{"meta":{"query_hash":"7dc7b5565411","filters":{"venue":"Supreme Court law review"},"cohort_total":384,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":384,"exported":384,"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/7dc7b5565411","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Supreme+Court+law+review"},"results":[{"id":"W1481177748","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1253","title":"The Brilliant Career of Section 7 of the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Criminal code; Mens rea; Criminal law; Sociology","score_opus":0.06900587580948803,"score_gpt":0.3334691613772605,"score_spread":0.2644632855677725,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1481177748","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":[0.0132367015,0.015513717,0.026195234,0.4927601,0.085276276,0.0002359719,0.0003032891,0.0004952038,0.3659836],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17911759,0.011745459,0.020145642,0.41095367,0.039025694,0.00057710026,0.00045775526,0.0007537984,0.3372233],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.982053,0.004697576,0.00085924077,0.0016712301,0.009040996,0.0016780255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96540326,0.018652475,0.0019200916,0.0032514238,0.009403328,0.0013694273],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015982466,0.00052459614,0.00039038443,0.0015611702,0.005194841,0.009148768,0.002265764,0.011349509,0.004231037],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04333574,0.00055109465,0.0007519922,0.0012443662,0.017702753,0.0067032725,0.0029314752,0.020597605,0.002063567],"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":[0.000025874338,0.000025693482,0.00031342742,0.000067645815,0.000004439662,0.000094193005,0.0013689267,0.00016982332,0.00023050289,0.79221714,0.18764031,0.01784204],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014646122,0.00006501109,0.0014231278,0.0004315,0.0000095552405,0.0001263051,0.0007554558,0.00033063465,0.0005674795,0.051240392,0.94497806,0.0000578653],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0398188,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.050782826,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0398188,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009548525,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020938741,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08452433},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1482254455","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1146","title":"Appendix A: Supreme Court of Canada Cases Written by Justice Bertha Wilson 1982-1991","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Political science; Sociology","score_opus":0.03389982151679562,"score_gpt":0.29481558853046325,"score_spread":0.26091576701366764,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1482254455","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"dataset","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"dataset","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009452546,0.010089655,0.0013837665,0.019550422,0.0069722678,0.0073302514,0.3208482,0.000608839,0.62376404],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.053293824,0.013890677,0.0055755735,0.025282502,0.0022886102,0.0057170857,0.08289258,0.0003708528,0.8106883],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99645483,0.00021343687,0.0003212254,0.00028179685,0.001983273,0.0007454405],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9770563,0.006771053,0.0008972681,0.0005811803,0.0137360925,0.00095809647],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021200962,0.001254208,0.001274225,0.012275027,0.009402929,0.004483489,0.005430352,0.006236715,0.17645927],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021562388,0.0015163501,0.0009373263,0.019706393,0.0014510273,0.0016611764,0.0012425729,0.0027659081,0.024728356],"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":[0.000022231032,0.000034250428,0.00023013791,0.0001858756,0.000006305385,0.00012788427,0.00013669477,0.00008510898,0.00007141425,0.0034457652,0.9915258,0.0041285134],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001929752,0.000022422084,0.019899268,0.001127527,0.00004889658,0.00016753846,0.000692516,0.00018642326,0.0004093733,0.0030173364,0.97415507,0.00008065944],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93442345,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9737674,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17645927,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03892354,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08687037,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5903151},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1483797123","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1052","title":"What’s the Harm in Having a “Harm Principle” Enshrined in Section 7 of the Charter?","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Harm principle; Charter; Harm; Law; Political science; Government (linguistics); Supreme court; Criminal law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.04354737647156922,"score_gpt":0.3480146236778527,"score_spread":0.3044672472062835,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1483797123","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009330679,0.006135465,0.012820523,0.7076811,0.029943675,0.000218167,0.00042434505,0.0003868724,0.23305912],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14682345,0.0053055706,0.016633749,0.7371285,0.01217189,0.00067787775,0.0006522893,0.0004111395,0.08019549],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.95461905,0.013830625,0.0020946849,0.0036113025,0.019385638,0.006458705],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9397749,0.024873296,0.004633091,0.004986676,0.022277076,0.003455033],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02410467,0.00079748273,0.0009952969,0.0011089911,0.0065803793,0.016311755,0.0043859663,0.023772955,0.0062159966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07926056,0.0010138646,0.0017813288,0.0010324764,0.016760806,0.010839814,0.0029271285,0.022896405,0.0040518837],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000041043917,0.00011302304,0.0014593547,0.00017098502,0.000022936547,0.00023280078,0.0022047875,0.0006184266,0.00055162964,0.63855535,0.33648872,0.019541038],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041731048,0.00013247867,0.002817715,0.0010298667,0.000038877366,0.00019888766,0.0029639208,0.00062932936,0.00073145586,0.10143907,0.88972014,0.00025662145],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11183899,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.078367196,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.888161,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009637615,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05196982,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22237605},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1484087257","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1110","title":"Twenty-Five Years in Search of a Reasonable Approach","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Legislature; Scope (computer science); Code (set theory); Criminal code; Law; Criminal procedure; Political science; Section (typography); Law and economics; Criminal law; Computer science; Sociology; Programming language","score_opus":0.08967049957305391,"score_gpt":0.35082779431135724,"score_spread":0.26115729473830335,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1484087257","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":[0.018351734,0.21875514,0.02059483,0.58086264,0.015949788,0.00018556074,0.0002679641,0.0001276613,0.14490464],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44277394,0.13018546,0.032968685,0.25924125,0.0098825395,0.000681555,0.00042963045,0.00026907388,0.12356795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9874746,0.0062906663,0.0009921768,0.0016953672,0.00257329,0.00097384973],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98506457,0.0072626094,0.0009827088,0.001334805,0.003551193,0.0018040527],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028865935,0.0007079165,0.0008779797,0.0021643497,0.0063381046,0.0097148735,0.0016398857,0.0057328306,0.008179979],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032690138,0.0004509995,0.000691974,0.0015990166,0.023812838,0.0092156725,0.009239471,0.012384064,0.0024685876],"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":[0.00007044168,0.00005632422,0.0005060037,0.00023543568,0.000028544679,0.00020216293,0.004291689,0.00033078287,0.00017037403,0.9151572,0.03893224,0.040018868],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001946816,0.000076471835,0.00044875866,0.0007480513,0.000010851061,0.0001561977,0.0028560343,0.0001785105,0.00019912934,0.18731073,0.80796176,0.000033997174],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006651401,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.009328494,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.028865935,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010482066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011142926,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15265948},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1484987216","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1258","title":"The Métis and Thirty Years of Section 35: How Constitutional Protection for Métis Rights Has Led to the Loss of the Rule of Law","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","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":"Section (typography); Law; Political science; Computer science","score_opus":0.03635472802380807,"score_gpt":0.3087390737847194,"score_spread":0.2723843457609113,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1484987216","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":[0.16829014,0.016387952,0.006618891,0.18120773,0.0015906803,0.00007235966,0.0001702488,0.000101258345,0.62556064],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92599773,0.0025407565,0.0012536378,0.021104485,0.00019360612,0.000025617781,0.000042545726,0.000044656605,0.048796926],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99099416,0.0018952091,0.00021203778,0.0009883578,0.002943627,0.002966683],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99624735,0.0015937658,0.00030120317,0.00036148448,0.0009978423,0.00049839163],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00941359,0.00022677876,0.00030077976,0.0013080606,0.01961684,0.010029759,0.0013081459,0.004183656,0.0027804016],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010494874,0.00034319577,0.00038690935,0.0013434266,0.04310074,0.0041396907,0.0045241048,0.009021293,0.00025285676],"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":[0.000008629947,0.0000050630233,0.0005163914,0.000015802172,0.000003678345,0.00012048544,0.015692027,0.00009852566,0.00016846265,0.9710388,0.006157065,0.0061750207],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019908113,0.000044623604,0.007758215,0.00035804187,0.000043569537,0.0002484053,0.023733482,0.00029406956,0.00073071825,0.19017099,0.7764867,0.00011121903],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8514532,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91222167,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14854681,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.047220945,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08238528,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34261352},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1485137107","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1220","title":"Tort Lite?: Vancouver (City) v. War and the Availability of Damages for Charter Infringements","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Damages; Law; Tort; Charter; Political science; Plaintiff; Liability","score_opus":0.08835699322221514,"score_gpt":0.33187557867192813,"score_spread":0.243518585449713,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1485137107","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":[0.28657278,0.023928897,0.00071447383,0.08980251,0.00079621165,0.000098237004,0.0016704026,0.000040490166,0.59637606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91902477,0.006553307,0.00022348372,0.016201032,0.00018083477,0.000023065955,0.0003114895,0.000013667586,0.0574683],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984504,0.00018735642,0.000043595188,0.000115150855,0.0006270015,0.0005764983],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980812,0.0007828662,0.00018244737,0.000057686546,0.00063451694,0.00026137318],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010361283,0.0003188216,0.00032640997,0.0022505342,0.006927394,0.0053449613,0.0014560665,0.004412134,0.006587831],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005767884,0.0003603909,0.00027529564,0.003224162,0.003293947,0.0012303208,0.0011210409,0.003956093,0.00057513604],"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":[0.00030381852,0.00014383467,0.043162834,0.00070986943,0.00016979995,0.0070849136,0.019558376,0.0010833396,0.0014545585,0.5231512,0.31772134,0.085456125],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002066845,0.00017760806,0.2275106,0.0013571588,0.0003987772,0.0024105955,0.043968443,0.0013265043,0.0033414112,0.08189231,0.6370902,0.00031975],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9108522,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97003496,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.089147806,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020803504,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015381228,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17934561},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1490829653","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1149","title":"Bruker v. Marcovitz: Divorce and the Marriage of Law and Religion","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Obligation; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Economic Justice; Free Exercise Clause; Judaism; Sociology; First amendment","score_opus":0.037822127731152407,"score_gpt":0.3085275067277466,"score_spread":0.2707053789965942,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1490829653","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024259014,0.7174044,0.00035537384,0.08400855,0.00087732816,0.000050131057,0.00019601232,0.000017203522,0.17283197],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.46010354,0.4332565,0.00048416914,0.058819305,0.00081202324,0.00010238748,0.00019854748,0.000019316076,0.046204183],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99830616,0.00040984034,0.00007178949,0.0001492496,0.0007361205,0.00032681946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99835086,0.000924449,0.00019539488,0.00004024479,0.00036726796,0.0001217962],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019852775,0.00024810893,0.00035239695,0.001883644,0.0049120393,0.002974416,0.001090484,0.0036967234,0.00328805],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0066170976,0.00022549245,0.00030020394,0.0028204676,0.005806971,0.0015175157,0.0012860321,0.0032585955,0.00036500758],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004619731,0.000034138364,0.0038279567,0.0012374596,0.00003516283,0.00087728945,0.005952701,0.0003127362,0.0003863471,0.76847094,0.12880953,0.09000955],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000612265,0.000041047006,0.027092073,0.004822621,0.00007334558,0.0005187044,0.005071402,0.00017176934,0.00042598363,0.037769333,0.92389965,0.00005286961],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.71136713,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7944068,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.71136713,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013897157,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.033809345,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58066535},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1491901897","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1107","title":"So What is the Real Legacy of Oakes?: Two Decades of Proportionality Analysis under the Canadian Charter’s Section 1","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":23,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Deference; Supreme court; Adjudication; Law; Political science; Proportionality (law); Context (archaeology); Sociology; History","score_opus":0.0420602414364565,"score_gpt":0.3336171573435262,"score_spread":0.2915569159070697,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1491901897","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":[0.06299466,0.032961186,0.0038065924,0.6524625,0.0052080015,0.000060687322,0.0006082024,0.00013037847,0.24176784],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.68990934,0.021576349,0.0037022897,0.18294826,0.0021804483,0.00004732158,0.00041338927,0.0002145296,0.09900804],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9828765,0.0018312522,0.00026522178,0.0020882885,0.00944181,0.003496898],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9859628,0.004373627,0.00064167206,0.0007600981,0.00656166,0.0017001085],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012833876,0.00053273863,0.00063061714,0.0027494964,0.024876602,0.017777784,0.0025178911,0.005838837,0.0029968682],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02669904,0.0005218588,0.0006565458,0.0036459228,0.033473626,0.010941073,0.003679,0.016537473,0.00033106963],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000037438327,0.000020738757,0.0025814788,0.00008325858,0.000019953819,0.00047372968,0.021458905,0.00023291311,0.00022008384,0.79055244,0.13794738,0.04637163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021862867,0.000023428514,0.009985586,0.0007541146,0.00004545285,0.00037371935,0.028427968,0.0006791901,0.0008157583,0.119745694,0.83891314,0.00021402114],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9510105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9660421,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08460455,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08460455,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12764062,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6138518},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1492178389","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1057","title":"Old and Difficult Grievances: Examining the Relationship Between the Métis and the Crown","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"Vancouver Biotech (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Constitution; Law; Crown (dentistry); Happening; Context (archaeology); Political science; Sociology; Accommodation; History; Psychology; Performance art; Medicine; Archaeology","score_opus":0.09662400643991144,"score_gpt":0.33916711180796166,"score_spread":0.24254310536805024,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1492178389","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.579933,0.019131359,0.00095248356,0.049554467,0.00027120797,0.000045395722,0.000030418476,0.0000071070544,0.3500747],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9912175,0.002004621,0.00012734876,0.0018818899,0.00004776412,0.000010822693,0.0000049832574,0.0000033056426,0.0047017625],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99229264,0.0037349288,0.00012160906,0.00034424794,0.0013520444,0.0021544716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99241394,0.004447656,0.0009486459,0.00016233412,0.0011253477,0.0009020665],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005579777,0.00020106511,0.00034650293,0.0023520521,0.028536668,0.009577131,0.0016129245,0.004175396,0.003089213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014329418,0.00027017682,0.0002852086,0.0022733838,0.04142647,0.0073585114,0.006892255,0.007064815,0.00017799292],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000016241323,0.000042914828,0.0070388312,0.00006240166,0.000009865526,0.002161702,0.31166202,0.00012928876,0.00013803676,0.66294473,0.004913092,0.010880854],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011948877,0.00006431851,0.033996668,0.0006152749,0.000036533966,0.0009833402,0.7229348,0.00029034165,0.00022790002,0.095635764,0.14515093,0.00005210471],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3426493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.59019905,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.65735066,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032876283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023427973,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6813097},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1493222896","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1150","title":"R. v. Bryan: The Supreme Court and the Electoral Process","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Charter; Jurisprudence; Politics; Context (archaeology); Democracy; Deference; Sociology","score_opus":0.03979678197495684,"score_gpt":0.3035857516961738,"score_spread":0.26378896972121696,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1493222896","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":[0.04034947,0.07014452,0.004983902,0.2348508,0.001391222,0.00008498439,0.00035091199,0.00007771106,0.64776653],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8200216,0.022246502,0.0020378425,0.072098024,0.0012884869,0.0000745511,0.00014209756,0.00006624619,0.08202468],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9918795,0.0017061533,0.00016233585,0.00064425205,0.0029912582,0.0026164297],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966185,0.0016522881,0.00023862255,0.00010730398,0.00088923145,0.0004938648],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005270641,0.0002867275,0.0004725978,0.001762066,0.020379994,0.012451588,0.002123145,0.008324934,0.004226531],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0089263385,0.00043589206,0.0004940216,0.0031613219,0.017433686,0.002937839,0.0024582515,0.009886668,0.00045422956],"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":[0.0000049009886,0.00000478065,0.00039971955,0.000016715687,0.0000037100954,0.00011223575,0.0013811969,0.00011979951,0.000058689082,0.97702026,0.016265618,0.00461232],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004838295,0.000029525769,0.009375233,0.0006003409,0.000048256916,0.00022746452,0.0045852466,0.0009124328,0.00042612603,0.3071111,0.6765114,0.00012450365],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9430671,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96303445,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.065566294,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.065566294,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08832148,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.47571898},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1497276413","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1171","title":"Sniffing Out the Ancillary Powers Implications of the Dog Sniff Cases","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Dissent; Doctrine; Supreme court; Law; Search and seizure; Political science; Law and economics; Psychology; Economics; Politics","score_opus":0.0795397052487384,"score_gpt":0.3767873164550151,"score_spread":0.29724761120627674,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1497276413","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":[0.2216813,0.022535522,0.009300815,0.37859917,0.0029912891,0.0001506659,0.00023461929,0.000045306933,0.36446136],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91540366,0.008229013,0.0023102683,0.052737575,0.0010645742,0.000034013552,0.000049502407,0.000028525203,0.02014281],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99002683,0.0020433834,0.00029570606,0.0006680758,0.0054093143,0.0015566226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9792671,0.01409741,0.001421396,0.00036027707,0.004183153,0.0006706092],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014438247,0.00034509983,0.0005767533,0.0025809263,0.008628892,0.0075233597,0.0031945396,0.0062405937,0.0019574622],"category_scores_gemma":[0.035575796,0.0003778111,0.0005187948,0.0018673278,0.018356882,0.0055220956,0.0029717034,0.008856814,0.00023642168],"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":[0.000049866507,0.000031108673,0.0027777136,0.00014276948,0.000030202127,0.0013936631,0.0070938095,0.0006294643,0.0004812445,0.9452936,0.024265131,0.017811518],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014036967,0.00015064982,0.020410633,0.0015656862,0.00024941747,0.0007533922,0.03162197,0.003436061,0.0035576718,0.45780227,0.48005518,0.000256695],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.40451187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7273789,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.40451187,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020238312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030580226,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.80431473},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1499267772","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1200","title":"Charter Detention and the Exclusion of Evidence after Grant, Harrison and Suberu","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Law; Charter; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Section (typography); Misconduct; Right to counsel; Political science; Habeas corpus; Meaning (existential); Reasonable suspicion; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.07520492235012231,"score_gpt":0.3524689362978585,"score_spread":0.2772640139477362,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1499267772","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10147372,0.09968784,0.026564397,0.396759,0.011609457,0.0006727066,0.0005720517,0.00020621177,0.3624546],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7436393,0.020249682,0.009714181,0.12835522,0.0027876247,0.00030645772,0.00015145764,0.00006111877,0.09473495],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9755672,0.0058878595,0.0012904353,0.0025640265,0.011956415,0.0027340201],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9754964,0.016595159,0.0011780086,0.0010019535,0.00504608,0.00068238145],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017316721,0.00051315513,0.0007652817,0.0022747654,0.00687183,0.0077110287,0.0021934072,0.0144003,0.0013926141],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04889046,0.0005777056,0.0010857577,0.0017109466,0.020324547,0.0051149763,0.004908845,0.016082972,0.00034789427],"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":[0.000037786307,0.000030176421,0.0008589583,0.00009707811,0.000021574384,0.00044306958,0.00348261,0.00026674505,0.0004590325,0.93689317,0.030548783,0.026861046],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013100595,0.00022780114,0.005960671,0.001306052,0.00016341469,0.0006476059,0.0033177934,0.0007209651,0.0028771,0.32153308,0.6628545,0.0002599755],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.118607506,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20018308,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.118607506,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012690703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030853339,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2358343},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1500173462","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1198","title":"The Frontiers of Human Rights: Reflections on the Implications of the Supreme Court’s Judgments in Omar Khadr 2008 and 2010","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Human Rights and Development","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":"Charter; Law; Human rights; Supreme court; Political science; Jurisdiction; Afghan; Battlefield; Citizenship; History","score_opus":0.05763282480158349,"score_gpt":0.34580190529316673,"score_spread":0.28816908049158324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1500173462","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":[0.07170118,0.023183912,0.001369514,0.65294725,0.0030139638,0.00010438565,0.00026182362,0.000036145724,0.24738184],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76063514,0.005813006,0.0010854393,0.1996075,0.0017318545,0.00013495692,0.00008187722,0.000078594705,0.030831615],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9610954,0.011874803,0.0013339547,0.003422475,0.009971266,0.012302065],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97038674,0.02091366,0.001009065,0.00055189047,0.005023147,0.0021154915],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.032931704,0.00059445587,0.0014748857,0.0031973107,0.049548697,0.027842928,0.007521679,0.044249423,0.00438611],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04324427,0.0012080232,0.0013970673,0.0048302077,0.050446242,0.009117733,0.0074608233,0.034549076,0.00045116135],"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":[0.000034568322,0.000027267302,0.00066014857,0.00007379169,0.000019018697,0.0008728529,0.037297595,0.00026850542,0.00022022861,0.9002122,0.05432375,0.005989972],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013473436,0.000051227995,0.005818882,0.0016063078,0.00010955634,0.0003584668,0.13149765,0.0009062212,0.00092644466,0.18456563,0.67359394,0.00043089557],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.88711244,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9189402,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.119182825,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.119182825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.116561905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86473596},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1500562463","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1161","title":"R. v. Ferguson and the Search for a Coherent Approach to Mandatory Minimum Sentences under Section 12","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Section (typography); Charter; Law; Sentence; Context (archaeology); Punishment (psychology); Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; History; Computer science; Psychology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.13052636827675382,"score_gpt":0.3564753529031405,"score_spread":0.22594898462638666,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1500562463","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":[0.045117795,0.017101064,0.024492702,0.5186248,0.004215758,0.00046720603,0.00036941367,0.0006012607,0.38900995],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5272421,0.0037012747,0.02100443,0.37702098,0.0026095668,0.0006310643,0.00014224312,0.000112699796,0.0675356],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9765778,0.005366674,0.0015609327,0.0033371286,0.0077096145,0.0054479023],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9883073,0.006954067,0.0012239133,0.0005858176,0.002163908,0.00076499407],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018455345,0.0010147372,0.0012991248,0.0027145196,0.009616112,0.007924903,0.0041931486,0.04299046,0.00229049],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029412933,0.001617188,0.002181432,0.0010777797,0.015871191,0.0048770583,0.0035076197,0.023763932,0.00068366295],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000034051496,0.0000331794,0.0003841749,0.000042572447,0.000011623806,0.00041564592,0.00082561205,0.00039330916,0.000451398,0.9519164,0.03924764,0.006244433],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00036328676,0.00042586253,0.00540085,0.0011973312,0.00015667459,0.0010821366,0.0010789041,0.0027534654,0.0022564358,0.7511139,0.23370063,0.00047048682],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16171965,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.22780806,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8382803,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012171512,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03057019,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3215567},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1500640283","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1031","title":"Ifs and Buts in Charter Adjudication: The Unruly Emergence of Constitutional Exemptions in Canada","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Charter; Political science; Law; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Public administration; Sociology","score_opus":0.04548538059424122,"score_gpt":0.2817187433131049,"score_spread":0.2362333627188637,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1500640283","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5454787,0.009906014,0.0072188196,0.18354915,0.0007032336,0.0001738408,0.0010527283,0.00010806091,0.25180945],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9759257,0.0016398766,0.0017752699,0.0053779283,0.00013147575,0.00002395852,0.00010458815,0.00006299643,0.014958341],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98097163,0.0028651515,0.0006696806,0.0016980536,0.008651493,0.0051439293],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9168578,0.03629325,0.0042516435,0.0030814328,0.032824416,0.006691447],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02429457,0.00021233837,0.0008834309,0.0042488636,0.02039587,0.014106151,0.00328393,0.0044343295,0.004796635],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09166951,0.0007300169,0.0005669762,0.006587752,0.018859511,0.004562498,0.003451945,0.011920008,0.00025311726],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000115662704,0.00005408743,0.02458397,0.000085839194,0.000034587803,0.00022116156,0.01552254,0.0016369907,0.0004368925,0.87620604,0.031137448,0.049964864],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016379854,0.00009770788,0.2674772,0.001149697,0.00024889625,0.00023474381,0.033445604,0.013253405,0.0023958078,0.28741565,0.39368683,0.00043068622],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9909073,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9966546,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8799706,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12002939,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24788164,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8708782},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1505043621","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1221","title":"Cost Strategies for Litigants: The Significance of R. v. Caron","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","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":"Jurisprudence; Jurisdiction; Law; Interim; Deference; Doctrine; Political science; High Court; Supreme court; Standard of review; Tribunal; Law and economics; Economics","score_opus":0.1204473483002514,"score_gpt":0.26703974296560745,"score_spread":0.14659239466535606,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1505043621","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":[0.031148631,0.018638099,0.005700213,0.4219303,0.0018709236,0.0001237377,0.00004833536,0.00005940573,0.5204803],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73115003,0.0069573834,0.0040551513,0.1891279,0.0025930775,0.00028248283,0.000034383076,0.00013428091,0.06566528],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9880684,0.004315587,0.00027009897,0.001560122,0.0035839886,0.002201764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889503,0.007821434,0.00036588835,0.000447927,0.0013700476,0.0010443493],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011513271,0.0005671746,0.000659631,0.0013849166,0.0104253655,0.0158619,0.003738502,0.025121475,0.005786221],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032439712,0.00050317514,0.0007363836,0.000839982,0.018036276,0.007948568,0.005136257,0.012823955,0.00083691336],"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":[0.000018190716,0.00001740267,0.00049867283,0.00003539759,0.000008705523,0.0004163388,0.0014588222,0.00029729845,0.00012245236,0.9573726,0.029251277,0.010502974],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000949711,0.00013785034,0.0017873497,0.00074311544,0.000053822318,0.0007554796,0.0060567874,0.0025112252,0.00039340896,0.63517714,0.35215947,0.00012923783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06806788,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11514449,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06806788,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013239096,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017018532,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13534337},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1506191565","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1163","title":"The Silence of Section 15: Searching for Equality at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Section (typography); High Court; Citizenship; Immigration; Sociology; Politics; Business","score_opus":0.07990553910565779,"score_gpt":0.3539335472085003,"score_spread":0.2740280081028425,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1506191565","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":[0.0718987,0.01530367,0.0057428293,0.41477376,0.0072644646,0.00023113935,0.0006454254,0.00021121984,0.48392883],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5312293,0.0052689896,0.0036135043,0.345246,0.0012061653,0.00013876145,0.00035699396,0.00017624245,0.11276405],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9662647,0.002743939,0.00094395166,0.0029584405,0.016148347,0.0109405015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9844881,0.0048483573,0.00055109,0.00041446314,0.0077425567,0.0019553048],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015857069,0.00054947473,0.0010404974,0.0018936043,0.041014798,0.023813652,0.0052904654,0.022096992,0.0033141011],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027878739,0.0012677907,0.0012677943,0.0025400827,0.01970188,0.0043490045,0.005156381,0.02532746,0.0004624667],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000021970753,0.000017023774,0.0011627601,0.00004122063,0.000024953742,0.0004666857,0.007335079,0.00034794174,0.0003224815,0.871676,0.110605665,0.007978195],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000054704546,0.000032955104,0.0046926667,0.0007043479,0.000115452785,0.00016109041,0.011833629,0.0010777144,0.0015716988,0.05309244,0.92635095,0.00031238646],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97939175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9852024,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8055866,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.19441341,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.34678417,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9343663},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1506586727","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1210","title":"The \"Principle\" of Federalism and the Legacy of Patriation and Quebec Veto References","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","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":"Federalism; Political science; Veto; Normative; Supreme court; Law; New Federalism; Dual federalism; Law and economics; Justiciability; Positivism; Politics; Sociology","score_opus":0.05626357439890657,"score_gpt":0.3184114914608584,"score_spread":0.26214791706195184,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1506586727","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":[0.094030805,0.03445233,0.011226892,0.13175231,0.0009628702,0.00004535825,0.0004162758,0.00009147829,0.7270217],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9672403,0.004011051,0.0011196067,0.0062975837,0.0001414224,0.000017456248,0.000058279187,0.000021839527,0.0210924],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9932661,0.0016903557,0.0001327343,0.0006508474,0.0029349125,0.0013250292],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9944143,0.0024660232,0.0004111901,0.0002640778,0.0021978212,0.00024648817],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044054384,0.00016774148,0.00031820062,0.0022816567,0.010667698,0.0063404143,0.0013321881,0.002534875,0.0027336383],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009706886,0.0002439875,0.00027796364,0.0027259688,0.014442292,0.0022269292,0.001536024,0.0034610282,0.00011917213],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000059796484,0.0000017507905,0.00042408367,0.000022680315,0.0000040251653,0.000044230543,0.0020311812,0.00014933877,0.000043616634,0.98403513,0.0060081906,0.0072297887],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032677322,0.000031521526,0.015184893,0.00064186484,0.000056684068,0.00017528342,0.0055699353,0.0012670393,0.00066901685,0.36603305,0.6102077,0.00013030865],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94078225,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9651537,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9290055,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.070994504,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.052798994,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5151036},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1511124634","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1168","title":"Narrowing Interjurisdictional Immunity","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Federalism; Law; Doctrine; Jurisdiction; Political science; Sovereign immunity; Qualified immunity; Legislation; Federal jurisdiction; Law and economics; Economics; Politics","score_opus":0.06306659848464101,"score_gpt":0.34385479943709313,"score_spread":0.2807882009524521,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1511124634","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":[0.06547581,0.007420304,0.04224424,0.022713488,0.00093322713,0.00008132598,0.00008258131,0.00011363607,0.86093545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9500812,0.0019416395,0.005410591,0.010807368,0.0003185262,0.000049025664,0.00004793216,0.00005278686,0.03129094],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9912298,0.0011674248,0.0002741193,0.0013983377,0.0039149304,0.00201545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951768,0.0018395123,0.0002714181,0.0008380347,0.0015478507,0.00032635283],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0052463165,0.00027827415,0.00051131856,0.0019216521,0.0071063773,0.0057052225,0.0031588117,0.0041330867,0.005182411],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011535412,0.00038117325,0.0007851645,0.001095632,0.019786125,0.005553729,0.0069943704,0.009105743,0.0006553993],"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":[0.000002991236,0.000005532236,0.0002251335,0.000011446543,0.0000018554118,0.00005519028,0.0011430746,0.00012985292,0.00014119671,0.9922748,0.001508791,0.004500004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017344448,0.000045070443,0.0029482795,0.00044628652,0.000042492138,0.0004094104,0.002819073,0.0018680146,0.0017147646,0.6481374,0.34149086,0.00006103348],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09936544,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.14590694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09936544,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014130264,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01709041,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19757414},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1515441809","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1008","title":"A Kindler, Gentler Supreme Court?: The Case of Burns and the Need For a Principled Approach To Overruling","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Order (exchange); Scope (computer science); Law and economics; Sociology; Economics; Computer science","score_opus":0.09241839410031798,"score_gpt":0.35808402014848256,"score_spread":0.26566562604816457,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1515441809","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":[0.026458763,0.009718354,0.02048607,0.7521044,0.0017523433,0.000075161086,0.000050522594,0.00007908248,0.18927528],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66760075,0.003707128,0.013986103,0.27752903,0.0019547679,0.00019659934,0.00003205016,0.000110826484,0.03488278],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98346925,0.0075511336,0.0004112965,0.00228934,0.004029044,0.0022500316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9886079,0.007437564,0.0004618053,0.0011492602,0.0015251514,0.00081825256],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021978745,0.00034055384,0.0008274813,0.0016218425,0.014894464,0.011411097,0.0032022456,0.01876297,0.0036214446],"category_scores_gemma":[0.041336223,0.0008104974,0.0008534884,0.0012341335,0.038314067,0.013246012,0.0059406217,0.024689265,0.00071336795],"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":[0.0000068424315,0.00000757235,0.00017216502,0.000018993762,0.000005165559,0.000118461765,0.0014494439,0.0001014076,0.000056402117,0.9794143,0.01425449,0.0043947385],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033896064,0.000017884811,0.00034384552,0.00021277796,0.000013793528,0.00025559956,0.0023954639,0.0004963483,0.0002545349,0.9004073,0.09553182,0.000036609443],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.035240274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07291564,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.035240274,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007376963,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0147502525,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11623615},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1516910803","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1040","title":"Should the Left Hand Get What the Right Hand's Got?: Government Information Sharing, Criminal Investigation, and Privacy Rights","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"Charter; Supreme court; Government (linguistics); Law; Right to privacy; Political science; Brother; Variety (cybernetics); Constitutional right; The Right to Privacy; Human rights; Computer science","score_opus":0.038180528517461516,"score_gpt":0.2823492758539923,"score_spread":0.24416874733653077,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1516910803","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":[0.17853425,0.025612185,0.0017227493,0.33932868,0.00019345521,0.00003623463,0.00020210902,0.000013141648,0.4543572],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97715193,0.0056841946,0.00025098145,0.0073705777,0.000115404844,0.00001034391,0.00002234828,0.000004577781,0.009389687],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971187,0.0007722993,0.00004760215,0.00014546669,0.00084480457,0.0010712513],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958364,0.0024103075,0.00043097752,0.00012506962,0.00070168404,0.0004955856],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031557966,0.00017465554,0.00025347542,0.0013793317,0.008998958,0.008942104,0.00079707353,0.005022439,0.005574863],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0060892017,0.00017866115,0.00025855406,0.0022346526,0.02956894,0.005105996,0.002282677,0.002948061,0.0002522026],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000017687109,0.000043118216,0.0050140154,0.000058238104,0.000009033347,0.0002636675,0.010475085,0.00022023858,0.00007948653,0.95817,0.011758623,0.013890851],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032609667,0.000038248676,0.036218632,0.0007218696,0.000054898115,0.00039589324,0.06619556,0.0007159726,0.0003113092,0.7716211,0.1236269,0.000067027635],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.72785056,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7665186,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.72785056,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020964818,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03213267,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5475043},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1519182674","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1074","title":"Reversal of Fortune: Litigating Health Care Reform in Auton v. British Columbia","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Legal guardian; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Public administration; Health