{"meta":{"query_hash":"d0a910580b15","filters":{"venue":"Ratio Juris"},"cohort_total":28,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":28,"exported":28,"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/d0a910580b15","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Ratio+Juris"},"results":[{"id":"W1497418157","doi":"10.1111/raju.12068","title":"Political Equality by Precedent","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Entitlement (fair division); Constructive; Politics; Law and economics; Begging; Sociology; Inequality; Property (philosophy); Law; Political science; Economics; Epistemology; Mathematical economics; Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer science","score_opus":0.14551455825994997,"score_gpt":0.4144367432656803,"score_spread":0.26892218500573034,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1497418157","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":[0.01327321,0.0037034089,0.041477818,0.05754006,0.0010833077,0.000078063,0.00010124499,0.000048809972,0.88269407],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92800385,0.0017781504,0.009483592,0.0083470885,0.0012436336,0.00019440283,0.00010375372,0.00006732249,0.050778225],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9886974,0.005750196,0.00037124017,0.0015649595,0.0025923986,0.0010238453],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98895824,0.0070817745,0.0005404894,0.0012914853,0.0017566719,0.00037124904],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008799668,0.0003665209,0.000808528,0.0018117486,0.005508219,0.0070274067,0.001416394,0.0063938317,0.011479181],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017728882,0.00042058103,0.00075693545,0.0009973291,0.032619894,0.0074449047,0.0042369575,0.009217126,0.001648983],"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":[8.31167e-7,0.0000010809861,0.000010819634,0.0000043299774,6.910965e-7,0.000006337024,0.00006495446,0.000028400058,0.000008615879,0.9991704,0.0003306187,0.00037291535],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000578087,0.0000045787087,0.000054026194,0.000040441413,0.0000026899083,0.000015898326,0.000080604805,0.00021783938,0.0000717457,0.9796569,0.019845935,0.0000036059027],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028565747,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002375472,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011479181,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0059773596,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0043771365,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.046537697},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1515411761","doi":"10.1111/raju.12070","title":"Beyond the Law‐State: The Adequacy of <scp>R</scp>az's Account of Legal Systems in Explaining Intra‐State and Supra‐State Legality","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":13,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McMaster University","funders":"","keywords":"Principle of legality; State (computer science); Citation; Law; Sociology; Library science; Political science; Computer science; Algorithm","score_opus":0.03164222571396745,"score_gpt":0.28802232252137794,"score_spread":0.2563800968074105,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1515411761","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":[0.06033349,0.0030151426,0.0759336,0.1411209,0.0004272157,0.00009563894,0.00029316527,0.0002448294,0.71853596],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97793955,0.0007428509,0.0068780095,0.005395721,0.0005927467,0.00012202635,0.000045247474,0.000102446706,0.008181485],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9950111,0.0026960517,0.00013619759,0.00060572015,0.0011240718,0.00042683043],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9856656,0.011093042,0.0006112075,0.001382844,0.0009724643,0.00027478999],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062915385,0.00040143722,0.00073853834,0.0028981888,0.004732356,0.011254166,0.0027980092,0.0065139523,0.007504651],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016706958,0.00038640475,0.0009619184,0.002408088,0.040068727,0.014167616,0.0036964882,0.009149516,0.0007754823],"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":[0.0000017235975,0.0000030855535,0.000036421894,0.000003530722,0.0000011559862,0.0000057907896,0.00023147756,0.00009789391,0.000009135665,0.9986014,0.00053874217,0.00046958725],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000056288773,0.0000037171908,0.0001597549,0.000014699769,0.00000403652,0.000010867549,0.00019682258,0.0010148119,0.00007031813,0.9939494,0.0045666276,0.000003371815],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009141544,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007053515,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011254166,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0041382536,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0051272134,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.03327322},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1580343503","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00484.x","title":"When Is a Country Multinational? Problems with Statistical and Subjective Approaches*","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Multinational corporation; Allegiance; State (computer science); Sovereignty; German; Dilemma; Political science; Plural; Sociology; Political economy; Law and economics; Law; Positive economics; Epistemology; Economics; Politics; History; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04508772287482416,"score_gpt":0.2586104444013328,"score_spread":0.21352272152650864,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1580343503","genre_codex":"methods","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":[0.16918045,0.020633224,0.3236733,0.24556905,0.0042590136,0.0007174878,0.0022484213,0.00037049665,0.23334865],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95292896,0.002329858,0.02554002,0.012904099,0.0017543824,0.0007787739,0.0003924853,0.00016625207,0.003205222],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.8244485,0.13015811,0.01186277,0.013219755,0.01785957,0.0024512813],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.63547975,0.28846774,0.026846858,0.02153284,0.023539033,0.0041337707],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.15813302,0.0008556092,0.0019100297,0.010554079,0.006127585,0.013893276,0.0049709426,0.0038080579,0.006531309],"category_scores_gemma":[0.3315227,0.0007745369,0.0009786376,0.01111306,0.034152977,0.019658037,0.009005216,0.005206243,0.00076570554],"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":[0.000066493645,0.000045661684,0.018241331,0.0004465643,0.00017818157,0.00024623293,0.025137087,0.00058335386,0.00006840603,0.8972035,0.014435538,0.043347664],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023817189,0.00003193914,0.013369314,0.0011241848,0.00007312127,0.00030056786,0.03210044,0.004762632,0.00027373384,0.90610003,0.041721836,0.00011829813],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010689703,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008551099,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15813302,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0065722954,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0028944844,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83629733},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1586613920","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00203","title":"Placing Indigenous Rights to Self‐Determination in an Ecological Context","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Indigenous Studies and Ecology","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Indigenous; Indigenous rights; Context (archaeology); Traditional knowledge; Environmental ethics; Land rights; Political science; Land management; Resource management (computing); Geography; Environmental resource management; Resource (disambiguation); Human rights; Land use; Environmental