{"meta":{"query_hash":"0acb7d228714","filters":{"venue":"South African Law Journal"},"cohort_total":13,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":13,"exported":13,"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/0acb7d228714","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=South+African+Law+Journal"},"results":[{"id":"W1512674864","doi":"","title":"Interdicts seeking to preserve constitutional rights - of losing litigants, interim interdicts pending appeal, and lessons from Canada","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Interim; Political science; Constitution; High Court; Government (linguistics); Status quo; Legislation; Supreme court; Position (finance); Sociology; Economics","score_opus":0.029423678572347813,"score_gpt":0.3192401797264142,"score_spread":0.28981650115406643,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1512674864","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":[0.7182095,0.000982991,0.017538046,0.0023285472,0.0030999032,0.00041937223,0.00045616296,0.00008427501,0.25688118],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9967855,0.0000031794932,0.0019742562,0.00026373903,0.00086401467,0.0000019641454,0.000005167537,0.00001618263,0.00008598191],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969252,0.0002592084,0.0006911409,0.0003575683,0.0009764827,0.00079041783],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99767584,0.00052887923,0.0004214792,0.00021107591,0.0002677631,0.00089498935],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001461411,0.00023279022,0.0004134795,0.00018993451,0.0015150557,0.0002942227,0.0006384844,0.00011609147,0.00027428273],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005899992,0.00021898132,0.00009835959,0.00038345327,0.0015844883,0.00041080767,0.00034162457,0.00059734366,0.0000072275243],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00038314512,0.00011826132,0.026500136,0.00004424653,0.0004142815,0.0007959465,0.6149119,0.000053092615,0.001161669,0.35096306,0.002132887,0.0025213533],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0025460771,0.00041064748,0.0075607155,0.0033852516,0.00032425573,0.00015528391,0.3108619,0.000099797144,0.0045950185,0.021254051,0.6469487,0.0018583216],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46845043,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6764623,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6448158,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00068547524,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007125733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997848},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1579376339","doi":"","title":"Tracing trends : the impact of science and technology on the law of criminal evidence and procedure","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Adversarial system; Criminal justice; Law; Political science; Discipline; Scientific evidence; Economic Justice; Criminal law; Sociology; Epistemology","score_opus":0.10407619472656264,"score_gpt":0.38209804877053904,"score_spread":0.2780218540439764,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1579376339","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":[0.8685518,0.00013593954,0.000006739339,0.024481181,0.000069810085,0.00007147432,0.0000031660977,0.0000071416466,0.10667277],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99965554,0.000011092915,0.00009804112,0.00014227732,0.000042921827,0.0000022723918,1.7697595e-8,0.0000022656407,0.0000455709],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99918556,0.000099836136,0.00016247021,0.00008472226,0.0003119024,0.00015551485],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99878895,0.00029282397,0.00028417955,0.00010728596,0.0004637212,0.00006301807],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022621215,0.000050962422,0.00007568551,0.00013171777,0.0014939778,0.00009541358,0.00028663702,0.00003119053,0.000112245434],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0020669862,0.00002570608,0.000021930346,0.001243641,0.0046862178,0.0004540222,0.000024283188,0.0003769508,5.432865e-7],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000020209234,0.000034217937,0.0021682803,0.0000031458158,0.000009811055,4.111849e-7,0.19576389,5.907537e-7,0.00024505958,0.79969275,0.00008712399,0.0019745145],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025048037,0.00086446234,0.043234244,0.000223126,0.00011777722,0.00015027869,0.9123065,0.00003220254,0.0024035708,0.037491318,0.0027243174,0.0002017507],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033762644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00075893063,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7622014,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000038333976,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007837474,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998059},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1579768026","doi":"","title":"Avoiding the pitfall encountered by the Canadian courts when assessing the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in criminal trials in South Africa - a proposed alternative admissibility framework","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Charter; Political science; Constitution; Meaning (existential); Supreme court; Order (exchange); Criminal