{"meta":{"query_hash":"d8d55b493731","filters":{"venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion"},"cohort_total":22,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":22,"exported":22,"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/d8d55b493731","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Oxford+Journal+of+Law+and+Religion"},"results":[{"id":"W1751529791","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv026","title":"<i>Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General) </i>","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Charter; Law; Statutory law; Constitution; Political science; Freedom of religion; Sociology; Human rights","score_opus":0.0194864749677954,"score_gpt":0.28543791505493693,"score_spread":0.26595144008714156,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1751529791","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":[0.01722694,0.0049154297,0.0006638469,0.1185114,0.003837337,0.0007107003,0.007987979,0.0004481204,0.8456982],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0898184,0.0013024989,0.0008432598,0.19893885,0.00049041054,0.00046133006,0.0013752775,0.00014656397,0.70662344],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9957516,0.00031996417,0.00017679318,0.00041198425,0.0011692032,0.0021704363],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940101,0.0012301061,0.00021499873,0.0002570284,0.0030337225,0.0012541895],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028135357,0.00056908553,0.00058021944,0.0014606877,0.016034089,0.006164921,0.0027378194,0.012438109,0.061794717],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0061338027,0.0009528215,0.00092771597,0.0017414603,0.00222985,0.0019791347,0.0012815247,0.0070409523,0.008924377],"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":[0.00006153037,0.00005306937,0.0038823346,0.00010500863,0.00002035167,0.00032725677,0.00064380787,0.00010053428,0.0004341588,0.03227682,0.9535586,0.008536384],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000092223694,0.000031137948,0.020913336,0.00029145848,0.000046790607,0.00008105521,0.001225838,0.00022123416,0.00044042192,0.0013244866,0.9752523,0.00007973672],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9845061,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9953361,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061794717,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05480464,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.117567204,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39763737},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2043803687","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwt038","title":"United States v Windsor: (Docket no 12-307): Supreme Court of the United States: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan JJ; Roberts CJ, dissenting; Scalia and Thomas JJ dissenting, joined by Roberts CJ as to part I; Alito J dissenting, joined by Thomas J as to parts II and III: 26 June 2013","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Constitutionality; Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Law; Substantive due process; Federalism; Political science; Due Process Clause; State (computer science); Jurisdiction; Appeal; Politics","score_opus":0.008336688054690365,"score_gpt":0.2561875288732041,"score_spread":0.24785084081851375,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2043803687","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":[0.0121864965,0.0074135168,0.001166716,0.08050121,0.013686388,0.0013538182,0.016000897,0.00081570813,0.86687523],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.032825556,0.00213367,0.0012264592,0.09570663,0.0016891418,0.0007784474,0.0039181765,0.00028695873,0.8614349],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99472165,0.00037733358,0.0004310717,0.0008396041,0.0021885762,0.0014417312],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969867,0.0007182384,0.00019292375,0.00026290177,0.0014623181,0.00037698392],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032802818,0.0011465078,0.0010480423,0.0019733591,0.010402151,0.010958941,0.0036600619,0.032470845,0.06516838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007902236,0.0025715174,0.0017668979,0.0025692168,0.0019837231,0.0041354406,0.00229597,0.0150806215,0.029749116],"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":[0.000059787995,0.0000920386,0.0011138744,0.00007748128,0.000030713007,0.00040339702,0.00028162255,0.00008276443,0.0005523438,0.030573934,0.95882344,0.007908671],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008010597,0.000021291698,0.0040765856,0.00040733872,0.00004432597,0.0000898457,0.00028269624,0.000132625,0.00048736556,0.0028031138,0.99150413,0.00007056166],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3858428,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.675898,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3858428,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011042257,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032082103,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7671939},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2119218814","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rws051","title":"S L v Commission scolaire des Chenes: 2012 SCC 7: Supreme Court of Canada: McLachlin CJ, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ: 17 February 2012","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Commission; Political science; Human rights; Freedom of religion","score_opus":0.01771298925432544,"score_gpt":0.26074000164444455,"score_spread":0.24302701239011912,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2119218814","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":[0.014189952,0.016678667,0.0020749029,0.22247216,0.012091478,0.0009150628,0.012322296,0.00080855767,0.71844697],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.046207752,0.0026719884,0.0018251908,0.1519257,0.00087097986,0.00044572869,0.001265213,0.00026459573,0.79452276],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9918213,0.00046672713,0.00027883827,0.00084537227,0.003911809,0.0026760395],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935854,0.0009363786,0.00013456444,0.00025780094,0.0042693103,0.00081657054],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004029639,0.0012301181,0.0012577411,0.0014890622,0.022850754,0.015193379,0.0037566556,0.028362926,0.027845599],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014149008,0.0015175779,0.0016680277,0.0021075967,0.0032370