0.00035516336,0.00055269996,0.00004343225,0.38477236],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.887754,0.0037854458,0.0005575793,0.03762688,0.00015400485,0.000057916684,0.000062572355,0.000036683392,0.0699649],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9948555,0.0004548041,0.00014816616,0.0005839249,0.0014637874,0.0024937151],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9964307,0.0010814412,0.0002340345,0.00011278489,0.001384355,0.0007567409],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033980478,0.00045946834,0.0004180163,0.0014680764,0.044129096,0.008545438,0.0017367227,0.010988523,0.004854408],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009513747,0.0007112375,0.0004433089,0.0017777644,0.011832357,0.002508548,0.0024893982,0.012472009,0.00034167772],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00011292992,0.000087102344,0.018048424,0.0002250105,0.00006405202,0.010049715,0.19666201,0.00040350572,0.002947347,0.6487817,0.09370418,0.028914087],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000114417584,0.000059256177,0.061400566,0.0011017424,0.0002213107,0.001543988,0.10838185,0.0006355196,0.0034520146,0.032889884,0.78975374,0.00044559228],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9837678,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9946343,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9837678,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07213448,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09769493,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.52337474},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3185509208","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v38i2.11441","title":"RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND CASES OF SERIOUS OFFENDING: A SOUTH AFRICAN AND CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Retributive justice; Ambiguity; Criminal justice; Criminology; Restorative justice; Criminal law; Meaning (existential); Sociology; Economic Justice; Jurisprudence; Perspective (graphical); Conviction; Law; Political science; Psychology","score_opus":0.04253305625274366,"score_gpt":0.33341189988477343,"score_spread":0.29087884363202976,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3185509208","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":[0.19139363,0.108157195,0.001306606,0.25952062,0.001377024,0.00031828225,0.00037669926,0.000036691774,0.43751326],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8723224,0.066890545,0.0023834638,0.021985546,0.00024117516,0.00009526729,0.0000994746,0.000040038343,0.035942107],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9951139,0.0008446963,0.00019180478,0.00024502183,0.0010607756,0.0025438287],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940983,0.0020880604,0.00051984115,0.00011784599,0.001693559,0.0014823832],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003540708,0.0007751904,0.0007014093,0.0073935846,0.042732388,0.009643334,0.0032453635,0.007351107,0.0066820313],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009152093,0.0005997973,0.0008706378,0.007766821,0.022801053,0.0033299208,0.0053967726,0.007852073,0.00034176864],"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":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000046991005,0.00008677003,0.005973479,0.00080719095,0.00002606805,0.0074993083,0.1222675,0.0006460801,0.0006417451,0.8105587,0.02305825,0.0283879],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029671395,0.000046146026,0.030865451,0.0048643122,0.000107911,0.004638469,0.33713666,0.0009426385,0.0005572573,0.059189424,0.56127626,0.00034581166],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9900331,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99519616,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14398049,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14398049,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2072822,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9928613},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3186537419","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v40i3.11191","title":"Caveat Jurisconsultus: Warrantless Access to the Client Records of Legal Practitioners","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Constitutionality; Legislation; Warrant; Law; Legislature; Confidentiality; Political science; Business; Constitution","score_opus":0.024129306489278527,"score_gpt":0.34774169685732614,"score_spread":0.3236123903680476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3186537419","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":[0.007391647,0.0026826449,0.037290487,0.73150736,0.013486067,0.0005985013,0.004019434,0.0007882803,0.20223556],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.25749627,0.0021088177,0.04736422,0.60361373,0.01474969,0.0033217166,0.00072662474,0.00055157364,0.0700674],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9740956,0.0072890795,0.0018440721,0.0069686733,0.00724043,0.0025621457],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.89307046,0.07860863,0.004389355,0.009929644,0.012723788,0.001278174],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021975426,0.0016202881,0.0020044718,0.0022593054,0.013160056,0.0064921095,0.010323981,0.017206043,0.04806866],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1409125,0.0013873694,0.002142505,0.0022232186,0.016503414,0.01799182,0.0075526894,0.031401757,0.014925084],"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":[0.00016712857,0.00006672267,0.0021610467,0.00048750057,0.00006343818,0.0014110468,0.006380739,0.00042585423,0.00023461711,0.5696827,0.40181613,0.017102994],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017165816,0.00004404852,0.0017149838,0.0009219465,0.00008337023,0.0013850387,0.0026128031,0.0020084507,0.00079873466,0.53529686,0.4547949,0.00016717188],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.042670384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03931836,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04806866,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0063459594,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009494275,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1608057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3186550581","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v39i3.11328","title":"CONTRACTUAL