planning; Sociology; Ecology; Law; Archaeology","score_opus":0.04571723775842801,"score_gpt":0.3608290816082336,"score_spread":0.3151118438498056,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1586613920","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":[0.121795334,0.008211437,0.005110857,0.0642764,0.0005881038,0.000026656098,0.000010607768,0.000016311884,0.79996425],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9773312,0.001517462,0.0007383669,0.0032643308,0.00028239153,0.000021435808,0.0000029669122,0.0000073173196,0.016834443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942643,0.0032024917,0.00010509797,0.0003909111,0.00083235296,0.0012047021],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953011,0.0026638012,0.00040551616,0.00035667105,0.00045415486,0.0008187064],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00511878,0.00020603846,0.00033276668,0.0010275176,0.010874616,0.007397448,0.0009268338,0.0030127028,0.0038551586],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0050456896,0.00024254667,0.00020290473,0.0007228495,0.08526388,0.0043281903,0.008259235,0.0037818197,0.00018893233],"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":[0.0000033379813,0.000011042703,0.0005241913,0.000025602189,0.0000024487847,0.00022088016,0.06067926,0.000064679865,0.0000869927,0.93332237,0.00076904526,0.0042902306],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012649522,0.000057398116,0.005386817,0.0003762674,0.0000128528645,0.0003647747,0.10712152,0.00023956812,0.00024529375,0.5798374,0.30631825,0.00002727569],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.021032423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03758379,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021032423,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0070905313,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007919488,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.051445603},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1598197424","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00520.x","title":"Dworkin and Phenomenology of the “Pre‐Legal”?","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Phenomenology (philosophy); Philosophy; Epistemology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.01347234198795746,"score_gpt":0.27637469330809306,"score_spread":0.2629023513201356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1598197424","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":[0.16224998,0.031667855,0.023920983,0.21109603,0.0012385944,0.0001930466,0.00014801635,0.0000867357,0.5693988],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98296404,0.003618927,0.001977903,0.0036461975,0.00016273891,0.000089658344,0.000021949878,0.000020565036,0.0074980687],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99620515,0.0029492225,0.00007793379,0.00026188695,0.00031758274,0.0001883337],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9967642,0.002271509,0.00024597693,0.00026753766,0.00021922756,0.00023154094],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041024415,0.0002933524,0.0003220267,0.0016314152,0.0062176553,0.007279123,0.0009860815,0.0022679672,0.0040164213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0058328253,0.00023508607,0.00024785785,0.0013542405,0.058619186,0.013838611,0.0037918645,0.0037720879,0.00025937826],"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":[0.000008102358,0.000014763351,0.00011906793,0.00002928004,8.771258e-7,0.00006006384,0.022545306,0.000047250607,0.00006748041,0.9742783,0.0013324373,0.0014970605],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015223044,0.00001242362,0.00033945314,0.00021091662,0.0000018008285,0.00012926945,0.052741256,0.0002661536,0.000104104365,0.86755395,0.07861271,0.000012789221],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0074224295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0044009904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009529648,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009529648,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003564905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06914276},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1761959659","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00514.x","title":"Presumptions in Legal Argumentation","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Computer science; Epistemology; Work (physics); Event (particle physics); Management science; Philosophy; Engineering; Physics","score_opus":0.05998884018687108,"score_gpt":0.40555798898407325,"score_spread":0.3455691487972022,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1761959659","genre_codex":"methods","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":[0.029747067,0.0052583064,0.7471566,0.019956455,0.0005953111,0.00025177462,0.00019893983,0.00025412417,0.19658142],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8438753,0.0017369316,0.14287427,0.0017670451,0.00042666483,0.0003602354,0.00017924089,0.00007828602,0.008701974],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.973611,0.016304689,0.001958605,0.0020470328,0.00525631,0.0008224817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9493337,0.03689267,0.003184857,0.0052278023,0.004177,0.0011840484],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021176051,0.00086362386,0.001162705,0.004894943,0.0038328965,0.010266136,0.0036803302,0.0053207683,0.0054496545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0468733,0.0008361107,0.0020447294,0.0023075808,0.03312937,0.017370341,0.00858101,0.0079406155,0.0010426099],"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":[0.0000030119731,0.000002735005,0.00002997724,0.000018336956,0.0000033893411,0.000025979507,0.00024634664,0.0003869664,0.000032923148,0.9983138,0.00012285827,0.000813715],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008378616,0.000006134137,0.000032542244,0.000059292182,0.0000045805104,0.000038165115,0.00010813495,0.0014868771,0.00009851407,0.9932359,0.004915706,0.000005889945],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017876151,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0009218011,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021176051,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005501322,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0029470774,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11199105},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1920893504","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00452.x","title":"Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":12,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Dichotomy; Argument (complex analysis); Epistemology; Function (biology); Sociology; Computer science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.006254954551877653,"score_gpt":0.2411551073782732,"score_spread":0.23490015282639554,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1920893504","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":[0.11071571,0.005599969,0.25450698,0.0202757,0.00088206475,0.0002369206,0.00009556058,0.00020968895,0.6074775],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93975747,0.0013671269,0.04811867,0.0010837588,0.0003038148,0.00042907687,0.00009113635,0.00007701035,0.008771891],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9712583,0.019110767,0.0012159208,0.0017540839,0.005171741,0.001489116],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9818271,0.0137746725,0.001374041,0.0011746845,0.0013370353,0.0005125253],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011663521,0.0006874504,0.0009301619,0.0040914975,0.0063955947,0.008641302,0.001719897,0.0047168266,0.004613109],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025084877,0.0005283215,0.0010597339,0.0026459126,0.025235573,0.014909795,0.009524411,0.0065211644,0.0009002249],"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":[0.000010166641,0.0000065599033,0.00012116215,0.000024345421,0.0000035048263,0.0000984923,0.0017811501,0.00018132047,0.00009830078,0.9949397,0.00028789445,0.002447502],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017797951,0.000014080169,0.00013998117,0.00006561468,0.0000065184167,0.00014469445,0.0012987006,0.0015306446,0.00012317368,0.98055065,0.016096609,0.000011616767],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008452149,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006265473,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011663521,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0029624375,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011204393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.061683357},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1933138509","doi":"10.1111/raju.12088","title":"Paying