care; Guardian","score_opus":0.04945784528826,"score_gpt":0.420908958683877,"score_spread":0.371451113395617,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1519182674","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":[0.35572013,0.005460141,0.00197095,0.1570795,0.0004660069,0.0002491272,0.0001370138,0.00006048236,0.47885665],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9229581,0.00095571607,0.0005173159,0.03906416,0.00008169767,0.0000891731,0.00003767011,0.000014174848,0.03628202],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98831546,0.0024758407,0.0002479336,0.00077821314,0.002763913,0.0054187705],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99461645,0.0030870393,0.00024647173,0.00020952824,0.00096139807,0.00087909243],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005965931,0.0003272684,0.00054121786,0.0015004562,0.029530255,0.012758887,0.0023207178,0.015831945,0.0034509022],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015857583,0.0006732621,0.00056503084,0.0016319939,0.013943898,0.0024164852,0.004471824,0.014380904,0.0003298897],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00012393201,0.0001313729,0.0102779465,0.00011990706,0.000057209556,0.005962129,0.03526428,0.0017367986,0.0018157985,0.8745642,0.045923263,0.024023177],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00063001044,0.00043433215,0.06090806,0.0009838081,0.00031230322,0.0026360112,0.083695225,0.009386063,0.005562472,0.22979918,0.604967,0.0006855045],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9258572,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9566393,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9394393,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.060560677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09347029,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4394005},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1519322393","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1250","title":"From Saumur to L. (S.): Tracing the Theory and Concept of Religious Freedom under Canadian Law","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Scrutiny; Political science; Faith; Religious freedom; Value (mathematics); Sociology; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy; Mathematics; Economic freedom","score_opus":0.024253582818179634,"score_gpt":0.306730881670971,"score_spread":0.2824772988527914,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1519322393","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":[0.12781249,0.027443508,0.004799901,0.16098037,0.00090494094,0.00010547176,0.0007712399,0.00008279813,0.6770993],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9098832,0.008803792,0.003048587,0.009229873,0.00010053723,0.000026399804,0.00014196696,0.00006303122,0.068702556],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99772066,0.00034255374,0.000036543173,0.00022539581,0.0010166797,0.00065816083],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99753594,0.0005897299,0.00010861035,0.00007739208,0.0011775262,0.00051091384],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014928223,0.00038355403,0.00030517197,0.0035057515,0.02695227,0.008817162,0.0011037698,0.002262458,0.006406947],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0052230456,0.00031281885,0.0004153231,0.0033062904,0.01904095,0.0030985344,0.0030787077,0.0033632065,0.00032484657],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000022291802,0.000013591482,0.0034107566,0.000089449975,0.0000064893943,0.00032409045,0.037073273,0.000400271,0.000303269,0.8882748,0.034535747,0.035545904],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011379661,0.000021665805,0.017561853,0.0005661338,0.00002731047,0.00019950178,0.04112677,0.0010736558,0.0004833742,0.081710145,0.857107,0.00011117012],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9957748,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9971154,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16797236,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16797236,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13211502,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9650341},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1519542469","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1064","title":"Institutional Boundaries and Judicial Review: Some Thoughts on How the Court is Going About Its Business: Desperately Seeking Coherence","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legitimacy; Confusion; Consistency (knowledge bases); Ambivalence; Supreme court; Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy); Judicial interpretation; Interpretation (philosophy); Political science; Perspective (graphical); Law; Judicial activism; Law and economics; Judicial review; Sociology; Psychology; Social psychology; Computer science","score_opus":0.051602250117015504,"score_gpt":0.3085362819581307,"score_spread":0.2569340318411152,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1519542469","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015076839,0.051236372,0.041329928,0.804493,0.002061335,0.000097791475,0.000053102227,0.00009580449,0.085555844],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88192755,0.022179183,0.024809632,0.05709651,0.0053295074,0.00036271266,0.000049763075,0.00016776087,0.008077488],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9054863,0.07091875,0.003598908,0.004517147,0.011492045,0.003986805],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8577015,0.10862534,0.0077338615,0.008768817,0.013754411,0.0034159927],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.08691645,0.00034139448,0.0014121749,0.005280918,0.013028122,0.038731996,0.0033031758,0.01411153,0.002084952],"category_scores_gemma":[0.16161387,0.0008137112,0.00089913886,0.0051835845,0.11455846,0.0247449,0.0066329357,0.012504781,0.0004967355],"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":[0.0000038269436,0.0000041325225,0.0001349577,0.000033142078,0.000006129803,0.000017641032,0.0020671866,0.00015364253,0.000028489503,0.9914991,0.002144124,0.003907584],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021087693,0.000009656161,0.00034097457,0.00027492986,0.000006793762,0.00002410827,0.0023925132,0.000255576,0.00006688738,0.95563835,0.04094239,0.000026663522],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02642187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.022409976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08691645,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015245901,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.034481835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45966357},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1521054892","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1177","title":"Resiling from Reconciling?: Musing on R. v. Kapp","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Charter; Disadvantaged; Context (archaeology); Political science; Section (typography); Law; Law and economics; Sociology; Business; History","score_opus":0.07631733068617569,"score_gpt":0.3569624379205901,"score_spread":0.28064510723441444,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1521054892","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021258956,0.006361542,0.010090362,0.59441805,0.003097396,0.00011289669,0.000058103265,0.00021079683,0.3643919],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5531037,0.004490189,0.0067980113,0.35463703,0.0019793324,0.00032402668,0.00005521728,0.00022501199,0.07838756],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9887453,0.005715047,0.00024348205,0.0012372269,0.0021432356,0.0019156935],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951208,0.003265359,0.00016539577,0.00044294464,0.0005975629,0.00040798308],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009804052,0.00054158637,0.00080304104,0.0012085785,0.014709051,0.010661093,0.0027612664,0.019252216,0.004133913],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020184446,0.00054937444,0.0009280518,0.0006797493,0.02397676,0.010466621,0.012496983,0.022819228,0.0009045718],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000015552603,0.000008822715,0.00013940911,0.000021149399,0.0000051904367,0.00037155068,0.0031875495,0.0002168745,0.00009879018,0.9449525,0.043555684,0.007426961],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034445162,0.00005864776,0.00040652463,0.00047021074,0.000020864727,0.00034686446,0.0071028355,0.0010024583,0.00044870735,0.6295925,0.36043444,0.000081628285],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03720411,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.052304424,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9627959,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008333642,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014377159,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.073975146},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1521584503","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1132","title":"Reflecting on a Legacy","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Appeal; Political science; Economic Justice; Sociology","score_opus":0.1032910106572439,"score_gpt":0.3552636618617048,"score_spread":0.25197265120446094,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1521584503","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01276118,0.064267226,0.0011577351,0.6611236,0.027828874,0.00003952868,0.00021330299,0.00009764902,0.23251098],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2423651,0.062180534,0.0015108426,0.26841474,0.009900838,0.00004977265,0.000205874,0.0002728069,0.4150994],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944014,0.0015120404,0.00009236586,0.0006794663,0.0018418921,0.0014728546],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99263823,0.00097355613,0.00027359143,0.00035365476,0.0029956826,0.0027652744],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0051317564,0.0004989657,0.0004984544,0.0015303501,0.027004547,0.014254122,0.001788439,0.004326313,0.01663556],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010666048,0.0002501586,0.0003154697,0.0019447235,0.014232431,0.007832176,0.005160595,0.009201124,0.0030157233],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000019686018,0.000026610098,0.0007276989,0.000087296015,0.000010427066,0.00040125212,0.03541053,0.000033626737,0.00025271697,0.10885802,0.8109956,0.043176603],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000015077522,0.0000050676745,0.0002748078,0.00008810525,0.0000025063468,0.00007513414,0.01103714,0.000005816249,0.000027758255,0.0019143418,0.9865609,0.000006989411],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5110365,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.70256656,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.969742,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030258022,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04553421,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9836862},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1522585872","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1060","title":"Principled Remedial Discretion Under the Charter","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Discretion; Remedial education; Jurisdiction; Law; Supreme court; Judicial discretion; Political science; Government (linguistics); Dissent; Judicial review; Politics","score_opus":0.04585485366702277,"score_gpt":0.32392649519547284,"score_spread":0.2780716415284501,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1522585872","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":[0.04595047,0.0020902155,0.14186527,0.026853126,0.000803055,0.0004146965,0.00027718,0.00039775608,0.7813482],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9023876,0.00060879474,0.04159309,0.0057120197,0.00063560705,0.0003726435,0.00008302035,0.00007323006,0.048533868],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9737476,0.0067144088,0.0012408148,0.003590446,0.011723992,0.0029827617],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9838838,0.00666354,0.0015812502,0.0045307293,0.0027576454,0.00058295205],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015338586,0.00042193048,0.00065590447,0.0012403824,0.0035130305,0.009796578,0.002204665,0.0062617846,0.0042114505],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02355943,0.00050991395,0.0009076604,0.0008120377,0.017910281,0.0055012046,0.0031458552,0.010036399,0.0009431991],"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":[0.0000043967643,0.0000059920153,0.00008184286,0.0000076138854,0.0000017935358,0.000021329124,0.00025747434,0.00032086807,0.00012505706,0.9953957,0.0010379256,0.0027399873],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003317588,0.00006448096,0.00061418395,0.00010887978,0.00001249091,0.00011301199,0.00019367652,0.002032743,0.00075009034,0.93234694,0.06365845,0.00007184945],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0097628515,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012921002,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015338586,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005774979,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012795282,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08111918},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1522670710","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1232","title":"Section 7 of the Charter and the Principled Assignment of Legislative Jurisdiction","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Political science; Law; Context (archaeology); Democracy; Supreme court; Legitimacy; Denial; State (computer science); Public administration; Politics; Psychology","score_opus":0.04174553504976886,"score_gpt":0.3260634755590338,"score_spread":0.28431794050926495,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1522670710","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":[0.0063965125,0.002208182,0.04342906,0.038345344,0.0027769844,0.00062931195,0.001058659,0.00038219383,0.9047738],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.50898904,0.003984207,0.09225667,0.096299864,0.002854979,0.0030119952,0.0013717358,0.00041175314,0.29081964],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96589816,0.006353154,0.0022041758,0.003909522,0.014627778,0.0070072087],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878352,0.0047607087,0.00061946915,0.0016458031,0.004433287,0.00070560933],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015532832,0.0008878194,0.0009118532,0.0015403411,0.01136489,0.011620194,0.0032225654,0.013667952,0.0075729825],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02196729,0.00134063,0.001813677,0.0013509992,0.02764697,0.003566916,0.0037949588,0.013916099,0.0027158777],"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":[0.000008321624,0.0000060154866,0.00009946566,0.000021623546,0.0000029289697,0.00003778125,0.0007570525,0.00015503597,0.00010298746,0.98305744,0.013041315,0.002710101],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000062977226,0.00004115144,0.0013343688,0.00030095482,0.000033752156,0.00019685105,0.0006139118,0.0007462911,0.0008706357,0.33865595,0.65699023,0.0001528594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.66351044,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.628944,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33648956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026475761,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10050241,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6769424},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1525877305","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1081","title":"He Hath a Heart For Harping: Stephen Harper and Election Spending in a Spendthrift Age","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Irony; Equating; Politics; Position (finance); Political science; Law; Law and economics; Economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Finance; Linguistics","score_opus":0.04954696153523744,"score_gpt":0.34504865553957276,"score_spread":0.29550169400433535,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1525877305","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":[0.04177559,0.023429895,0.00066643994,0.7534508,0.0014521626,0.000027516182,0.00014795412,0.00003732324,0.17901225],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62946194,0.012952325,0.0004615004,0.24558997,0.001734889,0.00002533983,0.000042837724,0.000073963885,0.10965724],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9967493,0.0007129599,0.000046623576,0.00027118903,0.0010996929,0.001120283],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9949698,0.0026772004,0.00029749412,0.000102203056,0.0012259133,0.0007274457],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029415945,0.0002537811,0.00038701377,0.0012876324,0.018068673,0.009866342,0.0014259402,0.008468174,0.004512619],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009158828,0.00035251054,0.00029693922,0.0020235337,0.015091031,0.0031418037,0.0014826094,0.008109985,0.0004981155],"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":[0.00002932271,0.000033476732,0.003846272,0.00004094198,0.000017152921,0.0007720383,0.010566223,0.0002771503,0.00016029894,0.55579823,0.4147565,0.013702476],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000044799526,0.00003699073,0.013697363,0.0003939919,0.00005190927,0.00030175512,0.02380077,0.00050912116,0.0007219012,0.096874975,0.8633986,0.00016784569],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8585841,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9278542,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1414159,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027968032,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040938646,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28449738},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1532661443","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1216","title":"The Journalist-Source Privilege in Quebec Civil Law: Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General)","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Privilege (computing); Confidentiality; Context (archaeology); Globe; History; Medicine","score_opus":0.04143474144170627,"score_gpt":0.2844770461666488,"score_spread":0.24304230472494254,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1532661443","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.49331003,0.04594871,0.0020356702,0.11346721,0.0010253727,0.00035506647,0.0019480919,0.00010057996,0.34180918],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9381101,0.005924298,0.0007806918,0.018851792,0.00013075967,0.000056720564,0.00021629548,0.000021579099,0.035907753],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9958443,0.0004933758,0.00011399849,0.00040209715,0.0015830043,0.0015632166],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9929549,0.0028113052,0.00045436533,0.00018015514,0.0026618592,0.0009373153],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0046861176,0.0003468422,0.00039400146,0.0031523409,0.018694876,0.0076332865,0.0020816063,0.006837568,0.003976887],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011130706,0.00042089206,0.00048192573,0.0041022426,0.0064026653,0.0017880745,0.0016682128,0.0043967594,0.00024339711],"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":[0.00026787748,0.00016799208,0.05614172,0.0004905744,0.00015297138,0.0067271474,0.04719883,0.0011426916,0.0018066538,0.64317775,0.1751319,0.067593984],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021875152,0.00019601166,0.25840303,0.0013339819,0.00050098845,0.0016599718,0.047309857,0.002433323,0.0040618284,0.023874698,0.6594203,0.00058728684],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9953112,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984169,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.119176246,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.119176246,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.120567195,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8646882},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1541632163","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1244","title":"Reflecting Culture: Polygamy and the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Charter; Politics; Political science; Sociology; Fundamental rights; Constitutionality; Dignity; Human rights; Multiculturalism","score_opus":0.07417976940743624,"score_gpt":0.3801526344062625,"score_spread":0.30597286499882625,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1541632163","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":[0.15034702,0.07846236,0.00422407,0.20521419,0.001601644,0.000054247907,0.000117646436,0.00002483932,0.559954],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9582762,0.018435732,0.0005995732,0.009814725,0.0002855337,0.000020296486,0.000022776945,0.000012972195,0.012532119],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99341774,0.0038931998,0.000104163286,0.00030250073,0.0016475276,0.00063483446],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9952911,0.0027081545,0.00044909542,0.00023784951,0.0009935364,0.0003202639],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005814452,0.00017379933,0.0002445854,0.0013705806,0.006816901,0.008434893,0.0009022725,0.0016697851,0.0020833039],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00872157,0.0001427639,0.00011555933,0.0021372663,0.024144977,0.004758564,0.002769505,0.0035426987,0.00014299522],"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":[0.0000066886155,0.000011584986,0.0010199451,0.00005745892,0.000004599697,0.000110848174,0.02792761,0.00009981555,0.0000622461,0.93226105,0.012016809,0.02642151],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002265812,0.00007087544,0.015414165,0.0009721494,0.000029554296,0.00033023144,0.08888989,0.0003995485,0.000445848,0.28458878,0.60876167,0.000074653486],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.34876904,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.42743716,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.34876904,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01110681,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015309007,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.693478},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1545562636","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1224","title":"To What End the Dialogue?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Mainstream; Restructuring; Perspective (graphical); Political science; Duty; Law; Transparency (behavior); Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.10160000435219092,"score_gpt":0.3372321385744745,"score_spread":0.23563213422228357,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1545562636","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005910278,0.015592319,0.011396879,0.6552047,0.004343957,0.000098716555,0.00011222937,0.00009793777,0.307243],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63759595,0.012878636,0.010405717,0.20286274,0.0031522221,0.00036642395,0.00020428884,0.00028201,0.132252],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9757194,0.01545218,0.00057087064,0.0019147822,0.00311221,0.0032305804],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98853475,0.004645043,0.0007144263,0.000645633,0.0030360555,0.002423971],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015418391,0.0005252015,0.0007198389,0.0014220645,0.016044535,0.021089172,0.002730367,0.010712848,0.0100501105],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025927186,0.00031782012,0.0005287381,0.0012168278,0.027062826,0.017797504,0.007307408,0.013666242,0.0042011305],"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":[0.000013565437,0.000023103616,0.0003615175,0.00011721074,0.000008857683,0.00022912644,0.042304963,0.00004606751,0.0001498092,0.8766608,0.060869724,0.019215265],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011959891,0.00001606539,0.00036580468,0.00057833677,0.000009426576,0.00017952512,0.060289,0.000115625604,0.00018765454,0.29814267,0.6400818,0.000022074499],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05040322,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04974107,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05040322,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016045416,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030806884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11641818},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1545588899","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1183","title":"The Constitutional Status of the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":19,"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":"Constitution; Supreme court; Law; Statute; Parliamentary sovereignty; Political science; Parliament; Sovereign immunity; Separation of powers; Politics","score_opus":0.03048684956872575,"score_gpt":0.2914957824644766,"score_spread":0.26100893289575083,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1545588899","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":[0.03416292,0.008593539,0.0014509995,0.042972606,0.0007832379,0.00006887411,0.0010490761,0.00007157302,0.91084725],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9030325,0.004888509,0.0014592352,0.012451112,0.0005282027,0.00007156747,0.00057295844,0.00004766635,0.0769482],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.990571,0.00089688366,0.00024278743,0.0013316773,0.0037476544,0.0032099793],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99250025,0.0017805954,0.00037424566,0.00035670336,0.0037650834,0.0012231517],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037080385,0.00029842442,0.00050631823,0.0027180586,0.019822424,0.015201371,0.0018670567,0.0036155959,0.011905808],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014982215,0.0005018758,0.00037339958,0.004264993,0.013359189,0.0031146633,0.0024944854,0.0064807734,0.00079425535],"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":[0.000008026094,0.0000029228313,0.0005500224,0.000014372089,0.0000058263636,0.000048962756,0.00082705624,0.000062366904,0.000070383765,0.981233,0.013330202,0.0038468752],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000057013458,0.000020730118,0.011429769,0.0006165266,0.00009198755,0.0000799891,0.0026673118,0.0009042045,0.0004400034,0.2203199,0.76323164,0.00014084305],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94757855,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96808404,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.094563894,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.094563894,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1138581,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6861123},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1546324725","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1077","title":"Religious Commitment and Identity: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Conscience; Charter; Law; Freedom of religion; Plaintiff; Identity (music); Sociology; Political science; Construct (python library); Human rights; Philosophy","score_opus":0.02568574303801228,"score_gpt":0.3362930668798159,"score_spread":0.3106073238418036,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1546324725","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":[0.37093848,0.0030736036,0.0005927643,0.12507911,0.000982541,0.00017403171,0.00012174657,0.000038788312,0.4989989],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8202499,0.0008941342,0.00026479954,0.06174553,0.00038925686,0.000116592775,0.00005174079,0.00001463818,0.11627339],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99555725,0.000615282,0.00008804557,0.00045228773,0.0013496542,0.001937531],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99733174,0.00091971544,0.00020374727,0.00015554797,0.00038067068,0.0010084879],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043269265,0.0002889302,0.0005144459,0.00077461445,0.02294237,0.006190892,0.0025157412,0.011493687,0.00898213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0064767194,0.00047733486,0.000585584,0.00063457404,0.007742418,0.002471981,0.0058703036,0.014912162,0.00059036317],"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":[0.00017284552,0.0004003779,0.016428443,0.00013324228,0.00005197956,0.012000838,0.043482047,0.00035295627,0.0019019954,0.8033191,0.09657585,0.025180303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000449296,0.0005517604,0.06736954,0.0011250819,0.00013656252,0.003110165,0.06219024,0.002068786,0.002980363,0.06317366,0.79654866,0.00029586194],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46536365,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6821637,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46536365,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016038295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016211135,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9253099},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1547212481","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1121","title":"The Charter and Protection against Wrongful Conviction: Good, Bad or Irrelevant?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Deception detection and forensic psychology","field":"Psychology","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Conviction; Charter; Law; Political science; Jurisprudence; Criminal law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.05512573871194601,"score_gpt":0.31930277796774637,"score_spread":0.2641770392558004,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1547212481","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":[0.05026821,0.037225895,0.0034268387,0.57812226,0.0035831674,0.000056095432,0.00020932767,0.0000733566,0.3270349],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9221374,0.017242443,0.000956516,0.03828675,0.0014386007,0.000021160484,0.00006807549,0.000039032715,0.019809991],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9799842,0.0040641665,0.00047855303,0.0010528895,0.008858096,0.0055620545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96126103,0.015664298,0.0047987313,0.002412788,0.012089041,0.003774039],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015363373,0.00044284196,0.00084097113,0.0034197222,0.013361823,0.014336558,0.0028143602,0.00617925,0.007011238],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05012277,0.00038188486,0.0007279196,0.0032151681,0.051232073,0.008246855,0.0051958123,0.010949493,0.00048557058],"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":[0.000035194567,0.00003241206,0.0061136656,0.00020820527,0.000035963443,0.00023746536,0.008231078,0.00040107497,0.00007951765,0.9093327,0.028429003,0.046863712],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007599694,0.0001695354,0.06410835,0.0032051508,0.00028274904,0.00051120704,0.044522565,0.0010931663,0.0010113386,0.3890952,0.4955338,0.00039094882],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8267772,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86901116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17322278,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0542677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10415053,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3937416},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1554265050","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1188","title":"How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere?: State Inquiries into Sincerity of Religious Belief","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"Sincerity; Supreme court; Plaintiff; Law; Government (linguistics); State (computer science); Charter; Jurisprudence; Political science; Establishment Clause; Sociology; First amendment; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.03357084138449772,"score_gpt":0.32650249332713077,"score_spread":0.29293165194263304,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1554265050","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.36703503,0.0502586,0.0012440558,0.28499037,0.00057167764,0.000064552914,0.00016130389,0.00001543966,0.29565886],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96852183,0.0068366467,0.00018418772,0.017553406,0.00013127088,0.0000144244,0.000029457167,0.0000029792843,0.0067258324],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9960898,0.0021121665,0.0001066745,0.0002490147,0.00087372126,0.00056864484],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9881203,0.008913608,0.00080423016,0.00027440686,0.0015168667,0.00037063003],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007753288,0.00008750267,0.00026556608,0.00093164935,0.0065573435,0.0050522694,0.00092720124,0.003851657,0.0013730995],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021035088,0.00027157273,0.00022205508,0.001250192,0.012551101,0.003573209,0.0015885797,0.004876364,0.00019376645],"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":[0.00010262992,0.0001555167,0.053657185,0.00038390674,0.000048548525,0.0019243046,0.085870154,0.00031088054,0.0007281415,0.7194358,0.048461564,0.08892137],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012680177,0.0002231757,0.1594636,0.0025668484,0.00021933088,0.0014256856,0.1886975,0.0008247676,0.0024885368,0.22317442,0.42061082,0.00017857188],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29545894,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5360328,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29545894,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007563957,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019658284,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5874784},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1556299623","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1260","title":"Access to Charter Justice","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Economic Justice; Political science; Business; Civil rights; Affect (linguistics); Quality (philosophy); Procedural justice; Law; Law and economics; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.07897038468263232,"score_gpt":0.36867579891541974,"score_spread":0.2897054142327874,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1556299623","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":[0.07275463,0.0038227092,0.0022268957,0.08889888,0.00041300224,0.00010603781,0.0011608048,0.00010128857,0.8305157],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91332906,0.0022595741,0.0014355578,0.010450328,0.00023126301,0.000040343697,0.0003208871,0.000046621946,0.07188631],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98643076,0.001113328,0.0002341786,0.00086438446,0.007549941,0.0038074234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98117024,0.0033058436,0.0010871033,0.0012315271,0.00897037,0.004235032],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0054968493,0.00020860585,0.0003881429,0.0024698607,0.015152053,0.010274492,0.0018979423,0.0022136318,0.024535319],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027924204,0.00025216342,0.0003783002,0.0023101454,0.008274254,0.0036227282,0.0041916417,0.00477573,0.0007356205],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000022641743,0.00003405859,0.008270348,0.00007682823,0.000016050839,0.00019855982,0.0071547898,0.0004186041,0.00030768156,0.8428507,0.077473156,0.063176624],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002086945,0.0000515573,0.056081183,0.0003911013,0.000027611954,0.00017752807,0.008346522,0.0007054081,0.00034569085,0.08290416,0.8508198,0.00012860342],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95353717,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97987854,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95353717,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.064160064,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13600509,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46551603},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1557654657","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1192","title":"The Defence of Responsible Communication","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"Cornerstone; Statement (logic); Harm; Law; Political science; Mass media; Supreme court; Privilege (computing); State (computer science); Democracy; Public interest; Freedom of expression; Human rights; History","score_opus":0.03385873005137067,"score_gpt":0.35207381360098183,"score_spread":0.31821508354961114,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1557654657","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004763346,0.053080946,0.00932778,0.18907198,0.0031813476,0.00007042885,0.000082023194,0.000049863484,0.7403723],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62294847,0.035801236,0.0050803428,0.16514221,0.010022358,0.0004738163,0.00009636293,0.0000922486,0.16034296],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97111297,0.010689727,0.0015012522,0.0037080948,0.010452341,0.002535513],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9766154,0.015749699,0.0021627177,0.0026163138,0.0020586732,0.0007971255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015908698,0.000657108,0.0008631871,0.0017143257,0.0061565535,0.013972926,0.0020761646,0.021819344,0.0048087006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026746577,0.00050014205,0.00079972995,0.0012670326,0.0478585,0.009752839,0.006383619,0.016439138,0.001661962],"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":[0.000002672435,0.000002144194,0.00002751461,0.000029877765,0.0000025819606,0.000034169057,0.00062677305,0.000031347216,0.0000286006,0.9907477,0.005918758,0.0025479917],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017324803,0.000025483107,0.0003118244,0.00053888786,0.000011491307,0.00024507227,0.0006058694,0.00015456942,0.00022451842,0.445497,0.55234194,0.000026012023],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.018712046,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013097847,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021819344,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010724797,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016192416,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08413428},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1558630092","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1134","title":"Justice Bertha Wilson and the Politics of Feminism","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Feminism; Solidarity; Economic Justice; Politics; Gender studies; Sociology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.04172104087552561,"score_gpt":0.2889293743908447,"score_spread":0.2472083335153191,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1558630092","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":[0.022679172,0.1177977,0.00055404345,0.5477802,0.0021864814,0.00003567459,0.000100619574,0.000028310904,0.3088377],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6977928,0.035668038,0.0009996529,0.107659735,0.001917035,0.00004847576,0.000047587782,0.000060194918,0.15580639],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9920001,0.0017946993,0.000094211406,0.000523223,0.003303113,0.0022845478],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99449193,0.0025838166,0.0002501495,0.00010379809,0.0017453666,0.0008249404],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004738487,0.00028745257,0.0004147364,0.0024996544,0.025217025,0.008776913,0.0016739969,0.0051503307,0.0031066579],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007843949,0.00031715847,0.0002669231,0.0022851012,0.022965694,0.002018568,0.0017651963,0.0047508464,0.00028650422],"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":[0.000025802441,0.000019327585,0.0016276399,0.00010324678,0.000014341868,0.00041836605,0.01440173,0.00019928571,0.00037776944,0.67308193,0.27652717,0.03320333],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013026305,0.000011724508,0.0059077875,0.00035312132,0.000016307731,0.00011042284,0.011064221,0.00010645432,0.0002693072,0.045682114,0.93642306,0.00004241792],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9440337,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97296077,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.064123385,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.064123385,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08020491,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4652499},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1560408299","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1104","title":"Treaty Interpretation After R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Interpretation (philosophy); Treaty; Philosophy; Political science; Law; Linguistics","score_opus":0.011437769575316135,"score_gpt":0.2546924837478887,"score_spread":0.24325471417257258,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1560408299","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":[0.017410586,0.04578242,0.00298889,0.24974678,0.010969145,0.00023264771,0.00076667394,0.00019356623,0.67190933],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45337254,0.01698171,0.0036193917,0.13804413,0.003727189,0.00026904,0.00027294233,0.00023038629,0.3834827],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99446785,0.000884802,0.00023430525,0.0007225008,0.0025003178,0.0011902781],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99730694,0.0011721211,0.00018432889,0.00014094356,0.0009918892,0.00020379738],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004786078,0.000624751,0.00061582687,0.0014403928,0.012500772,0.004601246,0.002054641,0.0124777965,0.005926005],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012305358,0.00040926362,0.0009612197,0.0017318166,0.0071962336,0.0016826623,0.0015661198,0.01442743,0.0007681993],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000036433154,0.000010173859,0.00030143847,0.00007761155,0.000011678812,0.00062872854,0.0031414565,0.00019959068,0.00066814566,0.72399217,0.2622093,0.008723098],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003009005,0.000020528341,0.0019232259,0.00034586998,0.00004378244,0.0001632303,0.0009986603,0.00022675234,0.00074645417,0.0430846,0.95232487,0.00009181372],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.754379,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.75269777,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24562103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044048738,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03557529,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49413502},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1560490588","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1193","title":"Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. v. Ontario: A Limited Right to Government Information under Section 2(b) of the Charter","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","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":"Charter; Legislation; Freedom of information; Constitutional right; Government (linguistics); Supreme court; Law; Possession (linguistics); Political science; Right to know; Right to privacy; Public administration","score_opus":0.02245867008261149,"score_gpt":0.27133113335754283,"score_spread":0.24887246327493134,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1560490588","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":[0.0460908,0.0045203166,0.002630702,0.1136604,0.00089716987,0.00030312408,0.0021794317,0.00016002425,0.82955796],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49124178,0.004463066,0.004701725,0.08662976,0.00048357842,0.00026020658,0.0007323226,0.00006481076,0.4114226],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9892046,0.00064314116,0.00038841658,0.00081984815,0.0061958083,0.0027482398],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953057,0.0017702125,0.0003696628,0.0002526941,0.0018639505,0.00043764594],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030385933,0.00035825986,0.0004967772,0.0010067726,0.011655812,0.006458011,0.0019723817,0.009472935,0.0061473288],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00758987,0.0007603017,0.0006234213,0.0015624058,0.008460551,0.0022413991,0.0016058795,0.0060973396,0.0008770875],"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":[0.00004282557,0.00002723208,0.0032429725,0.00017200423,0.000018420349,0.0013396324,0.0091232145,0.00027787528,0.0014787157,0.82250327,0.15130216,0.010471574],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012652409,0.000054352757,0.021885093,0.0003804574,0.000093980154,0.00048150678,0.002533118,0.0005458831,0.0012951815,0.044391606,0.9279673,0.0002450248],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9654034,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98737097,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053075638,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.053075638,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09087724,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38509256},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1560995469","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1255","title":"Supreme Court of Canada Equality Jurisprudence and “Everyday Life”","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Rhetoric; Conversation; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.059142146847460095,"score_gpt":0.34073004177769567,"score_spread":0.28158789493023556,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1560995469","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":[0.0139063345,0.053305596,0.0018538745,0.25409427,0.0033779326,0.00012893131,0.00088768144,0.00007152482,0.67237383],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5169954,0.023619141,0.0024773884,0.13304733,0.001797995,0.00023481369,0.0006575394,0.00009660244,0.32107377],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99038786,0.0014181352,0.00038489565,0.0008642967,0.0042096414,0.0027351321],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98998696,0.0042590355,0.00042872358,0.00035873635,0.0038303402,0.001136156],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050274334,0.00046441553,0.0008815318,0.0019939172,0.023326142,0.013246429,0.0029965804,0.012659536,0.010036855],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0144766765,0.00062810094,0.000671546,0.0035941044,0.012151096,0.0030941542,0.002431039,0.009766125,0.0010210022],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000092360815,0.000015624828,0.0005106241,0.000061103296,0.00000731482,0.00018628144,0.0013217378,0.00012226892,0.00006686054,0.9007537,0.09088457,0.0060606925],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003679548,0.000019034707,0.0068985447,0.0006853675,0.00005214567,0.00013420699,0.0025637362,0.00059757463,0.000254624,0.09975431,0.88890284,0.0001008014],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9576216,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9733027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08108176,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08108176,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14459983,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5882921},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1561852027","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1206","title":"Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":22,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisdiction; Separation of powers; Politics; Political science; Original jurisdiction; Order (exchange); Power (physics); Division (mathematics); Supreme Court Decisions; Government (linguistics); Economics","score_opus":0.022254693043086714,"score_gpt":0.29314318709098053,"score_spread":0.27088849404789384,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1561852027","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":[0.065759756,0.024672315,0.02016701,0.32929006,0.0022703318,0.00043470642,0.00023451011,0.00021559872,0.5569557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9199862,0.005535668,0.0071229083,0.04075057,0.00074390526,0.00015553655,0.000068921836,0.00006653259,0.02556977],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9431854,0.018801222,0.0015695852,0.0033696117,0.020611279,0.012462833],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9273206,0.044927802,0.0027231444,0.0021216052,0.018765753,0.0041411496],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04428933,0.0004066859,0.0008723817,0.0036938388,0.03009509,0.02444136,0.0045470353,0.011145453,0.0026370748],"category_scores_gemma":[0.092377484,0.0008924557,0.0006593004,0.004210341,0.01954883,0.006355787,0.008131983,0.013917873,0.00037982932],"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":[0.000033490713,0.00003649051,0.0023609798,0.00015832156,0.000054575063,0.001076191,0.021448003,0.0016855228,0.0006111765,0.8677368,0.07194695,0.032851435],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013901581,0.000044720353,0.009528326,0.0009177933,0.0001433447,0.00021572711,0.014651734,0.003803538,0.0013786871,0.21585056,0.7529872,0.000339288],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90851194,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95502496,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10360749,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10360749,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3120036,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7517285},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1561990829","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1037","title":"Equality As a Charter Value in Constitutional Interpretation","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional interpretation; Value (mathematics); Political