507,0.0023275365,0.0024861228,0.018792083,0.0069807917],"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":[0.000047215784,0.00005834932,0.0012002331,0.0000783212,0.000020940572,0.00023686758,0.0007693327,0.00026267904,0.00033854824,0.08269107,0.90818346,0.0061130067],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004264353,0.0000130660355,0.004387473,0.000266741,0.0000347572,0.0000612181,0.00093438436,0.00033106632,0.00043861088,0.005726763,0.9876416,0.0001217666],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97831684,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98954916,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06804222,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06804222,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19815394,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49368316},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2129410355","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rws005","title":"How Religious Arbitration Could Enhance Personal Autonomy","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Office of the Chief Medical Examiner","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitration; Autonomy; Religious freedom; Political science; Compulsory arbitration; Law and economics; Law; State (computer science); Business; Sociology; Computer science; Politics","score_opus":0.01715009676357333,"score_gpt":0.2908915983203651,"score_spread":0.2737415015567918,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2129410355","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":[0.24351163,0.00071774295,0.024612479,0.041816168,0.0002869506,0.00006206739,0.000026970887,0.000053535496,0.68891245],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9927799,0.00007075265,0.0012978659,0.0009234228,0.000058591602,0.000012393431,0.000003779963,0.0000066618873,0.0048467554],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99247277,0.004104049,0.00022408584,0.0006682622,0.0013278591,0.0012029902],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99053055,0.0048650363,0.0009498156,0.001967266,0.00080357894,0.00088378007],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008199523,0.00015390615,0.0002768998,0.00052117335,0.003337835,0.004640209,0.00084518304,0.0035682197,0.0089749815],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019107468,0.00018811625,0.0006328437,0.00032979096,0.013248436,0.0058017513,0.0076470682,0.003573367,0.000749047],"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":[0.000027264468,0.00006123406,0.0013782468,0.000020108313,0.000008103809,0.00019937193,0.0053394507,0.0004626143,0.00061073335,0.98175186,0.0011878804,0.008953114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005373003,0.00007559645,0.0028363883,0.00007620396,0.00001936047,0.00029776504,0.0024471737,0.001605678,0.001049612,0.9494997,0.04200971,0.000028961413],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0012938996,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015031941,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0089749815,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0015728567,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0021695907,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04336375},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2148946511","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwu030","title":"The Byzantine Legacy of Religious and Legal Pluralism: A Contemporary Reassessment of Byzantine Church-State Relations","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Byzantine Studies and History","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Byzantine architecture; Pluralism (philosophy); Christianity; State (computer science); Politics; Conceptualization; Faith; Religious pluralism; Empire; Sociology; Political science; Law; History; Religious studies; Philosophy; Classics; Epistemology","score_opus":0.01290709120699093,"score_gpt":0.2250268397726178,"score_spread":0.21211974856562688,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2148946511","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.52185893,0.033459548,0.004269514,0.08131636,0.0012248197,0.000031273972,0.000059752147,0.00005554099,0.35772425],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98780847,0.002647642,0.0003092421,0.0010567062,0.0002205487,0.000012385017,0.000007394459,0.000027151544,0.007910425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99773455,0.0013936317,0.0000419202,0.00022099318,0.00027845058,0.00033051468],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986481,0.0007525746,0.00025250748,0.00016965004,0.000067913716,0.00010933434],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034369149,0.0002782033,0.0005182074,0.0012227806,0.01322673,0.007679152,0.00079667487,0.0027057969,0.0016481928],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0035116153,0.00028644307,0.00018632007,0.0014516845,0.046950053,0.0053320765,0.0048367423,0.004954641,0.00020220366],"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":[0.000038654085,0.000012825683,0.00046726686,0.00011369348,0.0000058418186,0.0004719005,0.30450922,0.000095131814,0.00048759,0.68165475,0.0041788933,0.007964184],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027784432,0.00006532005,0.004480045,0.0005637804,0.000012277452,0.0009590091,0.113860615,0.0003034167,0.0007315069,0.08526829,0.79369324,0.000034755456],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0073218117,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017176645,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01322673,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008181686,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0025078633,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05936259},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2153328781","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwt036","title":"Religious Values and Two Same-Sex Marriage Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Windsor; Supreme court; Law; Estate; State (computer science); Spouse; Political science; Legislation; Federal