CAPACITY AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS IN COMMON-LAW JURISDICTIONS (PART 1): THE UNITED KINGDOM","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Law; Jurisdiction; Conflict of laws; Common law; Comparative law; Political science; Civil law (Civil law); Private law; Choice of law; Position (finance); Municipal law; Public law; Business","score_opus":0.07260518125190656,"score_gpt":0.3266917376229886,"score_spread":0.254086556371082,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3186550581","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":[0.19916998,0.13606855,0.0040152627,0.024366023,0.000636041,0.00006733592,0.00009368041,0.00001519265,0.63556784],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98338103,0.008584463,0.00052530546,0.0012011422,0.00004661298,0.000030514222,0.000024003617,0.0000061766145,0.006200698],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942596,0.0030609507,0.00043384352,0.00030707702,0.0008845711,0.0010539853],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99583876,0.002350282,0.00076944445,0.00028571888,0.00053484243,0.00022090126],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024454973,0.00017940083,0.0003179377,0.0017126577,0.004589178,0.008761553,0.00065768405,0.0027938439,0.003758301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007032683,0.00022947126,0.000292709,0.0026220107,0.010860172,0.0058470387,0.0045015947,0.001869301,0.000267579],"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":[0.000019337733,0.0000105671,0.0014598056,0.00015286388,0.000007779113,0.00027307984,0.020873962,0.00020839687,0.000104608014,0.96373296,0.0028598825,0.01029678],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033191864,0.00010363258,0.025933249,0.0035225751,0.000037461,0.0019687973,0.08690159,0.0008395829,0.0007029509,0.17633945,0.70351475,0.00010281767],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.061126575,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.058210947,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061126575,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00822825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036911534,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12154156},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3192292574","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v40i3.11189","title":"The Role of Expert Evidence in the Defence of Provocation and Emotional Stress in South Africa","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","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":"Provocation test; CLARITY; Culpability; Criminal law; Law; Political science; Liability; Criminology; Law and economics; Psychology; Sociology; Medicine","score_opus":0.04652257504750107,"score_gpt":0.31233174186825174,"score_spread":0.2658091668207507,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3192292574","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":[0.14560433,0.0711491,0.007342435,0.6514909,0.001340213,0.00023852609,0.000041730415,0.000015395231,0.122777425],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9478993,0.015719127,0.0029666137,0.028356165,0.00068133074,0.000079285106,0.000008259168,0.000010339222,0.0042795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96726674,0.02050863,0.0032847035,0.0014241951,0.003843197,0.0036725395],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.84361595,0.13408709,0.008808154,0.002725874,0.0060976064,0.004665454],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.043447196,0.00038801893,0.00074599806,0.003928003,0.008225382,0.015809152,0.0022994145,0.014941533,0.0026824828],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10129337,0.00086988154,0.0006966037,0.0017757431,0.03085213,0.011810355,0.013671264,0.011753349,0.00018341957],"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":[0.0001305435,0.000061595616,0.007992269,0.0018653406,0.000072219176,0.01084974,0.079192124,0.0009356214,0.0020730605,0.80558336,0.0065409313,0.0847033],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013362772,0.00028126387,0.023240993,0.015497429,0.00018440149,0.007089349,0.07492678,0.0016807755,0.00312877,0.62321496,0.25014752,0.0004740949],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.017394131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.018910121,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.043447196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011173879,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023667485,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22977346},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3199977776","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v32i2.12265","title":"WHICH STRUCTURES