{"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2411526,0.002294635,0.00062640244,0.0065202094,0.0012562008,0.00007464068,0.000006112746,0.00001678383,0.7480524],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98674595,0.0020850787,0.0011197365,0.003104218,0.0014983364,5.2934683e-7,0.0000014193936,0.000005565718,0.0054391795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990554,0.00010206651,0.00024170695,0.00007041567,0.0003444633,0.00018593585],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989502,0.000052022315,0.00018202649,0.000060510323,0.00027812726,0.00047711038],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00047626797,0.00007382066,0.00016002596,0.00003720261,0.00025298254,0.0000703798,0.000120595425,0.00007650457,0.000016469565],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010127948,0.000056928213,0.000061359104,0.0000696236,0.00054050755,0.00025632756,0.000019857813,0.00015235193,0.0000063735533],"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":[0.000027390293,0.000016124863,0.0007470484,0.0000022473773,0.00001311087,0.000020736106,0.00021449705,0.000015430665,0.00003700432,0.98172367,0.01692562,0.00025711118],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032644795,0.00009220239,0.00009634379,0.000027008762,0.000023577499,0.00005172374,0.00017526551,0.0000010339356,0.00004942027,0.01241521,0.9866604,0.00008135799],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03624191,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003264985,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9697348,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011571779,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015336787,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97017586},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.97655004,0.002482768,0.00004244867,0.01636025,0.0006477614,0.0011031489,0.00003628097,0.000056716395,0.0027206137],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97883254,0.009512075,0.00008828139,0.0013189347,0.00039952886,0.000023795437,0.00006422623,0.00007539466,0.009685205],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9957712,0.0004411389,0.001347188,0.0005830841,0.0009748914,0.00088244985],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9964499,0.00031395422,0.0011255415,0.0003024102,0.00079149014,0.0010167187],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013418323,0.000544481,0.000919633,0.0002753726,0.0017014391,0.0008125437,0.0003708322,0.0002796584,0.000054274005],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039332945,0.00038043354,0.0001507607,0.0007201714,0.0006518718,0.00081363367,0.00035980533,0.00036742986,0.000003543904],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0008500562,0.00081223744,0.06548819,0.0006578579,0.0005601708,0.00006406291,0.028511865,0.00006787302,0.02004672,0.0074324193,0.8746468,0.0008617839],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0016632831,0.00075360265,0.0020787604,0.0015843537,0.00021328857,0.000089904854,0.0035092288,0.00017471207,0.0031273847,0.0031421853,0.9829961,0.0006671693],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07509507,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004923749,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10834936,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005260828,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010645123,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99986476},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8302781,0.031649016,0.00034039156,0.0040524383,0.00075868424,0.00027782537,0.00005187377,0.000015201528,0.13257648],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9888729,0.0073794518,0.000595876,0.00061974576,0.0005482632,0.0000014061992,0.000004122064,0.000012768649,0.001965485],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982266,0.00014943554,0.00050103123,0.00011937851,0.0005078051,0.0004957931],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99841183,0.00016986833,0.00042228765,0.00010944544,0.0002779133,0.0006086655],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009255392,0.00017873743,0.00037304175,0.000071498056,0.0008694216,0.00004145546,0.0001716042,0.00015760379,0.00007767648],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000059197773,0.00014336251,0.00007685502,0.00011506258,0.0013182963,0.0007011612,0.000053064483,0.00024179259,6.517586e-7],"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":[0.0003202663,0.00032227655,0.07708258,0.00026133502,0.00017674605,0.00003997768,0.003482143,0.000028900862,0.0019029435,0.8013674,0.11286481,0.0021506236],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00060429325,0.00018960577,0.013450168,0.00043141068,0.00008664809,0.00009775334,0.0007849568,0.000005187569,0.00068231253,0.001063693,0.9823501,0.00025384792],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20297806,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18678062,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8694853,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016028358,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016337172,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.82805854},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.35027528,0.020992734,0.005835715,0.011516766,0.0022457638,0.00027689643,0.0000023847115,0.000043852502,0.6088106],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9835111,0.013350636,0.00055250624,0.000681782,0.0011674184,0.0000019352