procedure; Sociology; Psychology; Economics","score_opus":0.13898011366843635,"score_gpt":0.38690226068965083,"score_spread":0.24792214702121448,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1579768026","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":[0.9605973,0.00097058894,0.0009213081,0.026242806,0.0010216241,0.0015098676,0.00009885386,0.000023703155,0.008613978],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984338,0.000012272209,0.0005768828,0.00042519916,0.00046319776,0.0000261019,9.814253e-7,0.00001266039,0.00004887543],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9889712,0.0067937453,0.0013915502,0.0004781552,0.0014698271,0.0008955615],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9865681,0.010412891,0.0012085423,0.00059967546,0.0006247971,0.00058597315],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts","research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch","sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.049979955,0.00028898814,0.0006156624,0.00013065792,0.004220596,0.00096728327,0.0018609832,0.00028212272,0.00033111242],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06504084,0.00015215331,0.00028511754,0.0005825615,0.00316238,0.0007289192,0.00010895528,0.0039257505,0.00000436607],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00047924227,0.00019044711,0.037687805,0.00005124483,0.00008006287,0.00008776967,0.8202464,0.00016252123,0.0005447733,0.13874418,0.00038320452,0.001342338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0013898751,0.0002664084,0.030563658,0.0026040769,0.00044159495,0.000092197915,0.6683799,0.0007024569,0.00040045095,0.2785839,0.015605051,0.00097044936],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21998106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.718244,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49826294,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00082362397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006942973,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99955046},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1586503322","doi":"","title":"Equality and unfair discrimination : refining the Harksen test","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":24,"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":"Dignity; Supreme court; Charter; Law; Relation (database); Context (archaeology); Test (biology); Political science; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.07026810988229498,"score_gpt":0.3092973164572257,"score_spread":0.2390292065749307,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1586503322","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":[0.021463629,0.00045806976,0.0004690502,0.00279399,0.0005459603,0.00012519656,0.000022138292,0.00009237691,0.9740296],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99624366,0.000011835156,0.0012311788,0.0002864118,0.0005414217,0.0000057160573,6.380819e-7,0.000015147543,0.0016639859],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99798304,0.00048611008,0.000312555,0.00020048887,0.0005637514,0.00045406685],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986496,0.00040621214,0.00028272453,0.00021792729,0.00016021152,0.00028335542],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002528067,0.0001303029,0.00016117057,0.00004645992,0.0024184065,0.00029709793,0.0004755679,0.0000838808,0.00029310034],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013720797,0.00008818816,0.00007452442,0.0002807608,0.001152686,0.0004009007,0.00010565193,0.000484722,0.000044390094],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000017027865,0.000035753532,0.011652257,0.0000038620474,0.000017520217,0.000012438921,0.7640874,5.160954e-7,0.000009191988,0.22106175,0.00021637065,0.002885923],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005589702,0.00019346333,0.016283203,0.00006502358,0.00013503025,0.000028925702,0.41399023,0.000024932586,0.000058352118,0.03341084,0.53477186,0.00047917606],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003812523,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003357117,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97478,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010936326,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010414243,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988803},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W160769704","doi":"","title":"Self-incrimination, private records, and required reporting in regulatory statutes","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statute; Privilege (computing); Law; Statutory law; Context (archaeology); Self-incrimination; Waiver; Political science; Business","score_opus":0.02234647486807,"score_gpt":0.2916551616949299,"score_spread":0.2693086868268599,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W160769704","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":[0.7134768,0.00059516873,0.00044751386,0.0019447024,0.00096308254,0.00033392417,0.0000057316092,0.00024615918,0.28198692],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98805654,0.0000263781,0.010569261,0.0001650616,0.00072984974,0.0000064956535,0.0000010564318,0.000025880749,0.00041947633],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9965303,0.00068541965,0.0011245498,0.00032994556,0.0006934153,0.00063639384],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973359,0.00028483174,0.0015148434,0.00026407847,0.00021799347,0.0003823501],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006572203,0.0001691848,0.00033030933,0.0001693379,0.0011356382,0.0003340246,0.00032793576,0.00013395147,0.000058765316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0049759345,0.0001626923,0.00007544,0.00044399124,0.00050825975,0.00056864345,0.00009081161,0.00047992132,0.000015239928],"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":[0.000045739536,0.00007461117,0.10386002,0.000044586195,0.000041847597,0.00009913305,0.5362133,0.000016286296,0.000040967796,0.35291368,0.00039904827,0.0062507982],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011614444,0.00017542645,0.0184776,0.00016900072,0.000072129675,0.00005438967,0.057056442,0.00020316472,0.000101554724,0.06398283,0.85784185,0.00070416695],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00071252434,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0012202065,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8574428,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00027811519,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018171786,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.87345254},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2256544311","doi":"","title":"Mandatory relief and supervisory jurisdiction : when is it appropriate, just and equitable?