DOES THE HOUSEBREAKING CRIME PROTECT?","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Commit; Law; Fence (mathematics); Political science; Criminology; Sociology; Business; Engineering; Computer science","score_opus":0.017192545392954086,"score_gpt":0.3081281536896537,"score_spread":0.2909356082966996,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3199977776","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":[0.15504026,0.009471414,0.01517085,0.14834955,0.0006853248,0.0002026278,0.0019477056,0.00027931185,0.668853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9618382,0.0074009555,0.0023732253,0.005814619,0.0005164586,0.00008941621,0.00076283637,0.00017080255,0.02103364],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961283,0.0011462014,0.00014925444,0.0005921319,0.0009424611,0.0010415249],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99116313,0.0022409374,0.0023760432,0.0011770109,0.0017841827,0.0012587435],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034438025,0.00043976182,0.0005712964,0.0021754503,0.004694146,0.010889943,0.002202304,0.0028858741,0.019108068],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018738652,0.0006970805,0.0006973968,0.0019284859,0.020367859,0.01718915,0.0036146562,0.0026981875,0.0073788655],"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":[0.00008451127,0.00011756055,0.028391305,0.00041734937,0.000061151404,0.000497642,0.016150651,0.00082566444,0.00037154084,0.81877255,0.043842494,0.09046761],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030147943,0.00009343036,0.052147664,0.00199276,0.00007517528,0.0012181788,0.04235873,0.0010004786,0.0011262455,0.6243161,0.27555093,0.000090222384],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04729349,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07123447,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04729349,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010625011,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011460783,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0940364},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3210534343","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v30i1.12607","title":"CONTRACT AND AGENCY LAW AND THE 2008 COMPANIES BILL","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Corporate Governance and Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"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":"University of Toronto","keywords":"Law; Agency (philosophy); Position (finance); Political science; Law and economics; Business; Sociology; Finance; Social science","score_opus":0.013438124418155084,"score_gpt":0.19207530301787054,"score_spread":0.17863717859971545,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3210534343","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0046194093,0.002667099,0.002256522,0.11248367,0.0029888486,0.000101693164,0.00032184765,0.00009360536,0.8744674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07501853,0.0034293912,0.005124013,0.14158139,0.002257413,0.0008080765,0.00072974886,0.00014873825,0.7709027],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9895573,0.0019003338,0.000482968,0.00079446036,0.0058321073,0.0014327423],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951792,0.0017995642,0.00030309721,0.00049536227,0.0018364947,0.00038630172],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004865161,0.00046670347,0.00033544816,0.0010132713,0.0063336287,0.010440312,0.0013721674,0.016861718,0.014523699],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015670937,0.0006777566,0.00077609177,0.0011491029,0.0046837274,0.0049909716,0.0027357747,0.010490843,0.005307244],"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":[0.000008850062,0.000014844391,0.00015260368,0.000013012818,0.000001812509,0.000047376594,0.00035573984,0.000054409666,0.000034222016,0.7195947,0.27470303,0.0050194114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001635813,0.000012155728,0.0006471689,0.00016065598,0.0000050806457,0.00008884661,0.00025814166,0.00015021741,0.00007732965,0.036045138,0.96252275,0.000016160553],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.053484686,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.056952115,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053484686,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011563828,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020615505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10634673},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4297235682","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v25i2.14860","title":"DNA EVIDENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA: FALLACIES AND THE FUTURE","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Legislation; Profiling (computer programming); Legislature; Political science; Law; DNA profiling; Common law; Biology; DNA; Genetics; Computer