153,0.0000017266539,0.000008487462,0.0007244432],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988672,0.00009317246,0.00025075136,0.0000912228,0.00042080504,0.00027686357],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991242,0.000063323525,0.00032127663,0.000059363614,0.00020910696,0.0002227173],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007633776,0.00010297768,0.00016921315,0.00007415436,0.00038009344,0.00016568208,0.0000999541,0.00014229883,0.000004814592],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007242721,0.00008259741,0.00010203591,0.00008926367,0.00022256718,0.00080579246,0.000012697875,0.00018262424,0.0000022917002],"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":[0.00010315705,0.00013067317,0.0019091871,0.00003459799,0.000037822527,0.000010855098,0.026173804,0.0000020399716,0.0024726929,0.94660574,0.014430992,0.008088408],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005797619,0.00026784933,0.00039229763,0.00010300706,0.00009008557,0.000107860345,0.0021456673,0.000026851914,0.0022362694,0.035867147,0.9579432,0.00023999775],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008012029,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00024325146,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9435122,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010531178,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016148335,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33682248},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.36054316,0.021595169,0.00010423769,0.0063212784,0.00077365217,0.00020056349,0.000017623397,0.000013618324,0.61043066],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9852373,0.01219226,0.00009133065,0.00015808413,0.0002833332,0.0000012880145,0.0000023617563,0.000014448879,0.0020195993],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99867177,0.00007004793,0.00076825306,0.00010831061,0.00023293812,0.00014870713],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984252,0.0001762254,0.00085199444,0.00013931634,0.0003425626,0.00006472268],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00056548335,0.00014131592,0.0004046462,0.00008332314,0.00045127945,0.00007234377,0.00010658403,0.00003682357,0.00000757563],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000037224887,0.00008553754,0.00012414728,0.000031549633,0.00072811707,0.00026804488,0.000061318555,0.00020573466,3.3231362e-7],"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":[0.0002333236,0.000058991143,0.00033691578,0.00006497774,0.0001254943,0.00000823866,0.0027625624,0.000002941288,0.00026530877,0.9793864,0.01490486,0.0018499739],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0010311301,0.0005906007,0.00081058335,0.00019417699,0.00007433089,0.00006684983,0.0005447572,0.00002534855,0.00008366369,0.0009751718,0.99550056,0.00010280733],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009178502,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00030953105,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9805957,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000002229152,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005045458,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34881198},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9822854,0.005868402,0.000023430055,0.005646385,0.00023242459,0.000194418,0.0000050560316,0.00000630712,0.0057381676],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9797747,0.018852068,0.000022914872,0.00080775685,0.0001988126,0.0000017396253,9.302424e-7,0.0000074199893,0.00033367044],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99879354,0.00021544678,0.00036770492,0.00008391205,0.00036817297,0.00017120394],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99874705,0.00037969984,0.00039399072,0.000093101604,0.00028877018,0.00009739677],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00071624236,0.00009410018,0.0002124719,0.000035134504,0.0005386602,0.00014360905,0.00020135369,0.000065465385,0.000008626602],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017091646,0.000045535122,0.00006402433,0.00016189633,0.0005334882,0.0002078393,0.00004487691,0.00015495624,4.840308e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00051228824,0.00037538575,0.06377982,0.0003967731,0.0006385319,0.00008677891,0.105599724,0.0001992304,0.010529487,0.14399114,0.66346705,0.010423796],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0013899438,0.00053591916,0.001173681,0.00055041205,0.00017250972,0.00027714568,0.011188548,0.000070906855,0.0031433012,0.19361176,0.78759205,0.00029381862],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08380626,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0017685998,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12412502,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002032103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000066510445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92229474},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9283946,0.0012570303,0.00013343181,0.0058798045,0.00072203466,0.00009640672,0.0000026678656,0.00001721053,0.06349682],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9949565,0.0031001882,0.00036810097,0.0004759628,0.00030945684,2.9879118e-8,4.0632204e-7,0.0000038328694,0.00078555004],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999136,0.00010587114,0.0001665868,0.000084003645,0.00033306613,0.00017452547],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99917614,0.000053