a Price, Facing a Fine, Counting the Cost: The Differences that Make the Difference","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Economic Theory and Institutions","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":31,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Section (typography); Set (abstract data type); Function (biology); Mathematical economics; Economics; Microeconomics; Computer science; Business; Advertising","score_opus":0.08582151452728418,"score_gpt":0.23203093299249378,"score_spread":0.1462094184652096,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1933138509","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":[0.25213203,0.0037439594,0.17170432,0.08210409,0.0020077033,0.00009885594,0.00015577486,0.0002357565,0.48781756],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9787159,0.00055081595,0.008276987,0.002206181,0.00023280625,0.0000402055,0.000018736886,0.00009370453,0.009864691],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9935707,0.003337664,0.00027101085,0.00066362025,0.0014889735,0.0006680846],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9873427,0.0071112295,0.0021864525,0.0011728349,0.0014723241,0.00071444386],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005077736,0.00036634205,0.00055007264,0.0007253005,0.0020714416,0.006544778,0.0011645256,0.002927794,0.01218773],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032370362,0.0003110835,0.00039919253,0.00073450746,0.010886636,0.009658009,0.002834293,0.0048604105,0.0011354446],"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":[0.000044387958,0.000038560513,0.0005933238,0.000024777586,0.000007974368,0.00006074664,0.0004424399,0.0007551406,0.00018790628,0.9879489,0.0024243211,0.007471602],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002203034,0.000048230326,0.0013842885,0.00006291092,0.000013741329,0.00010925573,0.0009992203,0.0025655213,0.00041935,0.9761806,0.018167429,0.00002745878],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016838297,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0011919275,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01218773,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0024055133,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001789683,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04077196},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1963569351","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00177","title":"Legal Obligation and Aesthetic Ideals: A Renewed Legal Positivist Theory of Law's Normativity","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of New Brunswick","funders":"","keywords":"Obligation; Law; Positivism; Order (exchange); Legal positivism; Philosophy of law; Legal realism; Legal norm; Sociology; Philosophy; Political science; Legal profession; Epistemology; Comparative law","score_opus":0.01342387843461227,"score_gpt":0.27873197737541416,"score_spread":0.2653080989408019,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1963569351","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":[0.122192204,0.005395527,0.10692495,0.13167524,0.0015315786,0.000049533977,0.000029098284,0.000108867185,0.6320931],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9824682,0.0010643399,0.0076596057,0.002089069,0.0005639324,0.000044435048,0.000007292915,0.00003907969,0.0060640764],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99371994,0.0040462865,0.00011674961,0.0003264518,0.0014383796,0.00035214316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99364567,0.0035983352,0.00063126197,0.0007358912,0.00087344414,0.0005153822],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0076421294,0.00025258836,0.00036328033,0.0015202573,0.003698907,0.008349633,0.0014167286,0.0022866921,0.0017349082],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009178586,0.00027483434,0.0003971673,0.0006957584,0.05432166,0.0102502955,0.004838604,0.005493144,0.00026748815],"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":[0.0000019893434,0.000008727629,0.00006697053,0.000005099129,5.18732e-7,0.000010227677,0.00288118,0.00007221861,0.00002780309,0.99467814,0.00034666687,0.0019005309],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000049459454,0.0000078958465,0.00016607973,0.000021084245,0.0000012996286,0.0000270944,0.0014120856,0.0004952649,0.00005935885,0.9843204,0.013478425,0.0000059970434],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0015433199,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0017399704,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.008349633,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0045657866,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0025269433,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.040415943},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2006231667","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00385.x","title":"Of Mice and Men: God and the Canadian Supreme Court","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Religion, Ecology, and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Kwantlen Polytechnic University; University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Metaphysics; Supreme court; Law; Philosophy; Begging; Sociology; Epistemology; Political science","score_opus":0.0257359241189442,"score_gpt":0.28324271342538493,"score_spread":0.2575067893064407,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2006231667","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":[0.037667815,0.016795065,0.0011372146,0.3614259,0.0017688677,0.00006258681,0.0004671617,0.000042914777,0.58063257],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73112303,0.006622386,0.000854086,0.15363495,0.0008472819,0.000068893874,0.00015210512,0.000064140804,0.10663312],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98937106,0.001429754,0.00017972228,0.0012671074,0.0040687504,0.0036836248],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935282,0.0024747076,0.00024157435,0.00028858782,0.0020992777,0.0013675618],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009499087,0.0004951006,0.0007792342,0.0012690404,0.04593855,0.012268838,0.002479868,0.015657084,0.009989803],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012064516,0.0006178372,0.0005679173,0.0019207295,0.029110186,0.0037031851,0.0040464574,0.015329886,0.0006696555],"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":[0.0000223432,0.000009285331,0.00060753943,0.000017904467,0.000009413734,0.00017719457,0.0040380294,0.00006083331,0.00015352486,0.931944,0.05927124,0.0036886577],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000095756266,0.00002345286,0.0051532937,0.00042149535,0.0000804687,0.00018078025,0.008066801,0.0005198325,0.00052246335,0.13807341,0.8466798,0.0001824955],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9653432,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9823422,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08831866,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08831866,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10578221,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.64079976},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2018743301","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00355.x","title":"Rhetoric, Harm, and the Personification of Progress in Mill's <i>On Liberty</i>","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Theory and Influence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Laurentian University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Rhetoric; Mill; Law; Harm principle; Harm; Political science; Rhetorical