law; Constitutionality","score_opus":0.013814926514620133,"score_gpt":0.27714526891225655,"score_spread":0.2633303423976364,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2153328781","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":[0.3736858,0.0064294874,0.0020114828,0.12772958,0.0049220207,0.00039802454,0.0008114583,0.00010314877,0.483909],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8534591,0.0023137555,0.001256977,0.07458378,0.0013662397,0.00030473256,0.000296578,0.000042182088,0.06637656],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9930583,0.0011535117,0.00035024752,0.0006137903,0.0020417382,0.0027823409],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9945523,0.002712358,0.00034828708,0.00027996628,0.0008839351,0.0012230546],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006426513,0.00042406743,0.0006427143,0.001520232,0.023241125,0.005329902,0.0023269707,0.013671264,0.008129252],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0140134,0.0010661768,0.0014112089,0.0014890196,0.006953528,0.0023164218,0.0051339916,0.01819642,0.00090550346],"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":[0.0002213126,0.00045259937,0.008472593,0.00009336728,0.000073994255,0.011417049,0.020654764,0.0003089419,0.0013098995,0.79834783,0.14221504,0.01643263],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00089542044,0.00037339746,0.02849303,0.0010764189,0.00038174356,0.0035691014,0.03708581,0.001821994,0.0053672353,0.10561837,0.81488556,0.0004319773],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.117476605,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.26672235,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.117476605,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007966053,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010568738,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23358566},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2165483064","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv015","title":"<i>Trinity Western University v Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society</i>","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","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":"Law; Constitution; Political science; Charter; Nova scotia; Jurisdiction; Constitutional court; Conscience; Sociology","score_opus":0.04513203442762357,"score_gpt":0.2976174407610646,"score_spread":0.252485406333441,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2165483064","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":[0.056798805,0.0030720842,0.00046003913,0.07985642,0.0050810557,0.0008604479,0.003639348,0.000257411,0.8499744],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.13416032,0.00090397,0.0006786053,0.13134174,0.0004246146,0.00046761314,0.00093418156,0.00010766822,0.7309813],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9960479,0.00023211825,0.00021677768,0.0003467545,0.0011559861,0.0020003293],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99471927,0.0011475896,0.0002578533,0.00033693752,0.0020134188,0.0015249341],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023770018,0.00041086657,0.00038236662,0.0013433147,0.019294439,0.0068180594,0.0020358292,0.008602915,0.023329617],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0066262,0.0010367067,0.0005723657,0.0014298673,0.0033803484,0.0015729481,0.002306715,0.008106783,0.0049056965],"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":[0.00008222547,0.000060777347,0.005378093,0.00013475148,0.00001772832,0.0010016393,0.0052035796,0.000104435574,0.0015213876,0.102621906,0.8754761,0.008397406],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049915663,0.000037939084,0.033395775,0.00035360467,0.00002843203,0.00019946053,0.005456537,0.00011750812,0.0011040577,0.0023137443,0.9568407,0.000102471386],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9373936,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98207295,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.062606394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025374873,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08982147,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18410844},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2171410223","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv021","title":"Space Enough for a Christian Law School","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Space (punctuation); Law; Political science; Philosophy; Sociology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.028646026292544837,"score_gpt":0.30848409275868804,"score_spread":0.27983806646614323,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2171410223","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":[0.017416809,0.0025069898,0.00093896483,0.22998522,0.005437199,0.00007392703,0.00020382693,0.00019933496,0.74323773],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.32706627,0.0018283147,0.0008990054,0.078029,0.0032234497,0.00007729594,0.00014642405,0.00023023188,0.5885],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99761605,0.00055589556,0.00006364388,0.00017192075,0.0006250734,0.0009674902],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99219996,0.0007430776,0.00029645013,0.0004475576,0.0010484667,0.0052646333],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016750284,0.00024547597,0.0003047013,0.0010633153,0.01183268,0.009859673,0.0006642757,0.005599459,0.23270757],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008157476,0.00028734322,0.0002905146,0.0007629345,0.005265488,0.009124189,0.010788139,0.0055111004,0.028015122],"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":[0.000035517005,0.00013716702,0.0018958615,0.00010807202,0.000008209131,0.0007837841,0.010969061,0.000048877446,0.00038387868,0.19535355,0.7547567,0.03551926],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010638819,0.000019409264,0.0010395935,0.0001754201,0.0000023461898,0.00015750641,0.00836673,0.000029835539,0.000067980895,0.01021483,0.979902,0.000013605776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010191348,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0246107,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.23270757,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0023398842,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0057496224,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7784844},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2178083431","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv043","title":"<i>Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City)</i>","year":2015,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Tribunal; Conscience; Charter; Political science; Human rights; Neutrality; Duty; Constitution; Statutory