816875,0.00019593471,0.000045281617,0.00029067954,0.00023811759],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00058628933,0.00008161983,0.00018299319,0.000014659408,0.00038306013,0.00005582665,0.00014402467,0.00009473608,0.000004993666],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004407178,0.000060924474,0.00012707019,0.000089728324,0.00037075244,0.00034083734,0.00006128078,0.00018154099,0.0000045735337],"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":[0.001013564,0.00046447548,0.3543868,0.00015248354,0.00088718184,0.0003686611,0.3198134,0.000071944356,0.0009600225,0.13875142,0.17840192,0.0047281166],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009400213,0.00014608192,0.0030307483,0.00005673191,0.000059254213,0.000018421253,0.0087655755,0.0000013242806,0.000055244578,0.0006477936,0.9861522,0.00012662463],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006584545,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0044453735,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8077503,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015575514,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000081265905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9953906},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07715929,0.017612856,0.0021577359,0.02245336,0.0023472987,0.00050966186,0.0000064697,0.000036184545,0.87771714],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9954771,0.0013508035,0.0004441165,0.0006689767,0.0015412836,0.0000018197171,3.7803778e-7,0.000007198659,0.0005083341],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991987,0.000047935173,0.0002352705,0.00007444164,0.00027146772,0.00017221435],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990276,0.00005006597,0.00022241597,0.00004446213,0.00034917003,0.0003062901],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008495287,0.00006565181,0.00018174293,0.000026506545,0.0003488383,0.00012320517,0.000105177416,0.00009027141,0.000003706795],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017603114,0.000048273887,0.00006527672,0.00007105288,0.00014989852,0.0003265063,0.000013090267,0.00010460251,0.000002073137],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.000105558305,0.000024158518,0.000115335715,0.000027318818,0.000017196904,0.000009381978,0.0030846654,0.0000034674026,0.000077482895,0.98219186,0.01406023,0.0002833388],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00052031,0.0002790015,0.0000073157885,0.00008962166,0.000021067663,0.000019927786,0.0010526739,0.0000019185752,0.00014673341,0.05240891,0.94538265,0.0000698487],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0146378325,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029942477,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93132246,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004827499,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023889188,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99192375},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5556248,0.14295329,0.00012116192,0.098068275,0.006964468,0.00031999455,0.00000770268,0.000022800903,0.19591753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9065885,0.078988105,0.0005689966,0.002316125,0.0019635826,0.0000021704004,9.4565286e-7,0.000014702366,0.0095568895],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979587,0.00024141966,0.0005692485,0.00015986076,0.000678469,0.000392258],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982995,0.00009914395,0.00050728617,0.00008299677,0.00052233064,0.00048877136],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001035287,0.00020766092,0.0004208703,0.00003443523,0.0005299236,0.00010896305,0.00020304338,0.00021358178,0.000024485249],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011360192,0.00014637539,0.00019676509,0.0001754229,0.0007697002,0.00048719428,0.00009047222,0.0003635223,0.000011644998],"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":[0.0003665192,0.0006014451,0.009606715,0.00019864376,0.0007090145,0.0002929284,0.12613633,0.00011746995,0.00036177842,0.66479397,0.17534526,0.021469926],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008577782,0.00048564665,0.0002531464,0.00026661158,0.00014166287,0.000060420334,0.0049658846,0.0000054396537,0.00016655825,0.007613311,0.98498124,0.00020231343],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.071869224,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025345812,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.809636,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00037948927,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018827732,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9924391},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.69658774,0.12256593,0.00020452925,0.025664045,0.0037526516,0.00022430248,0.000011394783,0.000011977729,0.15097745],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9522059,0.03351438,0.00025503154,0.011370897,0.0019195753,4.1094665e-7,0.000004080589,0.000021793847,0.00070793874],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99857205,0.00006641668,0.0005516471,0.00012097063,0.00044460763,0.00024433332],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986003,0.000047648366,0.00034095696,0.00016093152,0.00024253335,0.00060762174],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00051819097,0.00017594159,0.00042441036,0.00007123188,0.000088458015,0.00005925939,0.0000994086,0.000121883684,0.000035660796],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