science; Epistemology; Philosophy; Law; Mathematics; Linguistics; Statistics","score_opus":0.04065060601314659,"score_gpt":0.35737135052029145,"score_spread":0.3167207445071449,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1561990829","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":[0.008667896,0.0050127693,0.109294154,0.031617925,0.002074218,0.00016146524,0.00022443967,0.00013025038,0.8428169],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8904535,0.002848178,0.04400688,0.008411384,0.0049113524,0.0007932468,0.00021359541,0.00017698598,0.048184842],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97943753,0.011943083,0.00092199305,0.002310929,0.0035047033,0.0018816921],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9908043,0.0057544042,0.000581906,0.0014125713,0.0010533419,0.00039345314],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021373067,0.0005431615,0.0009828348,0.0019710297,0.006249856,0.013922561,0.0019940329,0.006436641,0.0073433444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026380755,0.0006808093,0.0008408517,0.0017097774,0.041533865,0.014470697,0.005325649,0.010724999,0.0012005017],"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":[0.0000014270169,8.1566503e-7,0.000008404138,0.0000028958543,3.8343262e-7,0.0000039664887,0.000094141134,0.00003984157,0.000006389355,0.9986166,0.0006738125,0.00055142946],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000068875156,0.0000055294895,0.000039004994,0.000030711053,0.0000022697611,0.000009716243,0.000071664435,0.00018079158,0.000050792307,0.97884035,0.020756783,0.0000055520577],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0045052306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0042196973,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.021373067,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007472679,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0076794415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11303294},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1562671362","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1096","title":"Section 7 and Administrative Law Deference: No Room at the Inn?","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Deference; Due process; Law; Political science; Charter; Persuasion; Procedural justice; Economic Justice; Natural justice; Context (archaeology); State (computer science); Law and economics; Administrative law; Sociology; Public law; Sources of law; Epistemology; Psychology; Computer science; Social psychology","score_opus":0.04595910244958342,"score_gpt":0.32727778018793663,"score_spread":0.28131867773835323,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1562671362","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":[0.011492836,0.021982314,0.007301857,0.4102493,0.0035792876,0.000054612497,0.00012891673,0.00011657891,0.5450943],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.53858805,0.0145254135,0.006406177,0.25011674,0.0050081606,0.00015596571,0.00020239399,0.00021420637,0.1847829],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9738946,0.0060798526,0.00067887164,0.0018728023,0.010968142,0.006505751],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9828892,0.007713516,0.00079499144,0.0011200474,0.0058619496,0.0016203524],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015268073,0.00045319585,0.0009238841,0.0018488086,0.012348656,0.015803277,0.0036761782,0.015194906,0.00965364],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031070488,0.0006576433,0.0008741757,0.0018926429,0.03897182,0.010601864,0.004016171,0.018603679,0.0015807863],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000040992386,0.0000053812655,0.00009949775,0.000016580681,0.0000022567615,0.00002660085,0.0010083563,0.000041892774,0.000029245757,0.98000336,0.015426726,0.0033360613],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022024782,0.000019908552,0.0016826575,0.00037729528,0.000017168792,0.00008872779,0.0034293425,0.0002499466,0.00019926741,0.5314916,0.46234888,0.00007328213],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.691484,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7447049,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.691484,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03507601,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08286907,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62066585},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1563748291","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1158","title":"A Bismarckian Moment: Charkaoui and Bill C-3","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Immigration; Bill of rights; Immigration law; Parliament; Politics; Law and economics; Constitution; Sociology","score_opus":0.08179690502200804,"score_gpt":0.3224673535718118,"score_spread":0.24067044854980374,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1563748291","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.053192887,0.012683517,0.010184381,0.5346853,0.006667675,0.00015843558,0.00013214984,0.00011950817,0.3821761],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5891947,0.0033024107,0.0045148437,0.33003813,0.0014316528,0.00017162092,0.00005228295,0.00007924315,0.071215086],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99296796,0.0020808002,0.00027666107,0.0010343833,0.0020630867,0.0015771779],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9954711,0.0029485058,0.00024978924,0.0003244626,0.0006622144,0.00034395058],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008308228,0.00025438186,0.0004236139,0.00080095325,0.0061126943,0.009242623,0.0012185844,0.013651987,0.002328725],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018406432,0.00038096364,0.0005112233,0.00080457143,0.01057645,0.0062106587,0.0028219058,0.018060379,0.00052570406],"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":[0.0000138442165,0.000006632147,0.00017237748,0.00001789739,0.0000018197418,0.00012625617,0.001164445,0.000052526455,0.00013581089,0.9757179,0.018142872,0.004447701],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035197005,0.000077640056,0.0021712305,0.0006633193,0.000020730893,0.00041584982,0.003984789,0.0005579384,0.0012490465,0.25250804,0.73821324,0.000102929764],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.040850274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.041762516,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.040850274,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008206499,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01400601,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08122504},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1565791337","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1205","title":"The Capital Markets Perspective on a National Securities Regulator","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Global Financial Regulation and Crises","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":13,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"Australian Government","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Legislation; Law; Business; Political science; Economics; Accounting","score_opus":0.020017615625050673,"score_gpt":0.2558779002140311,"score_spread":0.23586028458898045,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1565791337","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":[0.015927687,0.010361211,0.0047843866,0.1402541,0.0006326476,0.000034361667,0.00016878938,0.00004063989,0.82779616],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79771096,0.009379098,0.0028189146,0.08959441,0.0016516251,0.0001091105,0.00010439254,0.000039111605,0.09859244],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961759,0.00061156513,0.00008498198,0.0007842686,0.0012834888,0.0010597239],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998279,0.00078306755,0.00012469206,0.00010885371,0.0005184974,0.00018585779],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026206132,0.0003324464,0.00036855554,0.0010923294,0.0072655426,0.0080238,0.0010376717,0.009391232,0.0052408325],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004069608,0.00025750362,0.00050402957,0.0013364181,0.015892895,0.0038768935,0.0017892699,0.008565993,0.00054387125],"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":[0.0000011053972,0.0000015201865,0.000058207756,0.0000027057567,6.8072785e-7,0.000020113433,0.000118583455,0.000051390063,0.000020012618,0.99629575,0.0028539042,0.0005761288],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002635891,0.000022322436,0.0013145827,0.00018137832,0.000022623271,0.00014387572,0.0006515915,0.0009920478,0.00028492475,0.6371869,0.35913873,0.000034679604],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.31901783,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2596479,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31901783,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022895632,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031725246,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.63432187},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1569721685","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1167","title":"Interjurisdictional Immunity: The Pendulum Has Swung","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Supreme court; Federalism; Law; Political science; Legislation; CLARITY; Politics","score_opus":0.08908984185563963,"score_gpt":0.31969211829538574,"score_spread":0.23060227643974612,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1569721685","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.050125815,0.09233792,0.0049414616,0.4016939,0.0035185926,0.000044569217,0.0002064798,0.000068228524,0.447063],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7782602,0.023840565,0.0014356123,0.15339921,0.0022766704,0.000040449286,0.00011965827,0.000047678815,0.040579982],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98682433,0.0019121021,0.0003167525,0.0015332474,0.006019896,0.0033935222],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9883383,0.007065345,0.00040443407,0.00048719108,0.0028049566,0.0008997981],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009552323,0.00033903355,0.0007802604,0.0022045162,0.014906644,0.011550144,0.004190923,0.012346114,0.0042935987],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017319301,0.0004101209,0.00056641933,0.0022681896,0.035617203,0.0067839343,0.0039252113,0.012995041,0.00046641126],"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":[0.00000899004,0.000009873712,0.0005001354,0.00006200201,0.000007472776,0.00007890918,0.0018029921,0.00008017514,0.000073011775,0.969386,0.016284443,0.01170608],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006846326,0.00009680351,0.008752114,0.0012553586,0.00012152329,0.00030366558,0.0073011047,0.00047248433,0.00093711383,0.24605812,0.7344883,0.00014489442],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7827783,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8957981,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21722168,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.037087355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0646681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.43700182},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1570709259","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1165","title":"Hislop v. Canada: A Retroactive Look","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Psychology","score_opus":0.06325346545679207,"score_gpt":0.3141698399751598,"score_spread":0.25091637451836774,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1570709259","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":[0.17640218,0.006830354,0.0061451322,0.1320084,0.00059593,0.00033873366,0.00077539193,0.00016869389,0.67673516],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87869954,0.0038701198,0.0026285106,0.052627575,0.0001709584,0.00007503924,0.00012446365,0.000038225768,0.061765533],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9920833,0.00067267695,0.00013179818,0.00064928544,0.0043946616,0.0020683918],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99567956,0.001723273,0.00024826065,0.00021847751,0.0017902167,0.00034010853],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035483134,0.00035660178,0.0004757121,0.0016476248,0.010246038,0.00847365,0.003157995,0.0053402944,0.0032723837],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008938973,0.0005019435,0.00062157377,0.0019127222,0.009884829,0.0026535843,0.0018316713,0.0076772985,0.00023478904],"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":[0.000047545538,0.000022462049,0.003423163,0.0000836399,0.00002816593,0.0011882549,0.004517054,0.00061513623,0.0006769249,0.9442765,0.028132914,0.01698811],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002328363,0.00030941435,0.032720383,0.001390015,0.00051982864,0.0013252192,0.026953848,0.008726359,0.009877558,0.32093057,0.5964861,0.00052791554],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9411298,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9685458,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.058870196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.048274282,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0924991,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35025603},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1571323056","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1259","title":"(Ab)Originalism and Canada’s Constitution","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":19,"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":"Originalism; Constitution; Treaty; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional interpretation; Law; Political science; Constitutional law; Relation (database); Law of the land; Sociology; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.04329375384612381,"score_gpt":0.3276469139933314,"score_spread":0.2843531601472076,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1571323056","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":[0.034795843,0.004249295,0.002955452,0.05262075,0.0004278828,0.00006357954,0.00058079645,0.000062223815,0.90424424],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9096084,0.001988022,0.002530827,0.013347826,0.00018526707,0.0000596233,0.00022477064,0.00005039999,0.07200485],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927382,0.0008292339,0.00015772808,0.00088319526,0.0031623342,0.0022291967],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99486417,0.0014677709,0.0002907977,0.00047132626,0.0024471655,0.00045876042],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00407821,0.00020789776,0.0003481833,0.0016092415,0.015270792,0.009173462,0.0014303406,0.0033755486,0.0063458756],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00841367,0.00023982495,0.0003787787,0.002829478,0.024098277,0.0018424813,0.0022827617,0.0046297666,0.00032858332],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000039042766,0.0000021283374,0.00023764498,0.000013431763,0.0000020012858,0.000035720303,0.0014584298,0.000073193136,0.00003567312,0.9889292,0.006840988,0.0023676807],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000052629202,0.000017234372,0.008230446,0.00036587624,0.00004595613,0.00018612767,0.0034816684,0.0006509015,0.000352217,0.28917208,0.6973635,0.0000814013],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9604872,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9718935,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06486953,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06486953,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1095252,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4706636},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1573619801","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1228","title":"Not a General Regulatory Power: A Comment on Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Reproductive Health and Technologies","field":"Medicine","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":"Statute; Law; Constitution; Federalism; Reproduction; Political science; Supreme court; Parliament; Power (physics); Law and economics; Sociology; Politics; Biology","score_opus":0.17150874447814732,"score_gpt":0.36501975246843993,"score_spread":0.1935110079902926,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1573619801","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016724318,0.005308247,0.0009409483,0.9502382,0.010597149,0.0000446558,0.00019063347,0.00007618052,0.030931419],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.010754437,0.0011140177,0.0004808585,0.96745604,0.0049863593,0.000063204534,0.000029258426,0.0000424659,0.0150734205],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97343314,0.00609013,0.002087422,0.005685603,0.00864268,0.0040609674],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95651525,0.033971388,0.0011660053,0.0011117795,0.0063092047,0.0009263001],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02070648,0.0013082867,0.0026332051,0.0015800912,0.01951562,0.012500266,0.012005699,0.12807901,0.005062707],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05107725,0.0018155125,0.0040814434,0.002619351,0.019010507,0.008980811,0.004602812,0.09698643,0.0032055746],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000043384727,0.000030734816,0.00036017437,0.00013930646,0.00002592301,0.00083585386,0.003769647,0.0003004102,0.0004503163,0.32586685,0.6631123,0.0050651864],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006877154,0.000068881156,0.0011865947,0.0008375895,0.000078097386,0.00041350845,0.0030226668,0.00085191394,0.0008308086,0.04818555,0.9441932,0.00026238014],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3543964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.41013297,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6456036,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028648375,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040358935,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7046672},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1574130912","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1239","title":"The Patchwork Principle against Self-Incrimination under the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Self-incrimination; Law; Duty; Charter; Context (archaeology); Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Privilege (computing)","score_opus":0.05507499220620852,"score_gpt":0.34185948861229226,"score_spread":0.2867844964060837,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1574130912","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":[0.051569056,0.0062486352,0.09867246,0.066671506,0.0012995935,0.0003341505,0.00017596138,0.00018636697,0.77484226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.906631,0.002737514,0.02619795,0.0104763,0.000784441,0.00025537712,0.000062224826,0.00006034771,0.0527949],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9878566,0.0027076174,0.00046076972,0.0017470309,0.0057615116,0.0014664424],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9918725,0.004947873,0.00069477316,0.00081355864,0.001394103,0.0002772439],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0071773096,0.00039877245,0.00055622327,0.0014146719,0.0056691957,0.008531689,0.0018682771,0.008164342,0.002547307],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016476797,0.00038831797,0.00067210523,0.0009834362,0.038597587,0.0045980825,0.0030017232,0.007937957,0.00055058877],"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":[0.0000033095976,0.0000034586644,0.00010687634,0.000008876357,0.0000010662385,0.00005003297,0.00087605085,0.00010401783,0.00006125767,0.99431413,0.0011342823,0.003336559],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025016952,0.000057029585,0.00084789033,0.00016509615,0.000024144945,0.0002945468,0.00070478785,0.0011077871,0.0010817841,0.88303405,0.11260459,0.000053256168],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06731324,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.049391102,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06731324,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010373011,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018148012,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13384289},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1574723685","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1211","title":"Courting Constitutional Danger: Constitutional Conventions and the Legacy of the Patriation Reference","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Justiciability; Supreme court; Law; Political question; Political science; Politics; Veto; Constitutional law; Constitutional court; Convention; Constitutional economics; Constitution; Judicial review; Power (physics); Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.08771034750402737,"score_gpt":0.3139274568977658,"score_spread":0.22621710939373843,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1574723685","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":[0.14242664,0.0188333,0.016883329,0.2565636,0.0011923794,0.00004922101,0.000072555966,0.000074685006,0.5639043],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9775252,0.0018911994,0.0010977483,0.0076894024,0.0004765719,0.000020069208,0.000017064125,0.000022896247,0.011259799],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9878898,0.006676012,0.0003232595,0.0011266071,0.0027694704,0.0012148116],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9881231,0.0078005292,0.00095523364,0.0011097713,0.0015125548,0.00049884286],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013227733,0.00021382679,0.00047545283,0.0018557276,0.01160342,0.01408684,0.0015969214,0.009111458,0.0022732248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02115159,0.00033704037,0.0003403208,0.0017661335,0.058855556,0.01166091,0.0051195477,0.014006347,0.00021197206],"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":[0.0000025505328,0.0000026878663,0.00011859349,0.0000056961526,0.000001552834,0.000059480048,0.004524978,0.000060749637,0.000043246746,0.9916204,0.0011846966,0.0023753252],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021972906,0.000023732244,0.0010487352,0.0001382123,0.000008450999,0.00014422153,0.0054746345,0.00042976043,0.00027021737,0.88638365,0.10601186,0.000044538716],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06671682,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0654736,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06671682,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013363306,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0137742,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13265699},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1582194580","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1127","title":"Expanding Victims’ Rights in the Charter Era and Beyond","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Jurisprudence; Political science; Law; Legislature; Parliament; Substantive rights; Criminal justice; Human rights; Politics","score_opus":0.05504296271259491,"score_gpt":0.3383533561587946,"score_spread":0.2833103934461997,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1582194580","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":[0.13303322,0.020102048,0.02445076,0.29822123,0.0037034822,0.00014076936,0.00010533158,0.00030099467,0.51994205],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8908102,0.0068621673,0.005840362,0.032983966,0.0025940076,0.00009421714,0.00005757912,0.00012221534,0.06063542],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9864617,0.0054159258,0.00034470577,0.0010987397,0.0037091433,0.0029697348],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9901513,0.004190293,0.001202052,0.0016822522,0.0015930182,0.0011811614],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0138134705,0.0003408795,0.00052625383,0.0017721149,0.011197729,0.013362534,0.002049096,0.0068334625,0.0074221557],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016032148,0.00036542973,0.00072446355,0.001495493,0.03100952,0.013734419,0.010125942,0.0067846575,0.00053406635],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013749034,0.000024446806,0.0005794694,0.000029286075,0.0000027295607,0.0001438114,0.012578794,0.00017317495,0.00018525016,0.9477802,0.008530342,0.029958783],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022779956,0.00010868611,0.002669104,0.000422169,0.000014400526,0.00036934338,0.012111389,0.00030511673,0.0008166734,0.13463561,0.8484374,0.000087257235],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05023202,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06610442,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.949768,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015893603,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025363564,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11531669},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1582917770","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1156","title":"Charkaoui and Secret Evidence","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Supreme court; Argument (complex analysis); Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.08874032144902139,"score_gpt":0.3480590675750206,"score_spread":0.2593187461259992,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1582917770","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0317716,0.03388367,0.030028181,0.17337428,0.0032762827,0.00037087649,0.0002446584,0.000099722056,0.7269507],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.834862,0.010016919,0.010923453,0.072807394,0.0021604307,0.000620382,0.000093982846,0.00007170692,0.06844372],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9547185,0.011970552,0.0023718064,0.0052560787,0.020457206,0.0052257953],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9424446,0.041771177,0.0024844802,0.003700749,0.008242637,0.0013563714],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02891499,0.0005474211,0.0012144767,0.0035249104,0.013437672,0.017870016,0.0031064423,0.0174338,0.0035186135],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07615053,0.0007805761,0.00084791676,0.0028857025,0.03923944,0.01229397,0.0067498633,0.020793302,0.0007701556],"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":[0.000006977563,0.0000039131023,0.00012786564,0.000039382852,0.0000048055936,0.00024864823,0.0008842208,0.00006085773,0.000050881667,0.9908256,0.0050091725,0.0027377545],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034771816,0.00003246686,0.0006028363,0.00094460393,0.00003825418,0.0006382328,0.0018570536,0.00054903585,0.0007470437,0.7101595,0.28430712,0.00008902774],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.077153236,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07832905,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.077153236,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019874843,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029790072,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15340829},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1583043871","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1152","title":"The Shaky Foundation of “Statutory Platforms”: A Comment on Baier v. Alberta","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Statute; Context (archaeology); Supreme court; Legislation; Charter; Law; Political science; Obligation; Public administration; History","score_opus":0.0787740438001787,"score_gpt":0.347654343789321,"score_spread":0.26888029998914226,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1583043871","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018002043,0.0070063034,0.0020916737,0.7202988,0.00497158,0.00010336259,0.00043515777,0.00020486552,0.24688625],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.21655476,0.0023258578,0.0016519916,0.6762039,0.0025785181,0.00014608941,0.00017901913,0.00019510667,0.10016471],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9806107,0.0027181406,0.0004498449,0.0023047514,0.008091484,0.005825138],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9887916,0.0065197316,0.00035408358,0.00042230755,0.0025054996,0.0014068055],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012551225,0.0010138096,0.0011815559,0.0014747446,0.033583578,0.015834218,0.010495368,0.049262453,0.005315946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019576978,0.0018749037,0.0018626038,0.0024753239,0.029281775,0.0058420594,0.00501392,0.05100797,0.0011491659],"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":[0.000063500374,0.000023956505,0.00085613044,0.00006382397,0.000018949746,0.00070498296,0.012674236,0.00036608387,0.00039426456,0.6605464,0.3192433,0.0050443774],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020262049,0.0000612944,0.0059386566,0.00080885814,0.00012023176,0.00032269905,0.01370929,0.0014140208,0.00089554343,0.091561526,0.88456756,0.0003977724],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95513135,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9696586,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06982067,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06982067,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11389704,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5065868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1583191926","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1195","title":"Freedom of Expression and Location: Are There Constitutional Dead Zones?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Commonwealth; Freedom of expression; Political science; Government (linguistics); High Court; Scope (computer science); Expression (computer science); Section (typography); Philosophy; Human rights; Business","score_opus":0.028745747575105944,"score_gpt":0.31092291435199476,"score_spread":0.2821771667768888,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1583191926","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":[0.06043924,0.014119574,0.056452308,0.14355643,0.0010058754,0.00012327281,0.0005958052,0.00012873915,0.7235787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9578021,0.0029079146,0.0060982443,0.011357551,0.000650417,0.00023758967,0.0001528464,0.000066916706,0.02072645],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9905453,0.0034693826,0.0005242358,0.001596611,0.0017521575,0.0021123125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9927918,0.0037459382,0.0006639103,0.0013785565,0.00078530697,0.0006345821],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009214392,0.00065069465,0.0012903719,0.0013945743,0.0072036097,0.016583757,0.0035464715,0.009358595,0.009231351],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015493512,0.0006153554,0.0010555162,0.001786187,0.066209726,0.020644447,0.008739285,0.011356612,0.0013796451],"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":[0.0000042856495,0.0000035091152,0.00006113639,0.000009093275,0.0000017730699,0.000010405934,0.00032092741,0.000044690813,0.000028883436,0.99737775,0.0006211271,0.0015163658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028163573,0.000019424351,0.00040757866,0.00013201972,0.00001201726,0.00005545496,0.0017463155,0.00013996822,0.00018699314,0.9574252,0.039820634,0.000026283578],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01484575,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.014114443,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.016583757,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0066344407,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008694001,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04873091},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1585666025","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1120","title":"Rewriting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Four Suggestions Designed to Promote a Fairer Trial and Evidentiary Process","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Jury; Law; Political science; Jury trial; Substantive due process; Interpretation (philosophy); Law and economics; Sociology; Supreme court; Computer science","score_opus":0.06931021079766578,"score_gpt":0.33675570795127946,"score_spread":0.26744549715361365,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1585666025","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":[0.020743564,0.012716643,0.11340557,0.45907125,0.020371035,0.004219079,0.0009945817,0.0011983465,0.36727998],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2559697,0.0102107255,0.3163557,0.14952078,0.004041788,0.0016830429,0.00064964633,0.0006896683,0.26087904],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9507161,0.008576769,0.0025650316,0.004181804,0.026502956,0.0074573886],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96204346,0.010111279,0.0014566171,0.0031227851,0.02025383,0.0030120187],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03725683,0.0013523811,0.0011532684,0.005067871,0.017701782,0.025241684,0.007154912,0.018055795,0.004858759],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06227205,0.0013491111,0.0022818376,0.0045358753,0.024933401,0.0091108335,0.005654485,0.020560397,0.0015258837],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003586978,0.000042749718,0.00041313574,0.00014628933,0.000009202901,0.00036687942,0.0039843135,0.0011722721,0.00082817074,0.8987134,0.06948256,0.024805231],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001894938,0.00010864957,0.0027470875,0.00062439044,0.00009130105,0.00023430356,0.0030230042,0.003239451,0.0023749983,0.12120604,0.86556613,0.0005952463],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89394534,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9207043,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10605466,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08764462,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24748938,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6359092},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1586149894","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1063","title":"The Quasi-Revival of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Its Implications for Administrative Law","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Bill of rights; Jurisprudence; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Scope (computer science); Administrative law; Substantive rights; Fundamental rights; Substantive due process; Constitutional law; Constitutional right; Law and economics; Human rights; Sociology","score_opus":0.08185562116440448,"score_gpt":0.36085192581595815,"score_spread":0.2789963046515537,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1586149894","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":[0.06881001,0.017035546,0.0086933235,0.2290847,0.00095345895,0.000107462045,0.00038329695,0.00007664118,0.67485565],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88803965,0.0056839893,0.004429459,0.03203734,0.00040315223,0.00006528987,0.000111137975,0.0000594306,0.0691706],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98391217,0.001955557,0.00028245564,0.0013211812,0.009032295,0.0034963791],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9913652,0.0032594933,0.000523779,0.00053823175,0.003562538,0.000750733],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008141214,0.0002534092,0.00045125364,0.0026653758,0.01869215,0.011769171,0.0026444031,0.0049080784,0.0035400318],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019274598,0.0004601245,0.0005777365,0.0032210862,0.031147601,0.0044779396,0.0031865824,0.0077380603,0.00029421173],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004676715,0.0000033811375,0.00031471188,0.000016178185,0.0000023282382,0.000049767066,0.0023369275,0.00009080053,0.000105261075,0.9873052,0.004956338,0.004814332],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030675215,0.000039134124,0.02106886,0.0003436326,0.00003433817,0.0001752278,0.008088644,0.00082148734,0.0007198344,0.30445087,0.66409355,0.0001337321],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9727233,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9819369,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89594895,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10405103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12187801,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7549466},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1586559163","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1137","title":"What is Left of Pelech?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"McGill University","keywords":"Trilogy; Duty; Scholarship; Family law; Economic Justice; Politics; Duty to protect; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Law; Presumption; Political science; Law and economics","score_opus":0.06554885058636634,"score_gpt":0.3457491903961765,"score_spread":0.2802003398098102,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1586559163","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":[0.05956585,0.11521867,0.0021297475,0.61773574,0.004782892,0.000030925523,0.00018495918,0.00008008835,0.20027113],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7338525,0.036470212,0.0009098658,0.17492539,0.0018520495,0.00009372911,0.000117629825,0.000088571505,0.051689968],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9946709,0.0021036828,0.00020642533,0.00068196317,0.0013365223,0.0010003768],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940732,0.0034213066,0.00038806858,0.00022877102,0.0012019541,0.00068670494],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004385065,0.00016462691,0.0006562618,0.0012381726,0.012098493,0.010322301,0.0015289816,0.006531547,0.010145973],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0201778,0.00027681483,0.0003731542,0.0013983792,0.0055583427,0.011666809,0.0039436966,0.006443088,0.0011351239],"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":[0.00016199268,0.00006212198,0.0049744863,0.00074003334,0.0000485039,0.00324555,0.024260918,0.00013499339,0.00062589784,0.5757319,0.19621092,0.19380267],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010553108,0.00004465947,0.0029404992,0.0007111511,0.000037936137,0.0007405316,0.021601938,0.000102796505,0.0007655955,0.046935383,0.9260572,0.000051827734],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.031169055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.028329525,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031169055,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0053767255,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00921383,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06197524},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1588414815","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1021","title":"Section 15(1) at the Supreme Court 2001-2002: Caution and Conflict in Defining “The Most Difficult Right”","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Political science; High Court; Sociology","score_opus":0.036268995179990327,"score_gpt":0.2895490815012053,"score_spread":0.25328008632121496,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1588414815","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":[0.036903236,0.0098333,0.007082754,0.63256425,0.005167281,0.00022455407,0.0025591939,0.00017587355,0.3054896],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.30690312,0.0038096288,0.0142486105,0.58777595,0.0028613403,0.00030082054,0.0006199858,0.00021780595,0.08326275],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95296186,0.0093038175,0.003906403,0.0039990447,0.023137301,0.0066915276],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9665613,0.018698167,0.0017681008,0.00109125,0.009859934,0.0020211784],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028596712,0.0006706096,0.0013771645,0.002266745,0.024475787,0.018243633,0.0064692027,0.031970028,0.0030113996],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05372076,0.0016372671,0.0013429577,0.0031134114,0.018545851,0.005030597,0.003511013,0.03054343,0.0010223497],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000054866483,0.00003419497,0.002983433,0.0002056772,0.000049420938,0.0004997235,0.016686847,0.00044287738,0.00084666425,0.61959034,0.3471583,0.011447594],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011173609,0.000047428908,0.019618634,0.0018053227,0.00018011042,0.0003923988,0.009361868,0.0007325348,0.002718982,0.13510808,0.8295695,0.00035338476],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8582513,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94244057,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8582513,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.053817876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.108549535,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39047784},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1588999869","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1274","title":"The Arbitrariness in “Arbitrariness” (And Overbreadth and Gross Disproportionality): Principle and Democracy in Section 7 of the Charter","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitrariness; Proportionality (law); Charter; Law; Democracy; Supreme court; Normative; Political science; Politics; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology","score_opus":0.01966685127228478,"score_gpt":0.2924388884956059,"score_spread":0.2727720372233211,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1588999869","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":[0.060653247,0.0031184424,0.12172369,0.039934713,0.0010588365,0.00020495828,0.00015315061,0.00021053712,0.7729424],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93516064,0.0008091847,0.019925809,0.009086094,0.000527669,0.00026640802,0.000060813523,0.00011455171,0.03404884],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97201186,0.010179613,0.0009402189,0.0041270643,0.0085855555,0.004155651],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98960274,0.005551739,0.0008344427,0.0016213508,0.0018745583,0.000515217],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021716192,0.00053429627,0.0008029427,0.0016118615,0.011564792,0.014416537,0.002465995,0.0055346447,0.002701062],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021457082,0.0006083812,0.0012497517,0.0012097608,0.07794873,0.0073284134,0.006190698,0.012175513,0.00048978033],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000027707622,0.0000018352081,0.000075046206,0.000004125196,0.0000012635016,0.000013221668,0.00089904637,0.000074979034,0.000038081907,0.9971474,0.00055065594,0.0011917144],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011457643,0.000021235144,0.00066492613,0.00010164515,0.0000130897315,0.000046808673,0.0007929699,0.00053752057,0.00046890887,0.93195003,0.06534964,0.000041898642],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.15534472,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.15093088,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8446553,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017992074,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03845471,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.30888104},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1591118453","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1044","title":"“Sauvé and Prisoners' Voting Rights: The Death of the Good Citizen?”","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"French Historical and Cultural Studies","field":"Arts and Humanities","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 Winnipeg","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Law; Voting; Political science; Legislation; Punishment (psychology); Supreme court; Institution; Psychology; Social psychology; Politics","score_opus":0.03746497556830843,"score_gpt":0.22382366083000232,"score_spread":0.18635868526169388,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1591118453","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":[0.10226396,0.008924493,0.0014743427,0.6152048,0.002198855,0.000028189877,0.00018325224,0.000035212524,0.26968697],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8700523,0.001394747,0.0002517433,0.08085994,0.0011702696,0.000025771331,0.000036025514,0.000017840388,0.0461914],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9966534,0.0017059827,0.00007733525,0.00025573248,0.00034789502,0.00095967064],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99691546,0.0015444112,0.00038399096,0.00021306847,0.00050414196,0.0004389997],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043985215,0.00020446733,0.00025046075,0.0005233867,0.00710593,0.005627361,0.00073029177,0.0087301275,0.0055609024],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010425164,0.0001905926,0.00027970012,0.0004097598,0.009383207,0.003913515,0.0017955893,0.006259151,0.0006521928],"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":[0.000092322065,0.000029345641,0.0065796096,0.00004968494,0.000014978584,0.0006449297,0.014433728,0.00007572293,0.00018017697,0.75482994,0.20344055,0.019629087],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000075458345,0.00012075357,0.030974193,0.00067372515,0.000055214092,0.0010208522,0.036519278,0.0004599755,0.0012260277,0.17008246,0.7587025,0.00008951608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.031801686,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07710755,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031801686,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0021498348,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0028084368,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0632332},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1592472654","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1231","title":"Attending to Equality: Criminal Law, the Charter and Competitive Truths","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Criminal justice; Theory of criminal justice; Criminal law; Political science; Injustice; Law; Criminology; Blame; Economic Justice; Sociology; Psychology; Social psychology","score_opus":0.07313222658495395,"score_gpt":0.3709494384680501,"score_spread":0.2978172118830962,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1592472654","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":[0.07232247,0.013604125,0.008289685,0.40898147,0.002693182,0.00004760524,0.000033947974,0.00004736139,0.49398023],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96392936,0.0018876318,0.00089279003,0.016668202,0.0011329165,0.000038415947,0.000013310629,0.000032576834,0.015404865],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9715286,0.018511666,0.0005176871,0.0017563014,0.004098638,0.0035872448],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98529667,0.0095620835,0.0017294042,0.00093044905,0.0009979401,0.0014834238],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016384862,0.00039418743,0.00061410863,0.0016659978,0.029962964,0.022310907,0.001955263,0.009431944,0.006822749],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027773008,0.0002877484,0.00043771416,0.002169733,0.11416412,0.025104476,0.015125428,0.013586885,0.00044385414],"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":[0.000003644248,0.0000082476645,0.00012672678,0.000012990875,9.742589e-7,0.00007051006,0.0144996345,0.00003986255,0.00001276213,0.9767692,0.005118148,0.0033373402],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014050348,0.000019364255,0.0006360207,0.00021838248,0.0000037758123,0.00013652687,0.038314275,0.00019410749,0.00012198374,0.8236025,0.13671307,0.000025922473],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.018452512,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017156523,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.029962964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0138161015,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01185202,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10024333},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1593236386","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1196","title":"Canada v. Khadr: Reflections on the Use of International Law in the Repatriation Litigation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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; Supreme court; Original jurisdiction; Political science; Jurisdiction; International law; International court; Repatriation; Public international law","score_opus":0.0764961718121801,"score_gpt":0.3510802961400131,"score_spread":0.274584124327833,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1593236386","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":[0.023253974,0.026128188,0.0022193613,0.4242492,0.0014716332,0.0000920428,0.00014960922,0.000059402697,0.5223766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6949399,0.02004361,0.0029158837,0.20916858,0.0012752038,0.00014206275,0.00008626491,0.00013878246,0.071289636],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9736191,0.0056641838,0.000726054,0.0024448,0.009398979,0.008146735],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9829752,0.011342538,0.0005134472,0.000483962,0.0033343916,0.0013504524],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017764175,0.0005424615,0.0011971404,0.0041943914,0.0369214,0.029494133,0.004998574,0.026117254,0.0051583136],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027079105,0.0010644135,0.0011797139,0.005754067,0.05541071,0.010628781,0.007983692,0.0277957,0.0004747798],"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":[0.000007653793,0.000012446042,0.0002729393,0.000058073845,0.000008019706,0.00036094015,0.014413484,0.00011557021,0.000100811834,0.95715743,0.021934709,0.0055579105],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007679153,0.00004734631,0.0049437396,0.0013245749,0.00007463553,0.00059812807,0.06323942,0.00088953285,0.0008756576,0.19253784,0.73506534,0.0003270094],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9426219,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9663675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.107885316,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.107885316,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13724592,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7827664},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1594900901","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1140","title":"Justice