science","score_opus":0.03152925795317972,"score_gpt":0.2845128952228036,"score_spread":0.25298363726962386,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4297235682","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.0123018185,0.14034817,0.0013173982,0.81707674,0.0013994365,0.00003648391,0.00005362818,0.000012336753,0.027453963],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45238474,0.29670194,0.0065202033,0.22721615,0.0042726826,0.00016355819,0.00011236044,0.000055913646,0.012572582],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99100304,0.0043949406,0.0009197812,0.00074844604,0.0016711584,0.001262562],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9518229,0.034504358,0.004269815,0.0012591968,0.0050980235,0.0030457207],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021561095,0.00046302445,0.00080800813,0.00581633,0.008815116,0.012743904,0.0016842048,0.014579222,0.008336054],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045183517,0.0005687027,0.00059499376,0.0044448525,0.029456973,0.018203178,0.008259817,0.012684641,0.00072587543],"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":[0.000043804826,0.00006521711,0.003503374,0.0019080512,0.00003561616,0.0026825895,0.019640323,0.00027091664,0.0009589097,0.80732024,0.02144582,0.14212517],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024348336,0.00008204252,0.0067407186,0.012729554,0.000055961264,0.0025561068,0.029700126,0.00032573333,0.0008473939,0.408104,0.53871864,0.000115313174],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.027116405,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029398702,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.027116405,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0147782955,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.028726324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11402738},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4383375884","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v44i2.14052","title":"TACIT CHOICE OF LAW IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS: PROGRESS OR STAGNATION IN THE COMMON- LAW JURISDICTIONS?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Common law; Law; Comparative law; Private law; Municipal law; Public law; Commercial law; Choice of law; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Conflict of laws","score_opus":0.056463391715519694,"score_gpt":0.387100000997883,"score_spread":0.3306366092823633,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4383375884","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":[0.38065344,0.016020307,0.061055265,0.07081755,0.00032416784,0.00021226547,0.00013607927,0.000051167193,0.47072977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99081224,0.0015910715,0.003510922,0.001055899,0.00007155456,0.000050865845,0.000026112324,0.000013226294,0.0028680817],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97478545,0.011111682,0.001772893,0.0027936618,0.0067957523,0.0027406258],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9550191,0.027244281,0.006623108,0.0043179803,0.0043311636,0.002464349],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02892801,0.00022415377,0.00078178354,0.0029862826,0.0066426103,0.018130992,0.0024029845,0.0035550806,0.0028962714],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0535705,0.0003925562,0.00051429216,0.004715833,0.043019276,0.018376827,0.00912653,0.0062054694,0.0002964304],"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":[0.0000056093854,0.000012591289,0.0009089524,0.000022330316,0.000002866338,0.00003740744,0.0066824094,0.00014495064,0.000037444668,0.98381305,0.00029189803,0.008040521],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017266693,0.000030486231,0.004948277,0.00051181,0.000016106384,0.00014809234,0.013786917,0.0016822167,0.00037516505,0.9438529,0.03458606,0.00004469449],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01568413,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.015578265,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02892801,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012038865,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018071018,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15298778},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385241220","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v25i1.16525","title":"SENTENCING OF PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS IN CANADA. LESSONS FOR SOUTH AFRICA?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Seriousness; Punishment (psychology); Prison; Criminology; Legislation; Sentence; Attendance; Political science; Service (business); Psychology; Law; Social psychology; Business","score_opus":0.08449379811015129,"score_gpt":0.33569306580244274,"score_spread":0.25119926769229145,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385241220","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":[0.42524856,0.021785904,0.0004166557,0.49370947,0.0022747729,0.00054283,0.0011272752,0.00004843024,0.054846022],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8628919,0.036197692,0.0018924997,0.058824386,0.00040625074,0.00034999583,0.00062501174,0.000057763275,0.03875446],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978327,0.0002659679,0.000083303355,0.00011515296,0.00031181122,0.0013911208],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9937996,0.000418811,0.00033591918,0.00007677707,0.002001164,0.003367692],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016464791,0.0005922334,0.0004665353,0.0016595996,0.018112548,0.0031775604,0.0023630115,0.0035451336,0.008003089],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007612398,0.0005152242,0.0005708043,0.00263441,0.0026119046,0.001974009,0.0036193717,0.0046537956,0.00061983394],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.0009173685,0.0013107979,0.18011793,0.0029670573,0.00017078451,0.019938705,0.13135365,0.0010519186,0.002381608,0.05768802,0.23636638,0.36573583],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032268165,0.00039359307,0.3975889,0.005355735,0.0002630842,0.003344804,0.37834275,0.0011396273,0.00076192466,0.008715268,0.20335934,0.0004123231],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9916984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.997566,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.057573352,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.057573352,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23675808,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.41772586},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385309200","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v44i2.16558","title":"THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CERTAIN