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":79,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisdiction; Supreme court; Law; Original jurisdiction; Political science; Government (linguistics); Federal jurisdiction; Constitutional court; Exclusive jurisdiction; Constitution; Constitutional right; Separation of powers","score_opus":0.03790536619238992,"score_gpt":0.2896650696295711,"score_spread":0.2517597034371812,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2256544311","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":[0.41174302,0.012020775,0.00042849453,0.023452964,0.0014563681,0.0006494314,0.00011766672,0.00025875185,0.5498725],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9902971,0.00035635076,0.0026876782,0.001200936,0.0018408241,0.000008406676,0.0000014241498,0.000030512538,0.0035768098],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99749726,0.0002782631,0.00040863417,0.0003678548,0.0006920379,0.0007559684],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987031,0.00009718401,0.0002081709,0.00022241223,0.00016066711,0.00060842634],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017052197,0.0002155792,0.00029161188,0.00011897693,0.002242692,0.0005276716,0.00032774554,0.00020052999,0.00094749936],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013930893,0.0001984644,0.00008048686,0.00020817514,0.00088956195,0.0008581035,0.00017417586,0.0006130739,0.000103413215],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006599516,0.00006659284,0.0035342413,0.000023905093,0.00007016553,0.000016258226,0.9490961,0.0000030204121,0.00005228128,0.019261539,0.012298056,0.015511866],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005101792,0.0000833941,0.00021810981,0.000034386194,0.00007838076,0.000015170308,0.09559638,0.000027935112,0.000027020496,0.0049377927,0.8981885,0.00028280175],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007682623,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00074953836,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88589036,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018482807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014984027,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999658},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2260124866","doi":"","title":"Suing anonymously : when is the personal price to pay for justice too high?","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Plaintiff; Anonymity; Law; Economic Justice; Harm; Political science; Test (biology); Confidentiality","score_opus":0.025923945083625437,"score_gpt":0.2897686665710277,"score_spread":0.26384472148740223,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2260124866","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.12809266,0.00010965907,0.15506862,0.40174133,0.0016237914,0.0019017485,0.0002648249,0.00018995453,0.3110074],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9852858,0.0000025515922,0.0036386813,0.0058081932,0.0021854683,0.000035059646,8.606156e-7,0.000013935518,0.0030294585],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99863666,0.00012596013,0.00020102075,0.00018157366,0.00040508513,0.00044967895],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99877614,0.00041245477,0.00014701241,0.00015175238,0.00020055586,0.00031211218],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013972904,0.000098117576,0.00012405695,0.000027284745,0.0031561574,0.0003991394,0.0005046442,0.000048708025,0.00021195687],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003704179,0.000060132068,0.000115137256,0.00018606379,0.00014729795,0.00013623976,0.000053708944,0.00025593687,0.00007387],"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":[0.00002468742,0.000030086649,0.00020139459,0.000008414984,0.000027524567,7.6866144e-7,0.23352687,0.000032133536,0.00006137819,0.7429298,0.018489089,0.004667837],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001917916,0.000054633678,0.00027498175,0.000008451913,0.00006412375,0.0000039011097,0.02989704,0.00012937047,0.000015428483,0.016568914,0.95266306,0.00012830783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013144172,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00096272555,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93417394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000095416566,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014915636,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9981416},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2262056843","doi":"","title":"Twelve years after Canada's access to medicines regime : should South Africa follow the path?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","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":"Université de Sherbrooke","funders":"","keywords":"Legislation; Exportation; Order (exchange); Business; Mechanism (biology); Drug industry; International trade; Developing country; Economic growth; Law; Political science; Economics; Finance; Engineering","score_opus":0.09757953290351798,"score_gpt":0.28458232801573463,"score_spread":0.18700279511221665,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2262056843","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":[0.34382564,0.0070130434,0.0011328564,0.17965375,0.006906444,0.0011514764,0.0023205553,0.00010687728,0.45788938],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9744147,0.000015793428,0.000107327876,0.02379139,0.0011316286,0.000030200414,0.0000023709838,0.000044562712,0.00046204773],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979803,0.000045315785,0.00073025894,0.00036387247,0.00015017706,0.000730074],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979143,0.00008689641,0.00040136586,0.00043785205,0.00008111312,0.0010784657],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010647768,0.00024720936,0.0004898432,0.00015516854,0.00023441292,0.00040347755,0.00094204344,0.00008868559,0.00044649484],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030148966,0.0002034024,0.00017330321,0.00035760814,0.00013428467,0.00021853042,0.0002254827,0.00055198953,0.00031066593],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00082536344,0.00016046343,0.0770499,0.00003511528,0.000735053,0.00054415874,0.071580455,0.0012048833,0.000003013275,0.11881122,0.72673184,0.0023185299],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008955873,0.00008033023,0.005310139,0.000016882268,0.00002838404,0.00003141582,0.0019066916,0.00022846505,0.000003853368,0.016085912,0.97503644,0.0003758904],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01732383,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.045841567,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63058907,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003737399,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003558504,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9892199},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3206161984","doi":"","title":"The