question; Scrutiny; Sociology; Philosophy; History; Literature; Art","score_opus":0.016270148268832572,"score_gpt":0.32157886331945856,"score_spread":0.305308715050626,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2018743301","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":[0.056544524,0.007937073,0.013561507,0.11301377,0.0015419004,0.00004089537,0.000036785957,0.00004773586,0.8072759],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97531533,0.0011484883,0.0011648096,0.005715435,0.00055629446,0.00003099845,0.000006287947,0.000037997885,0.016024321],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99313265,0.0046413667,0.00012673558,0.00036704208,0.0013357541,0.00039642476],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98704916,0.010973589,0.0006175322,0.00032287513,0.0007712232,0.0002656762],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007536384,0.0003768004,0.00038140515,0.0018934727,0.008892141,0.011881101,0.000820878,0.0035263966,0.0029510888],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010023734,0.0003192243,0.00027498507,0.0012082567,0.03463386,0.004603964,0.0037464527,0.0063768867,0.0002577576],"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":[0.0000063418706,0.000005416353,0.00007954128,0.000012266093,0.0000016235118,0.000021614705,0.006774966,0.00004006378,0.000041690542,0.9882755,0.002918762,0.0018223458],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027213408,0.000036672413,0.00074710127,0.0003198849,0.000023762886,0.00007133575,0.009449768,0.0008797654,0.0009577005,0.72756755,0.2598924,0.00002683482],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007566083,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010305683,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.011881101,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009939796,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0032353436,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07211858},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2027537097","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00224","title":"Delegation as a Source of Law","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Okanagan University College; Okanagan College; University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Delegation; Mediation; Arbitration; Ambivalence; Character (mathematics); Law; Order (exchange); Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Psychology; Business; Social psychology; Mathematics","score_opus":0.013196198800947252,"score_gpt":0.2247405094246471,"score_spread":0.21154431062369985,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2027537097","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":[0.099232554,0.0024531777,0.18298115,0.023951082,0.00040468652,0.00019922682,0.00009685236,0.00036490403,0.6903164],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98138857,0.0005249571,0.0068226857,0.0011598764,0.0002230561,0.00013354939,0.000030441071,0.000068447946,0.009648497],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97440016,0.009985456,0.0013364356,0.0035688037,0.007863238,0.0028458643],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96521485,0.017175252,0.0037742772,0.010127811,0.0027795346,0.00092822325],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01739167,0.0003706335,0.0008717332,0.0026499978,0.004997182,0.017439665,0.0030359062,0.0060881455,0.006760469],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036198054,0.00062255264,0.0013224335,0.0018331121,0.040715575,0.015652316,0.011920575,0.008708864,0.0010689863],"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":[0.0000022222039,0.0000052973114,0.0001447394,0.000012010531,0.0000047219037,0.000051345287,0.000940551,0.00009059045,0.000068399335,0.9965732,0.0001957788,0.0019110148],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001791907,0.00002215611,0.0005694063,0.00017077873,0.000018428243,0.00023523699,0.0012974944,0.0010816403,0.00063501816,0.9683967,0.0275326,0.000022546608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013454644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006699922,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.017439665,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0042184996,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0055227317,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.091977},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2072611680","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00381.x","title":"The Regular Practice of Morality in Law","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Positivism; Morality; Epistemology; Law; Legal positivism; Philosophy; Philosophy of law; Law and economics; Sociology; Political science; Comparative law","score_opus":0.02336370591314746,"score_gpt":0.31748462683176754,"score_spread":0.2941209209186201,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2072611680","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":[0.044644866,0.009115442,0.09487174,0.14447242,0.0017834101,0.000070044654,0.000059648006,0.00022329649,0.7047591],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9773431,0.0013028443,0.0068727783,0.002669406,0.00082541246,0.00005890892,0.000014523581,0.00009907325,0.010813997],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96345764,0.02639425,0.0009376451,0.002957288,0.0052796816,0.0009734389],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9541353,0.028877044,0.0033662308,0.008044809,0.0045227697,0.0010538977],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.024374867,0.00032709778,0.00056095666,0.0020889621,0.005564131,0.011453589,0.0015900598,0.0038866785,0.0050753662],"category_scores_gemma":[0.046138547,0.00044733612,0.00047996975,0.0018080858,0.08532817,0.010009959,0.005146328,0.007566495,0.0009550842],"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":[0.0000029583578,0.0000044234876,0.00010750891,0.000015385178,0.00000259465,0.000013421495,0.0016672193,0.000058847578,0.000046062647,0.99399734,0.0010850349,0.0029992152],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008911885,0.000009972446,0.0002015061,0.00011863625,0.0000035864905,0.000037792037,0.0008473827,0.00036599074,0.00013310181,0.9527549,0.045511175,0.0000069856583],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020751988,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014001603,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.024374867,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0053183315,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004558002,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12890822},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2118717622","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00191","title":"Deliberative Democracy and Liberal Rights","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Deliberation; Deliberative democracy; Argument (complex analysis); Legitimacy; Democracy; Democratic legitimacy; Law and economics; Political science; Liberal democracy; Law; Economic Justice; Liberalism; Democratic theory; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.035606189841252425,"score_gpt":0.3331400076000716,"score_spread":0.2975338177588192,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2118717622","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":[0.018403595,0.0061727418,0.054130755,0.08767951,0.000651023,0.00006133508,0.00006446407,0.00008706281,0.8327495],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92819357,0.0024902872,0.009904526,0.011376157,0.0011251966,0.00020984474,0.000050738665,0.00008119708,0.046568528],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98884946,0.005774011,0.00029331262,0.0011427369,0.0025261017,0.0014144802],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897356,0.00621831,0.0008634103,0.0016003032,0.00093846896,0.00064390845],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008194638,0.0004331867,0.00048750686,0.0011169187,0.004727411,0.00803843,0.00093983917,0.0047565494,0.007728145],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013788601,0.00026573677,0.00053898775,0.0012466854,0.043941133,0.008350888,0.0070667593,0.0071552303,0.0014177185],"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":[0.0000014144115,0.0000022937288,0.000017995986,0.0000044252515,9.651329e-7,0.000006261225,0.00018335976,0.00005434514,0.000011554582,0.9985008,0.0004609996,0.0007554986],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000040237887,0.0000029748492,0.000029653165,0.000016419383,8.5862314e-7,0.000009163732,0.000099976416,0.000074961965,0.000045325036,0.983029,0.016686056,0.0000016666366],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014015851,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010023143,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.008194638,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040710964,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00439267,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04333794},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2154286082","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00147","title":"Scarcity, Discourses