CAPITAL ALLOWANCES IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES POLICY OBJECTIVES","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada","funders":"","keywords":"Legislation; Business; Capital (architecture); Public economics; Property tax; Allowance (engineering); Context (archaeology); Income tax; Incentive; Tax policy; Economic policy; Economics; Tax reform; Market economy; Law; Operations management; Political science","score_opus":0.01805645931809351,"score_gpt":0.3217493208971571,"score_spread":0.30369286157906356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385309200","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":[0.38062388,0.0030565925,0.02781473,0.076637335,0.0007271601,0.0004447708,0.0004146372,0.00013874892,0.5101422],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9665247,0.00063013413,0.007468082,0.006249148,0.00011575421,0.00022263448,0.00005231002,0.00002156147,0.01871556],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9908409,0.0033606724,0.0010856969,0.00090427033,0.0025027494,0.0013055819],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98909914,0.005822062,0.002078459,0.0011503216,0.0014805665,0.0003693822],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008581216,0.00029668064,0.0003595227,0.0007906623,0.0041144635,0.0062655364,0.0012525605,0.005077909,0.0021650686],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018190693,0.0004586289,0.00043333872,0.0009919088,0.011378255,0.0032059238,0.0030563083,0.006310234,0.00034412986],"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":[0.000016898655,0.000024176792,0.0023269174,0.000057675436,0.0000061377,0.00017187696,0.00510788,0.00025871396,0.0005573306,0.98496705,0.0023377906,0.0041675465],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009093509,0.00026631771,0.043371893,0.001450571,0.00009485676,0.0016220012,0.020835241,0.0030881097,0.0056476677,0.25587356,0.6673958,0.00026309304],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02447645,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.043793533,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02447645,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006375131,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013126324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.048667967},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4387533342","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v44i3.16964","title":"A CRITICAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON STATUTORY INTOXICATION – TIME TO SOBER UP?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","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":"Medicine; Government (linguistics); Environmental health; Alcohol abuse; Statutory law; Quarter (Canadian coin); Zero tolerance; Falling (accident); Alcoholic liver disease; Mortality rate; Psychiatry; Political science; Cirrhosis; Geography; Law; Surgery","score_opus":0.05681382074834623,"score_gpt":0.4995697204961752,"score_spread":0.442755899747829,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4387533342","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":[0.0023426868,0.04039253,0.002096296,0.870993,0.008266643,0.000024515313,0.000041287,0.000016139875,0.07582694],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.30520418,0.070957445,0.0022752427,0.5434599,0.03906621,0.00016809697,0.00009643713,0.000113013935,0.038659588],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9940498,0.0029507934,0.00021645281,0.0006729018,0.0007821327,0.0013279717],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9824938,0.01318319,0.0007992939,0.00027419033,0.0016808629,0.001568695],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008727017,0.00069166574,0.00077435764,0.0020965762,0.014258042,0.014168056,0.0030089328,0.02565044,0.010535894],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013538478,0.00038172855,0.0007445322,0.0017962251,0.060531043,0.025115395,0.0062449835,0.032331277,0.0011268085],"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":[0.0000064917476,0.000022214239,0.00010960875,0.000075539465,0.0000018570527,0.0002952521,0.006773717,0.000055924724,0.00003346176,0.9345092,0.053033605,0.0050831856],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001432222,0.00004519428,0.00031953186,0.0012378298,0.0000053586964,0.00072623434,0.01851448,0.00020497767,0.00007696264,0.4841129,0.49470156,0.000040692255],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01804976,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01794339,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02565044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014440263,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012331326,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10477191},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4390143988","doi":"10.17159/obiter.v44i4.17505","title":"PROVIDING A LEGAL DEFINITION FOR CYBERBULLYING IN SOUTH