Bertha Wilson: A Classically Liberal Judge","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Liberalism; Economic Justice; Classical liberalism; Law; Dissenting opinion; Sociology; State (computer science); Law and economics; Feminism; Political science; Epistemology; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.12039602237513411,"score_gpt":0.37005412232146506,"score_spread":0.24965809994633095,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1594900901","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":[0.03274262,0.010167706,0.024622867,0.36308268,0.0085600335,0.00010808189,0.00007419963,0.00018002391,0.56046176],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6402815,0.0021460878,0.010167251,0.15236573,0.0028947566,0.00011723751,0.00003153865,0.00016424188,0.19183177],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9898902,0.0035260662,0.00027410072,0.0016053203,0.003301426,0.001402845],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9942761,0.0034106672,0.00026525228,0.00029390195,0.0013101676,0.0004438354],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0053657615,0.00045747156,0.00045358177,0.0011311705,0.011346679,0.008517152,0.0013003733,0.0100393,0.0028540837],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01761197,0.0005012595,0.00044394578,0.0007810653,0.018521115,0.006982448,0.0026903744,0.011839953,0.00091185403],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000121339235,0.000011341859,0.0001432844,0.000018407653,0.0000040528325,0.00017702898,0.0026541476,0.00012436138,0.00016828565,0.94198453,0.048483964,0.0062185824],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016463813,0.000033487097,0.0003107559,0.00012546881,0.000011990102,0.00022882868,0.0023791923,0.00064656837,0.00071004505,0.48188096,0.5135813,0.00007495629],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03264738,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05147968,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9673526,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008262102,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009033822,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0649147},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1595154483","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1048","title":"Inclusive Equality and New Forms of Social Governance","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Dignity; Jurisprudence; Welfare state; Law and economics; Ideology; Liberalism; Neoliberalism (international relations); Social rights; Constitutional court; Supreme court; State (computer science); Law; Human rights; Sociology; Constitution; Politics","score_opus":0.05309269584456907,"score_gpt":0.3665112701150699,"score_spread":0.31341857427050085,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1595154483","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":[0.06294943,0.01691448,0.09077872,0.07118423,0.00049160956,0.00012530838,0.000043374937,0.00007595308,0.75743693],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97518176,0.0032384081,0.006698478,0.0022574284,0.00028876791,0.00011994915,0.000020862613,0.000016880917,0.012177442],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9864001,0.0075445236,0.00049326447,0.0015032041,0.0025939064,0.0014650415],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9942145,0.003143537,0.00076292874,0.0009336435,0.00046178742,0.00048363258],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012253383,0.00032136394,0.00065217906,0.0020470873,0.0047459677,0.012135903,0.0015246818,0.002473743,0.0027975529],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009339323,0.0003160983,0.00048129607,0.0014142892,0.061398666,0.011082106,0.01094707,0.0038644408,0.00023275382],"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":[8.3450095e-7,0.0000025190975,0.00007453601,0.00000788286,0.0000020510258,0.000011075884,0.00082233973,0.00011440778,0.000017135371,0.9968592,0.00013987396,0.0019481811],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000035745234,0.0000068881823,0.00030728627,0.000042054424,0.0000026010273,0.000016018452,0.00081680896,0.00016507816,0.000041346128,0.9809733,0.01762157,0.000003467373],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033976503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0043236515,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012253383,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0068029584,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005269221,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.064802885},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1595427107","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1139","title":"A Due Measure of Fear in Criminal Judgment","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Jurisprudence; Ethos; Law; Criminal law; Criminal justice; Criminal procedure; Political science; Psychology; Criminology; Sociology","score_opus":0.06924627767013986,"score_gpt":0.3285294828042192,"score_spread":0.2592832051340793,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1595427107","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":[0.06360963,0.016157985,0.036673293,0.25994807,0.0036026286,0.00010142627,0.000045482484,0.000084966545,0.6197765],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9696368,0.0017788212,0.0019398219,0.018688155,0.0014302318,0.000076875636,0.000011140525,0.0000341023,0.0064041414],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9624091,0.022764016,0.0013224753,0.0025348614,0.008366148,0.0026033274],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97476995,0.0139198555,0.0028521523,0.0029295236,0.0038688965,0.0016595211],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023278253,0.0003977779,0.00072019774,0.0022412657,0.0062443474,0.013074324,0.001261994,0.005174745,0.0030680045],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06071891,0.00039851747,0.00086910155,0.0010538392,0.0733569,0.012264694,0.006163904,0.009824376,0.00045841295],"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":[0.00001715179,0.000021736114,0.00063825643,0.0000370284,0.000011610352,0.000038222977,0.002630818,0.00009529966,0.00010889918,0.9868989,0.0026987283,0.0068033016],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020388821,0.00004742944,0.0023174032,0.00017905148,0.000011719642,0.00014332535,0.00281479,0.00026647776,0.00016925081,0.9642538,0.029739005,0.000037226448],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0038400055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003575765,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.023278253,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007190029,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006009093,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.123108625},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1596931111","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1099","title":"Paramountcy and Tobacco","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Legislature; Political science; Federal law; Ultra vires; Substantive law; State (computer science); Doctrine; Legislation","score_opus":0.0234662079744304,"score_gpt":0.3135492746709587,"score_spread":0.29008306669652834,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1596931111","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":[0.023358079,0.018372323,0.0056688827,0.070821024,0.0033483112,0.00008587942,0.00022758982,0.00014089108,0.8779771],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4835549,0.009242347,0.0034499115,0.066146575,0.0019156508,0.0001843279,0.00026491098,0.00023372236,0.43500757],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977683,0.0005869446,0.000075634925,0.00054586853,0.0005818362,0.00044134236],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988305,0.00048611,0.00009001779,0.00020987508,0.00019117199,0.00019233138],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002838736,0.00025981583,0.0003952542,0.0006969168,0.005594107,0.005506785,0.0008646165,0.0040132483,0.016100813],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005418978,0.00027602524,0.00046431329,0.00092645147,0.008809281,0.0033316717,0.0040688952,0.0075384458,0.0027608487],"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":[0.000011611507,0.000014218252,0.00076360663,0.000027588809,0.0000041780936,0.000079842896,0.0011065586,0.000039102077,0.00016159764,0.9723904,0.013345506,0.012055677],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000143995285,0.000029351711,0.0019104864,0.00017724473,0.000013845106,0.00019267092,0.00066394015,0.00014675703,0.00054379785,0.18509397,0.81119555,0.000017956996],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0154333515,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.022844488,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.016100813,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00430598,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004614342,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05386263},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1598212664","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1082","title":"The Public Law Consequences of Private Disputes: Néron v. CBC and the Law of Defamation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"Toronto Public Health","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Liability; Safeguarding; Balance (ability); Political science; Reputation; Public interest; Psychology","score_opus":0.034332256646328066,"score_gpt":0.3126753882407191,"score_spread":0.27834313159439106,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1598212664","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":[0.117840886,0.008715908,0.008317174,0.21793686,0.00050827174,0.00013527325,0.00034375844,0.00006864264,0.64613324],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9522371,0.0015414444,0.0010851991,0.020378465,0.00031805865,0.00005929276,0.00006113292,0.000026045995,0.024293333],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.988369,0.0025064633,0.00028232665,0.0010018699,0.0045111324,0.0033293043],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902913,0.005751043,0.0006887086,0.0006646569,0.001881081,0.0007232295],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0077769742,0.0003506911,0.0008351273,0.0015224244,0.013753978,0.01723784,0.0028212026,0.018783614,0.0032141139],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019649532,0.00056279334,0.0007251432,0.0015612042,0.03317655,0.005674273,0.0035501297,0.011479068,0.00029179148],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012502362,0.00001321339,0.00059948245,0.000014757762,0.000006725076,0.00029245278,0.002431841,0.00020747425,0.0001020182,0.98875487,0.0057101855,0.0018545323],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012990116,0.00004054258,0.0057225893,0.00033379663,0.00010363598,0.00045459287,0.007692328,0.003281213,0.0011235756,0.8014697,0.17949106,0.0001571449],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8038821,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.83079463,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8038821,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0473082,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040480003,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39454567},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1599077220","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1223","title":"Contractual and Covenantal Conceptions of Modern Treaty Interpretation","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Interpretation (philosophy); Treaty; Negotiation; Supreme court; Law; Covenant; Sociology; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.05609932130275677,"score_gpt":0.31803833645359314,"score_spread":0.2619390151508364,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1599077220","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":[0.021112496,0.009791741,0.07209715,0.061532144,0.0009761122,0.00013914886,0.00018227127,0.000091671944,0.8340772],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93318033,0.0032372933,0.01722956,0.01053382,0.0012701402,0.00034215985,0.0001287311,0.00011373726,0.03396425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96283495,0.015067772,0.0012889954,0.0028162638,0.013697516,0.004294556],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9899031,0.004347482,0.0011415437,0.0012494007,0.0028026742,0.0005558593],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018637955,0.0005516573,0.00074187695,0.0044181747,0.011197791,0.017428933,0.003713879,0.008271078,0.004462934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021928107,0.0005672589,0.0009251614,0.005035189,0.07656521,0.010295363,0.0044372124,0.01315231,0.00042509713],"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":[6.374089e-7,0.0000010105978,0.000017171737,0.0000027670965,7.12845e-7,0.0000038860803,0.0005797846,0.000036667254,0.000004705549,0.99867094,0.00036980503,0.00031202345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009235486,0.0000045635634,0.00033069824,0.000075473035,0.0000063315492,0.000035602217,0.0009908887,0.00068864337,0.000054223772,0.94447726,0.053305984,0.000021044749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.19541048,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.133662,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19541048,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.045594588,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030705733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38854617},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1599651875","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1141","title":"Justice Wilson’s Administrative Law Legacy: The National Corn Growers Decision and Judicial Review of Administrative Decision-Making","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial review; Tribunal; Law; Jurisprudence; Administrative law; Judicial restraint; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Judicial opinion; Deference; Political science; Standard of review; Judicial activism; Judicial deference","score_opus":0.17938520276895004,"score_gpt":0.4461744946053336,"score_spread":0.26678929183638356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1599651875","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":[0.027157644,0.017589025,0.0058199237,0.77298045,0.0039874064,0.00008260198,0.00009526935,0.000060821556,0.17222682],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.59937626,0.009564062,0.0069969236,0.3314056,0.005277381,0.00012640409,0.00006051046,0.00009565844,0.047097143],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9476456,0.01437269,0.0021867414,0.00607158,0.020065367,0.009658022],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9460473,0.03267333,0.0024057264,0.0016362206,0.013944491,0.00329287],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0258956,0.00050484244,0.00072037964,0.0031821006,0.02711184,0.027151057,0.0041506486,0.019685088,0.001614763],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06756688,0.000898387,0.00089195586,0.003510007,0.057674102,0.00727282,0.0037665104,0.019359428,0.0002845033],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000019864012,0.00002267205,0.0010527206,0.00006209704,0.000026147183,0.0004647069,0.00948291,0.00040207754,0.00020113954,0.88402176,0.08936365,0.014880162],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007388344,0.00004645983,0.005473474,0.00062101864,0.00009565395,0.00041319925,0.012768318,0.0013379359,0.0010416736,0.24009152,0.73771715,0.00031977711],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.78947437,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8832169,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78947437,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08359065,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13671394,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.60649544},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1601529068","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1056","title":"Negotiations with Métis: What Courts Can Do to Help","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Negotiation; Dispute resolution; Political science; Representation (politics); Dispute mechanism; Identification (biology); Resolution (logic); Law; Law and economics; Alternative dispute resolution; Sociology; Computer science; Politics; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.02455703768056568,"score_gpt":0.3077829696692195,"score_spread":0.2832259319886538,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1601529068","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":[0.017352218,0.011985758,0.025962127,0.62238157,0.0025883194,0.00020980388,0.00005858582,0.00038608204,0.31907547],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79180616,0.009767462,0.02946668,0.09877296,0.0027095834,0.0006075241,0.00018957032,0.0003465669,0.06633363],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96213436,0.022270298,0.0017641172,0.0019369255,0.0066707307,0.005223553],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9436068,0.030662995,0.0040211757,0.005354902,0.008081651,0.008272529],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03824618,0.0007011506,0.0011148257,0.003575281,0.019175375,0.02728035,0.004633875,0.02029462,0.016779125],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11336637,0.00068581116,0.00088489294,0.0025426645,0.015202999,0.03292305,0.0154774105,0.013120747,0.003822682],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000046506106,0.00020386622,0.0026763387,0.00024264633,0.00003187499,0.0008140682,0.014758461,0.0006089172,0.00036456654,0.7624693,0.10028836,0.11749514],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000083737235,0.00006850669,0.00092347345,0.0009345877,0.00002455717,0.00034892312,0.021886135,0.0010122828,0.00045482384,0.60587287,0.36830828,0.00008174942],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005777293,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010383138,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9942227,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00628997,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015692782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20226759},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1604660447","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1226","title":"Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisdiction; Law; Federalism; Political science; Supreme court; Exclusive jurisdiction; Federal jurisdiction; Autonomy; Constitution; Jurisprudence; Writ; Separation of powers; Politics","score_opus":0.04632363708824638,"score_gpt":0.33090714569516394,"score_spread":0.28458350860691756,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1604660447","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":[0.03780632,0.032349303,0.011209588,0.4811604,0.0016429886,0.000063745334,0.00026582155,0.00008901152,0.43541276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8847258,0.014207965,0.009500981,0.052012622,0.00070939556,0.000058660164,0.00011047865,0.00008148834,0.03859272],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9874495,0.002271742,0.00030216898,0.0012635669,0.0064295656,0.002283347],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99002105,0.004024892,0.00040901054,0.00054679567,0.004029929,0.0009683278],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010015995,0.00030276665,0.0007722666,0.0025799996,0.019148095,0.01192317,0.0024633855,0.0057920692,0.0045874445],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021392694,0.00049268815,0.0006349001,0.0038721801,0.024757026,0.004579619,0.0031525043,0.00986555,0.00026372215],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000070652313,0.0000031610086,0.00035651814,0.000031299212,0.0000064759374,0.000052436564,0.002905909,0.00017279487,0.000060354458,0.9735476,0.013791651,0.009064742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000052556446,0.000016555497,0.007756532,0.00045900152,0.000047383088,0.000110990055,0.004881386,0.0015120114,0.00028981236,0.48498914,0.49975842,0.00012624433],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97798836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9890497,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8494944,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1505056,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18012491,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9852931},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1604749233","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1236","title":"Arbitrary Disproportionality: A New Charter Standard for Measuring the Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitrariness; Jurisprudence; Constitutionality; Hearsay; Law; Sentence; Charter; Section (typography); Political science; Law and economics; Constitution; Sociology; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.11462601037613666,"score_gpt":0.3716684552670683,"score_spread":0.25704244489093164,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1604749233","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":[0.08283862,0.003334149,0.6395517,0.0056654485,0.0015874291,0.0020536906,0.0032412102,0.0010131352,0.26071468],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63361764,0.0009856425,0.3449552,0.0032750377,0.00092272257,0.004626547,0.0018795592,0.0005102359,0.009227358],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.85672915,0.064618945,0.013523831,0.009859659,0.051942114,0.0033261832],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.84479564,0.09185355,0.018964382,0.020501336,0.020840876,0.0030440697],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.059399337,0.0007781509,0.0011557582,0.016199838,0.004593345,0.008524181,0.0037910722,0.004214133,0.0064433017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.20729259,0.0006576399,0.0018510505,0.007398362,0.010436351,0.01290642,0.009738509,0.0072912546,0.0015307902],"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":[0.00018054192,0.00013097365,0.012865347,0.00024092454,0.00006704367,0.00018828361,0.0033430166,0.0012469473,0.0032502955,0.90246314,0.01191966,0.06410391],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013241004,0.0008886407,0.036999784,0.0010932668,0.00019204516,0.0013826442,0.0025558718,0.011647346,0.012989304,0.77403486,0.15754727,0.00053662393],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022008722,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0034159836,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.059399337,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038912687,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006748687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31413746},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1605145486","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1271","title":"Hate Speech and the Reasonable Supreme Court of Canada","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Law; Hatred; Human rights; Political science; Legislation; Commission; Harm; Fundamental rights; Tribunal; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.011323929695200085,"score_gpt":0.215569236149523,"score_spread":0.20424530645432293,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1605145486","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":[0.12221685,0.017916039,0.008361956,0.26372075,0.0025500336,0.0005741426,0.0012933101,0.00021083311,0.5831561],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8397895,0.0030581348,0.0028708004,0.08440157,0.00032916386,0.0002138004,0.00025137796,0.000057549634,0.069028184],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9795196,0.0033610202,0.00096144906,0.0026729917,0.0077768904,0.0057080532],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9683994,0.0150331585,0.0012711759,0.0011397486,0.011897493,0.0022590582],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0154829975,0.00046473878,0.0008598591,0.0020544727,0.02671826,0.017371757,0.0032690258,0.013862363,0.0046744864],"category_scores_gemma":[0.047885608,0.0012216024,0.00092362356,0.002333184,0.013268599,0.0038037316,0.0034854559,0.016310005,0.0004437543],"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":[0.000042372292,0.00001861333,0.002153219,0.00009051567,0.000037917525,0.0006208197,0.004785798,0.00047213098,0.0005105396,0.94329816,0.040741887,0.007228004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022108619,0.00010221074,0.02090475,0.0014463321,0.0003413438,0.00033494437,0.01097798,0.0038009938,0.0027999626,0.25084946,0.7075268,0.00069416815],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9641689,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9745054,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09060945,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09060945,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18117477,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.65742064},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1605254849","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1249","title":"Parliamentary Engagement with the Charter: Rethinking the Idea of Legislative Rights Review","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Charter; Political science; Legislation; Law; Bill of rights; Law and economics; Public administration; Human rights; Sociology","score_opus":0.0621211467014886,"score_gpt":0.32157001392960227,"score_spread":0.25944886722811367,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1605254849","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":[0.017053232,0.022650879,0.045932375,0.6073757,0.0047373334,0.0002864535,0.00022077959,0.00024243894,0.3015009],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7945076,0.011865729,0.028999966,0.09630578,0.0040013297,0.0003061385,0.0001216186,0.00034466176,0.06354706],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.8973071,0.05313024,0.0035172454,0.0077211703,0.03058457,0.0077398117],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8434159,0.09556971,0.0046912055,0.008621505,0.0426532,0.0050484706],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.083043985,0.00046029515,0.0012626222,0.0062208027,0.021020865,0.033276826,0.004395169,0.016049188,0.0030123433],"category_scores_gemma":[0.12621462,0.00085851,0.0008769801,0.006304239,0.07509599,0.015066286,0.0067928657,0.018999262,0.000633949],"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":[0.000008993539,0.0000058437304,0.0002486543,0.000042898286,0.0000066099274,0.000054181633,0.004156568,0.0001676572,0.0000839412,0.9745472,0.010952666,0.00972491],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049458096,0.00003687076,0.0022439924,0.00079114543,0.000070572416,0.00011115874,0.0036970126,0.0013968489,0.0007760393,0.3025542,0.6881131,0.00015962451],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.73734045,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.76818085,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.26265955,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.101107106,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1773172,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7335868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1608073562","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1245","title":"Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R. v. Ipeelee","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Proportionality (law); Prison; High Court; Charter; Legislation; Parliament; Economic Justice; Representation (politics); Politics","score_opus":0.03336093205677299,"score_gpt":0.3157383767015545,"score_spread":0.28237744464478154,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1608073562","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":[0.027828619,0.007955161,0.0031447734,0.722316,0.0054011247,0.00019861916,0.0008585804,0.00022636646,0.23207071],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.32042578,0.0046339124,0.00441031,0.45776865,0.0013961113,0.00015758825,0.0004830499,0.0002748215,0.21044974],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9787364,0.0017899026,0.00055801554,0.0021877892,0.008099176,0.008628624],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9913344,0.0017223832,0.0001828952,0.0002082672,0.004720039,0.001831995],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009140615,0.00077626633,0.000846723,0.0014407865,0.039246354,0.01947593,0.005850601,0.02330652,0.0051338384],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02182081,0.0014427279,0.0016705943,0.001995819,0.010784166,0.0046259863,0.0038528573,0.038413607,0.0008192776],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000077546814,0.000049051097,0.0029910451,0.00011927496,0.000060849314,0.0020427709,0.010571128,0.00062266894,0.0010367197,0.44040176,0.51958317,0.022444049],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013543127,0.00007603878,0.011812245,0.0008538795,0.0002532396,0.0004502215,0.013059006,0.001930817,0.0024110598,0.042989165,0.9254163,0.00061258767],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99109226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99600935,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.146394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.146394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2963491,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99006194},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1608947772","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1269","title":"Moore v. British Columbia: A Good IDEA?","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Immigration Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Remedial education; Political science; Public administration; Tribunal; School choice; Law; Human rights; Voucher; Legislature; Sociology; Economics","score_opus":0.019144626844349838,"score_gpt":0.27458372708350964,"score_spread":0.25543910023915983,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1608947772","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":[0.00659102,0.026340503,0.0007483905,0.7561527,0.0060299076,0.00007192202,0.00083456194,0.00016151773,0.20306952],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.10161027,0.011052925,0.0015341457,0.7517939,0.0011642389,0.00014658611,0.0005097067,0.00014808052,0.13204013],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927127,0.00082610425,0.00024112574,0.0009046792,0.0028909396,0.002424416],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99354255,0.0012023372,0.00021038669,0.00026347264,0.002792484,0.0019888422],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036075364,0.00093439926,0.0011014679,0.0027437485,0.021973962,0.014804361,0.003660149,0.016779235,0.014993247],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011665951,0.0007975442,0.00073450885,0.0035803996,0.010148851,0.006427253,0.0028458664,0.019555492,0.0020044367],"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":[0.00004242754,0.000032335218,0.0022405577,0.00012575493,0.000024893292,0.0004676312,0.0012653853,0.00014718094,0.0002028642,0.21950454,0.7506057,0.025340678],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006494655,0.000025741678,0.006414804,0.0012940256,0.000057901438,0.0001814818,0.0043211137,0.000283415,0.00021424217,0.046837505,0.9400825,0.00022233833],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98348135,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99030966,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06955471,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06955471,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15163513,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5046571},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1609406408","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1135","title":"Voicing an Opinion: Authorship, Collaboration and the Judgments of Justice Bertha Wilson","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Université Laval; University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Portrait; Sociology; Political science; History","score_opus":0.055178544063658186,"score_gpt":0.35053046500315016,"score_spread":0.295351920939492,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1609406408","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.44962102,0.007354206,0.0068465443,0.16421258,0.0017811698,0.000105339415,0.000117253665,0.00009231853,0.36986956],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98687613,0.00047530234,0.00077630026,0.0025462997,0.00026714322,0.000020806097,0.000012311486,0.00003845089,0.008987219],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9463806,0.03580005,0.001346884,0.003642272,0.009331586,0.003498517],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.78329915,0.1658451,0.013399651,0.0054076607,0.018995719,0.013052787],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.030016132,0.00032133542,0.0004546896,0.0032732096,0.028458528,0.019003635,0.001756963,0.0051726485,0.00585642],"category_scores_gemma":[0.17333186,0.00042837096,0.00023203481,0.0028620767,0.028452452,0.0106250765,0.007277173,0.0044715945,0.00083257],"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":[0.00012317928,0.0000889322,0.015031554,0.00010752016,0.00003546166,0.001752757,0.56589925,0.0003509178,0.0006491869,0.29550564,0.061707675,0.058747813],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005802291,0.00009604068,0.0180066,0.0005934442,0.000031329113,0.00084156083,0.4280142,0.0013358843,0.0009212733,0.23268268,0.31717807,0.00024092641],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.071496725,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11120017,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.071496725,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01180493,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011192223,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15874243},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1609483509","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1187","title":"Section 1, Constitutional Reasoning and Cultural Difference: Assessing the Impacts of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Charter; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Constitutionalism; Irony; Political science; Constitutional law; Section (typography); Economic Justice; Sociology; Epistemology; Law and economics; Philosophy; Computer science; Democracy","score_opus":0.031262043503530616,"score_gpt":0.3525673312348134,"score_spread":0.32130528773128275,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1609483509","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.47852543,0.013511685,0.00060569,0.051028077,0.00039753498,0.00033131248,0.0007228808,0.000028653516,0.45484877],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95653653,0.003181535,0.00048400578,0.011141395,0.00008302816,0.000064852975,0.00021405434,0.000012868994,0.02828181],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9838192,0.0020111473,0.00021818986,0.0006653825,0.009856164,0.003430074],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9887989,0.0054649743,0.0008439865,0.00028935692,0.0032475323,0.0013552388],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0056820717,0.0003775402,0.00040859237,0.002487994,0.017262658,0.008212773,0.003176514,0.0037353828,0.0049771],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02336804,0.00042289935,0.0004049076,0.003572301,0.012613334,0.0020479134,0.0029528376,0.0042861234,0.0001931966],"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":[0.00031190916,0.00031224158,0.1096829,0.00045352138,0.0001314321,0.0025532022,0.032942995,0.0026043607,0.0010374374,0.7059566,0.086340785,0.057672586],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022366947,0.00058308034,0.4456392,0.0017847636,0.0004982767,0.0005625205,0.09975419,0.0022086946,0.0027223725,0.08179728,0.36386248,0.00036343624],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98377335,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99452484,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.086652465,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.086652465,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13327734,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62871057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1613606969","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1276","title":"The Jury Vetting Cases: New Insights on Jury Trials in Criminal Cases?","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Jury Decision Making Processes","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Jury; Vetting; Supreme court; Jury selection; Law; Hung jury; Political science; Jury trial","score_opus":0.18230540148100322,"score_gpt":0.4307519436095716,"score_spread":0.24844654212856837,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1613606969","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":[0.052609574,0.19410238,0.042348396,0.2113614,0.0024109788,0.00033916582,0.00020805106,0.00006472615,0.49655533],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8396347,0.082380675,0.01636238,0.029202042,0.00544966,0.0007281662,0.00015064783,0.00016600067,0.02592576],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9691049,0.021480208,0.0009173593,0.001192691,0.00425156,0.0030531655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8921041,0.09844841,0.0037067279,0.0017636619,0.0023551455,0.0016220032],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026534768,0.0008608929,0.001989971,0.0062533785,0.0073775556,0.018281616,0.0032951478,0.015376,0.007850346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.054328855,0.0011863998,0.0013885682,0.007384631,0.038722817,0.028216645,0.0058494424,0.011447803,0.0008629453],"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":[0.000017916194,0.000047175254,0.0005326225,0.00010445119,0.0000055425403,0.00015701902,0.0058188373,0.0005195882,0.000033856242,0.980537,0.003872874,0.008353072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055122902,0.000069613336,0.0041584857,0.00083386526,0.000014768427,0.00016772773,0.013223197,0.0021881717,0.000105670726,0.8747673,0.10435244,0.00006365256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.040672928,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.049458336,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.040672928,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013708812,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015800029,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14033091},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1633913304","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1298","title":"The Digitization of Section 8 of the Charter: Reform or Revolution?","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Indeterminacy (philosophy); Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Section (typography); Charter; Political science; Sociology; Law and economics; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.017228994591146803,"score_gpt":0.2413007973754193,"score_spread":0.2240718027842725,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1633913304","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":[0.08892167,0.012412592,0.016493637,0.3097803,0.002573084,0.000097129036,0.00018204315,0.00019863294,0.5693409],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8969828,0.0076158675,0.006145506,0.042019468,0.0014018503,0.00008302072,0.00014195392,0.00008387679,0.04552561],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99439126,0.001577541,0.00019143806,0.0007401133,0.0019369817,0.0011627201],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99406475,0.0025186907,0.0006540186,0.0012685037,0.0011825141,0.0003114997],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0070153023,0.00020182303,0.00034468228,0.0010186965,0.0039530783,0.010184044,0.0017917688,0.0036144126,0.0043188217],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01595558,0.0002605578,0.00037642734,0.0014858631,0.029659063,0.00979195,0.002782921,0.0061666276,0.0004891169],"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":[0.0000048853194,0.000005898859,0.00012921619,0.000011470231,9.815121e-7,0.000020215182,0.0015368075,0.00014941402,0.0000775044,0.9836357,0.004721232,0.00970663],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027759877,0.000045451387,0.002141869,0.00041982916,0.00001542611,0.00009605042,0.0067424476,0.0007637572,0.0009935427,0.31979647,0.66889614,0.0000611554],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21752107,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18073964,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21752107,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02864752,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03437092,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4325099},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1634339657","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1166","title":"Searching for the Constitutional Core of Access to Justice","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Economic Justice; Political science; Justiciability; Law; Meaning (existential); Law and economics; Sociology; Politics; Psychology","score_opus":0.3668446990512506,"score_gpt":0.5075296711308575,"score_spread":0.14068497207960684,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1634339657","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":[0.09524713,0.018940974,0.06997272,0.23384966,0.00037877186,0.00009325619,0.00010097535,0.00007324231,0.5813433],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9752143,0.004387035,0.00594988,0.006961809,0.00026897652,0.00006396238,0.000028569542,0.000014346774,0.0071112234],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99093163,0.003543569,0.00041917624,0.0010824515,0.0025751437,0.0014479638],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.988118,0.008748371,0.0008740053,0.0006297854,0.0011002892,0.0005295648],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011260461,0.00017491987,0.0007012796,0.0021850835,0.0055235727,0.008259388,0.0016045688,0.0050134133,0.0032639678],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02002621,0.0003304418,0.00035607675,0.0015619218,0.039872825,0.011463451,0.005269501,0.008288341,0.0002955522],"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":[7.223882e-7,0.0000029551725,0.00009242562,0.000011265555,0.0000010705794,0.000017458788,0.00042478237,0.00007743446,0.00004477521,0.9971565,0.00019010628,0.0019804635],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000053471263,0.000009496661,0.00042588142,0.0001124432,0.0000051895067,0.000028548062,0.00096218317,0.00023085493,0.00015568032,0.9779528,0.02010148,0.000010142739],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03616915,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.042163607,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03616915,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012079774,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.022338133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08764529},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1640054838","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1302","title":"Proving a Violation: Rhetoric, Research and Remedy","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Sex work and related issues","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Statute; Supreme court; Political science; Constitutional law; Charter; Legislature","score_opus":0.07691710174489069,"score_gpt":0.39450327401562163,"score_spread":0.31758617227073094,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1640054838","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011351037,0.50949824,0.030685512,0.27958933,0.0042473283,0.00016514825,0.000077217264,0.00008314304,0.16430308],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.54726386,0.33193997,0.027003143,0.06964757,0.011330156,0.0006601321,0.00009899955,0.00017425774,0.011881891],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9098896,0.06008656,0.0040253187,0.0074472413,0.017117348,0.0014339369],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.54563737,0.42242748,0.008319571,0.010526166,0.0119559225,0.0011334924],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.12991887,0.0010708827,0.002327675,0.013801418,0.007455261,0.015794365,0.0070050526,0.02049291,0.0059453514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.18044846,0.0014229593,0.0014603267,0.0070940163,0.10363932,0.035032764,0.008690299,0.017851999,0.0011618177],"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":[0.00001744438,0.000034376713,0.00028675376,0.0005322763,0.000017341572,0.00013567744,0.002622829,0.00017328553,0.00007252088,0.96463394,0.004664233,0.026809327],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008161732,0.00015126994,0.00061218656,0.00840751,0.00008298432,0.00053960236,0.005493291,0.0009509115,0.0008581537,0.7817113,0.20104447,0.00006658738],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0072599654,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006794677,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12991887,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015164183,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0174603,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6870849},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1641423233","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1266","title":"The Re-emergence of a Clash of Rights: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R. v. S. (N.)","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Witness; Economic Justice; Supreme Court Decisions; Sociology","score_opus":0.03238244692011854,"score_gpt":0.3345856106037711,"score_spread":0.3022031636836526,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1641423233","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":[0.21568024,0.04126336,0.0031854995,0.30332574,0.0017649401,0.00024101921,0.0002008802,0.000043539116,0.4342948],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9359029,0.0053052013,0.0008164354,0.03376133,0.00032968854,0.00005718953,0.00003921402,0.00004679797,0.023741325],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98347026,0.004572165,0.00028669633,0.0013702767,0.004651669,0.005648954],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9826288,0.010148242,0.0006558605,0.00034431508,0.0050677597,0.0011550502],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018530974,0.0005519197,0.0009768622,0.004170793,0.05032316,0.019747786,0.004674105,0.015261536,0.0029957315],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025174875,0.0008024261,0.0008375495,0.004177048,0.04364379,0.0068813427,0.005155398,0.01770164,0.0002538539],"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":[0.000034315097,0.000025193385,0.0013167581,0.00013125337,0.000031194264,0.0020269456,0.15234202,0.00024620804,0.0003054501,0.79463416,0.0381645,0.01074201],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000617396,0.00005400777,0.010178441,0.0016523013,0.00014571281,0.0005063149,0.27883378,0.0007508823,0.0012667752,0.12982072,0.5764817,0.000247606],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93801624,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9671596,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1194702,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1194702,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1253193,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86682105},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1648716606","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1098","title":"The Federal Principle and the 2005 Balance of Powers in Canada","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Balance (ability); Political