law; Sociology","score_opus":0.03963257883280171,"score_gpt":0.2987751175640989,"score_spread":0.2591425387312972,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2178083431","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":[0.016571922,0.008275715,0.00087534916,0.11737789,0.008101589,0.0007322069,0.004279781,0.00027864956,0.84350693],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.079512745,0.002283578,0.0010383955,0.26590347,0.0009812681,0.0005133562,0.0011948964,0.00013920593,0.6484331],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9966878,0.00025482298,0.00012783035,0.00040912113,0.00090394047,0.0016164165],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99814975,0.00048812828,0.00008243349,0.00011244652,0.00075624423,0.00041093628],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022760828,0.00075864326,0.000609237,0.0013859115,0.014290528,0.008075998,0.002179067,0.014668292,0.02488566],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004994975,0.00092630985,0.0012478052,0.0013550009,0.0029593178,0.0019303068,0.0019158325,0.010469753,0.0040884423],"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":[0.000069328984,0.000051063707,0.0030464241,0.0001080557,0.000033962897,0.0008486928,0.0010867795,0.00016250624,0.0005083163,0.090609625,0.8939069,0.009568441],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055020228,0.000018921359,0.0088467235,0.00019252523,0.000027318256,0.00016908985,0.0007927062,0.00012491422,0.00030863305,0.002274102,0.9871329,0.000057200148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95591336,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9809444,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.044086635,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032878477,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07795012,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23855114},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2247834840","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv024","title":"<i>Holt v Hobbs</i>","year":2015,"lang":"he","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Legal Cases and Commentary","field":"Medicine","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Compromise; Petitioner; Law; Supreme court; Statutory law; Quarter (Canadian coin); Political science; Majority opinion; Sociology; History; Archaeology","score_opus":0.026659319802044362,"score_gpt":0.2802877673961699,"score_spread":0.2536284475941255,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2247834840","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":[0.009051342,0.004168118,0.0008480548,0.5250952,0.026540356,0.00033614918,0.0012972015,0.00045879788,0.43220493],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.017855922,0.0006480383,0.00038952017,0.929114,0.004577552,0.00024280931,0.00014008944,0.00006628852,0.046965837],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99183136,0.0011435656,0.00077788386,0.0014468189,0.0019091682,0.002891282],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98946697,0.0069346963,0.00053443917,0.00053022505,0.0015554552,0.000978197],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0069634626,0.0012262161,0.0013787413,0.0027088944,0.014011581,0.011306854,0.0073046414,0.06444963,0.016701821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02113242,0.001879359,0.0025087234,0.0016233766,0.007738233,0.0049646166,0.0044457996,0.040604062,0.009125822],"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":[0.000055729448,0.000060919556,0.0007754262,0.00012746273,0.000037130012,0.0011937923,0.0012837726,0.00010643656,0.0003529587,0.08147576,0.9087158,0.0058149397],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014498008,0.00006851366,0.0045196195,0.0011717757,0.00013839097,0.00077568245,0.00236057,0.0003090576,0.0010490936,0.01996068,0.96932733,0.00017442681],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14054172,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.29787174,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14054172,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0095064705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019575767,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.27944738},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2343610063","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwv025","title":"Catholic Schools Can Be Catholic","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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; Appeal; Religious education; Charter; Establishment Clause; Political science; Protestantism; Parliament; Legislation; Jurisprudence; Free Exercise Clause; Freedom of religion; Sociology; Confessional; Supreme court; Human rights; First amendment; Politics","score_opus":0.03652000659873157,"score_gpt":0.31657243122420836,"score_spread":0.2800524246254768,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2343610063","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":[0.015607033,0.0042138025,0.0007477578,0.095922895,0.0032963797,0.00009495732,0.00017825788,0.00008058662,0.8798583],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.37650326,0.0029676377,0.0008172476,0.12916534,0.001525912,0.00010831636,0.00019574093,0.00013867937,0.4885779],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99768436,0.0004675481,0.000048675294,0.0002542894,0.00052342535,0.0010217064],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9968329,0.00041980235,0.00018333404,0.000269015,0.00049704075,0.0017978402],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020465876,0.00028136667,0.00028568401,0.0005043922,0.010502998,0.004344661,0.0004078905,0.002840024,0.05465195],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0050448827,0.00041709346,0.00022837947,0.00051641697,0.005481772,0.0027624695,0.005755243,0.007155152,0.0069103767],"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":[0.00003904352,0.000086705055,0.0027973994,0.00011211922,0.0000067951646,0.00028561254,0.005060105,0.000033561013,0.00018024122,0.5496545,0.41193175,0.029812224],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020248082,0.00001283351,0.0018327279,0.00012572459,0.0000037760724,0.000077153585,0.0016099561,0.000016544185,0.000042150547,0.009608891,0.9866431,0.0000069587986],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.030820165,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.15532388,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05465195,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005711651,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006782749,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18282896},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2582707181","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rww080","title":"The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v