AFRICA","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","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":"Harm; CLARITY; Interpretation (philosophy); The Internet; Political science; Confusion; Phenomenon; Law enforcement; Enforcement; Public relations; Internet privacy; Criminology; Psychology; Law; Computer science; Epistemology","score_opus":0.04178065195820064,"score_gpt":0.24337168207147306,"score_spread":0.20159103011327242,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4390143988","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":[0.17967719,0.03231786,0.043428544,0.22262396,0.0035483986,0.0016250145,0.0010401187,0.00010117603,0.51563776],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90438706,0.012382452,0.033219624,0.015430998,0.00045470247,0.0010026821,0.00039627796,0.000059960108,0.032666232],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954066,0.0018341294,0.001008942,0.00027939075,0.00074351736,0.0007273501],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99341935,0.0028251286,0.0015149018,0.00036924978,0.0014434555,0.00042785308],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004264987,0.000403495,0.00040424636,0.0032163847,0.005528856,0.005676466,0.0012508383,0.002877229,0.005948621],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010085101,0.0003622294,0.00037526523,0.0017867441,0.007249182,0.004984445,0.005523429,0.0037974091,0.0006511121],"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":[0.00001656546,0.000060550497,0.0049339253,0.0005900742,0.000005348985,0.0027945489,0.05145882,0.00020322893,0.001992421,0.8964981,0.013518777,0.027927564],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025914158,0.000056845376,0.019943798,0.006570635,0.00003217653,0.0055897343,0.09838397,0.0010429616,0.0027529253,0.12182187,0.7436611,0.00011804736],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023513865,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.022329278,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.023513865,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005581447,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013023562,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.046754003},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4407032580","doi":"10.17159/wh71jh46","title":"DOUBLE INCHOATE CRIMES: SERVING A USEFUL PURPOSE OR DOUBLE TROUBLE? Déry v The Queen; Attorney General of Canada et al, Interveners [2007] 213 CCC (3d) 289 (SCC)","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","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":"Queen (butterfly); Law; Criminology; Genealogy; Political science; Sociology; History; Zoology; Biology","score_opus":0.05560598496038626,"score_gpt":0.3316085947277179,"score_spread":0.27600260976733165,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4407032580","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035540145,0.027302084,0.0008522766,0.46562257,0.0024434137,0.00014979718,0.00062952493,0.000074208176,0.46738604],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.289031,0.011255152,0.0012556616,0.42158812,0.0009684427,0.00013722111,0.00019914494,0.00007152323,0.27549377],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99688405,0.00032242932,0.00008889752,0.0002856857,0.000989286,0.0014295748],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976508,0.00070891966,0.00015122876,0.00006161054,0.0007987171,0.0006287266],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016871908,0.0005561676,0.00034732049,0.0008147637,0.012681595,0.007089051,0.0017893269,0.012610175,0.0071043484],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006250402,0.00051845366,0.00032508388,0.00079048413,0.006473777,0.0021370049,0.0023365505,0.007899336,0.000895099],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003236195,0.000031944226,0.0050352956,0.00012452793,0.000012343265,0.0011357081,0.006541466,0.000091476766,0.00025136757,0.26071438,0.70782626,0.01820297],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000080914986,0.000045773024,0.015542071,0.0012106479,0.0000808882,0.00096047553,0.021574292,0.000495429,0.00073559175,0.026511395,0.93263245,0.00013006906],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.88852704,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9720696,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.111472964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021046204,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0587548,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22425884},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4412454440","doi":"10.17159/zvd30693","title":"A Critical Analysis of the Application of Section 37C(1) of the Income Tax","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Section (typography); Economics; Business; Advertising","score_opus":0.006322872847640396,"score_gpt":0.2551360647828392,"score_spread":0.2488131919351988,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4412454440","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":[0.028242044,0.009240897,0.018300982,0.27163196,0.02028547,0.0021181158,0.0022215738,0.00029548176,0.6476634],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33387926,0.008996627,0.024667557,0.21429546,0.010059485,0.0025512502,0.0014839361,0.0005718296,0.40349463],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.982327,0.0035611738,0.00085398095,0.0017104878,0.008746416,0.002800933],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97165,0.015157508,0.0009400159,0.0008337854,0.011018949,0.00039971294],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017739898,0.0007761698,0