000030262665,0.000119582015,0.00017957125,0.000081661085,0.000110042296,0.00020544742,0.00006672292,0.00046119696,0.000014017402],"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":[0.0076365457,0.0011737937,0.0093380995,0.00059484027,0.0008642465,0.008172683,0.0031868613,0.000030049772,0.005446782,0.07393497,0.86986923,0.019751886],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0042779283,0.0032447514,0.00014464144,0.0006795537,0.0004852217,0.0051906086,0.00024736606,0.000021344133,0.00093590963,0.0019205579,0.9827002,0.00015188426],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00031863505,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000015915724,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.25561818,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000082685874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015949452,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4876413},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.47220507,0.0022623432,0.000084707935,0.013305118,0.0005793668,0.00007179304,0.000009283729,0.000012914974,0.5114694],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99292856,0.0025688645,0.00037624332,0.0025955988,0.0006429102,6.528321e-7,9.76415e-7,0.000004757652,0.0008814213],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99908286,0.000096439835,0.00021919425,0.00006610253,0.00033454044,0.00020084647],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999056,0.000045123532,0.00017094905,0.00006268072,0.00026326813,0.00040198042],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005395411,0.000071366485,0.00015803004,0.000049354643,0.00029259818,0.00006125789,0.00011867252,0.00006931498,0.000004218301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012562211,0.000056281464,0.00005923708,0.00008524353,0.00052155263,0.00015743553,0.000019104673,0.00018574281,0.0000018999856],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.0000115346675,0.00001634199,0.00065946294,0.000002734105,0.000009653147,0.000030449039,0.003390324,0.000007221329,0.000033846787,0.99349755,0.001824581,0.00051628816],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002423167,0.00010355555,0.000073832656,0.000032949938,0.000024867579,0.00015364347,0.0006434738,5.861788e-7,0.00003503115,0.004806194,0.993806,0.00007752739],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0067099114,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00086993043,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99198145,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008936972,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013583082,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999045},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9487819,0.0011481175,0.00018607995,0.025793547,0.0007556005,0.00010707777,0.000002911705,0.000013020933,0.023211762],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.981544,0.016133875,0.00007272097,0.00019398019,0.00023003624,3.8794084e-8,5.7189297e-8,0.0000026791386,0.0018226075],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992533,0.000116581956,0.0001504554,0.00006877756,0.00024080063,0.00017008877],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992704,0.00022734444,0.00018891157,0.000049009992,0.0001626082,0.0001017452],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00058913894,0.00006575021,0.0001228535,0.0000070525907,0.0010384114,0.00005343336,0.00016476578,0.00006807548,0.0000065040035],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000051581417,0.000029841487,0.00014029708,0.00005346584,0.000608356,0.00024051055,0.00005158205,0.00010939885,0.0000033652134],"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":[0.0012826918,0.0002530532,0.29076657,0.00008225718,0.0012885577,0.0001316326,0.11068749,0.0000037953241,0.0045529893,0.4391459,0.09576894,0.056036137],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006286192,0.00007513149,0.010992794,0.000065700726,0.00003459592,0.000007395656,0.0028077087,1.9922525e-7,0.00007489921,0.0007854877,0.9844501,0.00007735053],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020267018,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005513714,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8886812,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012130692,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000406939,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79867256},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9391631,0.009583183,0.000007641888,0.005317757,0.00018861864,0.0002590424,0.0000066476678,0.000004125013,0.0454699],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9593867,0.03827244,0.000112011505,0.0015907611,0.00036573946,0.000002502852,0.0000012806021,0.0000060025523,0.0002625357],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984674,0.00024200387,0.0004195848,0.00013651072,0.00040233816,0.00033214997],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989651,0.00034481706,0.00034270945,0.00017480557,0.00006411076,0.000108445885],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014175099,0.00009081971,0.00025801916,0.000070816604,0.00087832945,0.00080886943,0.00048455558,0.00010194451,0.0000029126822],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001913151,0.0000795126,0.000057398916,0.00013294173,0.001055674,0.00023230058,0.000042643915,0.00041935671,4.786945e-7],"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":[0.00011714748,0.0002977033,0.51884764,0.