of Implementation, and Habermasian Law and Democracy","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Scarcity; Discourse ethics; Democracy; Perspective (graphical); Sociology; Epistemology; Work (physics); Mode (computer interface); Law and economics; Law; Political science; Economics; Computer science; Philosophy; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.02881720967533737,"score_gpt":0.3725118150548618,"score_spread":0.34369460537952445,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2154286082","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":[0.0861627,0.017456751,0.13762654,0.15917176,0.0009187278,0.00012828571,0.000060533937,0.00016539046,0.59830934],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97987247,0.00159969,0.0072648297,0.0027514081,0.00034574827,0.00018092147,0.000019527075,0.00005557936,0.007909828],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96173054,0.02995664,0.001056891,0.002108342,0.003691807,0.0014557622],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98232895,0.013205021,0.0015879518,0.0012240026,0.001167148,0.00048699044],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028885296,0.000853303,0.0010385929,0.0037179657,0.010974897,0.012446476,0.00231804,0.007967394,0.003346525],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025245281,0.00054624054,0.0006039243,0.0033710024,0.08582343,0.02402693,0.012331313,0.007682535,0.00049075653],"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":[0.0000034058835,0.0000037102543,0.000031275864,0.000013726116,0.0000010146792,0.000013134865,0.0061288574,0.00007126019,0.000027529928,0.99212307,0.00029370072,0.0012892986],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010518174,0.000008743222,0.00006379507,0.00007735948,0.0000022991023,0.000022622677,0.0038443776,0.00034414945,0.00010660317,0.97240925,0.023102254,0.000008103962],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0037880118,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015180187,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.028885296,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012794421,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0057082367,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15276182},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2161815389","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00405.x","title":"Locke on Toleration and Inclusion","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Regina","funders":"","keywords":"Toleration; Articulation (sociology); Polity; Liberalism; Argument (complex analysis); Democracy; Deliberation; Sociology; Deliberative democracy; Law; Epistemology; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.02213036907435186,"score_gpt":0.29323779627836827,"score_spread":0.2711074272040164,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2161815389","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":[0.0687164,0.0027366634,0.03900549,0.06354456,0.0004146076,0.000088280656,0.000041353782,0.00008388461,0.82536876],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9821743,0.00029324202,0.002353334,0.0035115376,0.00027568225,0.000115869414,0.000011024964,0.000037716978,0.011227162],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97734636,0.014360039,0.0005275219,0.0019667044,0.0037266398,0.0020726332],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98804104,0.008101255,0.0006452803,0.001458168,0.0011417612,0.00061243423],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01200885,0.0003442319,0.00069358625,0.0018173817,0.009683591,0.0100531755,0.0015506004,0.0041290377,0.0044611017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018832576,0.0003050539,0.0007671864,0.0009964164,0.062112734,0.008017635,0.012097382,0.008334241,0.00053297885],"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":[0.000003240526,0.000004047858,0.000040290575,0.00000418715,9.553961e-7,0.000011336173,0.0011170288,0.00003097091,0.000021456668,0.9977285,0.00033313796,0.00070489],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010635403,0.000010882621,0.000079243044,0.000028040256,0.000002688279,0.000025641064,0.0006651982,0.0001426258,0.00009998343,0.982144,0.016786093,0.000005006065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025804536,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0013215351,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01200885,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005452638,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035877016,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06350958},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2274220625","doi":"10.1111/raju.12115","title":"An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"National Natural Science Foundation of China","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Credibility; Argument (complex analysis); Set (abstract data type); Matching (statistics); Computer science; Rigour; Reliability (semiconductor); Epistemology; Work (physics); Expert opinion; Boundary-work; Public opinion; Management science; Engineering ethics; Political science; Law; Philosophy; Engineering; Mathematics","score_opus":0.06657413016424077,"score_gpt":0.36987599475688343,"score_spread":0.30330186459264263,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2274220625","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"methods","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":"methods","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0070636435,0.00018662483,0.97184,0.00083454314,0.00010555119,0.00028373397,0.0003241382,0.007578176,0.011783517],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.20591052,0.0003235165,0.77998054,0.00044792704,0.00013298645,0.00061592617,0.0011596635,0.0012347051,0.010194209],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9896428,0.0059558195,0.0013434998,0.0007818466,0.0019903926,0.000285697],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96636283,0.028718183,0.00080573704,0.0013564259,0.002058231,0.0006985829],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014349132,0.0012538023,0.0014038454,0.003903219,0.0016582634,0.009111553,0.0025285652,0.005046506,0.026334353],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05280688,0.0010082389,0.0018840374,0.0015667054,0.0017700546,0.007825305,0.0073039085,0.002295176,0.0048324014],"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":[0.0013366234,0.0004466628,0.0020867412,0.001629658,0.00028287413,0.0038175976,0.010273337,0.023991637,0.011294773,0.63976043,0.02569861,0.279381],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00041141605,0.00012484255,0.0005305285,0.0006017859,0.00016233233,0.0010445106,0.0010506728,0.40561154,0.00878747,0.35670885,0.22483905,0.00012702543],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0012895708,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0009423448,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026334353,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0015784964,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010623322,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.088097155},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2397389185","doi":"10.1111/raju.12122","title":"The Forces of Law: Duty, Coercion, and Power","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":40,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Coercion (linguistics); Stipulation; Jurisprudence; Law; Duty; Power (physics); Law and economics; Sociology; Political