science; Psychology; Neuroscience","score_opus":0.015620089035533857,"score_gpt":0.28521681583314906,"score_spread":0.2695967267976152,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1648716606","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":[0.043133754,0.060530555,0.0019996327,0.067519866,0.0010022598,0.00012022787,0.0011244561,0.00003880187,0.8245305],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81120336,0.025052417,0.0021953357,0.021276219,0.0003365308,0.00010886365,0.00043799815,0.000038984737,0.13935027],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99374807,0.00052869035,0.00015077743,0.00050563004,0.0028530988,0.002213774],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99733967,0.0005694585,0.00015346367,0.0000859103,0.001525391,0.00032612708],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027898054,0.00034259036,0.00046519932,0.0030906056,0.013793237,0.009888568,0.0017500651,0.0043983795,0.0070134555],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007872512,0.0005224369,0.00042805113,0.004969976,0.0074927304,0.0021045343,0.001605761,0.003804169,0.00042615365],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001596084,0.000006904934,0.0008825791,0.000063798696,0.000011704293,0.00010116937,0.0013597517,0.0004581492,0.00006278988,0.95405364,0.033171006,0.009812576],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000603665,0.000022307742,0.016427536,0.00062698836,0.00008755007,0.00012828995,0.0029025995,0.001016764,0.00035049766,0.15226395,0.82602257,0.00009045576],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99105775,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944983,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13810903,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13810903,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1863714,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99967134},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1654395552","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1002","title":"Section 15 Jurisprudence in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Defence Research and Development Canada","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Section (typography); Law; Political science; Computer science","score_opus":0.027678093894610904,"score_gpt":0.30503762935548795,"score_spread":0.27735953546087705,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1654395552","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":[0.040548876,0.01926117,0.0026569718,0.10641376,0.0026271269,0.0002638887,0.0017988037,0.00014181256,0.8262875],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4644338,0.0068215663,0.003198506,0.09448346,0.0007283019,0.0002485879,0.00069424766,0.00016048693,0.429231],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9910458,0.00090409076,0.00030045575,0.0013646326,0.0034093913,0.0029757493],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940697,0.0016599875,0.00020749705,0.00020139114,0.0029877268,0.0008738273],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004993916,0.00082422845,0.00082992564,0.0021187812,0.03408146,0.017812671,0.0030384734,0.015166533,0.007789634],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0119074,0.0009898876,0.00085316517,0.0032122948,0.01360438,0.0029728466,0.0027987529,0.011107249,0.00076690275],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000014770365,0.000021926724,0.001070522,0.000035203393,0.000012356234,0.0002600291,0.004890667,0.0002831483,0.00016223332,0.9094394,0.07850309,0.005306797],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004026806,0.000021470134,0.0058950097,0.00042606858,0.000061994855,0.000116342504,0.004452412,0.0010210942,0.00042556683,0.055702854,0.9316798,0.00015730079],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99061114,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9933483,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20552689,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20552689,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.20593472,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9214762},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1655023742","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1116","title":"The Common Law Confessions Rule in the Charter Era: Current Law and Future Directions","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Yale University","keywords":"Interrogation; Supreme court; Law; Suspect; Charter; Political science; Jury; Exclusionary rule; Rule of law; Law enforcement; Enforcement; Common law; Due process; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics; Sources of law","score_opus":0.062391836377596155,"score_gpt":0.3610520596228769,"score_spread":0.29866022324528074,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1655023742","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0053200237,0.18300043,0.010054722,0.7216599,0.0024469576,0.00007105975,0.00017723741,0.0002155966,0.07705405],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.29104856,0.41589594,0.03222836,0.21899353,0.009814355,0.00026859518,0.0004079404,0.00021262241,0.031130096],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9885876,0.0024568846,0.0004655252,0.0015642606,0.0047788788,0.0021467719],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9596404,0.023929927,0.0022326214,0.0019226788,0.009002949,0.003271554],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028708087,0.0006779352,0.00139485,0.0029994166,0.008181848,0.019098364,0.006187906,0.016709475,0.012686821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.037880607,0.0006923335,0.00111553,0.004289845,0.059791964,0.023431148,0.003871161,0.017547397,0.0016917201],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018944995,0.000045918456,0.000406956,0.00036345018,0.0000060948696,0.00011673537,0.0012891765,0.0004222518,0.000118071985,0.89167434,0.028222436,0.07731576],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033261356,0.000076854645,0.0012618323,0.0029694377,0.00002271622,0.00014194295,0.003915018,0.0009414493,0.00030151827,0.4228827,0.5672769,0.00017637343],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.53294003,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.43909964,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.53294003,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.046753448,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.105204746,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93962115},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1658693842","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1256","title":"Has the Charter Made a Difference for People with Disabilities?: Reflections and Strategies for the 21st Century","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Disability Rights and Representation","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Ratification; Political science; Supreme court; Law; Immigration; Social model of disability; Public administration; Psychology; Politics","score_opus":0.10012197590126284,"score_gpt":0.37011747092393454,"score_spread":0.2699954950226717,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1658693842","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011589214,0.029659519,0.000967704,0.8211189,0.0036917236,0.000030861393,0.000042162737,0.000026816986,0.13287312],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6707602,0.04493791,0.0016752507,0.20398672,0.0028900786,0.000105288935,0.00007515631,0.000119391545,0.07544998],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9870521,0.004094017,0.0002255436,0.0008399087,0.003022717,0.0047657755],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99021167,0.004795058,0.00043681846,0.0003539902,0.0020793963,0.0021229163],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01844778,0.00062388135,0.0008649337,0.0025222423,0.03504605,0.025113614,0.0036380896,0.014172153,0.0073809167],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017157305,0.00034585837,0.0006532528,0.0029536856,0.09437511,0.017846314,0.011182095,0.016543718,0.0005626319],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011274484,0.000025350731,0.00028928468,0.00008482071,0.0000036084384,0.00015484323,0.060423423,0.00008143123,0.00006834763,0.86014605,0.057786334,0.020925324],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016058235,0.000018829782,0.0009028547,0.0007615487,0.000009491967,0.000098349294,0.161165,0.00010348965,0.00013369956,0.0929598,0.74377847,0.00005245916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8344158,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86708486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8344158,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09465424,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14184006,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6867678},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1662027952","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1070","title":"What is Equality?: The Winding Course of Judicial Interpretation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Dignity; Jurisprudence; Section (typography); Law; Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Plaintiff; Element (criminal law); Charter; Political science; Judicial interpretation; Government (linguistics); Constitutional law; Sociology; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.060244816806279536,"score_gpt":0.3895969499465125,"score_spread":0.329352133140233,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1662027952","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025493825,0.096490435,0.008833465,0.72100365,0.0064276806,0.00004002921,0.00006314991,0.000047548918,0.14160024],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79681236,0.028614115,0.0059374,0.1428923,0.012807099,0.00007883151,0.00007555745,0.00007172291,0.012710681],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9429956,0.03420483,0.0018019229,0.0035024972,0.012902441,0.0045927432],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9546044,0.035226744,0.0018055425,0.0017413091,0.0055997735,0.0010223228],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.030536056,0.00031109178,0.0010130295,0.0034559728,0.010377946,0.019566003,0.0026880149,0.009145959,0.0018026636],"category_scores_gemma":[0.054876752,0.00044844556,0.00056101946,0.0025095793,0.053954244,0.012431041,0.0054510217,0.01061673,0.00031447905],"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":[0.000011135625,0.000010423726,0.00032124214,0.00005910052,0.000009466106,0.00015619547,0.005813583,0.00009696399,0.00007127252,0.93933433,0.030364307,0.023752041],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020646043,0.000018330515,0.0011035439,0.0006055837,0.0000119419265,0.00012950662,0.009501166,0.00026800303,0.00022903673,0.80730927,0.18076418,0.000038770297],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022806967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.027646888,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.030536056,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013391325,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014093246,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16149205},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1662857842","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1238","title":"Assessing the Impact of the Ancillary Powers Doctrine on Three Decades of Charter Jurisprudence","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Doctrine; Common law; Context (archaeology); Unavailability; Constitutional review; Constitution; Law and economics; Sociology; Engineering","score_opus":0.0864488825808428,"score_gpt":0.4299096642051603,"score_spread":0.3434607816243175,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1662857842","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":[0.42234927,0.04534852,0.0054739276,0.09370828,0.0014240211,0.0001933321,0.0004852421,0.00007544908,0.43094194],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9591793,0.010339558,0.0014478954,0.014832076,0.000715767,0.00007168945,0.0001508071,0.000051653013,0.013211158],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96202403,0.0064660506,0.0009593119,0.0023032336,0.024217699,0.0040296805],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8665819,0.0889753,0.010938835,0.0053525437,0.02492797,0.0032235193],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.040387515,0.00039691522,0.0010909977,0.0078046224,0.009790336,0.012890289,0.0038196377,0.0066551035,0.0044284854],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11561793,0.00074061746,0.0010379303,0.008769483,0.016614286,0.009796926,0.004580947,0.011042752,0.00040510643],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00012905816,0.0001455003,0.010026484,0.00017950052,0.00008225825,0.00046496242,0.0070001446,0.0010816001,0.00032539637,0.9301991,0.006618887,0.04374717],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002812731,0.00082476414,0.168293,0.0037766253,0.00065055117,0.0005127985,0.014786501,0.0060972455,0.0040888228,0.29612437,0.50416034,0.00040376518],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4589079,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5831897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5410921,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.062289383,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06231203,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9124735},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1664654441","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1122","title":"Section 7 of the Charter and the Common Law Rules of Evidence","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Common law; Law; Statutory law; Political science; Supreme court; Charter; Statute; Precedent; Discretion; Public law","score_opus":0.1424107293925868,"score_gpt":0.35785681000866404,"score_spread":0.21544608061607723,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1664654441","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":[0.008450549,0.016640611,0.15905675,0.13740507,0.014347303,0.0029044957,0.004271307,0.0010758955,0.65584797],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23652534,0.020011557,0.23958369,0.3032202,0.019578988,0.00821028,0.0031121112,0.0005498528,0.169208],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.94066703,0.014672747,0.010232888,0.0053737513,0.023765998,0.005287544],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9432361,0.032853153,0.0038177182,0.0051801573,0.0132070575,0.0017057975],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.040347822,0.0012062432,0.002307382,0.0034518698,0.0070024524,0.013351788,0.0039282697,0.031854033,0.0077337045],"category_scores_gemma":[0.058140185,0.0026666247,0.005112531,0.0019583139,0.025720153,0.0058125346,0.004035687,0.028157743,0.006356718],"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":[0.000016506448,0.000022040953,0.00020918557,0.00011974189,0.000017999908,0.00016391237,0.0003935473,0.00032237085,0.0002693052,0.9653463,0.029100716,0.0040183803],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011120536,0.00015255983,0.0020040143,0.0017313857,0.00011579584,0.00070182804,0.0002587437,0.001010351,0.0015598165,0.5157041,0.47636303,0.0002872194],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08458206,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07221429,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08458206,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013573636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050982665,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.21338224},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1665852471","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1252","title":"A Reflection on Section 2(b)’s Quixotic Journey, 1982-2012","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"Charter; Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Economic Justice; Accountability; Transparency (behavior); Neutrality; Sociology; Normative; Law and economics; Computer science","score_opus":0.0821332812164434,"score_gpt":0.36817475810448486,"score_spread":0.2860414768880415,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1665852471","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010039534,0.025826208,0.0014082354,0.8021295,0.026433308,0.00008079481,0.00016900073,0.00005128333,0.13386217],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.10792599,0.015935866,0.0015248263,0.46475077,0.007939956,0.00022593669,0.00013938338,0.0002010899,0.40135616],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942115,0.0020734337,0.00021102041,0.00065877975,0.0018011987,0.00104408],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9964567,0.0017690344,0.00015455602,0.00010733375,0.0010506943,0.00046166312],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0078369165,0.00039461118,0.00049181207,0.0008586863,0.011115675,0.012446172,0.0012382717,0.014661568,0.009899334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015063287,0.0005106839,0.0006215806,0.0010853434,0.0057952744,0.0062701018,0.0034171587,0.019136716,0.0024433716],"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":[0.00003639563,0.00010268204,0.00037863685,0.0001404993,0.0000043831583,0.00069243624,0.02590376,0.00014449615,0.00057664455,0.18026891,0.765697,0.026054177],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004187666,0.0000171722,0.00053747307,0.0001246578,0.0000016807865,0.00006580712,0.0032232564,0.000021611993,0.00011238603,0.0044477032,0.99142796,0.000016090273],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.083269045,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.112992175,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.083269045,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0146844,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018648485,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16556877},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1666473040","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1179","title":"Judicial Accountability, Michel Bastarache and the Charter’s Fundamental Freedoms","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Accountability; Charter; Jurisprudence; Economic Justice; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.037496424893044666,"score_gpt":0.32508904893399215,"score_spread":0.2875926240409475,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1666473040","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":[0.07057438,0.047629993,0.00740632,0.52667445,0.0012818532,0.000028889222,0.00009474435,0.000079018784,0.3462303],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9670492,0.003633704,0.0011177444,0.013150919,0.0008186792,0.000018857952,0.000016441452,0.000021393938,0.0141731035],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99374986,0.0030399533,0.00008791565,0.0005175518,0.0017489578,0.0008557353],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9941339,0.0037994385,0.0005244203,0.00031119178,0.0008181308,0.00041306263],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0072210464,0.0001691775,0.00038266196,0.0007849599,0.008065184,0.007962782,0.0005986802,0.0045654983,0.0016154227],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012362033,0.00019916394,0.00024318462,0.0008972098,0.015816655,0.002910307,0.0021990184,0.005547283,0.0002034161],"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":[0.0000078002895,0.000006224107,0.00017774467,0.000014919867,0.0000021078072,0.000026732698,0.0013406487,0.00018592819,0.00008537739,0.9843641,0.00942069,0.0043678056],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026969485,0.000029796125,0.0026983775,0.000208902,0.000009927358,0.00008356817,0.0010981058,0.0007976374,0.00037847308,0.67352617,0.32110015,0.00004187821],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08791182,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.100810744,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08791182,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0103096375,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012329333,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17480022},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1683696839","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1234","title":"The Intoxication Defence: Constitutionally Impaired and in Need of Rehabilitation","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Charter; Presumption of innocence; Jurisprudence; Mistake; Political science; Presumption; Supreme court; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.025079815048835837,"score_gpt":0.3341773460390964,"score_spread":0.30909753099026055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1683696839","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":[0.2698046,0.007362538,0.006110745,0.24489297,0.0025863147,0.00014418688,0.0002394761,0.00010771165,0.4687515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92650443,0.0019997212,0.00070400786,0.026778419,0.00041306284,0.000043434567,0.00008964012,0.0000306958,0.04343652],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99651587,0.0005187073,0.00012397321,0.00035426952,0.0007042149,0.001782867],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99815315,0.0002345312,0.0001821573,0.00022695692,0.00049145456,0.0007117668],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027858233,0.0002927799,0.00048686133,0.0006504972,0.004420021,0.0055660545,0.0017816926,0.005852263,0.0064270305],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0074712187,0.00020919502,0.0004489892,0.0004459998,0.01952658,0.0043836017,0.005740865,0.007264992,0.0013699913],"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":[0.00010059611,0.0001792769,0.015134044,0.00012087661,0.000024884615,0.0042503513,0.013463246,0.00028043357,0.0019608494,0.8286279,0.041712936,0.09414458],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008363806,0.00022294049,0.026680844,0.0011322808,0.00006731449,0.0075029144,0.033624507,0.00096062897,0.0022644675,0.4994486,0.42785174,0.00016011612],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06926102,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10586552,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06926102,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0047530094,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016997145,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13771576},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1684499473","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1041","title":"The Constitutionalization of Solicitor-Client Privilege","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Privilege (computing); Charter; Law; Political science; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Sociology; History","score_opus":0.04635053413305692,"score_gpt":0.34955141580249277,"score_spread":0.3032008816694359,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1684499473","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":[0.0697894,0.016553892,0.049135942,0.056205776,0.0011934027,0.0003206324,0.0007028235,0.0002819525,0.80581623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9551173,0.004149613,0.007314845,0.00705948,0.001137508,0.00048081938,0.0001825452,0.00007983956,0.02447808],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96739185,0.009605626,0.0025977567,0.0061583174,0.010320104,0.003926377],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97385615,0.013067375,0.0015995778,0.006102587,0.003959325,0.001414973],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026703656,0.0004103847,0.0009884556,0.0028207586,0.0070223347,0.018537818,0.0034340562,0.009684104,0.0064835497],"category_scores_gemma":[0.041337095,0.0010593972,0.0009962826,0.002469048,0.03910061,0.011079529,0.0078751305,0.012751177,0.0010331593],"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":[0.0000041959706,0.0000052100663,0.000086021326,0.000013966403,0.0000026826438,0.000029986435,0.00038002635,0.000072755975,0.00014191328,0.99647766,0.0006464743,0.002139186],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005013246,0.00007664055,0.0014058093,0.00033367562,0.000053203476,0.0002767238,0.0007560159,0.0006383799,0.0015596703,0.84989333,0.14487778,0.00007867494],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.030631779,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.024852639,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.030631779,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017398026,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017810177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14122415},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1688268775","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1105","title":"The Long and Winding Road: Case Comment on Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage)","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Maritime Law Issues","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Manitoba; Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Law; Settlement (finance); Political science; Prima facie; First nation; Government (linguistics); Plaintiff; Indigenous","score_opus":0.01889525557264394,"score_gpt":0.22598367410592773,"score_spread":0.2070884185332838,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1688268775","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035681445,0.0060170954,0.001042985,0.725336,0.003767654,0.00023410823,0.001526397,0.00014682092,0.22624753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1359311,0.0034310066,0.0007993119,0.6825513,0.001083743,0.00016680463,0.0003375588,0.0001224017,0.17557672],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99402493,0.00037762272,0.00015523344,0.0006425209,0.0022215159,0.0025782315],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9952172,0.002065461,0.00019309258,0.00011393582,0.0015577221,0.0008525212],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0040031993,0.00086016394,0.00080888096,0.0017691305,0.036280528,0.009782846,0.005493152,0.038890474,0.0073030856],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009669157,0.0014314912,0.0013881432,0.0032244162,0.008889486,0.0027149622,0.0023846067,0.02654654,0.0012165693],"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":[0.00006782293,0.00003679368,0.0036129188,0.000115661634,0.00004340999,0.0019281298,0.011107596,0.0003184284,0.00069822115,0.09125069,0.8857007,0.0051195803],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008427609,0.000036544432,0.011158877,0.00036818362,0.00018556352,0.00056730583,0.021588564,0.0004634213,0.0014384403,0.0068134605,0.9570157,0.00027965356],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9814936,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927004,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05527394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05527394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10476313,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40104234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1689194842","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1059","title":"Enforcing the Charter: The Supervisory Role of Superior Courts and the Responsibility of Legislatures for Remedial Systems","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Remedial education; Jurisdiction; Culpability; Legislature; Parallels; Political science; Original jurisdiction; Deference; Separation of powers; Equity (law); Luck; Supreme Court Decisions; Economics","score_opus":0.03332838234055772,"score_gpt":0.3061565351946295,"score_spread":0.27282815285407175,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1689194842","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":[0.19597091,0.008100477,0.21256477,0.20410818,0.0007599152,0.00015151913,0.00006984728,0.0002865237,0.37798777],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98385435,0.0006634182,0.0062225307,0.0024652868,0.00020419573,0.000040604347,0.000006056285,0.000017469041,0.006526009],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9894168,0.0051684566,0.0002458796,0.0011626704,0.002648363,0.0013577888],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9823247,0.010498929,0.002398146,0.0016977992,0.0021796431,0.0009007523],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017105155,0.00025063704,0.00039704482,0.0010650834,0.004497876,0.00788181,0.0016364121,0.0056510675,0.0025657108],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023908129,0.00039096785,0.00041042437,0.000669621,0.034182247,0.0053231763,0.0023989275,0.005713514,0.0002831792],"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":[0.0000042363195,0.00000858148,0.0007049861,0.000010110412,0.00000340955,0.000044798482,0.0017026004,0.0006032487,0.00011800296,0.99065685,0.0010238556,0.0051194075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000054030304,0.000056347355,0.0049893316,0.00018630689,0.000023509197,0.00009835198,0.0018707541,0.0053110803,0.0010324056,0.9349893,0.051345516,0.00004308789],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0498984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.053163268,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0498984,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007732636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.021447146,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.099215865},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1690183032","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1283","title":"2013: Constitutional Cases in Review","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Constitution; Economic Justice; High Court; Government (linguistics); Constitutional right","score_opus":0.06678473625502294,"score_gpt":0.36131496886841874,"score_spread":0.2945302326133958,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1690183032","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.002597341,0.68667156,0.00058457005,0.07558057,0.008977433,0.00028485962,0.001220326,0.000104908686,0.22397837],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08037666,0.61286646,0.0013290986,0.22921862,0.0068554473,0.0007209574,0.0012857261,0.00013244896,0.06721459],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98829067,0.0014394216,0.000740224,0.0008733173,0.0060651805,0.0025912207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9824171,0.007905695,0.0010049171,0.00066522934,0.0070069134,0.0010002025],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011175923,0.00082262384,0.0013787387,0.011592454,0.010778471,0.010914618,0.0037767317,0.0081545785,0.008149917],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032688692,0.0008757072,0.0011458255,0.016513154,0.011625287,0.003971687,0.0033802283,0.0060438113,0.0014619137],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000025423828,0.000036341415,0.0005409209,0.0030262284,0.000042620122,0.0005117467,0.0013442036,0.0003765848,0.00021934828,0.344771,0.5967577,0.052347902],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000115450675,0.0000063009347,0.0015389153,0.0049292934,0.000032799067,0.0000873843,0.00074594154,0.000033213368,0.00007962315,0.005098689,0.98740757,0.00002877792],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.83284664,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.87104106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83284664,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07904268,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14993612,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5734975},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1694764544","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1153","title":"Due Process, Collective Bargaining and Section 2(d) of the Charter: A Comment on B.C. Health Services","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Collective bargaining; Supreme court; Law and economics; Law; Political science; Freedom of association; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Human rights; History","score_opus":0.04399825640918045,"score_gpt":0.33035989872541344,"score_spread":0.28636164231623296,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1694764544","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004635672,0.010119397,0.002088174,0.92236865,0.011838951,0.00014077779,0.0004553759,0.000095843294,0.04825711],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.03515343,0.0023820505,0.0012921487,0.9285381,0.005337645,0.00025383398,0.0000925006,0.00009406765,0.026856257],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95833683,0.009150911,0.0021483293,0.00648163,0.013226219,0.010656083],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9737462,0.019080713,0.0009273503,0.000722709,0.0038795604,0.0016434942],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03182021,0.0022092946,0.0029436648,0.0016604894,0.037066925,0.018684128,0.012662362,0.13102308,0.0049905144],"category_scores_gemma":[0.046093166,0.0022415174,0.0057080477,0.0031173266,0.034698695,0.008121347,0.006302459,0.09368415,0.0016238303],"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":[0.00006977684,0.000052086147,0.00049776153,0.00012983214,0.00003040471,0.0006497724,0.006822869,0.0003610702,0.00039125385,0.58760977,0.39972514,0.0036603278],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00034754435,0.00014762593,0.003382095,0.0013859158,0.00014014129,0.00032348576,0.0060846945,0.0017417336,0.00095601735,0.12898496,0.85594475,0.0005610256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.83278805,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8568979,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16721195,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0725366,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09477706,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5262923},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1697066185","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1202","title":"Grant, Suberu and Harrison: Detention, the Right to Counsel and a New Analysis under Section 24(2): Some Practical Impacts","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Right to counsel; Discretion; Section (typography); Test (biology); Political science; Remand (court procedure); High Court; Statement (logic); Psychology; Computer science","score_opus":0.05872340611161409,"score_gpt":0.3696385201887816,"score_spread":0.31091511407716754,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1697066185","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0188129,0.047555324,0.0037912684,0.8927076,0.0036906805,0.00009784987,0.000112486465,0.000023887525,0.03320811],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40305305,0.040998653,0.014841327,0.49937552,0.009336653,0.00021566426,0.000100484096,0.000068602465,0.03201008],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9771199,0.009156127,0.0009301875,0.0013443364,0.008858711,0.00259072],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94976926,0.041431874,0.0012483366,0.00061312085,0.0055410746,0.0013963451],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.033914253,0.0006160966,0.0011982659,0.0028158578,0.011366852,0.014459719,0.005050872,0.021201286,0.0023990166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05658974,0.00058035273,0.0010878594,0.0029763991,0.021098478,0.009268675,0.005564112,0.020373885,0.00033098],"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":[0.000072742674,0.000049472346,0.0018248656,0.00030992285,0.000048748847,0.001231893,0.008551444,0.00050568336,0.0005969773,0.82161033,0.13353255,0.031665355],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014398334,0.00010869159,0.009448632,0.001872323,0.00016998974,0.0006788219,0.020926567,0.0014433688,0.0013643664,0.5171221,0.44638535,0.0003357481],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.34921122,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.63507396,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.34921122,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020191798,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04710671,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.69435716},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1707063435","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1233","title":"Deprivations of Liberty: The Impact of the Charter on Substantive Criminal Law","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Scrutiny; Charter; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Sovereignty; Substantive due process; Law and economics; Reasonable suspicion; Fundamental rights; State (computer science); Supreme court; Sociology; Politics; Human rights","score_opus":0.061725975899735594,"score_gpt":0.34427046593197164,"score_spread":0.28254449003223603,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1707063435","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":[0.065104604,0.010997152,0.027352545,0.15272658,0.0013227023,0.00015133974,0.00015540677,0.0001278657,0.7420619],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9476806,0.0042737816,0.00798081,0.0178143,0.0010702908,0.000112803194,0.000053603002,0.000067516725,0.020946287],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97367394,0.010184298,0.00057536975,0.0021605697,0.009891796,0.0035140016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9451686,0.04275837,0.0025105523,0.0025064948,0.0054440144,0.0016119533],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021876981,0.00036277418,0.0005240571,0.0024951391,0.0063546128,0.015026354,0.0018843657,0.006390673,0.0043947725],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05650713,0.00049361604,0.0010336151,0.0015428483,0.036256686,0.008365045,0.005873933,0.010562926,0.00052465434],"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":[0.000009895242,0.00000872136,0.0003692103,0.000011939766,0.0000024956228,0.000058305905,0.0005350887,0.00034009435,0.000059850587,0.9905428,0.0025847403,0.0054768217],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051860592,0.00011467795,0.0050835554,0.00051082455,0.000049160502,0.00015017012,0.0015217897,0.003936546,0.0005816284,0.8682764,0.11961847,0.00010484914],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21955112,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18880135,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21955112,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02735825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.036062207,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4365464},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1707349913","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1020","title":"The “Second Labour Trilogy”: A Comment On R. V. Advance Cutting, Dunmore V. Ontario, and R.W.D.S.U. V. Pepsi-Cola","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Trilogy; Political science; Economics; Law; History; Art history","score_opus":0.028002983094586185,"score_gpt":0.29470821940128467,"score_spread":0.26670523630669846,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1707349913","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009748929,0.0031795353,0.0013850677,0.86185765,0.0041455887,0.00018809678,0.00089192344,0.0001440974,0.11845904],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.04621419,0.0013559,0.001283586,0.8553696,0.0019580799,0.00025147156,0.00020654556,0.00007394478,0.09328679],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9902485,0.001062465,0.00044298448,0.0013176757,0.0043386472,0.0025895883],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99206525,0.0045682215,0.0005154971,0.0002591682,0.00185142,0.00074039213],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0075006243,0.0010713883,0.0011343062,0.00108657,0.023799783,0.007982152,0.006283926,0.061887126,0.0076157697],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014219798,0.0018078819,0.001962839,0.0022577937,0.013205692,0.0036603766,0.002730954,0.035470016,0.0024122451],"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":[0.000064556545,0.000031629163,0.00084051356,0.0000972331,0.000016631388,0.00057979644,0.0050339685,0.00013666661,0.00078563887,0.17343152,0.81611574,0.0028660854],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019556723,0.00008020554,0.00856117,0.00044521652,0.00010823179,0.00029467625,0.0054178974,0.00044998928,0.001311637,0.018926539,0.9639933,0.00021561401],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8103976,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9191384,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18960238,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030082494,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04771732,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38143796},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1711771721","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1217","title":"The Interrogation Trilogy and the Protections for Interrogated Suspects in Canadian Law","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Interrogation; Trilogy; Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Context (archaeology); History","score_opus":0.08277040635567212,"score_gpt":0.3438659246500198,"score_spread":0.2610955182943477,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1711771721","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":[0.11531931,0.047047064,0.008583213,0.16495854,0.001006529,0.00029144887,0.0006119722,0.00014283686,0.6620391],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9002229,0.022363195,0.003508108,0.027222263,0.0002770724,0.00011069687,0.00022527309,0.00005210899,0.046018388],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9861351,0.002493033,0.0005522889,0.0011316357,0.0065402393,0.003147587],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9816382,0.007551086,0.0017600985,0.0008172718,0.007063286,0.0011701487],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009317906,0.00042926148,0.0004949317,0.0044075097,0.017521685,0.008188936,0.0031452915,0.0056299553,0.0066715754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03877844,0.0008200309,0.0006860495,0.0043089027,0.026581021,0.004280724,0.0042463266,0.0076940237,0.00050772756],"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":[0.000064839776,0.000044195047,0.0052892584,0.00034426918,0.000023909635,0.001064856,0.025147911,0.00041809867,0.0005314106,0.8718294,0.031513188,0.06372874],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001646833,0.00017070399,0.08846844,0.0027667661,0.00026982633,0.0015669549,0.033349577,0.00205915,0.0022228442,0.15900953,0.7093704,0.0005811997],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9788311,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9833051,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07033455,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07033455,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1597717,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5103153},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1713282725","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1094","title":"From the MVR to Chaoulli v. Quebec: The Road Not Taken and the Future of Section 7","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Meaning (existential); High Court; Dominance (genetics); Political science; Epistemology; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.013304387547118404,"score_gpt":0.23427730766712085,"score_spread":0.22097292012000244,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1713282725","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":[0.03333448,0.019331064,0.0010690397,0.40416354,0.0030792262,0.000112533024,0.0015589587,0.0001498239,0.53720134],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.38817906,0.007908454,0.0011581762,0.22557832,0.0008971351,0.00008755142,0.00061089196,0.0001844807,0.37539592],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99408466,0.00070396723,0.00013826988,0.0005205511,0.0019949304,0.0025576456],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99334854,0.0010444763,0.00019830084,0.00034687138,0.0039131646,0.0011485361],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004272269,0.00039993282,0.00069328886,0.001611276,0.0171741,0.010829747,0.0030752483,0.014749783,0.025876205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010985669,0.00060141616,0.0008106952,0.0014888629,0.0063908487,0.004039386,0.002458717,0.012879827,0.0021391811],"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":[0.000097881915,0.00004614962,0.003823682,0.00013038363,0.00003326484,0.00061366515,0.002667616,0.0003510912,0.0004253733,0.4303643,0.53523177,0.026214808],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006315669,0.000044264816,0.012939352,0.00080975215,0.00006760891,0.00016900462,0.0036944768,0.0005753261,0.00053817953,0.03264465,0.9483133,0.00014092062],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9895187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9956626,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.094108365,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.094108365,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16181575,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6828072},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1713335781","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1208","title":"The Paradox of Constitutional Amendments","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Prime minister; Constitution; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Perspective (graphical); Sociology; Politics; Art","score_opus":0.05620695906477338,"score_gpt":0.285717136837984,"score_spread":0.22951017777321062,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1713335781","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":[0.022426678,0.020450817,0.003677254,0.14544737,0.0009863293,0.000035848083,0.0002653004,0.000065227614,0.80664515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9212538,0.006594551,0.0015736521,0.017140191,0.0010568073,0.000069418944,0.00009427552,0.00009132497,0.052125942],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9811601,0.0074440427,0.00042199908,0.0025613902,0.0051991665,0.0032132682],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98435116,0.008639271,0.00072810834,0.0022922112,0.0031921437,0.00079712697],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017099915,0.0003601661,0.0011377421,0.0032051788,0.01840355,0.018895658,0.0025869517,0.006686498,0.011169891],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03577703,0.00061044306,0.0006095405,0.0037721973,0.057108928,0.011501154,0.004962471,0.010129159,0.0010837839],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00000424609,0.0000014275537,0.000028884155,0.000008148712,0.000001762007,0.00001578511,0.00081436156,0.000037864305,0.000010014641,0.9943861,0.0034832403,0.0012082815],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040195737,0.0000056404897,0.0004408729,0.00013053796,0.000012986538,0.000037651906,0.0018022683,0.00022884816,0.00009300807,0.73992157,0.25726485,0.000021456563],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47100773,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4485725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5289923,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06357555,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.039425343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9365323},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1716680343","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1026","title":"The Court's Exercise of Plenary Power: Rewriting the Two-Row Wampum","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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 British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Doctrine; Political science; High Court; Sovereignty; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.04757977348942157,"score_gpt":0.32391248267403233,"score_spread":0.2763327091846108,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1716680343","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":[0.018159583,0.035566643,0.0057687047,0.31225267,0.0042238147,0.00011738884,0.0002091523,0.00010459515,0.6235974],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.58772194,0.009749822,0.0032969054,0.15230797,0.0033110282,0.00043165497,0.00008658524,0.0002062135,0.24288778],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99261343,0.0027253008,0.00030074886,0.0009418869,0.0017997463,0.0016188443],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9944383,0.003979094,0.00021840855,0.00031041907,0.0007538527,0.00030006212],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009030869,0.0004753597,0.0006921125,0.001192333,0.0141902445,0.013260067,0.0025789875,0.02073384,0.006801782],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023313314,0.00088938186,0.00078726746,0.0011922647,0.01511886,0.007017096,0.003821202,0.01675836,0.0017426801],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000126429,0.000011512436,0.00011882555,0.0000341983,0.0000058397686,0.00019532703,0.0018621188,0.00007749312,0.00007303517,0.9244847,0.06873958,0.004384775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000640073,0.00003536599,0.0011497962,0.0006256463,0.00005391271,0.00017826752,0.003655472,0.0005838793,0.0004105519,0.4003779,0.5928036,0.00006166239],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.071091965,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.14958976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92890805,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010384168,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013119723,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14135629},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1720456538","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1019","title":"The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?: Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Aviation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"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; Political