.00060152455,0.00363489,0.008685648,0.012571974,0.0025514779,0.011456899,0.00943382],"category_scores_gemma":[0.050063867,0.0009987667,0.0018557734,0.0028464103,0.0077719567,0.0069596125,0.0020776757,0.016524255,0.0027359948],"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":[0.000048723483,0.00005089395,0.0006362187,0.00015145459,0.000008213874,0.00035890914,0.003988467,0.00039103293,0.00054182915,0.81399393,0.16465104,0.015179283],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021691061,0.000058566533,0.0042514866,0.0007824179,0.000027444243,0.0001302144,0.0039955573,0.0006184888,0.001677749,0.050835967,0.9375005,0.00009986093],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11876889,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1119784,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11876889,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026265465,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03350695,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23615515},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4417005967","doi":"10.17159/r3n3gv92","title":"What the Doctor Ordered: Lessons From Abroad to Strengthen South Africa’s Medical-Parole System","year":2025,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Conviction; Dignity; Legislation; Imprisonment; Criminal Conviction; Sentence; Value (mathematics)","score_opus":0.028892530347944798,"score_gpt":0.3352269723553151,"score_spread":0.3063344420073703,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4417005967","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":[0.07002363,0.021207266,0.0021868295,0.78249705,0.0029095754,0.00011813976,0.00007105926,0.000042936663,0.12094352],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79673505,0.019341756,0.0039342325,0.14232345,0.0010563346,0.00017375922,0.0000739055,0.00012924109,0.036232308],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99446636,0.002754731,0.00016613913,0.00025165692,0.00033736238,0.0020237477],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9826317,0.008897017,0.0005637053,0.0008608284,0.0015403475,0.0055064363],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014563371,0.00038611935,0.00049351,0.00093817234,0.008950593,0.007373769,0.0017658047,0.005268986,0.014400997],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019462029,0.00034198034,0.00055817235,0.00092016364,0.010383908,0.009444013,0.009773612,0.01379859,0.0011171795],"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":[0.00038850014,0.00039193817,0.008818209,0.0012382787,0.00005563904,0.005709267,0.079652816,0.0009602673,0.001337668,0.65198874,0.06592763,0.18353099],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021599335,0.0003663939,0.0121668065,0.0059035816,0.000057525132,0.001176757,0.12517484,0.00042694883,0.0011564324,0.14962912,0.7035818,0.00014385447],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.061728384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.091212705,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061728384,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011029876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045742895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12273818},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7124602040","doi":"10.17159/pjdnzz54","title":"Criminal Justice for Female Victims of Domestic Violence: Time to Deal Defencelessness a Final Blow","year":2025,"lang":"","type":"article","venue":"Obiter","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"Criminal justice; Domestic violence; Legislature; Plea; Notice; Legislation; Law enforcement; Presidential system","score_opus":0.025197674508300676,"score_gpt":0.3496766400808022,"score_spread":0.3244789655725015,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7124602040","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.0022678673,0.010132882,0.0001774862,0.969814,0.0097865835,0.000025180463,0.000019262667,0.000022331065,0.007754412],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07012128,0.033866312,0.0015049296,0.8237249,0.025806993,0.00020514114,0.00010335578,0.00019444615,0.04447264],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99243236,0.0024197262,0.00035547614,0.0005492591,0.0015344676,0.002708655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.985873,0.0045823194,0.0007293477,0.000495793,0.00237781,0.005941776],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00787854,0.0007336973,0.000852628,0.0010433706,0.014082356,0.012946765,0.0027033917,0.022253579,0.021690518],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022958323,0.00066712534,0.0009546681,0.00080485595,0.008123307,0.014348604,0.010783952,0.02672142,0.0027960846],"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":[0.000044341632,0.00017707549,0.0015443445,0.00053462223,0.000016661908,0.0014107394,0.013175704,0.000049878083,0.00039030035,0.028840456,0.84116685,0.11264899],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004266606,0.00019286411,0.0039609037,0.0035766775,0.000018395669,0.0017231704,0.06794566,0.00009788476,0.00019258163,0.018964428,0.90320194,0.000082870916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012791085,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.041115865,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.022253579,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0063757356,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029488837,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07256204},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}