science; Philosophy; Physics","score_opus":0.03305861707672286,"score_gpt":0.3289714597609529,"score_spread":0.29591284268423,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2397389185","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":[0.14818501,0.02343908,0.050076764,0.10566412,0.00086247345,0.00009995202,0.00008912913,0.00007066776,0.6715129],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9879655,0.0023876987,0.0019690103,0.0015747005,0.00029170673,0.00003590616,0.000008800408,0.00001683546,0.005749801],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942675,0.003628199,0.00017606228,0.00032562585,0.001221553,0.00038110855],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98812324,0.009022517,0.0010843662,0.00052600197,0.0007680659,0.00047583538],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005447947,0.00029566098,0.00046334852,0.0023915966,0.0023524517,0.007275898,0.00069567945,0.0022922505,0.005119273],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009951173,0.0002912237,0.00028126794,0.0011362333,0.04189579,0.00866209,0.004206027,0.0026747303,0.0003512656],"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":[0.0000045634592,0.00000493009,0.00017012769,0.000016728456,0.0000016973954,0.000020435902,0.0013351771,0.000077067525,0.000041555944,0.99601835,0.0003567773,0.0019526025],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010676012,0.000013054714,0.0005745477,0.00016157229,0.0000048928246,0.00007329001,0.0019928305,0.0005612782,0.000116027295,0.9723297,0.02415332,0.000008725749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002089483,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00151449,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.007275898,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038840428,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002346338,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.028811872},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2398482181","doi":"10.1111/raju.12130","title":"The Ambiguity of Force","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"War, Ethics, and Justification","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Ambiguity; Positivism; Closeness; Order (exchange); Epistemology; Empiricism; Legal positivism; Philosophy; Sociology; Law; Political science; Legal realism; Mathematics; Legal research; Linguistics; Medicine; Economics","score_opus":0.051282833361938854,"score_gpt":0.25234300926403824,"score_spread":0.2010601759020994,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2398482181","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":[0.017866574,0.0054815286,0.05451883,0.033502985,0.0009857651,0.00004150717,0.00010007383,0.00010661483,0.88739616],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9574303,0.001603156,0.005638211,0.0030719305,0.0006860678,0.00009063556,0.000048659123,0.00010770077,0.03132332],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9926807,0.003659789,0.0003310706,0.0010431627,0.0017155064,0.0005696482],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9924062,0.0047109867,0.00041711502,0.0012988864,0.00093197386,0.0002348139],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007122895,0.00068147917,0.0008080574,0.0033720073,0.0058299447,0.009972684,0.0015740381,0.004914741,0.009888479],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014794308,0.00048559048,0.0006075494,0.0012508794,0.053287216,0.012489175,0.00647106,0.0052162916,0.0016780962],"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":[0.0000023834148,0.0000012851527,0.000027463997,0.0000051282473,9.496098e-7,0.000014986271,0.0006353502,0.00004482496,0.000020965685,0.9975859,0.0005229209,0.0011378807],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000065924246,0.0000062306276,0.00007340196,0.000084456464,0.0000032291134,0.00005301289,0.00065849547,0.00020832506,0.000091362584,0.9588325,0.03997662,0.0000056735594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0026447026,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0018727384,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009972684,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0049474807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0027596597,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.037669897},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2742639438","doi":"10.1111/raju.12166","title":"When Trumps Clash: Dworkin and the Doctrine of Proportionality","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Proportionality (law); Law and economics; Law; Political science; Philosophy; Sociology","score_opus":0.07090649790703209,"score_gpt":0.36574322945375987,"score_spread":0.2948367315467278,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2742639438","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":[0.0879053,0.0039303596,0.11041853,0.07728603,0.0012400482,0.00010639767,0.00006184779,0.00010421704,0.7189472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97534573,0.0006669868,0.004845445,0.00546283,0.00048576875,0.00007255587,0.00001177822,0.000060512717,0.01304848],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9879116,0.005561023,0.00048603752,0.0020885922,0.0026870854,0.0012656449],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98704773,0.0083988225,0.0011781387,0.0015311154,0.0012526758,0.0005914953],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014438193,0.0004935862,0.0008441254,0.00214008,0.006075293,0.009194828,0.001904953,0.007991634,0.0058323443],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030378573,0.0005520715,0.00058821903,0.0013720668,0.055302903,0.02018388,0.009361752,0.010984145,0.00071533024],"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":[0.0000036611025,0.0000028370403,0.000035735335,0.0000034908376,8.9287954e-7,0.000021770533,0.00039900868,0.000030781583,0.000015983293,0.9984218,0.0003482963,0.00071571517],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000647429,0.0000053925664,0.00003717615,0.000026417581,0.0000018318261,0.00003471764,0.00030090418,0.00018559414,0.000059795188,0.9910437,0.008293052,0.0000048702636],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033443356,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002230231,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.014438193,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004936582,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0033168523,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.076357424},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2800376573","doi":"10.1111/raju.12200","title":"Ownership, Use, and Exclusivity: The Kantian Approach","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Political Philosophy and Ethics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":49,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Object (grammar); Reciprocal; Law and economics; Usability; Contrast (vision); Epistemology; Law; Philosophy; Sociology; Computer science; Political science; Artificial intelligence; Linguistics","score_opus":0.1058675165811877,"score_gpt":0.33556934005620687,"score_spread":0.22970182347501916,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2800376573","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":[0.046140924,0.010502384,0.20097974,0.022085965,0.00030794067,0.000069028414,0.000077326666,0.00013331944,0.7197034],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9769099,0.001663802,0.010308403,0.0012910522,0.0002633313,0.000088027795,0.000017531367,0.000056248777,0.009401616],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9831502,0.011808793,0.0005140595,0.0011082453,0.002664051,0.00075461465],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9923538,0.0052997875,0.0004428666,0.00085299753,0.0008035765,0.0002468945],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008320806,0.0005876239,0.0006382564,0.0034022068,0.0038077089,0.009839849,0.0014027475,0.004408292,0.0029406338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006582933,0.0005965465,0.0006562196,0.0019689202,0.08119052,0.012047295,0.0065743416,0.0047334456,0.00054240023],"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":[0.0000019649397,0.000002106451,0.000022381086,0.0000069707553,0.0000011184705,0.000008229019,0.0007791428,0.00006765686,0.000023627392,0.99830973,0.0001283615,0.00064875465],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004316917,0.000006850868,0.00008276111,0.00005556,0.000003934888,0.00005016834,0.00056520966,0.0003577538,0.00011350422,0.9862266,0.012525919,0.0000073037504],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020842636,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0012473922,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009839849,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0054350253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024139406,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.044005156},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2998571529","doi":"10.1111/raju.12256","title":"Soldiers