Trinity Western University","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","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":"Law; Supreme court; Nova scotia; Ultra vires; Constitution; Political science; Charter; Statutory law; Human rights; Constitutional court; Constitutional law; Sociology; Doctrine","score_opus":0.026604408836613073,"score_gpt":0.2836527271664773,"score_spread":0.25704831832986424,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2582707181","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":[0.10910795,0.008133881,0.0011629083,0.08671146,0.0057870504,0.001994732,0.0029455537,0.00044798356,0.7837085],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.16944097,0.0021650433,0.0011469233,0.08449838,0.0006025928,0.0006744015,0.0007139831,0.00011016014,0.74064755],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99156594,0.00056640944,0.00045845818,0.0009841952,0.0031307023,0.0032941722],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9884715,0.0023947735,0.00053564797,0.00076697784,0.004237852,0.0035932332],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004660201,0.00083360553,0.0007124599,0.0021695008,0.02034105,0.011297066,0.002852842,0.01236958,0.01786805],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010844377,0.001947654,0.0009832367,0.0015774741,0.0042414702,0.0014270399,0.0036028598,0.010259345,0.0040142015],"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":[0.00026439896,0.00021471389,0.020728579,0.0004083547,0.0001422968,0.007000672,0.005256426,0.0007665682,0.005280455,0.17184207,0.75361973,0.034475762],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014934462,0.00010738768,0.058349226,0.00081790995,0.0001304173,0.00054186437,0.003549268,0.00063483056,0.0019578116,0.004284424,0.92920357,0.00027394618],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9266567,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9795903,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07334328,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.038395893,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16102727,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.27858305},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2765205482","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwx050","title":"Religious Freedom in the New World? Indigenous Sacred Sites and Religious Beliefs in the Courts in British Columbia","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Indigenous; Supreme court; Law; Politics; Religious freedom; Political science; Indigenous rights; Diversity (politics); Sociology","score_opus":0.013503490975710141,"score_gpt":0.2772826966525577,"score_spread":0.2637792056768476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2765205482","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":[0.9050654,0.0036496413,0.00010063432,0.01916758,0.000056734243,0.000025429545,0.00010642817,0.000007902114,0.071820125],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98713684,0.0010109523,0.00004437229,0.0014942808,0.0000099466015,0.000007749066,0.000027413675,0.0000042177817,0.010264152],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99766564,0.00032125218,0.000063510255,0.00014997442,0.00044984327,0.0013498071],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99558216,0.0011511632,0.00044015114,0.00009051996,0.001190861,0.0015451481],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010433884,0.00010620057,0.00037165603,0.00196931,0.022775255,0.008814178,0.0015618346,0.0019938035,0.007555321],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004356124,0.00034072757,0.00013576809,0.0034336792,0.009893546,0.0019381718,0.0028492212,0.0047646943,0.0002958708],"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":[0.00017240204,0.0004645389,0.20935796,0.00033143786,0.000064238746,0.0055924705,0.4416059,0.00069994834,0.0022722664,0.2296579,0.03222661,0.0775542],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032406475,0.000037602134,0.44737366,0.0007236844,0.000050742434,0.00053264986,0.42798617,0.0006309499,0.00029009776,0.00942799,0.11278168,0.00013242314],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9901901,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99720854,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.076925755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.076925755,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04265539,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.558138},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2887550384","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwy032","title":"The Religious and Ideological Freedom of Teachers in the English Legal Framework: Is the Balance Between Collective and Individual Rights Appropriate?","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Dalhousie University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Ideology; Statute; Political science; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Human rights; Citizenship; Politics","score_opus":0.017025224751280876,"score_gpt":0.2849785870961999,"score_spread":0.267953362344919,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2887550384","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":[0.13183506,0.020036992,0.0114987595,0.20966043,0.0008996714,0.00007606438,0.00018754778,0.000042755542,0.6257627],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97427,0.002551651,0.0018219826,0.006614044,0.0004788468,0.000042135158,0.000050458144,0.00003736708,0.014133474],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.993359,0.0035413357,0.00028458374,0.00050938776,0.0012288585,0.0010768601],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936993,0.0035841225,0.00051504397,0.00044733478,0.0010839583,0.00067009445],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008467145,0.00016810159,0.00044177315,0.0011064891,0.005739706,0.010687448,0.0013124213,0.003419136,0.0044389544],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014140729,0.0002726335,0.00019845461,0.00086430635,0.029523367,0.010929336,0.0034510694,0.004453417,0.0007605278],"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":[0.00001163782,0.000025044274,0.0012941884,0.00006471899,0.000002948926,0.00017451726,0.039615925,0.000085079126,0.00016414608,0.9400767,0.005824901,0.012660341],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003893282,0.0000350149,0.011486746,0.0012619701,0.000019145255,0.0002798993,0.072651386,0.0009405736,0.00042759214,0.52472097,0.3880655,0.000072207215],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0447266,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.074872814,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0447266,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009451086,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01125424,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.088932574},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903789803","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwy048","title":"Trinity