science; International law; Criminal law","score_opus":0.08698436325994299,"score_gpt":0.32534239939172793,"score_spread":0.23835803613178494,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1720456538","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":[0.029317474,0.09397914,0.0018941001,0.4911887,0.0024766552,0.0000486766,0.00038137607,0.00012606403,0.3805878],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76579845,0.097959146,0.0030113675,0.07390263,0.0025186583,0.000049857208,0.0003938798,0.00016436093,0.056201704],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.986331,0.0013115393,0.0003602543,0.0011284256,0.0065599615,0.004308761],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9818652,0.0045183194,0.0009984763,0.0005101099,0.009574145,0.0025336158],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011349873,0.0004778124,0.000647298,0.0068063326,0.021244869,0.03426367,0.002328747,0.0073107085,0.009407132],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030013833,0.0004969107,0.0005866258,0.011086904,0.028849361,0.008788517,0.0052352697,0.009647447,0.0005290885],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024183822,0.000024747886,0.0037949763,0.00022215609,0.000025282532,0.00023403883,0.008949011,0.00047252668,0.00015657622,0.7919748,0.122401334,0.07172047],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002301274,0.000024552342,0.026873274,0.00097424287,0.000094494964,0.00022213826,0.023342183,0.00079889776,0.00042226777,0.08494593,0.86209005,0.00018893667],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9866963,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99425405,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16588679,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16588679,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2708434,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9674531},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1722558755","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1279","title":"The Death of Oakes: Time for a Rights-Specific Approach?","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Set (abstract data type); Law; Test (biology); Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.06730119988863748,"score_gpt":0.3259241155007634,"score_spread":0.2586229156121259,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1722558755","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0087149525,0.031155704,0.012860185,0.793797,0.007998881,0.00003900055,0.000087465676,0.000040961666,0.14530584],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.39409366,0.026334407,0.011767793,0.498186,0.0074323765,0.00011158669,0.00013202721,0.00013182226,0.061810344],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98452723,0.0054423716,0.0007518072,0.0021927038,0.0057884646,0.0012974921],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9798007,0.013166872,0.0010439495,0.001263597,0.0038990702,0.00082580134],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027179608,0.00038767635,0.0010357349,0.0013634365,0.0050628413,0.00977303,0.003660989,0.009485328,0.004994897],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03793623,0.0003086722,0.00068936154,0.0010779025,0.03114518,0.018955203,0.0042520827,0.022899617,0.00071780366],"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":[0.0000059659087,0.0000047112967,0.00012958526,0.00004450986,0.0000058127553,0.00005882248,0.00080015237,0.000042573065,0.000031707812,0.9778831,0.01228208,0.008710968],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013832164,0.00003590652,0.00064794696,0.00077953585,0.000021471455,0.00015924983,0.0036574404,0.00017693506,0.00033016832,0.5487564,0.44537508,0.000045963563],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05527802,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.097625785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05527802,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009327308,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020752067,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14374125},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1723956093","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1214","title":"What Happens at a Bail Hearing Anyway?: The Supreme Court's Troubling Retreat from the Openness Principle in Toronto Star v. Canada","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Presumption; Charter; Supreme court; Statutory law; Law; Political science; Deference; Context (archaeology); Statutory interpretation; Law and economics; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.10462871659499695,"score_gpt":0.3336438235793268,"score_spread":0.22901510698432986,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1723956093","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11762338,0.017715506,0.00455601,0.57871634,0.0013972949,0.000114855495,0.0005025829,0.000064471795,0.2793095],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8796933,0.0065607303,0.0011261479,0.089659244,0.00059404917,0.000038188573,0.00007876304,0.00005230827,0.022197247],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98863655,0.001745994,0.00026466718,0.0010284844,0.004812112,0.0035121622],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98853046,0.007411352,0.0006157327,0.00027062246,0.0019101169,0.001261812],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0094415955,0.00033464242,0.0007411061,0.001579212,0.025713764,0.012270773,0.003895163,0.016738446,0.0037862738],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024589641,0.00070870697,0.0007757387,0.0027321412,0.028020764,0.0052598245,0.004216721,0.02771704,0.00024659466],"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":[0.00008370068,0.000042758038,0.005049013,0.00014293025,0.00004531123,0.0024238138,0.024458332,0.00059406273,0.0004069976,0.88816005,0.06264357,0.015949469],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031343286,0.000093965136,0.029858628,0.0012759365,0.00035055613,0.0009965446,0.060641903,0.002699256,0.0020458242,0.43683437,0.46436387,0.0005257038],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9815833,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9902952,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09626669,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09626669,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12595809,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.69846696},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1723975882","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1176","title":"The Differential Treatment of Adolescents as a Principle of Fundamental Justice: An Analysis of R. v. B. (D.) and C. (A.) v. Manitoba","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","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":"Notice; Charter; Supreme court; Entitlement (fair division); Law; Economic Justice; Context (archaeology); Fundamental rights; Political science; Psychology; Sociology; Human rights; Economics","score_opus":0.05214075609026291,"score_gpt":0.40684115988489183,"score_spread":0.3547004037946289,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1723975882","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.46523017,0.011424379,0.007820907,0.08405565,0.0004669857,0.00019595773,0.00010326622,0.000022635155,0.43068013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9647372,0.0017724567,0.0011837956,0.015404145,0.000137707,0.00012035509,0.000027212121,0.000017196859,0.01660001],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99378806,0.0024154068,0.00016026729,0.000310526,0.0012546737,0.002070973],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958197,0.0022422923,0.0005540797,0.00013036106,0.00065254985,0.00060107396],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006446673,0.0002652882,0.0005074687,0.0013687706,0.011143036,0.006320414,0.0016955587,0.0067598377,0.0015081557],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0077902526,0.00049712247,0.00081131875,0.0012341858,0.019006867,0.0021987527,0.004363513,0.009968825,0.00014508812],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000066857565,0.000016656715,0.0021476774,0.000012887944,0.0000046799078,0.0004656993,0.009984257,0.00009536634,0.00010370762,0.9843556,0.0013614681,0.0014452828],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012357821,0.00023119971,0.050667357,0.001360235,0.00016081847,0.0019245389,0.06499227,0.0023396027,0.0022654776,0.5636965,0.312067,0.0001713735],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.23232104,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4026056,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.767679,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015809953,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029364727,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46193755},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1728486672","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1011","title":"Gun Control and the Criminal-Law Power","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Gun Ownership and Violence Research","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":"Gun control; Law; Power (physics); Criminal law; Political science; Criminology; Control (management); Sociology; Computer science; Physics","score_opus":0.053882952323377385,"score_gpt":0.3690465320859896,"score_spread":0.3151635797626122,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1728486672","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07829839,0.19153702,0.001033183,0.046941247,0.00040191476,0.00008739937,0.00040479904,0.000021113967,0.68127495],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91738725,0.040387876,0.0002920214,0.006688961,0.00022513773,0.000042285832,0.000103067505,0.000005453633,0.034867875],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9959694,0.0009183077,0.00009270784,0.00024886304,0.0020487956,0.0007219671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953982,0.0023101734,0.0004782339,0.00011749545,0.0013381336,0.00035776058],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022765475,0.0001960282,0.0003033341,0.0030692008,0.0032690507,0.004259173,0.0010063013,0.002256167,0.011354614],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0067651803,0.00021681677,0.00020907218,0.0026554996,0.0089446185,0.0014708149,0.0009313497,0.0012576968,0.00043064656],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000048453767,0.00009502524,0.017900703,0.0008979764,0.0000673359,0.0006821858,0.0030903376,0.00064369576,0.00042414328,0.81541526,0.039809346,0.120925575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010376458,0.00016253593,0.16977726,0.0028322125,0.0001104683,0.0005992372,0.0064175664,0.0007858761,0.0004904403,0.1762501,0.642381,0.00008951287],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.78209573,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9022282,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78209573,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.031788833,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.035431087,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.43837506},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1735496562","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1030","title":"Does Canada Need a Political Questions Doctrine?","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Doctrine; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.034377514726984915,"score_gpt":0.29878037540790536,"score_spread":0.26440286068092045,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1735496562","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":[0.011117175,0.003569242,0.0016527476,0.5751403,0.0011488103,0.00005731925,0.0009911294,0.000064569664,0.40625858],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4836334,0.005961604,0.0033265445,0.26310217,0.0012044499,0.00011097389,0.00055327365,0.00018373174,0.2419238],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99306846,0.0006417362,0.000120724435,0.0006555139,0.0025860255,0.0029274905],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99224186,0.002409536,0.000259872,0.00030432313,0.0036812392,0.0011032018],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003832877,0.00036544277,0.0007007285,0.0017515086,0.01998651,0.013779376,0.003045862,0.01317451,0.029993415],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01693732,0.0003907543,0.000644156,0.0034909756,0.011056581,0.006655202,0.0024296134,0.0091444645,0.0019995046],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001722246,0.0000111844365,0.0012163115,0.000042349497,0.000009799268,0.00012061683,0.00086380244,0.00013966083,0.000071719136,0.91085726,0.08030446,0.006345641],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058724654,0.000017505472,0.0052402904,0.0003188555,0.000055326036,0.000105941755,0.005199014,0.0008956594,0.0005203647,0.21230592,0.7751583,0.00012407824],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98010767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9880177,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07728669,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07728669,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19139792,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5607568},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1737373107","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1297","title":"Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford and the Limits on Substantive Criminal Law under Section 7","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Arbitrariness; Supreme court; Charter; Proportionality (law); Parliament; Political science; Legislature; Criminal law; Section (typography); Constitutional law; Criminal justice; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.046386013255595424,"score_gpt":0.2924796537766195,"score_spread":0.24609364052102406,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1737373107","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":[0.085630864,0.017966917,0.0042015715,0.07196111,0.00078030286,0.00015096106,0.0007056497,0.00010030487,0.81850225],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.823322,0.007986228,0.0041111615,0.057445813,0.00031753283,0.00017799853,0.00033246164,0.00004712432,0.10625976],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.988937,0.0013453305,0.00028136343,0.00074266526,0.0050226166,0.0036709032],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9940169,0.0028355801,0.0003265923,0.00022094422,0.0021702014,0.00042969928],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044074785,0.00027647297,0.00038883358,0.001744272,0.0143187195,0.0051852884,0.0018282935,0.0061084456,0.004551637],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008721879,0.0006257134,0.00062610285,0.0016439165,0.01079739,0.0018801874,0.0014647788,0.005177261,0.0003726679],"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":[0.0000082853985,0.00000763286,0.00082908093,0.000037251648,0.000005852629,0.00010803008,0.0011371312,0.00014868336,0.00014275005,0.97806054,0.015053778,0.00446102],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000958999,0.0000731306,0.035834588,0.00088275963,0.00011635127,0.00031936757,0.0042582424,0.0012010998,0.0015921901,0.24051152,0.7148698,0.0002450682],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9622839,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9825419,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04673097,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04673097,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09899085,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33905846},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1741046706","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1201","title":"“Detention” under the Charter after R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"York University; University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; CLARITY; Political science; Scope (computer science); Meaning (existential); Remand (court procedure); Psychology","score_opus":0.035084537543816165,"score_gpt":0.3195177534237348,"score_spread":0.2844332158799186,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1741046706","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.52345663,0.009494293,0.026880736,0.1932134,0.0058975327,0.0007298434,0.00075907126,0.0005902515,0.23897834],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9323831,0.0014263915,0.004819471,0.024494838,0.00038311092,0.00012543329,0.00009385529,0.00004790835,0.03622582],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.980923,0.0039626746,0.0006153915,0.0015312558,0.007851058,0.0051166797],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9870558,0.007343199,0.0011095728,0.0005881084,0.0029838907,0.0009194269],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0107061,0.0005249755,0.00048425485,0.0010954192,0.009146496,0.003317229,0.0022926922,0.0074131438,0.0014377033],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02827265,0.00047161317,0.0010561539,0.0008472464,0.007292394,0.0023352157,0.002666375,0.012529336,0.00024080423],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001802459,0.0001358958,0.00913973,0.00014019609,0.0000518928,0.0028982703,0.021618728,0.0013497793,0.002745442,0.8300605,0.07598778,0.055691544],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002417865,0.0010608708,0.06363384,0.00079029787,0.00047518118,0.0033704776,0.028033007,0.0051175784,0.016122283,0.12682398,0.75307596,0.001254717],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.45982864,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.64956725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5401714,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0151430555,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.042860482,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.91430426},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1746578005","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1289","title":"Reconsidering Reconciliation: The Long Game","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Sovereignty; Jurisprudence; Law; Constitution; Supreme court; Treaty; Honour; Sociology; Treaty of Waitangi; Colonialism; Jurisdiction; Economic Justice; Political science; Premise; Politics; Epistemology","score_opus":0.06540845763291948,"score_gpt":0.32444636311887015,"score_spread":0.2590379054859507,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1746578005","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010181246,0.07090761,0.02339767,0.6458016,0.0034511336,0.00009815653,0.00004678061,0.000106869775,0.24600889],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76414436,0.024221618,0.011546522,0.16501491,0.004653413,0.00033813706,0.00007007856,0.0002200986,0.02979089],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.93606246,0.042134847,0.0016237202,0.004250094,0.011083782,0.004845162],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9620738,0.028130906,0.0010764078,0.002738041,0.004838046,0.0011428279],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.058671597,0.0005699698,0.0014999585,0.0023387335,0.019927954,0.022177435,0.0061090076,0.020932857,0.0044422387],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05148738,0.000616301,0.000977281,0.0023430309,0.08387604,0.025247412,0.013651859,0.025354018,0.0008834781],"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":[0.0000038718267,0.0000048651937,0.00003762574,0.00003696259,0.0000076152096,0.000044243992,0.0024893407,0.00009446463,0.000019111909,0.98288316,0.008334844,0.0060438453],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003091433,0.000017555572,0.00018298335,0.0004908404,0.000018604997,0.000103641774,0.0051646014,0.00031862748,0.00013223308,0.7944128,0.19909482,0.000032389846],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.061378382,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.071652114,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061378382,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021784576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.044640526,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31028873},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1751803832","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1172","title":"A More Lasting Comfort?: The Politics of Minimum Sentences, the Rule of Law and R. v. Ferguson","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Law; Punishment (psychology); Supreme court; Economic Justice; Political science; Criminal justice; Psychology; Social psychology","score_opus":0.056072567626597764,"score_gpt":0.3494054192767731,"score_spread":0.2933328516501753,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1751803832","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010998832,0.031516496,0.00085477217,0.8857708,0.0011749442,0.000008805365,0.000040030798,0.000009660164,0.06962576],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6048983,0.013821194,0.0011914156,0.34976694,0.0034617607,0.000036991216,0.00003426692,0.00004509021,0.026743941],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9911378,0.003973243,0.00019243227,0.0009946534,0.0023449669,0.001356812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909835,0.006759315,0.0005619343,0.0002095992,0.0007760812,0.0007096135],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01073696,0.0002449917,0.0006418268,0.0010214736,0.009996005,0.009440368,0.0014442317,0.013331506,0.0024088006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020117298,0.00032145155,0.000365874,0.0009526986,0.030811826,0.00782445,0.0020720528,0.015869338,0.00032894127],"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":[0.000022695604,0.000014979863,0.00029740727,0.000030872758,0.00000533991,0.00011368447,0.002690777,0.00005862588,0.00010953415,0.927328,0.062403694,0.0069243964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006737616,0.000059983056,0.0043836045,0.0006377304,0.000037350113,0.00019236103,0.010141467,0.00032008206,0.00040157605,0.5918494,0.39179167,0.0001174707],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.30214363,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4713688,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30214363,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017213237,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014583024,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.60076994},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1754125440","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1203","title":"Managing Charter Equality Rights: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Disposition of Leave to Appeal Applications in Section 15 Cases, 1989-2010","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Supreme court; Charter; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; High Court","score_opus":0.02555511051597266,"score_gpt":0.3141556700297845,"score_spread":0.28860055951381186,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1754125440","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8672946,0.005167843,0.00072321563,0.018073007,0.00019566304,0.00020017318,0.00059299066,0.00003827819,0.1077143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98629826,0.0012289307,0.0003058244,0.0024032677,0.000049388203,0.000025060635,0.00015340904,0.0000104063165,0.009525366],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.986201,0.0009899422,0.00036485083,0.00081486395,0.0053619775,0.0062674396],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9767452,0.0082546,0.0036925464,0.00042575956,0.0075272643,0.0033546006],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0091270385,0.0001947888,0.0004902677,0.004659031,0.017723827,0.009701754,0.0025407001,0.0036075157,0.0023606766],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03715661,0.00056198955,0.0004500049,0.0062467656,0.0059875823,0.0016989504,0.0027859532,0.0049768193,0.0002282421],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00040738663,0.0004143122,0.3613019,0.00036981222,0.0002447617,0.00601802,0.09784731,0.0038774805,0.0039834655,0.32979447,0.07962402,0.116117075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000060267375,0.00012262062,0.8046645,0.0003897745,0.00015768061,0.00042388096,0.045292728,0.002107744,0.0020404737,0.008264178,0.1362177,0.0002584348],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98174125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99562716,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86886007,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13113992,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16639726,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9514912},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1754226533","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1024","title":"Constitutional Casualties of September 11: Limiting the Legacy of the Anti-Terrorism Act","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"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":"Terrorism; Statute; Conviction; Law; Political science; Presumption; Presumption of innocence","score_opus":0.098687175941766,"score_gpt":0.3428456381365486,"score_spread":0.2441584621947826,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1754226533","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":[0.07360569,0.0030518265,0.004755037,0.10067367,0.0058556157,0.0008086523,0.0024550147,0.0007047536,0.80808973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6406822,0.002572836,0.0054881065,0.14885862,0.0042447727,0.0008446159,0.0011252372,0.0002403109,0.19594328],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98501915,0.001795186,0.00082821824,0.0024217442,0.0065230606,0.0034126574],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871536,0.005547398,0.0010364462,0.0017059101,0.0025201174,0.002036635],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01086467,0.00086699694,0.00068615674,0.0015962131,0.008408118,0.016824229,0.004545913,0.019701945,0.008458279],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022514552,0.0012403145,0.0011770804,0.001041013,0.01224214,0.0035132559,0.005049236,0.017063575,0.0022353798],"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":[0.0001237201,0.00016322802,0.004401128,0.0001346876,0.000042438965,0.0014377229,0.0038804656,0.00067093695,0.0028086395,0.8239589,0.14188775,0.020490425],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021583455,0.000334529,0.02195279,0.00053199125,0.00013941333,0.0009388655,0.0027904164,0.0013075438,0.0023506023,0.043479823,0.9256807,0.0002775428],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.38070732,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5449637,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.38070732,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01945763,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029637387,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7569827},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1755290261","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1257","title":"“Dollars Versus [Equality] Rights”: Money and the Limits on Distributive Justice","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Distributive justice; Political science; Plaintiff; Law and economics; Supreme court; Adjudication; Government (linguistics); Social rights; Economics; Economic Justice; Law; Public economics; Politics","score_opus":0.08993198609582952,"score_gpt":0.3613987024357866,"score_spread":0.27146671633995706,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1755290261","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":[0.07737834,0.0071411314,0.019627998,0.10150706,0.0004040646,0.00006607535,0.00018561445,0.000053099004,0.7936366],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95237505,0.0013622568,0.0030841397,0.011686382,0.0003893694,0.000080322454,0.000043517903,0.00004948004,0.030929422],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98567396,0.0038697675,0.0002787943,0.0012518488,0.0055508115,0.003374758],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946733,0.0028129106,0.00043935401,0.00052745716,0.0010198466,0.0005272042],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006888356,0.00046415222,0.0006938289,0.00153211,0.009849108,0.016509514,0.0024378805,0.006510922,0.009073661],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015916217,0.00035121286,0.00061434164,0.0016254925,0.04738935,0.0117789805,0.0063383477,0.0074028918,0.0005478575],"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":[0.0000053157964,0.0000025854404,0.00011413402,0.0000050095173,0.0000014821641,0.000020685566,0.00046959883,0.000053449883,0.00002913565,0.9965473,0.001183802,0.0015675382],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002278981,0.000016599986,0.0016569477,0.00017089148,0.000014375328,0.00005996647,0.001965729,0.0005983948,0.0003696394,0.9269297,0.06815958,0.000035375124],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.213073,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2792773,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.213073,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025326231,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.022367481,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42366558},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1755826749","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1068","title":"2004: A Year of Mixed Messages From the Court","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Political science; Jurisprudence; Economic Justice","score_opus":0.029608544443447706,"score_gpt":0.3056628341153859,"score_spread":0.27605428967193824,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1755826749","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0027645712,0.014467473,0.0005291697,0.8707374,0.04431035,0.000034575798,0.0002888667,0.00013861507,0.06672908],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.049245276,0.006299924,0.0008474414,0.693442,0.017956752,0.00012254395,0.00037764412,0.0003098761,0.23139848],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98936754,0.0018330916,0.00041645044,0.0009454963,0.0054084174,0.00202894],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9894566,0.0040974724,0.0004780318,0.00088195765,0.0029928403,0.0020931067],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010929062,0.0008390817,0.0010947112,0.0024889933,0.0222576,0.028423592,0.0029287057,0.024906207,0.02072128],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033220634,0.00083326723,0.00089035183,0.0035295766,0.007904476,0.011504721,0.006847522,0.029493267,0.0059598167],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000017342534,0.000018642446,0.00012923637,0.000026992273,0.000004109184,0.00018949635,0.0013276899,0.000020260013,0.000108212465,0.03030658,0.95567703,0.01217449],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000042802235,0.000006954993,0.00037572044,0.000109031,0.0000025107074,0.000043058342,0.001527086,0.000032489006,0.00006138717,0.0038607006,0.99396175,0.00001498048],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.046760198,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08121685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9532398,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018240055,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012190279,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1323415},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1759440862","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1054","title":"Hierarchies of Harm in Canadian Criminal Law: The Marijuana Trilogy and the Forcible “Correction” of Children","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Harm; Law; Supreme court; Criminal law; Political science; Foundation (evidence); Harm principle; Criminology; Sociology","score_opus":0.021034814159474512,"score_gpt":0.2799589661272835,"score_spread":0.258924151967809,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1759440862","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":[0.12043662,0.02965943,0.004293134,0.13054714,0.0005970046,0.00011873245,0.00035899016,0.000043070133,0.71394587],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95544714,0.009528895,0.0022463843,0.010883773,0.00017233803,0.000049984435,0.00009844646,0.00002740473,0.021545606],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99297404,0.0009864997,0.00016759973,0.00042353087,0.0036128133,0.0018354476],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9932147,0.0019404072,0.00065140607,0.00020602878,0.0029688452,0.0010185261],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003979003,0.00046890182,0.0005068238,0.0068042087,0.025256988,0.009097348,0.002206615,0.0040855547,0.003895607],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011796628,0.0005234383,0.0005244991,0.0052487063,0.030710353,0.0038314587,0.004292516,0.005582077,0.00015998314],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007551927,0.00001228692,0.005516227,0.000050245715,0.000008102034,0.00020281337,0.012285356,0.0003279316,0.00006987278,0.95639604,0.01129799,0.013825554],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058937883,0.00004197616,0.08273099,0.0011546826,0.00011751776,0.00049819174,0.035432898,0.0022207666,0.00040948045,0.3718099,0.50522375,0.0003008406],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9914147,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9962399,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.842269,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15773098,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16795026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9769127},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1759993853","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1050","title":"What’s Law Good For?: An Empirical Overview of Charter Equality Rights Decisions","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Fundamental rights; Promotion (chess); Human rights","score_opus":0.22900690932000367,"score_gpt":0.4431924705097113,"score_spread":0.2141855611897076,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1759993853","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6945328,0.2037456,0.0017740343,0.022025784,0.00016274587,0.00013948737,0.0014134619,0.000020873389,0.076185204],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9165739,0.076047756,0.00074174354,0.0033853014,0.00016221585,0.00004831073,0.0006735594,0.000026841673,0.0023403086],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99056214,0.0036362023,0.0010171921,0.0007454161,0.003095112,0.0009439509],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.90664464,0.06871496,0.014348374,0.0012193006,0.008027179,0.0010456758],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010542945,0.00015479789,0.0005301898,0.008794758,0.0026236286,0.0059814667,0.0008137356,0.0015065172,0.0025475416],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04818016,0.00037662388,0.00041373257,0.017221466,0.0042655077,0.007400902,0.001834879,0.0023104632,0.00033599258],"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":[0.00018112434,0.0003164437,0.40970844,0.0031701096,0.0002724556,0.001301398,0.10421607,0.00079008006,0.0008612412,0.07544036,0.03443219,0.36931014],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017904784,0.00019777787,0.65832585,0.004416571,0.0001963423,0.0011795941,0.112139024,0.00052847964,0.0006260586,0.007254181,0.21502902,0.00008916529],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04964896,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10259546,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04964896,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0052773575,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0067885723,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.098719954},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1762008596","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1055","title":"R. v. Powley: Building a Foundation for the Constitutional Recognition of Métis Aboriginal Rights","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","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":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Foundation (evidence); Law; Political science; Identification (biology); Sociology; Law and economics","score_opus":0.03728851782723854,"score_gpt":0.3653150948598403,"score_spread":0.3280265770326018,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1762008596","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":[0.04266585,0.0073752585,0.020014592,0.31004497,0.002727761,0.00026256585,0.00014200654,0.00019408438,0.61657286],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7386503,0.0027922585,0.020095203,0.15028666,0.001340991,0.00058512256,0.00008032345,0.00010065271,0.08606844],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98938495,0.0031643212,0.00046426555,0.001650337,0.00355569,0.0017805691],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928357,0.00448121,0.00045247612,0.00052531966,0.0011683248,0.00053699105],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014131068,0.0004810303,0.0009249454,0.0012037245,0.010162787,0.0080936,0.002496571,0.017543575,0.0035051387],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025766848,0.00090757303,0.0009285092,0.00074386195,0.02036724,0.0067742025,0.0065094107,0.023092723,0.00083352055],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000048152356,0.0000043550344,0.000065821776,0.000012548105,0.0000019891925,0.00009688803,0.0012397671,0.00006913025,0.00009809763,0.9888015,0.0072173933,0.0023876939],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000084080086,0.00007771437,0.0010090058,0.0005143687,0.00003363449,0.0002813797,0.0026301064,0.0009526132,0.00088729494,0.76477,0.22865984,0.00010007827],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07451982,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08565179,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9254802,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0071008513,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025342898,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14817214},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1762122425","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1181","title":"Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Battlefield; Battle; Politics; Empire; History; Government (linguistics); Dream; Michel foucault; Cultural assimilation; Threatened species; Law; Ethnology; Political science; Genealogy; Sociology; Ancient history; Philosophy; Psychology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.015558390554504567,"score_gpt":0.282594793050084,"score_spread":0.2670364024955794,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1762122425","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":[0.0063128388,0.02424978,0.00049934926,0.40341866,0.0037946943,0.000016719,0.00016232645,0.000043305452,0.5615024],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.26886097,0.009403519,0.0005922891,0.14518553,0.0027886736,0.00003465556,0.00007887888,0.00007153684,0.572984],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99830604,0.00023956655,0.000024590427,0.00029887617,0.00059791567,0.00053297967],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989353,0.00042639137,0.00003407192,0.000059782626,0.00034736856,0.00019708926],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015016727,0.000285055,0.00029209795,0.0004912323,0.011680766,0.005883076,0.00079218124,0.0065602763,0.0123703955],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0027078537,0.00018456498,0.0001446974,0.00057085877,0.007346171,0.002182218,0.0016633937,0.007796145,0.0019093179],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000112153,0.00000758549,0.00020827359,0.000017143175,0.0000024827086,0.00020350814,0.0022484835,0.00002897098,0.000105900006,0.575606,0.40732136,0.01423898],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000033763752,0.0000028556442,0.00042118828,0.00004565115,0.0000018005685,0.00006535279,0.0005454328,0.000033232987,0.00007184249,0.012795754,0.98600674,0.0000068991844],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4207379,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5903986,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9878664,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012133576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013893512,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83657783},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1762888882","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1133","title":"“Contextualizing” Bertha Wilson: Wilson as a Woman in Law in Mid-20th Century Canada","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University; Dalhousie University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Economic Justice; Appeal; Context (archaeology); Commonwealth; Sociology; Political science; Gender studies; History","score_opus":0.022151068086039817,"score_gpt":0.25784702115932584,"score_spread":0.23569595307328603,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1762888882","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.37569,0.02539182,0.0016606201,0.30416635,0.003710608,0.0001486565,0.0003093077,0.00012955982,0.28879303],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87653816,0.008156971,0.00068731233,0.027377972,0.00024477192,0.00004855183,0.000063139836,0.00015297171,0.08673005],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99375796,0.0013730392,0.000083119514,0.0005678373,0.0012614613,0.0029565766],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99459153,0.0008583416,0.00022476948,0.00007507333,0.0013951806,0.002855112],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003256725,0.0006229352,0.000706025,0.002688947,0.10425381,0.013899549,0.002927219,0.004893231,0.0069356486],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005718262,0.00070303347,0.0003768972,0.0035238587,0.050316367,0.004988938,0.007880453,0.00907072,0.00056584086],"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":[0.000021106542,0.000024652738,0.0031381457,0.00004394608,0.000006358079,0.0016020087,0.8958335,0.000065559376,0.0003114109,0.0488655,0.041993894,0.00809389],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000037939392,0.000012838723,0.003077332,0.00018033512,0.0000076039278,0.00035718552,0.5576037,0.000051326882,0.000116886695,0.0025928963,0.43594295,0.00005319493],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9912566,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9974274,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20222491,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20222491,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18585716,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.925306},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1764206910","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1113","title":"Arbitrary Detention: Whither — or Wither?: Section 9","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Dalhousie University","funders":"","keywords":"Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Prima facie; Charter; Law; Economic Justice; Political science; Test (biology); Computer science","score_opus":0.09843138157882267,"score_gpt":0.3471047990116318,"score_spread":0.24867341743280916,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1764206910","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":[0.15196294,0.008454917,0.014887315,0.20442039,0.0039829775,0.00006678889,0.0001167429,0.00010469388,0.61600333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88026875,0.0022870076,0.002532694,0.04086275,0.0009554223,0.000034349374,0.00005038516,0.00008833625,0.07292031],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.990333,0.0028524413,0.0003178357,0.0015575562,0.0027822305,0.0021568607],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99457836,0.0024869458,0.000614145,0.0006799068,0.0010355541,0.0006050876],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062493766,0.00022809439,0.0003380729,0.00051459693,0.008076227,0.01121783,0.0018380056,0.005371246,0.0039995164],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014564412,0.00034030993,0.00043340732,0.0005702594,0.021058954,0.010689783,0.005078427,0.011270196,0.00062942103],"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":[0.000020424914,0.000019236917,0.0015153883,0.000032508757,0.0000038000082,0.0002682579,0.0058065597,0.00011605651,0.0002166361,0.9656411,0.012731941,0.013628165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024280353,0.00015586228,0.00970292,0.0008349723,0.00003158298,0.0006868534,0.018377973,0.0008444929,0.002515798,0.3625049,0.6041516,0.00016882538],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05116334,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10979182,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05116334,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008597756,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011019203,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10173106},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1765200905","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1009","title":"Charter and Context: The Facts For Which We Need Evidence, and the Mysterious Other Ones","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Context (archaeology); Political science; History; Psychology; Epistemology; Computer science; Philosophy; Law; Archaeology","score_opus":0.08167069439336848,"score_gpt":0.34771969685595805,"score_spread":0.26604900246258956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1765200905","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":[0.00995816,0.14933616,0.021535825,0.7399614,0.008507732,0.00007444595,0.0006678041,0.000081807724,0.06987662],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6817945,0.17924649,0.023778474,0.086525284,0.01811804,0.0003152773,0.0007156041,0.00020269272,0.009303658],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9858014,0.008598815,0.00077474996,0.0014427949,0.0026043502,0.00077780714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9401241,0.038507804,0.0053000823,0.008576325,0.0058190953,0.0016726173],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019117856,0.0008678334,0.0015229152,0.004251536,0.0066998354,0.01593804,0.003932898,0.0086753415,0.010170402],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08059691,0.0005447784,0.00056717865,0.00583039,0.06788028,0.060265124,0.0077451593,0.012807202,0.0012259346],"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":[0.00004724402,0.000027993372,0.0013354706,0.0008687226,0.000030392368,0.00022930746,0.0046430095,0.00023103476,0.00006198542,0.91640246,0.03796597,0.038156413],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012825465,0.00001528151,0.0011922193,0.0026915742,0.00002042296,0.00022962445,0.011917886,0.00024996436,0.00008864361,0.8084868,0.17505641,0.000038206454],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013014622,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017227488,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.019117856,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0043133055,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00927287,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10110611},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1765318557","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1190","title":"Accommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada","keywords":"Compromise; Law; Duty; Charter; Supreme court; Constitutionality; Political science; Accommodation; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.029136094985924194,"score_gpt":0.3377542853437462,"score_spread":0.308618190357822,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1765318557","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.038185384,0.008429432,0.0007993852,0.67893535,0.004598245,0.00018692375,0.00047287584,0.00016020365,0.26823226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.11978947,0.0027130414,0.0004996968,0.7647594,0.0017472507,0.00011236978,0.00014117804,0.00007047087,0.110167116],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99304855,0.0007233208,0.0002008484,0.00080589915,0.0027133059,0.0025079802],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9942331,0.0030328436,0.00020000605,0.000206229,0.0014748021,0.00085306255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0060162484,0.000683935,0.0008041783,0.0011181954,0.028616317,0.007896245,0.007566055,0.039157055,0.0075488947],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013493109,0.0013177363,0.001168139,0.0018569909,0.009020172,0.002656034,0.0029504013,0.029454863,0.0012785608],"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":[0.000093217044,0.00008156948,0.0030739894,0.0001225593,0.000037253172,0.0032809756,0.010559918,0.00042214704,0.000889119,0.21110374,0.75911665,0.011218898],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000103066064,0.00005714867,0.010884696,0.00041395755,0.00009765742,0.00043493192,0.013742548,0.00053162785,0.00082409655,0.015815517,0.95683765,0.00025706078],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9212495,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96328527,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07875049,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039488096,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06553195,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2865075},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1766867618","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1280","title":"Doré, Proportionality