00003853217,0.000039828075,0.0025287566,0.0564039,0.000060653743,0.000026511912,0.35571024,0.06010039,0.0058286632],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0015326911,0.00025521204,0.08343969,0.00045841737,0.00003180173,0.0007695926,0.0025857002,0.000004132083,0.0000011841473,0.06430848,0.84637254,0.00024057725],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.38109764,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7984242,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7862721,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006755726,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005847166,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77999467},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9250493,0.0028456044,0.0001621805,0.0058672433,0.00022366598,0.00017659449,0.000011459656,0.000003884472,0.06566007],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99545306,0.002918575,0.00020087142,0.00066272187,0.00069902657,0.0000014351193,2.7772498e-7,0.0000022576678,0.00006177257],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988196,0.0003237885,0.0002595061,0.000090920774,0.00032059292,0.00018557251],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982451,0.0012286367,0.00023203187,0.00007568262,0.00015393662,0.00006459961],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013834031,0.00007998321,0.00017238878,0.000022796605,0.00097380456,0.000104692874,0.00023098223,0.00012021905,0.0000014288349],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002680834,0.000034378307,0.000041009644,0.00012865642,0.004419927,0.00009743894,0.000045009037,0.00037574503,1.01097996e-7],"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":[0.00004620616,0.000012888953,0.017099071,0.0000017971366,0.000038421982,0.000004039186,0.021670595,4.6836263e-7,0.0000014544576,0.9587508,0.0019496897,0.0004246097],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00044619036,0.0005041904,0.01365827,0.000079045945,0.00008445248,0.0000474842,0.0043253168,0.0000032173837,0.000023841252,0.220742,0.7599798,0.00010617705],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025082082,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00071483577,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7580301,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000022477032,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022401338,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99828947},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.94275546,0.00050187454,0.000013121329,0.0118219275,0.00031603716,0.000067797184,0.000003825071,0.0000034614752,0.044516467],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99473375,0.0037238325,0.00007435174,0.00064304343,0.00024855847,4.40048e-8,1.2433219e-7,0.0000017560577,0.0005745159],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99935365,0.00008661675,0.00013283476,0.000048887414,0.0002603938,0.00011763629],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993815,0.00008779677,0.00017998448,0.00004119351,0.0002459577,0.00006359863],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00033398336,0.000051053386,0.00012740536,0.0000033200797,0.0008839398,0.000016936188,0.00013682099,0.000047764668,0.0000069614075],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000014764599,0.000028914621,0.00008411371,0.000058108188,0.000777157,0.000118891185,0.00004065134,0.000114979615,2.2637305e-7],"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":[0.00041898218,0.00014622479,0.08736287,0.00008868226,0.000701191,0.000027845637,0.10868543,0.000007674627,0.0007318152,0.70461136,0.09481808,0.0023998464],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025898466,0.00006946397,0.006591905,0.000028830591,0.00003277224,0.0000038076626,0.005529775,9.734413e-7,0.00018937893,0.00043781832,0.98680675,0.000049555714],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6341507,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7345196,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89198864,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000108483735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000121317986,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.679864},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6129147,0.01604271,0.0017966597,0.329759,0.00065704936,0.0005070599,0.000028282366,0.000007673441,0.038286857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98680675,0.01077456,0.00021888991,0.0017188361,0.00045721754,6.8540595e-7,2.425256e-7,0.0000058512132,0.000016967162],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984117,0.0004975114,0.000508157,0.00008526075,0.00037114782,0.00012618108],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99680674,0.0020648292,0.00048557494,0.00010320249,0.00046196082,0.000077691235],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024304523,0.000083846884,0.00029834715,0.000011780979,0.00038587363,0.00006659216,0.00036009913,0.00016859539,0.0000040651707],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011817979,0.000039325536,0.00012512556,0.00016720564,0.0016197338,0.00015184577,0.00008336592,0.00055337604,2.0981031e-7],"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":[0.00017020598,0.000033976867,0.00012250396,0.000021178981,0.00007461494,0.0000015148327,0.3242813,0.00002348016,0.0003398957,0.6634972,0.0006329214,0.010801171],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004498909,0.00076947163,0.00046580393,0.00043785892,0.00025444952,0.0000