Western University v The Law Society of Upper Canada","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Charter; Statutory law; Supreme court; Political science; Appeal; Constitution; Common law; Public law; Sociology","score_opus":0.020196930270328102,"score_gpt":0.2676772516344703,"score_spread":0.24748032136414222,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903789803","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":[0.019386036,0.0042803143,0.0007388515,0.06347169,0.0020399343,0.00018266827,0.001021758,0.0001858656,0.90869296],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.12451325,0.0018767954,0.0006773147,0.062008534,0.0003656847,0.00015776607,0.00032569276,0.00009333541,0.8099817],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99536926,0.000235484,0.00010581249,0.00042282272,0.0021233598,0.0017431768],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9954639,0.00060832273,0.00013091601,0.00019864221,0.0020630185,0.0015351953],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017390647,0.00046028462,0.00028757646,0.0012697187,0.01728397,0.0061696526,0.0012943662,0.0057015806,0.032705475],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0068449285,0.00061257416,0.00044414238,0.00133917,0.0031603845,0.0018118384,0.002375609,0.0062076543,0.0030482856],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006358592,0.000029500034,0.004137587,0.00009485249,0.000016416328,0.0006601053,0.0023311179,0.00016880265,0.0006179051,0.3644982,0.5996072,0.027774539],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002546615,0.000016093836,0.004685926,0.00015714914,0.00001583982,0.00011031965,0.0010125041,0.00015431226,0.0002869492,0.0049123354,0.9885805,0.000042666],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.959129,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9873468,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9581124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04188756,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15624873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.30391693},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3045506765","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa015","title":"From the Tree of Knowledge and the Golem of Prague to Kosher Autonomous Cars: The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Through Jewish Eyes","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Ethics and Social Impacts of AI","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":13,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Douglas College","funders":"","keywords":"Personhood; Sociology; Judaism; Sketch; Artificial intelligence; Consciousness; Soul; Law; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy; Political science","score_opus":0.07635076700284824,"score_gpt":0.36938624200989206,"score_spread":0.29303547500704386,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3045506765","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":[0.39499804,0.012514822,0.017434785,0.11943619,0.0012380517,0.00003236405,0.000048691192,0.00011336513,0.4541836],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98614407,0.0006901943,0.0009043783,0.0033721293,0.00016321061,0.000008249837,0.0000066619614,0.000018400897,0.008692724],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979613,0.0013272259,0.000035889032,0.00017725209,0.00025632634,0.00024194333],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988526,0.00058418495,0.00011114867,0.00012156769,0.00021567724,0.00011492204],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003454211,0.00020528818,0.00024584157,0.00043596706,0.0073731192,0.0056470125,0.00047949806,0.0029048712,0.001958996],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003443622,0.00018895323,0.00017431033,0.00025159953,0.032456376,0.0027915877,0.0021468226,0.0034975223,0.0004278939],"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":[0.000024263996,0.000016358483,0.00044563465,0.000012793644,0.0000051873567,0.00022460152,0.026486203,0.00016641982,0.00026650022,0.9624186,0.004232429,0.0057008713],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003162287,0.00006886956,0.0020150805,0.00020255039,0.0000127631665,0.0005182988,0.018326528,0.0013844944,0.00076132885,0.6705285,0.3060998,0.00005019937],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005263842,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0056091296,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0073731192,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003245163,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001530479,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.023545384},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3092013050","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa024","title":"Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Foundations of Free Speech and Toleration","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","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":"Civility; Toleration; Argument (complex analysis); Law; Sociology; Context (archaeology); Politics; Dialogical self; Free speech; Political