and the Virtues of Judicial Craft","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Craft; Categorization; Supreme court; Law; Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy); Political science; Sociology; Epistemology; Law and economics; History; Mathematics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.02968401836408885,"score_gpt":0.30799844209765986,"score_spread":0.278314423733571,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1766867618","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.055908058,0.032233797,0.019053165,0.2716995,0.001665475,0.00008803776,0.00014040222,0.000080636506,0.61913085],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96191967,0.0035984195,0.0023547057,0.013597562,0.00058186194,0.00003485157,0.000015821504,0.00003242383,0.017864643],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9813923,0.0055562677,0.0005860878,0.001819107,0.006770734,0.0038754502],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.977207,0.014554078,0.0014045907,0.0017080449,0.004258711,0.00086760375],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019450918,0.0003435675,0.00082298135,0.0025885208,0.012201929,0.013298043,0.0022126841,0.0068974234,0.0034529674],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05041944,0.0004466584,0.00058255676,0.0019327437,0.056277234,0.0068261563,0.0038211513,0.008629717,0.00032225333],"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":[0.0000032740836,0.0000020468499,0.00013011995,0.000011414223,0.000002741363,0.000026784559,0.00049842824,0.0000702479,0.0000142515555,0.9951787,0.0022272528,0.001834704],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032752192,0.000010326043,0.0014310352,0.00019746675,0.000019069344,0.00009193677,0.0014026366,0.0005077742,0.00028201606,0.9083277,0.087665424,0.000031965003],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3509857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.40478355,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3509857,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027241655,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.043232873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6978855},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1767433710","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1194","title":"Supreme Court Recognizes (a Derivative) Right to Access Information","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Political science; Government (linguistics); Scope (computer science); Perspective (graphical); Access to information; Constitutional right; Right to privacy; Information access","score_opus":0.05450529070080008,"score_gpt":0.36725654651546313,"score_spread":0.31275125581466307,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1767433710","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01547439,0.0032039243,0.0037082953,0.09521323,0.0009518169,0.00018091628,0.0012750883,0.00018095975,0.87981147],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.50676924,0.003327025,0.0046631563,0.16944854,0.0010547184,0.00027155693,0.0008689308,0.00010650876,0.3134903],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9766051,0.0018123824,0.0010437699,0.0024943512,0.011859246,0.0061850785],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98774046,0.003928405,0.0003613426,0.001170975,0.005651638,0.0011471972],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00876761,0.00046431198,0.0010413274,0.001470523,0.013856572,0.012180476,0.0029482702,0.017091341,0.009131085],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021674586,0.00087182,0.0009538701,0.0019447727,0.012349394,0.0038540286,0.00484655,0.0134048015,0.002447259],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000023219525,0.000023830447,0.0007284467,0.000043252512,0.000014817589,0.00028511861,0.0026747326,0.00011056951,0.000486299,0.9152551,0.0731211,0.007233626],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000079307916,0.0000500018,0.0041214074,0.00043982978,0.00008235417,0.00036936114,0.0013934013,0.00041047108,0.0007876623,0.11647207,0.8756597,0.00013458054],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8042044,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84194756,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8042044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02220505,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07858864,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3938973},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1769446812","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1175","title":"R. v. B. (D.): The Constitutionalization of Adolescence","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","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":"Supreme court; Law; Economic Justice; Political science; Obligation; Statutory law; Sentence; Criminology; Psychology; Sociology","score_opus":0.04002834026501018,"score_gpt":0.37218694624185666,"score_spread":0.3321586059768465,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1769446812","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03759459,0.005898211,0.004388478,0.060191564,0.0034952944,0.00083120586,0.0024528818,0.00052309106,0.8846247],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4210738,0.0036521363,0.0067598373,0.17284232,0.001247389,0.0010376832,0.00091036625,0.00022898061,0.39224753],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9892047,0.00083852233,0.00050460856,0.0015687136,0.0036411525,0.0042422735],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99564207,0.0011578376,0.00020769588,0.000318764,0.001893351,0.0007802264],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0063363966,0.00096601405,0.00066875876,0.0015596502,0.014380747,0.008453069,0.0040878328,0.016270485,0.006389986],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0094724335,0.001348255,0.0015657904,0.0009207083,0.0062076077,0.001921505,0.0029806346,0.012329763,0.0018481656],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000064116386,0.000059075683,0.0031710719,0.00009007657,0.000020730673,0.0008020322,0.0026328224,0.0004404827,0.0015719,0.8512354,0.1270944,0.012817862],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022837096,0.00021685372,0.017986871,0.0007510399,0.00017680832,0.00057872955,0.0017687073,0.0013798667,0.002689627,0.04604249,0.9278432,0.00033737847],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90358543,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9315368,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90358543,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030477483,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07991123,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22113061},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1773230185","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1265","title":"The Upside of Dissent in Equality Jurisprudence","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Dissent; Dissenting opinion; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Charter; Supreme court; Variety (cybernetics); Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Politics","score_opus":0.05014359831196368,"score_gpt":0.35891352240995905,"score_spread":0.30876992409799536,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1773230185","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":[0.08450039,0.041051265,0.07119574,0.27422392,0.0027876254,0.00010899329,0.000055615474,0.00006461421,0.52601177],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95540446,0.004228676,0.009987436,0.018567717,0.0019679486,0.00015558345,0.000012998286,0.000048347214,0.009626823],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9651701,0.024481822,0.0010001548,0.0026188153,0.0051751966,0.0015539114],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9690071,0.026382733,0.0009841638,0.0016085649,0.0013182596,0.00069918396],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.036324903,0.0004579225,0.00088730047,0.0024609412,0.010992757,0.008366077,0.0015212803,0.0052928748,0.0027577798],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038060397,0.00043771332,0.00067197107,0.0015298934,0.07685921,0.012138716,0.008906942,0.009809026,0.00044356694],"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":[0.0000061949727,0.0000050513986,0.00009739542,0.000017563465,0.0000026143402,0.000030838983,0.0016986256,0.000059823025,0.000026967024,0.99453825,0.00075820246,0.002758379],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009724641,0.00001199345,0.00014395839,0.000055025634,0.0000027993344,0.000026698868,0.0005272533,0.00012718335,0.000088469125,0.99056554,0.0084348945,0.000006511901],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0024869568,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029695795,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.036324903,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040673283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036106466,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19210672},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1774047662","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1263","title":"Democracy and Dissent: Reconsidering the Judicial Review of the Political Sphere","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Dissent; Democracy; Supreme court; Law; Politics; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.05805980761421975,"score_gpt":0.30903144942230304,"score_spread":0.2509716418080833,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1774047662","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":[0.06606974,0.070017144,0.04354899,0.5191725,0.010806282,0.000352221,0.00014917689,0.0001569325,0.28972703],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9072095,0.008365905,0.010525202,0.048258338,0.009027642,0.0002265895,0.000053623808,0.00012612218,0.016207187],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.8999624,0.06026799,0.0057050055,0.00759996,0.019846201,0.006618386],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.78656965,0.16677144,0.007334229,0.011261063,0.024602849,0.0034608615],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.10792653,0.00042040943,0.0018587578,0.0053749206,0.011126026,0.018920923,0.004758313,0.014071133,0.0021004686],"category_scores_gemma":[0.19919144,0.0006407556,0.0010317292,0.0034327002,0.037874166,0.014574892,0.0064437324,0.01495415,0.00043867386],"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":[0.00002891714,0.000018816025,0.00053797266,0.000097844844,0.000023179824,0.00022921519,0.006491192,0.00035633202,0.00018158891,0.9554985,0.016315274,0.020221315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008479153,0.00004876576,0.0013003575,0.0005561831,0.000041794465,0.00015894351,0.004077414,0.0015604335,0.0006246918,0.8411341,0.15031461,0.00009801026],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015871974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.023368137,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10792653,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013402934,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025072988,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5707769},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1774255088","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1138","title":"Precedent, Principle and Pragmatism: Justice Wilson and the Expansion of Canadian Tort Law","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Law; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Political science; Delict; Appeal; Sociology; Public law; Private law; Black letter law; Liability","score_opus":0.03942703095278265,"score_gpt":0.3191824306053409,"score_spread":0.27975539965255825,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1774255088","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":[0.099734336,0.010566216,0.005315156,0.2809957,0.0006995557,0.00007814348,0.000101619575,0.00008103906,0.6024283],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93318355,0.0025102186,0.0026514581,0.018759862,0.00015734852,0.000025981393,0.000018368917,0.000032400858,0.042660847],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9951113,0.0008861321,0.00010100919,0.00064538233,0.0017717659,0.0014844062],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963439,0.0013351543,0.00022820024,0.00016381656,0.0011785144,0.00075051235],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036900348,0.0003440972,0.00028204618,0.0020908616,0.03156778,0.009823644,0.0018835347,0.0047176504,0.0039655045],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010109509,0.00041062536,0.0003253285,0.002048734,0.040491946,0.0044552186,0.004555476,0.0067496807,0.00021113234],"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":[0.000008778268,0.000006964184,0.000674786,0.000020319814,0.000002634832,0.00018606622,0.009949686,0.00017754258,0.000116552146,0.9679281,0.012705379,0.008223163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004035694,0.00003045244,0.008023483,0.00037358378,0.000034132874,0.00034352715,0.028733883,0.0016433658,0.0004445491,0.4142044,0.5459284,0.00019990187],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97214395,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9858117,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11217072,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11217072,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1256548,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.81385934},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1774813234","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1027","title":"Can the Taxing Power Be Delegated?","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Corporate Taxation and Avoidance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Power (physics); Law and economics; Economics; Business; Thermodynamics; Physics","score_opus":0.04271543234680609,"score_gpt":0.233623933740397,"score_spread":0.19090850139359092,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1774813234","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":[0.047854442,0.0074907127,0.008188622,0.28027838,0.0033158576,0.000073335585,0.00024443702,0.000097924065,0.6524563],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84006387,0.0040190932,0.0015797883,0.05780701,0.0032648926,0.00009933387,0.00009052425,0.00007611174,0.0929994],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928975,0.0012994651,0.00024360984,0.0011393768,0.002350708,0.002069408],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99178314,0.0038986255,0.0006622605,0.0014721405,0.0016347285,0.0005491149],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008050468,0.00040595964,0.0012475098,0.0015279388,0.0046374463,0.010971674,0.0025548683,0.016454186,0.016789889],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033461023,0.0006560079,0.0009349808,0.0011690173,0.014227868,0.011177731,0.0029736385,0.011760346,0.0031672388],"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":[0.000030752803,0.000038878075,0.00044932083,0.00002749194,0.000025141366,0.0000681748,0.00019205624,0.00022290432,0.000100636076,0.9726035,0.017908683,0.008332512],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006000171,0.000019860156,0.001846056,0.00015790116,0.00005449886,0.00011702567,0.0004422914,0.00057004695,0.0003651191,0.89357644,0.10275787,0.000032828502],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015607284,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.023841264,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.016789889,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003891119,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0075042066,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05616778},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1776435105","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1282","title":"Judging in Secular Times: Max Weber and the Rise of Proportionality","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":16,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Jurisprudence; Bureaucracy; Law; Metaphysics; Sociology; Churning; The Imaginary; Political science; Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy; Economics; Politics; Psychology","score_opus":0.024508056357670546,"score_gpt":0.2971709197602406,"score_spread":0.27266286340257007,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1776435105","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":[0.047907405,0.04662897,0.013972921,0.16732846,0.0018853263,0.000034066954,0.000052652038,0.000056536705,0.72213364],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631185,0.0062961397,0.0030325912,0.0053005493,0.0013083282,0.000025884774,0.0000128708425,0.000038536837,0.020866692],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9959149,0.0024368868,0.0001113209,0.0004423418,0.0008031089,0.00029142262],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99370295,0.004701603,0.00032552567,0.00032292004,0.0006173696,0.00032957527],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007847007,0.00031165048,0.00034075096,0.0021210357,0.006302232,0.0072716773,0.00059857866,0.0021242585,0.0024401753],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013241862,0.00025436538,0.00018691599,0.0017244903,0.034970246,0.009232964,0.0020051484,0.0034785115,0.00026019017],"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":[0.0000027599021,0.0000019661443,0.000055910255,0.0000053522413,6.775349e-7,0.0000137973275,0.0016305523,0.000045800472,0.000010983333,0.9937091,0.0019388841,0.0025842644],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000051463844,0.0000044970343,0.00017732673,0.00004951035,0.0000015953234,0.000017961207,0.000937384,0.00019820637,0.000055198612,0.94202864,0.056516837,0.000007671082],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015569382,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017816937,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015569382,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0076929163,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035403515,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.055816293},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1778618288","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1184","title":"Comparative Law at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008: Limited Engagement and Missed Opportunities","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Comparative law; Precedent; Political science; Common law; Constitutional law; Majority opinion; Law of the case; Court of record; Original jurisdiction; Sociology","score_opus":0.18209897885147636,"score_gpt":0.35779625516083996,"score_spread":0.1756972763093636,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1778618288","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":[0.103764154,0.05029615,0.0014581993,0.26218304,0.0015714406,0.00006711107,0.00061937305,0.00005672934,0.57998383],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85827243,0.019617938,0.0012898773,0.054056168,0.00038365935,0.000050062292,0.00027569363,0.000044396827,0.06600976],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9890982,0.0018064698,0.00020184969,0.00082023157,0.005188989,0.0028842485],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9892315,0.0034898785,0.00040059208,0.00030263,0.005399619,0.0011757959],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007314298,0.00021276074,0.0004939046,0.0023404586,0.02372582,0.011505226,0.001989295,0.0049562426,0.0035923582],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019242454,0.00039972473,0.0002685046,0.0054659946,0.012407501,0.0043943594,0.002979779,0.00729527,0.0002614614],"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":[0.000026066355,0.00002531983,0.0038520365,0.00013626323,0.000023286559,0.0004666088,0.020095848,0.00035302222,0.00026679656,0.80524236,0.13047561,0.03903684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017985893,0.000022225991,0.014654745,0.00059344503,0.00004020648,0.00015467053,0.018505355,0.0003308391,0.0005337602,0.029177977,0.93587166,0.00009712831],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98320067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9941037,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13008735,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13008735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17689608,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94385415},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1778929457","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1237","title":"Charter Protection against Unlawful Police Action: Less Black and White Than It Seems","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Dalhousie University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Action (physics); Jurisprudence; Tort; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.1360243581166527,"score_gpt":0.36688718135446763,"score_spread":0.23086282323781493,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1778929457","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":[0.04617726,0.024419878,0.030588413,0.33599362,0.0050208303,0.0002468834,0.0002010092,0.0004043105,0.5569478],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76753,0.0066852355,0.011716734,0.12084933,0.0038646604,0.00034943095,0.00009862123,0.00015417476,0.088751815],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97789395,0.008077591,0.0007769132,0.0029167617,0.007994531,0.0023401817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9760694,0.013366023,0.0024551123,0.002865987,0.003854868,0.0013885653],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018780993,0.00047799802,0.00091148017,0.0015198085,0.0059078867,0.015737664,0.0018837434,0.010969045,0.0036141805],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031973816,0.000743857,0.0006569101,0.00094087975,0.019712899,0.00791593,0.003773063,0.012843237,0.00087690115],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000023848474,0.00003061399,0.00041564644,0.00009634897,0.000011211185,0.00010071396,0.0023735347,0.000244895,0.00051813375,0.9582621,0.023802198,0.01412073],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001261743,0.00036003953,0.006154675,0.001202906,0.0001008585,0.00034186244,0.0020867302,0.0013264208,0.0023871728,0.38490766,0.60082936,0.0001761204],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022265038,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.033191726,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.977735,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0058921496,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01758133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.099324584},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1780005444","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1126","title":"Youth as Victims and Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: A Charter Analysis — Recognizing Vulnerability","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Charter; Legislation; Political science; Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Criminal code; Context (archaeology); Criminal justice; Economic Justice; Criminal law; Criminology; Sociology","score_opus":0.08837474282897792,"score_gpt":0.34085422191144404,"score_spread":0.25247947908246615,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1780005444","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6356073,0.02278271,0.020821007,0.043747574,0.0009688221,0.0005091352,0.0006632552,0.00016060148,0.27473962],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97761106,0.008070217,0.004037111,0.0024117036,0.00051394943,0.00016832103,0.00014914863,0.000030457422,0.0070080776],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9951704,0.0020094167,0.00024210339,0.00030786704,0.001069563,0.0012005767],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99473983,0.0030284252,0.0010705959,0.00020715907,0.00056020933,0.0003939156],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00478484,0.00030402548,0.00043341142,0.0070086955,0.0070415763,0.0075719464,0.0011807763,0.0021953303,0.0017681262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009920486,0.00029832314,0.00066456385,0.0034491234,0.009537443,0.010090744,0.0052127494,0.0032630465,0.00009823963],"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":[0.000037045214,0.00003507404,0.02833811,0.00011230502,0.0000131751995,0.0015874238,0.040856987,0.00088992843,0.00013383785,0.8970739,0.0075511406,0.023371136],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004931221,0.00038915334,0.13502476,0.0022253778,0.00024397108,0.0037355958,0.21022855,0.006168014,0.0018042485,0.37171525,0.2681537,0.0002621517],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.042215064,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04939744,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.042215064,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00699333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007235866,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08393866},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1780258276","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1095","title":"Right Theory, Wrong Reasons: Dynamic Interpretation, the Charter and “Fundamental Laws”","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Law; Charter; Meaning (existential); Interpretation (philosophy); Epistemology; Adjudication; CLARITY; Surprise; Doctrine; Sociology; Political science; Philosophy; Linguistics; Computer science","score_opus":0.010850614914889463,"score_gpt":0.28560949164065763,"score_spread":0.27475887672576815,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1780258276","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":[0.024073735,0.00891023,0.12584187,0.15210901,0.0013723669,0.00008337356,0.00026769482,0.0001546019,0.6871872],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94333696,0.0017040881,0.014557771,0.013422143,0.0012267457,0.00020783822,0.00012354541,0.0001516561,0.025269205],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9879758,0.007637706,0.00033061195,0.0014000424,0.001707628,0.0009482042],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9906624,0.006044485,0.00064393604,0.0013279985,0.0010157658,0.00030547706],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012513152,0.0007351814,0.00068758207,0.0023308897,0.0058841724,0.01142123,0.0024452738,0.008274004,0.005565297],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015628824,0.00055920036,0.00085990824,0.0017802014,0.08042152,0.018326193,0.0042909756,0.009197708,0.00078937423],"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":[0.0000015017266,0.0000012393256,0.000019501487,0.0000034128147,5.779703e-7,0.000010104703,0.00054421177,0.000030249405,0.00000477566,0.998035,0.0009248522,0.00042464034],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000060213965,0.0000017328825,0.000038421582,0.000021799435,0.0000016367159,0.000019814814,0.00041891597,0.00016290201,0.000032957596,0.9856068,0.013684772,0.0000041183694],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009383743,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0075384313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012513152,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008848915,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006640783,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06617665},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1782902411","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1076","title":"State Neutrality and Freedom of Conscience and Religion","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Neutrality; Freedom of religion; Political science; Charter; Sociology; Pluralism (philosophy); Establishment Clause; Secular state; Separation of church and state; Politics; Human rights","score_opus":0.027591034816959414,"score_gpt":0.3230506339689826,"score_spread":0.2954595991520232,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1782902411","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":[0.08220276,0.0038980488,0.0051978324,0.048763257,0.00032007298,0.000032609634,0.00007701248,0.000037571743,0.85947084],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9844013,0.0005608903,0.00046798488,0.0028889894,0.00011959732,0.000017797029,0.000017114402,0.000007663404,0.011518654],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99670863,0.0010937033,0.00008960137,0.00032506805,0.00072268967,0.0010603671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970278,0.0012353065,0.00029434933,0.0003493825,0.00046781,0.0006252785],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00400314,0.00020218708,0.00030158347,0.0009388632,0.006403357,0.005831673,0.0006888955,0.0028267296,0.0040023173],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004982724,0.00012011391,0.000379598,0.00065389124,0.04688486,0.002903706,0.0034255337,0.0034561616,0.00025885008],"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":[0.0000037700752,0.0000037223667,0.0002525633,0.000005306882,0.000001825976,0.00002887263,0.0012898399,0.000069144226,0.00003557784,0.9959221,0.0006924126,0.0016949275],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020499458,0.000015426873,0.0030491238,0.00010646755,0.0000071711042,0.000063084684,0.002389157,0.00033785825,0.000102257494,0.9365547,0.057326425,0.000027871949],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13793886,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13489863,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13793886,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008532616,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010964002,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2742719},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1783575409","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1275","title":"R. v. Khawaja: At the Limits of Fundamental Justice","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Mens rea; Statute; Political science; Law; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Criminal code; Criminal law","score_opus":0.09481146920036855,"score_gpt":0.3702600371720951,"score_spread":0.27544856797172657,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1783575409","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":[0.11686189,0.009644131,0.010814654,0.1419752,0.0013003793,0.0002460379,0.00044531917,0.00042278215,0.7182895],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9014109,0.001738263,0.0032596705,0.05724789,0.00038804053,0.00014656366,0.0000793734,0.00006730862,0.03566201],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9888715,0.0015264457,0.0004895938,0.0018741756,0.0035855696,0.0036527894],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99314237,0.0039723394,0.00038968638,0.00063294003,0.0014274969,0.00043524322],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007260186,0.00052197353,0.0007470513,0.000827281,0.012629337,0.01447735,0.002864507,0.013355099,0.00347123],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015113187,0.0009166574,0.00097562093,0.00079416414,0.01972347,0.00690824,0.0043059555,0.018272454,0.00081896805],"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":[0.00002300937,0.000010281148,0.000324316,0.000033555538,0.000006164957,0.00012169822,0.0024799106,0.0001213459,0.0003015506,0.98431474,0.008500606,0.0037628226],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018709412,0.00016794262,0.0065215095,0.00069168303,0.00015908634,0.0006412115,0.0072878045,0.0014922057,0.0028126615,0.62564427,0.35398543,0.00040903868],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5014125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.60006386,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5014125,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024289994,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03929526,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99698794},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1785094087","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1299","title":"A Positive Future for Section 7?: Children and Charter Change","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Jurisprudence; Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Economic Justice; Politics; Poverty; Vulnerability (computing)","score_opus":0.03402657826871252,"score_gpt":0.3447258239464363,"score_spread":0.3106992456777238,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1785094087","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019148694,0.020217992,0.0008545622,0.75090724,0.0025178,0.00002915805,0.00012128096,0.00004940756,0.20615381],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47983068,0.015035232,0.0023961244,0.426484,0.002605293,0.00006695494,0.00012870479,0.00008246514,0.07337057],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9892674,0.0030503748,0.00025763112,0.0006504888,0.0034835443,0.003290475],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99042904,0.0043184003,0.0008957905,0.00035229354,0.0020589274,0.0019456259],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010999302,0.00018996993,0.00035692554,0.0006763909,0.010800033,0.012092687,0.0018707365,0.01283993,0.0054268767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01684989,0.0002640885,0.0004952632,0.000794093,0.017836045,0.0042460826,0.0026751885,0.010892691,0.0004726199],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007244389,0.000013861377,0.0010591067,0.000038180002,0.0000047597214,0.00022629542,0.0035992085,0.00012120753,0.00007856196,0.8792074,0.10395935,0.011684898],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001742735,0.000025201054,0.004450911,0.00049528695,0.000013301443,0.00020010372,0.0047701765,0.00011580784,0.00023126748,0.065995544,0.92362744,0.000057463523],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6102502,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.79486245,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6102502,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03263246,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.090644434,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7840903},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1785387284","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1241","title":"Sexual Assault Cases in the Supreme Court of Canada: Losing Sight of Substantive Equality?","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Sexual assault; Law; Substantive due process; Political science; Credibility; Substantive law; Mythology; Poison control; Suicide prevention; Medicine","score_opus":0.09693128402642802,"score_gpt":0.3550192984585977,"score_spread":0.25808801443216967,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1785387284","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":[0.25950524,0.10644246,0.0011949469,0.32042992,0.0015295225,0.00014123313,0.0005955069,0.000061624145,0.3100995],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9294738,0.020182243,0.0006802578,0.028618844,0.00031857722,0.000022198752,0.0001553042,0.000022166596,0.020526644],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9896974,0.0011997806,0.00024287238,0.00064031995,0.0039304453,0.004289126],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98820835,0.003401034,0.00080180814,0.0003147373,0.0054690773,0.0018051527],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0063631814,0.00025820747,0.0006550003,0.0027759126,0.020324755,0.010843149,0.003397366,0.0049076057,0.0043592225],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024118107,0.00051822566,0.00053210097,0.0047603976,0.0100913625,0.0032340137,0.0026239392,0.0066444105,0.00026874276],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00011037161,0.00010912663,0.02665882,0.0005126414,0.00014965613,0.0019179154,0.033329066,0.0014414721,0.0006396356,0.69096607,0.12425529,0.11990993],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015247884,0.00009172454,0.16833784,0.0022659637,0.00037407246,0.0006749703,0.072349794,0.0017817031,0.0015472383,0.06733827,0.68465155,0.0004343927],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99570364,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99823785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13927281,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13927281,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25732303,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99832153},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1785708482","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1229","title":"The Constitution of Criminal Justice in Canada","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Criminology; Criminal justice; Political science; Law; Criminal law; Psychology","score_opus":0.0695485440875672,"score_gpt":0.3494029155400848,"score_spread":0.27985437145251757,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1785708482","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":[0.043807045,0.0148745775,0.0022318058,0.100188576,0.0014316478,0.00025568155,0.0017145728,0.00018067984,0.83531547],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6911158,0.008541891,0.0043150242,0.022587327,0.000358668,0.000176731,0.0005347786,0.00013067515,0.27223912],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99419445,0.00046723124,0.00014783785,0.0005053376,0.0023199688,0.002365241],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99610704,0.0005414285,0.000114967734,0.00015022302,0.0021393686,0.00094700156],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021845305,0.00045398844,0.00063721824,0.0029527335,0.023493301,0.012187477,0.0020188834,0.0047285217,0.00991242],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007858558,0.000857225,0.0005121595,0.0045926534,0.009923926,0.0023203262,0.0029751612,0.005303399,0.0004399476],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001096779,0.000012862279,0.0011608904,0.00003602667,0.000010908914,0.00010951188,0.0019997878,0.0007160269,0.000102014994,0.945312,0.042280354,0.008248625],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003549915,0.0000143730795,0.01093939,0.00025289526,0.000042714517,0.00007274152,0.0043992884,0.0016627539,0.0002738769,0.1038045,0.87835294,0.00014904424],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9982394,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99896777,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2402558,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.2402558,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.39064667,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8811956},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1789597661","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1300","title":"Charter Right or Charter-Lite?: Administrative Discretion and the Charter","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Political science; Discretion; Law; Adjudication; Proportionality (law); Supreme court; Constitutional law; Judicial review; Deference; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.04309848991795947,"score_gpt":0.3308592416274241,"score_spread":0.28776075170946463,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1789597661","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":[0.037960038,0.058530994,0.015075542,0.44185647,0.0020077922,0.00008310405,0.00024062829,0.00011323911,0.44413224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8844941,0.0070374636,0.0041163675,0.045936313,0.00092930364,0.000050539988,0.0000458262,0.000058418507,0.057331473],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9895633,0.0035508678,0.00027237769,0.0010311283,0.0032588136,0.0023236058],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909847,0.005525534,0.00078254536,0.00056444004,0.0015418987,0.0006008828],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009879603,0.0002386839,0.0005639311,0.0012607109,0.007970884,0.015883815,0.0016288544,0.0054492205,0.0025109379],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020164441,0.00032880018,0.00037793303,0.001414422,0.028397208,0.006148669,0.0020306285,0.007232716,0.00032684405],"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":[0.000008105028,0.0000051505135,0.00020429713,0.000018510356,0.0000023265363,0.000035949335,0.00094374956,0.00008806946,0.000060514874,0.9844856,0.009388559,0.0047591534],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050248793,0.00003590099,0.0034113666,0.00043139962,0.00002929427,0.000117926735,0.0026052033,0.0010353492,0.0009727551,0.5156036,0.47560847,0.00009841859],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49035794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.63633794,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49035794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026606478,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.041780103,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9750075},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1792534912","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1111","title":"The Limits of Privacy: Some Reflections on Section 8 of the Charter","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Expectation of privacy; Supreme court; Dignity; Charter; Warrant; Law; Jurisprudence; Normative; Autonomy; Personally identifiable information; Political science; Right to privacy; Trespass; Sociology; Law and economics; Business","score_opus":0.1565261154772932,"score_gpt":0.39212240396100967,"score_spread":0.23559628848371647,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1792534912","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015965458,0.01864702,0.009415735,0.7497771,0.0030777813,0.000056433473,0.000074596974,0.00004040907,0.20294543],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6163948,0.020385975,0.0078327805,0.30589768,0.009444029,0.0004156831,0.0000826298,0.00018179466,0.039364696],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95344746,0.026167719,0.001566301,0.0039548003,0.009197554,0.0056661433],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9627322,0.031354915,0.0011014302,0.001189409,0.0026869085,0.00093518355],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.035291295,0.00081056415,0.0013009574,0.0016615544,0.015445566,0.02687369,0.0052630636,0.029882919,0.0031099338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04041067,0.0010095364,0.0017946443,0.0016612033,0.09197697,0.027335685,0.010899305,0.0469753,0.0005778347],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000061960855,0.000006338383,0.00007408762,0.00001509062,0.000001941319,0.00017885973,0.006418045,0.00008761006,0.000050205166,0.9851046,0.0066630654,0.001393969],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000221522,0.000032016324,0.00032329853,0.00045731728,0.0000105545805,0.00020844639,0.01211051,0.00037991384,0.00022474787,0.780105,0.20605536,0.00007069949],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07696512,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05940025,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97759616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022403814,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019615442,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18664044},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1796634019","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1004","title":"Anticipation: Expressive Freedom and the Supreme Court of Canada in the New Millennium","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Trilogy; Anticipation (artificial intelligence); Institution; Law; Fresh Start; Political science; Legislature; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Economics","score_opus":0.039816830484869094,"score_gpt":0.3104606522187074,"score_spread":0.2706438217338383,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1796634019","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":[0.08019653,0.014032513,0.0016179589,0.29072604,0.0013331209,0.00008399709,0.00037319385,0.000044953027,0.61159164],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8887855,0.0034134581,0.0006580155,0.042487144,0.0003205019,0.00004470244,0.00009076522,0.00003545155,0.064164564],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9887334,0.0015852004,0.00020724925,0.0010266557,0.0047260416,0.0037214325],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99034846,0.00410623,0.00053489924,0.00026534125,0.00268411,0.0020609363],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008064459,0.0002898487,0.0004368546,0.0019578638,0.032200884,0.019693356,0.002335187,0.007242278,0.0070868395],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020534366,0.0004639487,0.00041525363,0.0026823669,0.02212174,0.005154698,0.0058874087,0.013667624,0.00034605578],"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":[0.00002949967,0.000013191911,0.0015201054,0.000032258802,0.000010567296,0.00019695437,0.009418727,0.00019307715,0.00012944527,0.9396442,0.039294727,0.009517223],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000063562264,0.000025516636,0.012264444,0.0005688639,0.0000695425,0.00013233976,0.026891014,0.0009743109,0.0007000526,0.1931211,0.7649706,0.00021870616],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9771845,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9893741,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11584627,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11584627,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16111325,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8405274},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1798478995","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1114","title":"Investigative Detention: A Search/Seizure by Any Other Name?