044044255,0.04679152,0.00009876471,0.00544461,0.807064,0.13806248,0.00015674352],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005738005,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005086015,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.37389204,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000012913058,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00027726984,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8674186},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.7435668,0.0027111717,0.21542223,0.029150961,0.00038843774,0.00021610974,0.0000018169834,0.000019331608,0.008523108],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9913001,0.002165178,0.0057424405,0.0006715215,0.00009192445,4.7293074e-7,2.4751103e-7,0.0000028173913,0.00002531478],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994726,0.00004125258,0.00021352973,0.000080876605,0.00013135192,0.000060392038],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995514,0.00005382428,0.0001628795,0.00008791549,0.000079690246,0.00006428214],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00023502366,0.000054419,0.00012030881,0.00002740514,0.00012004324,0.00010949626,0.00011764151,0.000032768025,9.939516e-7],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003598696,0.000033707758,0.000027823382,0.00007786517,0.00008971348,0.0002817675,0.00006543559,0.00010108341,2.078762e-7],"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":[0.00046120578,0.00004317063,0.0006459902,0.000117470845,0.00009839585,0.00003984668,0.005646523,0.000075744676,0.016294762,0.86287385,0.0015603252,0.11214272],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.02421706,0.0065917852,0.004906692,0.0008410933,0.00045617018,0.0076113516,0.000808467,0.10575583,0.0755909,0.34007385,0.43205327,0.0010935534],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003402016,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000017516764,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5228,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000003854605,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000017128967,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13745625},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.93742996,0.00037715185,0.0003350356,0.013635968,0.00014971654,0.0000620171,0.000005105209,0.000007518569,0.047997527],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99832463,0.00072858855,0.00008818163,0.00058747776,0.00023987496,3.4333536e-7,8.79578e-7,0.0000012582033,0.000028771896],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99931365,0.00008312171,0.0001724107,0.000074892785,0.00026978904,0.000086159576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995643,0.00010863777,0.00012121957,0.000021691236,0.00006139551,0.00012275294],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005993349,0.00004834673,0.00009238974,0.000020230382,0.0010261931,0.00015321537,0.00007091991,0.00004098767,0.0000037545672],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007934972,0.000029612105,0.000019249623,0.00006545775,0.00095366617,0.00031843624,0.000028607681,0.00010351382,2.3723265e-7],"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":[0.000015348256,0.0000055385512,0.003266039,0.000009346329,0.000010475056,0.000003263259,0.0127987545,0.0000010866319,0.00001591803,0.9806732,0.00017034952,0.003030659],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00065327185,0.00026093086,0.02121768,0.00010813824,0.00011076658,0.000049494713,0.0037911918,0.000022614286,0.000115157185,0.09307611,0.88043517,0.0001594662],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00048786192,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00039170045,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8875971,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000010161968,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000048599417,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78927517},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9532077,0.0018979794,0.000089740555,0.0039586388,0.0002677425,0.000052177358,0.00003888017,0.0000029515543,0.040484205],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99335116,0.004368921,0.00020237341,0.0019152577,0.000093817485,2.6605076e-7,0.0000033882745,0.0000032101334,0.000061593324],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989172,0.00018737573,0.00037348896,0.000085217805,0.0002797851,0.00015692979],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99917966,0.00023445315,0.0002512028,0.000062836996,0.00017950502,0.0000923562],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00020417539,0.00007117745,0.00024199544,0.000025119209,0.00012361312,0.000023078172,0.00005619626,0.000033237415,0.000012910481],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000045484536,0.000060836235,0.000052736006,0.000103940474,0.0002436265,0.000068652625,0.00001535732,0.00013658099,2.1402555e-7],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.000115571704,0.00005694627,0.0058523864,0.0000420864,0.000050263385,0.0006252824,0.0018260634,0.00045069744,0.00023788826,0.9876905,0.0011523117,0.0018999949],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005999976,0.00009159073,0.00886791,0.0006310895,0.000041127463,0.000093387614,0.0012034961,0.000019996884,0.00035849982,0.014726701,0.9731813,0.00018488482],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96627873,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98115957,