as Public Officials: A Moral Justification for Combatant Immunity","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"War, Ethics, and Justification","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Combatant; Law; Harm; Convention; Just war theory; Political science; State (computer science); Sociology; Spanish Civil War","score_opus":0.12275815888313198,"score_gpt":0.29184074913020547,"score_spread":0.1690825902470735,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2998571529","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":[0.10735697,0.0016667091,0.02275879,0.24613072,0.0021175889,0.000069230104,0.000051468745,0.00009702788,0.6197515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9817215,0.00019381513,0.0008219048,0.006044355,0.0004930707,0.000028981018,0.000010248392,0.000017364408,0.010668768],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99291456,0.0044305604,0.00015506745,0.0004959111,0.0010314573,0.0009725184],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940659,0.0027399345,0.00080474874,0.00059997506,0.0010941445,0.00069535925],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005292483,0.00035082718,0.0002778256,0.0008037431,0.004777734,0.0055176252,0.000888929,0.0064546946,0.0067134914],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009816749,0.00022543785,0.00032090378,0.00028459312,0.025957836,0.0032884064,0.0043368298,0.0074681896,0.00061942876],"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":[0.000005703668,0.000015668904,0.0002751837,0.000009482604,0.000002067198,0.00007743444,0.0031677394,0.00007934577,0.000055851007,0.9917704,0.0035218426,0.0010192251],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058698723,0.00006668191,0.001873276,0.00022355837,0.000018157276,0.00028121858,0.010690765,0.0021956004,0.0004030107,0.8511782,0.13297592,0.000034916855],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0030523266,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022723607,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0067134914,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0029169563,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022373048,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.027989686},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3009134116","doi":"10.1111/raju.12288","title":"The Nature of Law and Potential Coercion","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Free Will and Agency","field":"Neuroscience","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McMaster University","funders":"","keywords":"Coercion (linguistics); Morality; Appeal; Law; Enforcement; Political science; Compliance (psychology); Law enforcement; Law and economics; Sociology; Psychology; Philosophy; Social psychology","score_opus":0.013910092564541496,"score_gpt":0.23432474084796528,"score_spread":0.22041464828342378,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3009134116","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":[0.14126329,0.008563694,0.06303093,0.06331822,0.00039806232,0.000053499636,0.00005586155,0.000079013065,0.72323745],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9927007,0.0007827497,0.002108691,0.0007957384,0.00011650357,0.000027657725,0.000007617786,0.00001097609,0.0034494633],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99587953,0.0023106213,0.00013223187,0.00047532498,0.0008955344,0.00030675973],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99084795,0.0061711646,0.0007745713,0.0011082258,0.0006671803,0.00043091146],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004906346,0.00018214069,0.0004095253,0.001434079,0.0017394,0.006044141,0.0008519125,0.002261636,0.00468108],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010318463,0.00026800612,0.00031834413,0.0004851824,0.041727006,0.007974207,0.003602963,0.002367626,0.00032201197],"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":[0.0000024427075,0.000003559308,0.00011028915,0.000008072856,0.0000014394927,0.000023200088,0.00037221683,0.000064161795,0.000062801795,0.99798584,0.00015443428,0.0012115284],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000049705395,0.00000499296,0.0002394881,0.00003323798,0.0000015215705,0.00006205989,0.0003162443,0.0003713731,0.000086102074,0.9941433,0.0047327876,0.0000038507133],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00081805524,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006548073,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.006044141,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0027852817,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014546951,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.025947511},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121890113","doi":"10.1111/1467-9337.00208","title":"Judicial Hegemony: Dworkin’s <i>Freedom’s Law</i> and the Spectrum of Constitutional Democracies","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Laurentian University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Democracy; Political science; Constitutional law; Judicial review; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.02104602275551616,"score_gpt":0.2454582728427759,"score_spread":0.22441225008725973,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121890113","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":[0.22094917,0.0058725816,0.017629966,0.06509696,0.00015151562,0.000030801177,0.00003844361,0.000034036842,0.6901964],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9946951,0.0005458716,0.0009849317,0.0008519119,0.000059343856,0.000010758873,0.0000059500626,0.000005112114,0.0028410743],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99739885,0.0010081956,0.000057523543,0.00035306485,0.0006713492,0.00051104784],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99829453,0.0010394607,0.00014191559,0.00017331293,0.00017815335,0.00017260235],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029751244,0.00018389992,0.00030218097,0.0022546356,0.0063651595,0.006595565,0.00065918633,0.0020089603,0.0018181076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0045323367,0.00016583753,0.0002051729,0.0012854836,0.027351817,0.0060279,0.0029117547,0.0029190124,0.00014199615],"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":[0.0000030604772,0.0000043676228,0.000111977555,0.0000019732206,4.9256477e-7,0.000013911472,0.00083884393,0.0000428162,0.000043126423,0.99671125,0.0003926571,0.0018354898],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011146888,0.0000070327824,0.0005835165,0.000016829854,0.0000016940958,0.000029025685,0.0015059449,0.00032536735,0.00009601776,0.98423845,0.0131801,0.0000049534683],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019726139,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.018303508,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.019726139,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0063527767,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003004753,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.046092868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4212915363","doi":"10.1111/raju.12334","title":"Bentham’s Public Utilitarianism and Its Jurisprudential Significance","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Utilitarianism; Morality; Jurisprudence; Jeremy bentham; Law; Philosophy of law; Legislator; Normative; Philosophy; Interpretation (philosophy); Sociology; Law and economics; Political science; Public