science; Philosophy; Epistemology; History","score_opus":0.012967765610551544,"score_gpt":0.2238879050854606,"score_spread":0.21092013947490906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3092013050","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":[0.08074797,0.004832888,0.028739443,0.16075012,0.00065693585,0.00006921802,0.000071695904,0.00008903642,0.7240427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9893945,0.00032179692,0.0010748416,0.0026645418,0.00020058129,0.00003352085,0.000011507682,0.000017557195,0.006281085],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9819324,0.0108173145,0.00046777015,0.0019878345,0.002849718,0.0019450046],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95135826,0.035713017,0.0038267327,0.0037955723,0.0029778732,0.0023286068],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014530246,0.00033205934,0.0005569073,0.0024673056,0.008625515,0.014973037,0.001578289,0.0074563543,0.011332021],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034978334,0.00039898805,0.00041311307,0.0011130653,0.093410924,0.011720947,0.008101636,0.009083299,0.0007890941],"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":[0.000006843517,0.00001049516,0.00032264242,0.00001140093,0.0000019540998,0.00005376738,0.0042735636,0.0000768958,0.00002213788,0.99119407,0.0014814169,0.0025447689],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017783033,0.0000226643,0.0012767017,0.00024820075,0.0000064493347,0.0001332619,0.008428514,0.00064003456,0.00022772487,0.9487666,0.04020255,0.000029569996],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0076844185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0057182563,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.014973037,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006350462,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00631478,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.076844156},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3110917822","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa022","title":"Conscience and Cakes: Reaffirming the Distinction Between Institutional Duties and Individual Rights","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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":"Conscience; Lesbian; Legislation; Law; Sociology; Scope (computer science); State (computer science); Political science; Gender studies","score_opus":0.06871187651626011,"score_gpt":0.31408119904892734,"score_spread":0.24536932253266724,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3110917822","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":[0.12170367,0.0025796364,0.040681873,0.11800932,0.0014925528,0.00007995076,0.00003128756,0.000070759736,0.7153508],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98833114,0.00028260567,0.0018957449,0.003309836,0.00024694763,0.000038283997,0.0000059470885,0.000027794596,0.005861637],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97873014,0.012692128,0.00057680695,0.0016148414,0.0041338108,0.0022521485],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9634791,0.025182389,0.0019229108,0.004087439,0.0034969083,0.0018312559],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020118121,0.00039819165,0.00069247175,0.0024868785,0.0073098266,0.01173414,0.00290253,0.008037019,0.003194564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036383066,0.00039100213,0.0005655966,0.0013122208,0.118505135,0.016708886,0.01213604,0.0103671495,0.0002853631],"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":[0.000007337652,0.0000048053253,0.000210794,0.0000129113305,0.0000012370342,0.000051058778,0.007528144,0.000054355103,0.000034054217,0.98963904,0.0005210753,0.0019350519],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039924704,0.000035554225,0.0021753812,0.0005437385,0.000018190938,0.00013537884,0.01732009,0.0009913911,0.00030015007,0.90285635,0.07553476,0.000049150207],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.025025293,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0288655,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.025025293,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008952966,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012082574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10639602},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3208497582","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwab013","title":"Making Sense of a Complex Notion: Debates on State Religious Neutrality in Canada — A View from Quebec","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université du Québec à Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Neutrality; Indoctrination; Law; State (computer science); Multiculturalism; Sociology; Supreme court; Democracy; Political science; Establishment Clause; Ideology; Politics; First amendment","score_opus":0.03426809075966237,"score_gpt":0.3032502000815562,"score_spread":0.2689821093218938,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3208497582","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":[0.18300205,0.017824553,0.0038738158,0.42393667,0.001075048,0.0000656552,0.0003834112,0.000054797674,0.36978403],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9713544,0.0024769579,0.00071235903,0.014836336,0.00010518521,0.000014677932,0.00003811605,0.0000229941,0.01043893],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9945245,0.0015398345,0.00012859893,0.0005071186,0.0015859469,0.0017139803],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9891583,0.004007915,0.00034919122,0.0003171476,0.004655157,0.0015123932],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006757271,0.00034616943,0.0005586359,0.0021825545,0.040335074,0.017233657,0.0029493736,0.0061204024,0.0048848307],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009227235,0.0003723921,0.0005895242,0.0032904889,0.030348334,0.004128691,0.003442127,0.00830322,0.00016916217],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000035675184,0.000018114957,0.0025242209,0.000058382906,0.000023902077,0.00034769645,0.032658793,0.00073052285,0.00022969763,0.93098956,0.023703264,0.008680093],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000080097554,0.000043572963,0.023704398,0.0012159435,0.00015371817,0.0002732422,0.14363222,0.005054769,0.0008253085,0.20514104,0.61936885,0.0005067823],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9973205,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99791366,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.28019923,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.28019923,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2096105,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8348669},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4388497676","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwad015","title":"Inside Indonesia’s Religious Courts: An Argument for Domestic and Family Violence Screening and Exemption from Compulsory Mediation","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Intimate Partner and Family Violence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Mediation; Domestic violence; Argument (complex analysis); Family law; Law; State (computer science); Family mediation; Sociology; Criminology; Political science; Poison control; Suicide prevention; Alternative dispute resolution; Medicine; Environmental