evidentiary value of an accused’s invocation of the pre-trial and trial right to silence through Anglo American case law","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"Silence; Law; Witness; Circumstantial evidence; Context (archaeology); Value (mathematics); Common law; Privilege (computing); Political science; Sociology; History; Philosophy","score_opus":0.027628740797827317,"score_gpt":0.3128767867875584,"score_spread":0.2852480459897311,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3206161984","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":[0.9862149,0.00027448035,0.000050609367,0.007358573,0.000593565,0.00072933565,0.000035996858,0.000017946983,0.0047246437],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99722564,0.00006804926,0.00028582764,0.0010484156,0.0013216384,0.000010305092,4.4623837e-7,0.0000081215,0.000031541433],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99764115,0.000880969,0.00039197865,0.00018114084,0.0006542713,0.00025051014],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985917,0.0002570691,0.00054296706,0.00020548327,0.0001790113,0.00022376291],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010598701,0.00011068122,0.00022301736,0.0000033676024,0.00205925,0.00017463714,0.0005740896,0.00007260121,0.000025701265],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047358678,0.00006178258,0.0001733177,0.00051507336,0.0017828488,0.0003748175,0.00009381049,0.00031110324,0.0000010748948],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.016625578,0.00015559343,0.00019026159,0.000019675057,0.00013920371,0.000029561643,0.69987416,0.00009796701,0.0002674848,0.27945778,0.0015916586,0.0015510533],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.040199343,0.0032737597,0.00034109724,0.00014152449,0.00048364382,0.00011043026,0.80468357,0.00006606966,0.0018991027,0.02288227,0.12532997,0.00058923604],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0051934384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005372624,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2565755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000041636227,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001910823,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992399},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4285162040","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i2a4","title":"‘I beg to differ’: Are our courts too agreeable?","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Dissenting opinion; Dissent; Appeal; Law; Political science; Supreme court; Majority opinion","score_opus":0.030339795035629332,"score_gpt":0.2747571318407989,"score_spread":0.24441733680516958,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4285162040","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":[0.26779085,0.0009764279,0.0003546839,0.094453886,0.0042820075,0.0004900405,0.00032496915,0.00016355774,0.63116354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9949907,0.000011105788,0.000072912786,0.0024197581,0.001219287,0.000021368101,9.37893e-7,0.000007449743,0.0012564881],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979794,0.00021944311,0.00020754909,0.00017537741,0.0009399841,0.00047823015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99922687,0.000046274414,0.00015398487,0.00008587648,0.0001389839,0.00034803108],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00068606104,0.00011120204,0.00020080479,0.00006671529,0.0073413523,0.00013452799,0.00038406454,0.000026757214,0.00039487795],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018092712,0.00010151745,0.00012342824,0.0003367566,0.00020104843,0.00009517154,0.00019962048,0.0003660059,0.000082878054],"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":[0.0001177262,0.00017116612,0.023267305,0.000002593541,0.00014385852,0.0002710939,0.06078298,0.00038880165,0.000022402903,0.85222936,0.0604183,0.0021844045],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023579228,0.000096048316,0.0058982205,0.0000111483905,0.000030306874,0.00002536765,0.22871347,0.0000012170723,0.0000027988012,0.027754627,0.73701066,0.00022033048],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0032919268,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003923799,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82447475,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003090745,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022982512,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99395096},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4375833626","doi":"10.47348/salj/v140/i2a9","title":"Book Review: David Cluxton Aviation Law Cause of Action Exclusivity in the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions (2022)","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"International Law and Aviation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Action (physics); Aviation; Political science; Engineering; Aerospace