law; Legislation","score_opus":0.03822280387896085,"score_gpt":0.31937847158636057,"score_spread":0.28115566770739975,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4212915363","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":[0.044537175,0.0062683765,0.081596434,0.11521439,0.0010672628,0.000052183586,0.00007032176,0.00016272023,0.75103116],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9760029,0.0007306441,0.0037272533,0.0033221375,0.000756027,0.000058305577,0.000019196028,0.000067369525,0.015316222],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98357266,0.010222903,0.0004040525,0.0015399827,0.0034758798,0.0007845468],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9803284,0.013220436,0.0008556142,0.0021218623,0.0028522457,0.0006215501],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010553431,0.0004250896,0.0006535916,0.0016677189,0.0054217186,0.010093235,0.0014189307,0.004504724,0.0036750678],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016147554,0.0004869639,0.00062229275,0.0012936711,0.045267552,0.0060144328,0.004494655,0.007968174,0.0006778464],"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":[0.000001660957,0.0000043803893,0.0000182879,0.0000046206164,0.0000014391255,0.00000863804,0.00045945685,0.00007069685,0.000015815947,0.9981748,0.0005887577,0.0006513206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000059701024,0.000004923036,0.00006729388,0.000023297118,0.0000032320718,0.000013659981,0.00019104229,0.00045847526,0.000065467684,0.984139,0.015022593,0.000005076598],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0047271443,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029312144,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010553431,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008870584,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003174733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06436092},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4292307678","doi":"10.1111/raju.12359","title":"Raz and the Rule of (Authoritative) Law","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Rule of law; Law; Work (physics); Position (finance); Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy; Sociology; Business; Physics","score_opus":0.018574767319440497,"score_gpt":0.28986633409585044,"score_spread":0.2712915667764099,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4292307678","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":[0.073078424,0.0049759047,0.07403176,0.048674174,0.00065156975,0.00006826552,0.00020914563,0.00021264456,0.79809815],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9850758,0.00061953545,0.003913531,0.0013432689,0.00044479262,0.000024923933,0.000029775982,0.00003222703,0.008516168],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98782057,0.0055462164,0.0006989351,0.0013211553,0.0037513643,0.00086176937],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97789055,0.0121569345,0.002391166,0.0028294914,0.0040017273,0.00073016767],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009574382,0.00024844342,0.0006719964,0.0025414738,0.0036945832,0.0074979416,0.0014101926,0.0029415651,0.0046015014],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023211196,0.0002988452,0.0005819269,0.0016733086,0.028675914,0.006849384,0.0032126368,0.00458113,0.00095488364],"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":[0.0000030147662,0.000002092889,0.00005114114,0.0000057731763,0.0000010164434,0.000008009371,0.00026797116,0.00005069455,0.000024604971,0.9985384,0.0003773329,0.00066999724],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009960876,0.000009868282,0.00019114636,0.000024274848,0.0000044697936,0.00003320723,0.00018232773,0.00030353645,0.00009946594,0.98206425,0.017070413,0.000007170555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033754846,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002656894,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009574382,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0030788702,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002698425,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0506348},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4409537311","doi":"10.1111/raju.12405","title":"Issue Information","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"paratext","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Free Will and Agency","field":"Neuroscience","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Universität Mannheim; University of Toronto; Università di Bologna; Victoria University; Washington University in St. Louis; University of New South Wales; Victoria University of Wellington; Yale University; University of Oxford; Harvard University; University of Miami; Università degli Studi di Milano","keywords":"Philosophy; Computer science; Political science","score_opus":0.013995316654921113,"score_gpt":0.26335699174002714,"score_spread":0.249361675085106,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4409537311","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":[0.00026003242,0.0010322595,0.0010335875,0.0127325645,0.01446138,0.00078991434,0.031868756,0.0009966026,0.93682504],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.002981141,0.0011241725,0.00079920806,0.010042869,0.0030003604,0.00044870877,0.011501075,0.0005810626,0.96952134],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99846977,0.00022459996,0.00014683399,0.00032115562,0.00069831,0.00013919234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99537224,0.0015115621,0.00022006054,0.00055891974,0.0016576739,0.0006795448],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013945737,0.0006822772,0.001256855,0.0022355204,0.0017640381,0.0053168028,0.002253129,0.004351857,0.90527767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014282014,0.00044414954,0.00078964134,0.0018128996,0.00050291093,0.0032016903,0.0025176625,0.0027434365,0.71470183],"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":[0.00002043275,0.000013486265,0.000054756907,0.00021273838,0.000002008073,0.000041832067,0.000017588298,0.000023489842,0.00004454988,0.0023905055,0.9698785,0.027300114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011754754,0.000005753997,0.00008922684,0.00010497682,0.0000014242821,0.000032393054,0.00002319626,0.000034283454,0.000039258222,0.0012683391,0.9983866,0.0000027123249],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014670745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003435641,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09472233,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0012183835,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002597505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1351099},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4410865059","doi":"10.1111/raju.12426","title":"Reflections on Complexity, Evidence, and Law","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ratio Juris","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"International Political Science Association","funders":"","keywords":"Philosophy; Law; Political science; Epistemology","score_opus":0.1190413797807385,"score_gpt":0.43615835112265344,"score_spread":0.31711697134191497,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4410865059","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":[0.0060771597,0.011620978,0.008806861,0.89608765,0.0015802198,0.00003440521,0.000089278976,0.000021067295,0.07568249],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8297554,0.01367156,0.013139828,0.11963096,0.009394199,0.00024075204,0.00010196697,0.0001169268,0.013948415],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96237457,0.025840344,0.0010559962,0.002128064,0.0069924383,0.0016086004],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8156809,0.16916442,0.002726743,0.003963846,0.0064442703,0.002019769],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04359347,0.0006867269,0.0016118576,0.0063487566,0.008140379,0.020217355,0.003368658,0.018142134,0.007225752],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08837473,0.00069559034,0.0013171975,0.0034096374,0.11049941,0.034000292,0.013321381,0.027878776,0.000573092],"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":[0.0000036159593,0.000003651723,0.00004091938,0.000021110489,0.0000030158722,0.000036351506,0.0008426703,0.00013542014,0.000014093967,0.99495256,0.0030840947,0.00086259603],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000111236195,0.0000045612287,0.00007809523,0.0001430012,0.0000030160738,0.00003504874,0.0009790615,0.00028587112,0.000042798692,0.9656912,0.032715976,0.0000102349595],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009188647,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0054126703,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04359347,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021222744,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010841666,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23054707},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}