health","score_opus":0.026148966372589726,"score_gpt":0.32045836377833153,"score_spread":0.2943093974057418,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4388497676","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":[0.25550973,0.001299726,0.013407456,0.16455327,0.0006784406,0.00028176795,0.0001458743,0.000085509106,0.5640382],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97468776,0.0001657661,0.0017791088,0.0158365,0.00023376143,0.000109027904,0.000019067254,0.000014426993,0.007154611],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9883334,0.0044007893,0.00058321754,0.0015946958,0.002246683,0.0028412344],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9659917,0.019789346,0.0048828176,0.002876064,0.0030571634,0.0034029942],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010638996,0.00032675464,0.00088922255,0.0014345939,0.01276677,0.007978958,0.0031224862,0.015833253,0.008641057],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032778393,0.0007677111,0.0009244662,0.0006902556,0.029264187,0.006077286,0.008147493,0.017251547,0.0007419526],"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":[0.00007247107,0.00013727014,0.0067932396,0.000039838316,0.000017076321,0.0013408848,0.0032605869,0.0003110618,0.00018833003,0.9796214,0.0040175556,0.0042003538],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00050441496,0.00019929743,0.0379266,0.0017374117,0.00028402702,0.003712147,0.016143791,0.011662017,0.0032477437,0.7866077,0.13767609,0.00029878542],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026759278,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.026650725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026759278,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0062085576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010178773,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.056265056},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408417310","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaf003","title":"Protecting Conscientious Choices in National Legislation and EU Non-Discrimination Law: The Case Study of Ireland","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"Irish Research Council","keywords":"Legislation; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.023829286952135043,"score_gpt":0.32869828267846135,"score_spread":0.3048689957263263,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408417310","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":[0.7880431,0.00052778475,0.0015621869,0.011906841,0.00008574053,0.0001338766,0.000052969397,0.00001616878,0.19767132],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98636127,0.00027739635,0.0008290577,0.0020807544,0.000015410504,0.00006022746,0.00002483904,0.000013535879,0.010337558],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98252296,0.00955505,0.00057879166,0.0009130209,0.0021403441,0.0042898343],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9870853,0.00856612,0.0012634133,0.0009991493,0.0010725693,0.0010134527],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013129648,0.00033264107,0.0007960462,0.0013597038,0.013000786,0.009199902,0.0024380195,0.007291155,0.0035747238],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018068504,0.00046947744,0.0009426749,0.001932844,0.019234879,0.003567013,0.009192057,0.007429276,0.0004981027],"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":[0.00036167802,0.0016052801,0.051824782,0.00034144014,0.00006545364,0.034176707,0.27935368,0.0029788637,0.0012801973,0.575148,0.016163956,0.03670005],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022621802,0.00051803724,0.03408551,0.0013196318,0.00010752971,0.0096555175,0.6617769,0.004648623,0.0030034913,0.04386925,0.24052967,0.00025965436],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12153006,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.16980585,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12153006,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01869314,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011550226,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24164534},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4414378619","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaf010","title":"On Prohibiting Pupil Prayers: Conceptions of Religion and Secularism in <i>Webber Academy</i> (Canada) and <i>Michaela School</i> (UK)","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","topic":"Religious Education and Schools","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":"Prayer; Framing (construction); Secularism; Autonomy; Common ground; Chapel; Foundation (evidence); Expression (computer science)","score_opus":0.008984373665775662,"score_gpt":0.291984663660634,"score_spread":0.2830002899948584,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4414378619","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":[0.40415287,0.0038651472,0.0014157557,0.087504454,0.00022539645,0.00007589431,0.00006474372,0.000022247783,0.50267345],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98140633,0.00034141206,0.00016866696,0.004713639,0.00003497383,0.00001643053,0.000006110644,0.00001166787,0.01330082],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99061346,0.0032056777,0.00022821019,0.00073053554,0.0018826679,0.0033393146],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99211806,0.0033652224,0.0008377788,0.00042919436,0.0014811851,0.0017685174],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0067066965,0.00026855248,0.00052407634,0.0010354429,0.037677348,0.018644424,0.0022213757,0.007661776,0.0042580403],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009823528,0.0005570637,0.00030657757,0.001070971,0.06770908,0.0046075117,0.0069438247,0.012245687,0.00034420728],"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":[0.000028513046,0.000036011017,0.0018525617,0.000017134204,0.000004927183,0.000296206,0.099797286,0.0000789319,0.000108706845,0.8903521,0.005007389,0.0024202159],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012846151,0.00011954728,0.030035475,0.0009332567,0.00008104378,0.0004287281,0.42625943,0.0009807458,0.0017016343,0.21253848,0.32655773,0.00023552931],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8244091,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9073565,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17559087,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.068738475,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.056877952,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4987349},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}