engineering; Physics","score_opus":0.030369809767922758,"score_gpt":0.327200031896864,"score_spread":0.2968302221289412,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4375833626","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":[0.41815552,0.041265626,0.0013203728,0.14705443,0.0043486427,0.003818163,0.00051666395,0.00034728326,0.3831733],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9924691,0.004283671,0.000009635213,0.0019109517,0.00024121602,0.00001114053,0.000017080198,0.0000054527104,0.0010517988],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984753,0.0004347507,0.00028576065,0.00010760737,0.0005186791,0.00017786061],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992768,0.00016294331,0.00027366795,0.000082374034,0.00014648629,0.00005769495],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017293226,0.00006769792,0.00012477046,0.000068498775,0.00072546303,0.00006712895,0.00014754527,0.000048179125,0.00015794151],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001572938,0.000053179494,0.000071666305,0.0003252319,0.00019219426,0.0003730459,0.000022604434,0.00021191456,0.000015708807],"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":[0.000046916786,0.00012036976,0.0031944201,0.00009125144,0.000055449094,0.000027402422,0.03955805,0.000035790785,0.00010838655,0.9245292,0.030277919,0.001954827],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0012785055,0.00017463397,0.06284636,0.0007510695,0.00020995975,0.00004049087,0.021492127,0.00020482397,0.0001272741,0.042051997,0.8704601,0.00036265698],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0070026265,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.026846472,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8824772,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009689611,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006292391,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996098},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4394061971","doi":"10.47348/salj/v141/i2a3","title":"The shareholder’s appraisal remedy under the Companies Act: How should the courts gauge ‘fair value’?","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Corporate Governance and Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Shareholder; Gauge (firearms); Value (mathematics); Business; Law; Law and economics; Companies Act; Accounting; Corporate law; Economics; Political science; Mathematics; History; Finance; Corporate governance; Statistics","score_opus":0.04683544862480897,"score_gpt":0.2554658100018898,"score_spread":0.2086303613770808,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4394061971","genre_codex":"commentary","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":[0.19464551,0.010464962,0.0017682348,0.51479715,0.014821291,0.0014076744,0.00013575614,0.0008348462,0.26112458],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9884002,0.000049591526,0.000010053573,0.0044673975,0.0056690914,0.000017495675,0.0000069463235,0.00005811443,0.0013210688],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977575,0.0000669243,0.00033920593,0.0002942222,0.0009207741,0.0006213805],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99834436,0.00054528646,0.00040299934,0.00049628544,0.00017227528,0.000038797214],"candidate_categories":["sts","scholarly_communication"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014196616,0.00031262924,0.00022676536,0.00005766354,0.0029252134,0.0059230067,0.0011238487,0.0000711941,0.00020393134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001254511,0.00013467565,0.00029115487,0.0005312939,0.0005472012,0.0009851225,0.0002971884,0.0010361823,0.00019216389],"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":[0.000046973862,0.000026612033,0.00031165074,0.000032546955,0.0001600795,0.000062504114,0.000950196,0.00021816458,0.000020276246,0.8289764,0.16714069,0.0020538978],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002383591,0.000016102387,0.0022329572,0.0001014877,0.00016044191,0.00006225853,0.015920583,0.0016553262,0.000005640314,0.022821123,0.95654,0.00024575987],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00039285756,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014974674,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80615526,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000609751,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000099183424,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99837285},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4401656713","doi":"10.47348/salj/v141/i3a6","title":"Realizing South Africa’s contribution to the global biodiversity framework’s area-based targets — The potential impact of new screening trends linked to strategic infrastructure projects, corridors and zones","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"South African Law Journal","topic":"Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development","field":"Agricultural and Biological 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":"Biodiversity; Environmental planning; Environmental resource management; Regional science; Business; Geography; Political science; Ecology; Economics; Biology","score_opus":0.023407582600249388,"score_gpt":0.23972744138447574,"score_spread":0.21631985878422635,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4401656713","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":[0.98408484,0.00037150588,0.0021101278,0.011912459,0.0001894683,0.00033073523,0.0007605309,0.00004371285,0.00019663392],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99886715,0.0000026491111,0.0005599728,0.00029942044,0.00022767823,0.0000035879918,0.000024570463,8.265629e-7,0.0000141396595],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985656,0.00014527468,0.000287422,0.00028885284,0.0002696465,0.00044321208],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991972,0.0001005408,0.00013353786,0.000076978606,0.00014547008,0.00034629164],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005718895,0.00020639643,0.00022814772,0.000033582117,0.00081837014,0.00043741957,0.00033878,0.00012770435,0.00014589251],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009412446,0.000065804306,0.00020942141,0.00074202166,0.00014005054,0.000093808594,0.000116918956,0.00038692312,0.0000035843868],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.006558505,0.00033786288,0.40263614,0.0001433363,0.0021104645,0.00037339388,0.14437495,0.043416776,0.0013964152,0.03172752,0.016738461,0.35018617],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00071179436,0.0022328713,0.82770973,0.0002302615,0.00026442442,0.00012682818,0.12554847,0.0016117368,0.00004468028,0.01362526,0.027051566,0.0008423931],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008073877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00045539555,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4250736,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019048709,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015744889,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6294324},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}