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9729638,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024386101,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003390079,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6013855},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.99082136,0.0029721083,0.004583261,0.0002007504,0.00030166976,0.00018901081,0.000007262104,0.000025323372,0.00089923135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9286813,0.06941967,0.0012427126,0.00036626853,0.00026038842,0.000004673322,0.000011181206,0.000009095457,0.000004725649],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989182,0.00009757515,0.00032453355,0.00016969777,0.00028533023,0.00020470044],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991412,0.00024708753,0.00024015461,0.000062450556,0.00014378212,0.0001653165],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008164342,0.00010665226,0.00020956305,0.00011100557,0.0004239475,0.000112635615,0.00007922874,0.00010826543,5.624107e-7],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000046469366,0.00009074466,0.000035583547,0.000086530614,0.00021187637,0.00035490017,0.00003148153,0.00012239142,5.4181845e-7],"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":[0.0037867026,0.00045829674,0.11443732,0.00057086087,0.00042214218,0.00042270284,0.07516968,0.0017190491,0.034231063,0.26675582,0.00666978,0.49535656],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.009056515,0.002956507,0.5292957,0.003833204,0.0004978091,0.00018834467,0.016688308,0.0125220455,0.0007776081,0.38295084,0.03985611,0.0013769882],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007988713,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000039196657,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49397957,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000026444703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004684478,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37004596},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8180122,0.0004032793,0.0000364987,0.00068586244,0.00014491261,0.00016619972,5.9218496e-7,0.0000016662287,0.18054879],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990282,0.0005138518,0.000027956263,0.00015772281,0.000059077647,0.0000019435274,1.8362405e-7,0.0000017229389,0.00020935727],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992497,0.00014689972,0.00025815083,0.00006684474,0.00021982926,0.000058582264],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99929005,0.00018524136,0.00021110394,0.00002343719,0.0002741742,0.000016007114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012798002,0.00004352677,0.00009026457,0.000082202685,0.0005077214,0.000060003025,0.000055596494,0.000022495453,7.8306584e-7],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013524329,0.000028541268,0.00001984894,0.0001036103,0.00020132343,0.00020954934,0.000026007056,0.00011424321,5.5681596e-8],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.000057299767,0.00013466824,0.009407145,0.000026926557,0.000052227162,0.000058947102,0.019802278,0.000044755187,0.00018202924,0.9688228,0.00014462105,0.0012663105],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.016626757,0.0036469148,0.10405715,0.002869756,0.00050009636,0.0015366944,0.20255354,0.0022649828,0.00092657923,0.13795848,0.5262092,0.0008498863],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005391171,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.022462443,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8308643,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002764295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000374963,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9953751},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9239682,0.0044903876,0.000060306043,0.008412865,0.00023424992,0.00021801669,0.0000020060133,0.0000057127068,0.06260827],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9650836,0.030875366,0.00020738521,0.0032071404,0.000087619264,0.000003006844,7.7071206e-7,0.000006156254,0.0005289603],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99865264,0.00015654009,0.0005048118,0.00016194447,0.00032827602,0.00019578569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990991,0.00019625605,0.00032310776,0.000066941844,0.0001336862,0.00018091041],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008088365,0.00011305353,0.00026186433,0.00014946175,0.00028946227,0.0000827955,0.00009570493,0.00016867138,0.0000037545776],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002448137,0.000096474134,0.00004332385,0.00021953104,0.00024100888,0.00012121027,0.000031025207,0.00043290216,1.9470042e-7],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.00016570017,0.000050251947,0.024622785,0.00008840822,0.000047045454,0.000016626023,0.0026007676,0.000026061729,0.0017002681,0.9073954,0.061455797,0.0018308773],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.005300663,0.000600722,0.013053389,0.00451933,0.00020466628,0.00016678956,0.0051495233,0.00005280868,0.0027132805,0.4792281,0.48827162,0.000739092],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02718828,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02643523,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.42816728,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008712088,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00054368586,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9913298},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}