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Search and seizure; Charter; Constitution; Law; Statutory law; Political science; Supreme court; Duty; Government (linguistics)","score_opus":0.11004978399148793,"score_gpt":0.3543688446054809,"score_spread":0.24431906061399297,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1798478995","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":[0.044870548,0.045091942,0.017282562,0.4312858,0.009121618,0.00008753309,0.00031786016,0.0003063494,0.45163584],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7105517,0.021727098,0.0037458688,0.15586884,0.0066877897,0.00015429113,0.00020731651,0.00024966314,0.10080755],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9903182,0.0035711338,0.0005875388,0.0008454864,0.0029135086,0.001764125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99410594,0.00225881,0.0012302985,0.00066199276,0.0010851126,0.0006577114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041716206,0.00037568656,0.0006098211,0.0010449109,0.005248323,0.00898892,0.0014467454,0.0049650054,0.003834421],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01729075,0.00022393117,0.0004188484,0.0012880665,0.02036139,0.008704428,0.0037377616,0.007291334,0.0015082296],"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":[0.000046796213,0.000043361142,0.0017459258,0.00018450261,0.0000062311037,0.0005708157,0.009969686,0.00010511951,0.000360726,0.80832565,0.11402653,0.06461457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024775567,0.00012174776,0.0047923,0.0021308425,0.000026408612,0.0022719495,0.026019182,0.000252229,0.0011458864,0.1527718,0.81034404,0.00009887824],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022618467,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.024547266,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.022618467,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004592159,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010522879,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04497361},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1800409070","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1039","title":"Constitutional Recognition of the Role of the Attoney General in Criminal Prosecutions: Krieger V. Law Society of Alberta","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Criminal law; Criminology; Sociology","score_opus":0.05106941723125123,"score_gpt":0.31780788623837236,"score_spread":0.2667384690071211,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1800409070","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":[0.21737014,0.017059218,0.0024345303,0.1982199,0.0018816333,0.00029956814,0.0007347064,0.0002185157,0.56178176],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8850829,0.0033049823,0.0010757736,0.051957466,0.00037294553,0.0000709579,0.00015165485,0.000040114774,0.05794324],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99016047,0.000809482,0.00039634068,0.0010508089,0.0034861953,0.0040967055],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9914614,0.0043767123,0.00034298032,0.00042445437,0.0021290071,0.0012654507],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00673876,0.00049469,0.00069402065,0.0021559626,0.018099688,0.0113756275,0.00530599,0.015682252,0.0031346167],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014091237,0.0014067428,0.00055112905,0.0029828926,0.015652398,0.0023556207,0.0039227656,0.013883559,0.0003156562],"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":[0.0000944743,0.000039501458,0.005111606,0.00010692831,0.000034567594,0.0018179469,0.0099289715,0.0008092665,0.0017314393,0.9224869,0.044778142,0.013060352],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003904623,0.00024121453,0.09001404,0.0012320004,0.00071229035,0.0016117863,0.023428738,0.0031835686,0.007279649,0.16645823,0.7044182,0.0010298481],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9706734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.990316,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06918251,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06918251,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13482937,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5019566},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1800594458","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1288","title":"Structure, Substance and Spirit: Lessons in Constitutional Architecture from the Senate Reform Reference","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Law; Constitutional law; Interpretation (philosophy); Political science; Constitutional theory; Architecture; Meaning (existential); Originalism; Separation of powers; Sociology; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.046306889773417265,"score_gpt":0.3107093154795224,"score_spread":0.26440242570610517,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1800594458","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":[0.14451593,0.015814321,0.05525194,0.13195707,0.00069287745,0.00006966388,0.00018579552,0.0001392059,0.65137327],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9792971,0.0032653771,0.004767392,0.002567033,0.00015775378,0.000030034991,0.000041260915,0.000051132185,0.009823004],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9933429,0.0043983175,0.00015161466,0.0004099706,0.0012282955,0.0004688499],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99298733,0.004344362,0.00028487906,0.00087013934,0.0012963964,0.000216781],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007242298,0.00027689268,0.00048125043,0.0020342923,0.0056639407,0.007770158,0.0013466078,0.00229015,0.0031942772],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013276256,0.00032092,0.0003378079,0.0029787293,0.041921034,0.008806899,0.0036493402,0.0055442513,0.00022501887],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000024502822,0.0000015665781,0.00012544618,0.000012492263,0.0000019671547,0.000038407277,0.00569387,0.00019051033,0.000026583424,0.988929,0.00057934714,0.0043983757],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012414798,0.00002657596,0.0013921723,0.00023045478,0.000015430398,0.00008946783,0.011465219,0.0008338886,0.0003525247,0.83838403,0.14716172,0.00003616934],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14429282,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19191994,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9844378,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015562192,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0148099605,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28690588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1802821383","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1006","title":"Legal Rights in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000: Seeing the “Big Picture”","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.03115717487364522,"score_gpt":0.2820236901224373,"score_spread":0.25086651524879205,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1802821383","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":[0.0883618,0.02501454,0.0016343589,0.5689419,0.0025369152,0.00012965186,0.0025252947,0.00013650078,0.31071904],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7308659,0.0117098885,0.0024002295,0.14714581,0.00076945237,0.000099467616,0.00089665776,0.00015453625,0.10595818],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98995507,0.00066667434,0.00019913331,0.00089664746,0.0042199,0.004062701],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9888726,0.0021970468,0.00036221085,0.0002819207,0.00468634,0.0035999361],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005208849,0.0006304429,0.0007204517,0.0028966789,0.03512128,0.023150759,0.0047256993,0.015738292,0.0069922647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01806917,0.0011692925,0.0007956753,0.0049525,0.014339234,0.0057161367,0.003923597,0.015899556,0.0004996951],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007498417,0.00006311597,0.008087509,0.00013147085,0.00006355775,0.0012508642,0.012691027,0.00085954857,0.00045097637,0.6675996,0.27450618,0.03422108],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000113054215,0.00003430889,0.030350793,0.0009920803,0.00013571928,0.00023530207,0.0207513,0.001976444,0.0007254343,0.10586681,0.8384245,0.00039421543],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9974988,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99918526,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.23440412,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.23440412,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.36961535,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8879827},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1804631645","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1295","title":"Life after Vu: Manner of Computer Searches and Search Protocols","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","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":"Warrant; Charter; Search and seizure; Supreme court; Scope (computer science); Computer science; Law; Point (geometry); Internet privacy; Computer security; Political science; Business","score_opus":0.09851646927200532,"score_gpt":0.37248055112059486,"score_spread":0.27396408184858956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1804631645","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":[0.037202418,0.039780583,0.065687485,0.08249649,0.0016792384,0.00041426034,0.00040432953,0.00022650094,0.77210873],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8182451,0.03991136,0.022764886,0.03487652,0.0017948112,0.00054840493,0.00025037746,0.00021259637,0.081396006],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98293674,0.0071238233,0.0013439233,0.0014825504,0.005428379,0.0016846576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97196984,0.020323714,0.0018712465,0.0019718609,0.0034765953,0.00038673272],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0087628085,0.00034755186,0.0005123492,0.0022607087,0.004507631,0.016860051,0.0023214258,0.008083607,0.004623521],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033770874,0.0006430338,0.0007463347,0.0024410493,0.01606631,0.016348055,0.002816691,0.009408953,0.0010198491],"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":[0.000004662569,0.0000049426935,0.00014638511,0.00004058104,0.0000012249178,0.000099290475,0.0009836514,0.00014140029,0.00008953139,0.98966426,0.0031197732,0.0057042823],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010107792,0.00011248685,0.0018001476,0.001812639,0.000025994546,0.00071397494,0.004733977,0.0016760165,0.0022832626,0.46309838,0.52363366,0.000099449244],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026847446,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.014697383,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026847446,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010663412,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010927232,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.077368796},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1804800675","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1012","title":"“Grand Entrance Hall,” Back Door or Foundation Stone? the Role of Constitutional Principles in Construing and Applying the Constitution of Canada","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"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":"Constitution; Foundation (evidence); Law; Classics; Philosophy; Sociology; Art; Political science","score_opus":0.043648682914405844,"score_gpt":0.3029809875130487,"score_spread":0.25933230459864287,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1804800675","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":[0.05249935,0.031697925,0.005655045,0.29212365,0.0013611487,0.000098747616,0.000787315,0.00010154435,0.61567515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8639674,0.011247499,0.0031946937,0.022656595,0.0002786416,0.00004346422,0.00019428959,0.000064930195,0.09835251],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969112,0.0005815213,0.00005191861,0.00022695812,0.0011066569,0.0011217635],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99810094,0.00049748126,0.000073998875,0.000082667524,0.0009041027,0.00034078184],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028351936,0.0001957219,0.000285995,0.0012947682,0.010959304,0.009394276,0.0015367628,0.0024887945,0.005001677],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007331157,0.00021667377,0.00017397491,0.0017101006,0.013471716,0.0030182637,0.0013845507,0.0031898967,0.0003897216],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000091537095,0.0000051757493,0.0008549623,0.000042371314,0.000005286723,0.00007278197,0.0027998814,0.00021199585,0.00010739523,0.9381315,0.045429815,0.012329593],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020877567,0.00001531946,0.010720384,0.0004054274,0.000030723146,0.00007271465,0.012643782,0.0006465281,0.0004600991,0.14730951,0.8276034,0.00007116324],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98052865,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9928717,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.055862963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.055862963,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.122705884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40531605},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1805164954","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1291","title":"The Aboriginal Constitution","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Proclamation; Honour; Parallels; Law; Metis; Supreme court; Political science; Subject (documents); History; Library science; Engineering","score_opus":0.03198981137321786,"score_gpt":0.35548339706523163,"score_spread":0.32349358569201375,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1805164954","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":[0.02963219,0.015949767,0.0012698612,0.026148245,0.0008056821,0.00006416294,0.00031392925,0.00004131651,0.92577493],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6419586,0.010918113,0.0023696853,0.02164273,0.0003289369,0.00014224797,0.00028679796,0.00004381034,0.32230908],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979432,0.00042427,0.00004227302,0.00022988845,0.000693753,0.0006666373],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998946,0.00020003157,0.00006801807,0.00009174355,0.00051794364,0.00017633727],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016955868,0.00021863279,0.00026459154,0.0009816777,0.011635751,0.004304623,0.0010145599,0.0020502587,0.005922585],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0027822345,0.0002100084,0.00017877194,0.0012868317,0.007997443,0.001009511,0.0021532942,0.0030613642,0.00071568624],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000059637405,0.0000037652173,0.0005678064,0.000034820423,0.00000408836,0.00013130292,0.006069337,0.000044744822,0.00014178788,0.96748525,0.018276097,0.007235094],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000071636146,0.000012882252,0.0054943548,0.00024635755,0.000017214554,0.0001331802,0.0046633272,0.000073076255,0.00017272809,0.024911648,0.9642536,0.000014462648],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8239255,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.889326,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1760745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018226082,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05362389,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35422283},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1806348090","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1010","title":"The Increasing Irrelevance of Section 1 of the Charter","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"Strong","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Deference; Adjudication; Law; Political science; Section (typography); Standard of review; Law and economics; Sociology; Business","score_opus":0.03454020563628922,"score_gpt":0.30545051391948946,"score_spread":0.27091030828320023,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1806348090","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":[0.4467088,0.0070656254,0.013836257,0.061819166,0.0010399246,0.0000746667,0.00018561613,0.0001597072,0.46911025],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.978199,0.0010734826,0.0009065844,0.0053008646,0.0002893659,0.000012670107,0.000044613582,0.000021386446,0.014152089],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9817978,0.0026999153,0.0004404501,0.0024214096,0.010039226,0.002601279],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94992346,0.02669444,0.008031157,0.0023298073,0.012001109,0.0010199255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01673006,0.00024326322,0.0005735693,0.0018644602,0.0075143357,0.009143068,0.0017267673,0.0029522676,0.0031711478],"category_scores_gemma":[0.049696766,0.00035262294,0.00045303346,0.0016113458,0.01910398,0.00376083,0.003118321,0.00710593,0.00022323239],"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":[0.000024742669,0.000014091146,0.0058221384,0.00006120611,0.000012116736,0.00020512912,0.007815827,0.00046012187,0.00060786156,0.9583233,0.0049721845,0.021681322],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006174657,0.00040906196,0.107508495,0.0009052763,0.00014987565,0.00090791495,0.014607137,0.0024131988,0.0068093208,0.36930323,0.49659842,0.00032619547],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.35240158,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.46823746,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.35240158,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023159537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02344227,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70070076},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1809215817","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1069","title":"Keynote Address: Law and Politics in the Canadian Constitutional Tradition","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Federalist; Federalism; Politics; Political science; Democracy; Multinational corporation; Law; Face (sociological concept); Constitutional crisis; Law and economics; Political economy; Sociology; Social science","score_opus":0.03805297725530578,"score_gpt":0.2792108130610909,"score_spread":0.24115783580578515,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1809215817","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.002190946,0.05568775,0.0006868962,0.43998396,0.025988659,0.00009842144,0.0019835043,0.00011736133,0.47326243],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.13234264,0.043488678,0.0013182351,0.13956536,0.022904458,0.00018001598,0.001224091,0.00018398289,0.6587925],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99813324,0.0002707293,0.00005551814,0.0001801959,0.0008501925,0.0005101868],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9967751,0.001322687,0.00011082297,0.00011110775,0.0012983477,0.00038189886],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013088245,0.0005670035,0.00059772434,0.002751096,0.016865568,0.008823378,0.0017311531,0.0084253615,0.063551426],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0055602426,0.00038767417,0.00037764528,0.0054830257,0.0057618306,0.0027613936,0.0013747173,0.005432516,0.0067490707],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011667002,0.000007863068,0.00035375275,0.000068841706,0.0000031707107,0.00008138408,0.0008618503,0.00007989427,0.000062197694,0.09043224,0.9009335,0.0071036196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007680718,0.0000041419394,0.0020637608,0.00014854778,0.0000063527696,0.000033277945,0.0011206042,0.00010881864,0.000041234216,0.0059745666,0.9904745,0.000016414559],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9427877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97466904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9498035,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.050196536,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03744103,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36420304},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1809332466","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1273","title":"Three Theories of “Principles of Fundamental Justice”","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Fundamental rights; Political science; Charter; Meaning (existential); Law and economics; Sociology; Human rights; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0690053156794604,"score_gpt":0.3428734720913906,"score_spread":0.2738681564119302,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1809332466","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":[0.011661313,0.008412917,0.11963248,0.13787523,0.0013962628,0.00034434057,0.0002962434,0.00019448657,0.7201868],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7824208,0.007826931,0.07828383,0.053442407,0.0029637387,0.0014481156,0.00044229015,0.00020184158,0.072970085],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9785967,0.0056478838,0.0007609439,0.0030349612,0.00898702,0.0029725265],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9872639,0.005729002,0.0011673456,0.0015707964,0.003417117,0.0008517416],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02192312,0.0011937397,0.0010248901,0.004456547,0.0096105505,0.014261601,0.005546581,0.011029922,0.0059200223],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020779558,0.00091051625,0.001746506,0.0025057981,0.082200654,0.015098106,0.0066031925,0.017220635,0.0013881326],"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":[8.1628735e-7,0.0000021540095,0.000027173419,0.000006933931,0.0000011495074,0.000004100988,0.00020378995,0.00004893632,0.0000049791956,0.9982621,0.0008600038,0.00057792076],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009388921,0.000006531292,0.00017821211,0.00007700364,0.0000036592985,0.000024173907,0.00029347485,0.00037219666,0.000054387092,0.9712272,0.027737768,0.000016049235],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07179861,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.062162284,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07179861,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030645048,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0298058,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22234643},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1810894131","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1017","title":"Judicial Power and the Charter: Three Myths and a Political Analysis","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Statute; Charter; Political science; Judicial review; Politics; Nullification; Economic Justice; Judicial activism","score_opus":0.027073074012261434,"score_gpt":0.31015798586508303,"score_spread":0.2830849118528216,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1810894131","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":[0.033788633,0.03577668,0.020390267,0.70130223,0.0020641459,0.000065135864,0.00016521681,0.000075946875,0.2063717],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9204986,0.015447309,0.0066121817,0.034062076,0.009763778,0.0002875429,0.000085970256,0.00011573042,0.013126807],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9929046,0.0038198864,0.00018146301,0.00078269397,0.0016532625,0.00065809203],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9830257,0.013204851,0.0011245175,0.0010633542,0.0010021167,0.00057931675],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013069339,0.00064209715,0.0007307686,0.0039589973,0.0062090815,0.014152002,0.002600599,0.0067704534,0.004137743],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01804494,0.00049951934,0.00072458514,0.002898499,0.08251605,0.021769334,0.0064831227,0.012236582,0.00048654494],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000063585103,0.0000067785213,0.000076243974,0.0000142689605,0.0000019531917,0.000010552099,0.0012851824,0.00006761996,0.000010568436,0.994191,0.0021558087,0.002173719],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019792282,0.0000121680105,0.00024037615,0.00010464466,0.0000034655025,0.000024358533,0.0020201744,0.00039019246,0.00005320357,0.97461843,0.022500398,0.0000127651065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004837892,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0034230212,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9951621,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0067924503,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00420142,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06911814},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1812980385","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1243","title":"The Impact of the Charter on the Law of Sexual Assault: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose","year":2012,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Legislation; Supreme court; Sexual assault; Political science; Sexual violence; Dignity; Autonomy; Criminal code; Criminology; Sociology; Criminal law; Psychology; Poison control; Suicide prevention; Medicine","score_opus":0.11398272119928916,"score_gpt":0.38440039988032704,"score_spread":0.2704176786810379,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1812980385","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":[0.0092143165,0.028046394,0.0033629339,0.8107169,0.024966806,0.0000314125,0.00010361999,0.000048111866,0.12350946],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40238968,0.033532083,0.005832515,0.38542616,0.034329902,0.000103914856,0.00012947987,0.00021237116,0.13804387],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9921434,0.0031314217,0.00025247733,0.00082080933,0.0028112922,0.0008405576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9885795,0.0068872077,0.000682499,0.00079867593,0.0022913285,0.0007609015],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006615728,0.00027698957,0.00027618898,0.0009277058,0.005212183,0.008766657,0.00088035915,0.005728063,0.0043008374],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01914798,0.00026489547,0.0006150558,0.00055765704,0.018426266,0.008948212,0.0029839892,0.01372463,0.00091913145],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000031969284,0.0000230175,0.0007188046,0.00008270459,0.000008585334,0.000186537,0.0046603396,0.00030365388,0.0002543228,0.7935615,0.16189116,0.038277365],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009256511,0.000031522555,0.0009612044,0.0002785287,0.000008206056,0.00014253896,0.0011243835,0.00016084821,0.0003252978,0.042799797,0.95411927,0.000039005423],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.059751775,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.039055962,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94024825,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008902422,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010520798,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11880797},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1818577136","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1144","title":"The Dutiful Conscript: An Originalist View of Justice Wilson’s Conception of Charter Rights and Their Limits","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Originalism; Political science; Economic Justice; Legitimacy; Jurisprudence; Sociology; Law and economics; Politics","score_opus":0.0413199491996983,"score_gpt":0.2714142404007089,"score_spread":0.23009429120101058,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1818577136","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":[0.049074348,0.0061827386,0.040403236,0.05873636,0.000790989,0.00006907691,0.00009087612,0.00009331881,0.844559],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9392947,0.0014370864,0.006856302,0.007043621,0.0005999732,0.00018535192,0.00003285325,0.000103631864,0.04444653],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.989199,0.005354269,0.0002462166,0.0013820335,0.0026474136,0.001171016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9945372,0.0030285881,0.00046777265,0.00075879006,0.00077652285,0.0004310271],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00766656,0.0006797376,0.0006597467,0.0027031295,0.010004914,0.017806191,0.0025192138,0.008041555,0.0014819143],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013428735,0.00051061116,0.0006150523,0.001378249,0.08113828,0.014810573,0.005639849,0.0113569,0.0002463216],"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":[0.0000013712182,0.0000029624387,0.000017422746,0.0000016266591,3.282642e-7,0.000015861126,0.0017943279,0.000057464065,0.000009455714,0.99712616,0.00051780284,0.0004552691],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006543742,0.00000858703,0.00006943528,0.000052589792,0.0000025704867,0.000036251557,0.0012716134,0.0003947281,0.00007525536,0.9529252,0.045144804,0.000012383981],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.024318077,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016825216,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.024318077,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01627327,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009249205,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11807138},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1819105132","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1178","title":"Lovelace and Law Revisited: The Substantive Equality Promise of Kapp","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Dignity; Law; Supreme court; Section (typography); Test (biology); High Court; Legislature; Political science; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.04251897755341901,"score_gpt":0.3545310692028195,"score_spread":0.3120120916494005,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1819105132","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":[0.03746773,0.015320834,0.022690138,0.43725008,0.0015248152,0.00014207306,0.00015267993,0.00006473846,0.4853869],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82208,0.0043481262,0.0075415196,0.110490456,0.0011179673,0.0002185831,0.000033593355,0.00005357841,0.054116145],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98183215,0.0076969177,0.00064475,0.002695376,0.004769306,0.0023615034],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99048144,0.006685427,0.00043208138,0.00082937715,0.0012059847,0.00036576737],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016174598,0.0003494386,0.0008258094,0.0015079337,0.011710843,0.011791976,0.0028807302,0.0151646165,0.003970472],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025432318,0.000720961,0.0009816688,0.0014028316,0.05168448,0.010075019,0.007198363,0.02140869,0.0005774832],"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":[0.0000035918722,0.0000021054157,0.00005054256,0.000016505759,0.0000024152066,0.0000653206,0.001025526,0.00005127136,0.000032212185,0.9948783,0.0021015422,0.0017706087],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039225848,0.000037107697,0.0007147306,0.0003025266,0.000020930509,0.00021092186,0.0023148034,0.00049578433,0.0005065783,0.8240811,0.17121479,0.00006149836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13476524,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.152354,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13476524,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021252748,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02714095,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26796162},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1819974348","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1293","title":"Charter Values: The Uncanny Valley of Canadian Constitutionalism","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Political science; Statutory law; Constitutionalism; Meaning (existential); Supreme court; Ambiguity; Psychology; Democracy; Linguistics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0444263019188654,"score_gpt":0.2952148533338901,"score_spread":0.25078855141502465,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1819974348","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":[0.06714218,0.008065818,0.0064324895,0.13908239,0.0005961185,0.000055046545,0.00028853802,0.00007223322,0.7782653],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96117085,0.0029004326,0.001655827,0.005565238,0.00012534882,0.000021571557,0.000055343975,0.00005823849,0.028447175],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9914118,0.0018442593,0.00011241131,0.000812064,0.003849748,0.0019697226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99303037,0.0023217527,0.0003595483,0.00049324066,0.0029120357,0.0008831848],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006080568,0.00031169504,0.00050343707,0.0021993492,0.025134323,0.016165769,0.0012986158,0.002492991,0.004799545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014911014,0.0003305776,0.0003651271,0.003352483,0.045462385,0.0044508004,0.0042966106,0.005866982,0.0002293024],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007842685,0.0000026668483,0.00033283353,0.000018616829,0.000002358381,0.000032723012,0.0051973984,0.00015338979,0.000048691534,0.97640914,0.008999061,0.008795299],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002211272,0.000015651103,0.007931814,0.00034840667,0.000024250985,0.00007710417,0.016222674,0.0010497788,0.00032347755,0.5250152,0.44888234,0.00008720997],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97491306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9859163,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1327722,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1327722,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17895964,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9633343},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1820010189","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1246","title":"The Aboriginal Sentencing Provision of the Criminal Code as a Protected “Other Right” under Section 25 of the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Section (typography); Criminal code; Charter; Political science; Law; Criminal procedure; Code (set theory); Criminal law; Criminology; Sociology; Business; Computer science; Programming language","score_opus":0.028645309101327156,"score_gpt":0.3431667786345331,"score_spread":0.3145214695332059,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1820010189","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":[0.115674295,0.0021630854,0.01746085,0.029546373,0.002013529,0.00061578676,0.00046132217,0.00030951286,0.8317552],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7751937,0.0010894269,0.013633645,0.02100659,0.0004868935,0.00044452937,0.00041407516,0.00007376772,0.18765734],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9805735,0.0033658303,0.0009684923,0.0018300313,0.008314161,0.0049480163],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9864009,0.0038701866,0.0015330983,0.0014430998,0.0050098863,0.0017427712],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0071515627,0.00042359007,0.00042107145,0.0013342898,0.007676437,0.008732703,0.0023263432,0.0054299836,0.00323142],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017501414,0.0004908293,0.00073769956,0.00068474375,0.009056774,0.0018509332,0.0037573355,0.0049322643,0.0008951203],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003078839,0.000046644152,0.004103226,0.000084646395,0.000013829692,0.00078463944,0.016119458,0.0009342795,0.001149093,0.93331,0.02767434,0.0157492],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004033773,0.0002414749,0.024847614,0.000654155,0.000106228756,0.00083637104,0.011144039,0.0014930244,0.0031164999,0.05046998,0.9067609,0.0002893565],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5812762,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6425624,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.41872382,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013554324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.075953804,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84237957},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1834014602","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1115","title":"The Forgotten Right: Section 9 of the Charter, Its Purpose and Meaning","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Charter; Law; Supreme court; Framing (construction); Section (typography); Political science; State (computer science); Constitutional right; Meaning (existential); Original meaning; Sociology; Law and economics; Engineering; Epistemology; Philosophy; Business","score_opus":0.04615148569202904,"score_gpt":0.30328518940377447,"score_spread":0.25713370371174543,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1834014602","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":[0.14400144,0.014424011,0.044161364,0.14801052,0.0024043606,0.00012764512,0.00023571376,0.00012219402,0.64651275],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9628345,0.002215818,0.0051344647,0.008884183,0.00046434734,0.00007087845,0.00006275376,0.00004347738,0.020289542],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9921051,0.00294851,0.00037417767,0.0010721182,0.00227578,0.001224206],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9943744,0.0034007872,0.000532963,0.00053608837,0.00086294743,0.0002928415],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009685582,0.00023003138,0.00043795083,0.0007524951,0.006199018,0.010337265,0.001514811,0.0044418904,0.0013178831],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012193759,0.00030650917,0.00036072638,0.00077732746,0.03981031,0.004782048,0.0034231206,0.008133021,0.00025499158],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004715903,0.0000023796322,0.00015673353,0.0000087407025,6.708599e-7,0.00003720895,0.00285931,0.00004526936,0.000075008254,0.99350005,0.0013459203,0.0019639656],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022280705,0.00006216129,0.003254555,0.00053991325,0.000019177114,0.00022642943,0.008706647,0.00044061072,0.0007886069,0.68096894,0.30490825,0.00006242601],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.097776465,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08078494,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9022235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01065441,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023557944,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19441468},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1840154969","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1093","title":"And No More Shall We Shout: Noise By-Laws, Freedom of Expression and a Montréal Sex Club","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Expression (computer science); Commonwealth; Relevance (law); Political science; Sophistication; Club; Sociology; Social science; Computer science","score_opus":0.01312114948917866,"score_gpt":0.26960562560812273,"score_spread":0.2564844761189441,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1840154969","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":[0.03647112,0.010444949,0.0011329281,0.25614142,0.0039807903,0.000100322104,0.00017895711,0.0001222209,0.6914273],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42523155,0.004531426,0.0007512888,0.023237936,0.0006322704,0.000098063516,0.000101037724,0.00015807514,0.54525846],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9967713,0.0011684857,0.000036269335,0.00025541952,0.00078123604,0.0009872986],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99704915,0.00025619075,0.00010330263,0.00011762592,0.0003264151,0.0021474238],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030823203,0.0005457035,0.00034223768,0.0008113903,0.027040772,0.0150446,0.0021312463,0.003595097,0.058261815],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0044498537,0.00040282778,0.00032656308,0.0006472607,0.019691717,0.006984637,0.009420454,0.0049612774,0.0032179875],"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":[0.000057245077,0.0001388996,0.0045034797,0.000056170953,0.000009291806,0.0005104503,0.054240927,0.000081859296,0.00022812218,0.44173267,0.43352064,0.06492012],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016138327,0.000032011994,0.004767063,0.00017235371,0.0000038690227,0.00013157299,0.052824706,0.000100598445,0.000081236445,0.010483544,0.93135226,0.00003462015],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.56497777,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7918886,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.43502223,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021539485,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019808412,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8751683},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1840587976","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1281","title":"Section 15(2), Ameliorative Programs and Proportionality Review","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Section (typography); Proportionality (law); Law; Supreme court; Scrutiny; Political science; Government (linguistics); Interpretation (philosophy); Business; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0437121907092876,"score_gpt":0.3492321278906274,"score_spread":0.3055199371813398,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1840587976","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":[0.014132246,0.033035316,0.054206073,0.16576836,0.0076682908,0.0013925777,0.00081507687,0.00042955094,0.72255254],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4589419,0.015499022,0.037853796,0.32630166,0.0058004763,0.0031079245,0.00043869845,0.00017221802,0.15188439],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9620909,0.011309571,0.0036138082,0.0063975235,0.013073208,0.0035151013],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9744265,0.013564692,0.0020544978,0.0025200036,0.006682623,0.0007516313],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.032509666,0.0004919176,0.00080668106,0.0023441368,0.0068127248,0.009816939,0.0027215807,0.014800467,0.004297082],"category_scores_gemma":[0.056991667,0.00089799234,0.0012259106,0.0017118988,0.021256655,0.006436315,0.0040675425,0.01006459,0.0011426329],"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":[0.00000813195,0.000009528189,0.00028580258,0.00013242244,0.000011693937,0.000083801024,0.0010582076,0.0001850008,0.00014326967,0.96825635,0.021817973,0.0080076745],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045606386,0.00007589088,0.0017872257,0.0008953356,0.00006137753,0.00026578704,0.0005334859,0.0004034443,0.0010243637,0.28363308,0.7111688,0.00010555946],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12179138,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10239897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12179138,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012927188,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.052029263,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24216491},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1843056858","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1180","title":"The Contribution of Justice Bastarache to Equality Law","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"U.S. Department of Justice","keywords":"Doctrine; Law; Legislation; Charter; Political science; Meaning (existential); Economic Justice; Context (archaeology); Human rights; Common law; Constitutional law; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.06378760393089664,"score_gpt":0.3822364383040239,"score_spread":0.3184488343731272,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1843056858","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":[0.031688903,0.032354817,0.0066885506,0.34976146,0.0037740215,0.00007226432,0.00004606635,0.000062237064,0.5755517],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80103874,0.007766143,0.0043347864,0.12298017,0.0024849523,0.0000631656,0.000027619652,0.000055095228,0.061249364],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9671879,0.008083824,0.00068976526,0.0027575074,0.015276062,0.00600503],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9798187,0.012330127,0.00056252186,0.0007625535,0.0050178864,0.0015081678],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013624348,0.0002771206,0.0007462544,0.0023497874,0.0213023,0.012183093,0.0022925546,0.01248771,0.0031782887],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030843308,0.0005884669,0.00055211067,0.0015412326,0.030942041,0.0049058967,0.006952152,0.015354523,0.00041922208],"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":[0.000009918129,0.000024081904,0.00048182736,0.00006196727,0.0000087009275,0.0002556066,0.003197413,0.00018910208,0.00014706471,0.95299953,0.025428524,0.01719624],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000346291,0.00008791281,0.004198526,0.0005322648,0.00005283476,0.0005076853,0.0038739156,0.000612948,0.0009068751,0.46047103,0.52859616,0.00012512709],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.32386154,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.41670406,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.32386154,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020498538,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04393462,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6439529},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1860318624","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1051","title":"Is Money No Object: Can the Government Rely on Financial Considerations Under Charter Section 1","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"La Cité Collégiale","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Argument (complex analysis); Tort; Law; Compensation (psychology); Economics; Political science; Finance; Liability","score_opus":0.03660786601367969,"score_gpt":0.30662824855732257,"score_spread":0.27002038254364286,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1860318624","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":[0.024649596,0.0047919177,0.006742589,0.22213638,0.0028801318,0.00009304723,0.00013474842,0.00009417106,0.7384774],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8043054,0.0031265826,0.0025387441,0.11712275,0.0034632117,0.00017679071,0.00011051658,0.0001316677,0.06902444],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98645496,0.004542732,0.00050082145,0.0022522805,0.0032672659,0.0029819068],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9873883,0.006652484,0.0013650948,0.0012747085,0.0024384882,0.00088083954],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01352027,0.0005319998,0.00080650504,0.0010564432,0.010188111,0.020353232,0.0021240513,0.02170531,0.01055364],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036303718,0.00045806394,0.00063158857,0.0008816293,0.034766823,0.017951064,0.0062083662,0.011187268,0.002145829],"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":[0.000020551925,0.00000921079,0.00029074732,0.000020104962,0.0000040620016,0.000113877606,0.001496529,0.0000721178,0.000047448302,0.97878486,0.01608892,0.003051596],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004922386,0.000044372693,0.0011997041,0.0005436252,0.00003435848,0.00017760746,0.0029797368,0.00036603116,0.00030557654,0.72270334,0.27151108,0.00008532718],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.035887204,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.024003154,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.035887204,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009138927,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012435626,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.071502864},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1863931487","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1124","title":"Moral Judgment, Criminal Law and the Constitutional Protection of Religion","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Criminal law; Political science; Constitutionality; Comparative law; Supreme court; Constitutional law; Theory of criminal justice; Criminal justice; Sociology","score_opus":0.061755187125507524,"score_gpt":0.3115141845506743,"score_spread":0.24975899742516677,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1863931487","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":[0.09186573,0.15416197,0.0042774584,0.13528067,0.00095277483,0.000053673197,0.0001504926,0.00003842386,0.6132187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96210647,0.022460975,0.0006865691,0.005734692,0.00031082385,0.000013407239,0.000033980064,0.0000065754484,0.008646629],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954905,0.0013311437,0.00009076828,0.00028545017,0.0016592668,0.0011429228],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99563205,0.0019845783,0.0004172626,0.00020524787,0.0012199162,0.00054091803],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003915785,0.00018230942,0.00043454906,0.0019540966,0.0070361467,0.006975531,0.0012554253,0.0026416918,0.0024460475],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009411918,0.00016517848,0.00020689874,0.0021759483,0.03990321,0.002156952,0.0012601303,0.0032199488,0.00017998835],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000063471934,0.000013521954,0.0009038305,0.00010567685,0.000008028625,0.00009829418,0.0019277268,0.00035056143,0.00010596892,0.9738911,0.005053578,0.017535454],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003631943,0.00003638391,0.02518871,0.0007767748,0.0000351617,0.00016895733,0.0058387,0.0005721698,0.00023213962,0.70900625,0.2580539,0.00005459513],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7693274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8225002,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7693274,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030413454,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05988635,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4640621},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1866902775","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1085","title":"Knowledge is Power: The Criminal Law, Openness and Privacy","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Ideal (ethics); Jurisprudence; Democracy; Supreme court; Law; Political science; State (computer science); Openness to experience; Separation of powers; State police; Power (physics); Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Sociology; Constitution; Computer science; Law enforcement; Psychology; Social psychology; Politics","score_opus":0.07694085382770983,"score_gpt":0.3821765624806582,"score_spread":0.30523570865294836,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1866902775","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":[0.024145838,0.01574778,0.020979205,0.2351456,0.0007447687,0.00007200426,0.00013849263,0.00005775148,0.70296866],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94272304,0.0051434026,0.0031032634,0.020167433,0.0010184238,0.000148994,0.000049257193,0.000047209807,0.027598944],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9877109,0.0059796325,0.00036330838,0.0013564175,0.0026190304,0.001970659],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9882206,0.008045523,0.00073923747,0.0013340637,0.00088067155,0.0007799405],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007855146,0.0005239195,0.0008142553,0.0019558587,0.013351077,0.020789905,0.0020433743,0.0120661985,0.0047542998],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015226941,0.00048604986,0.00065744994,0.0024017377,0.14675078,0.023109697,0.010590231,0.011936159,0.0006486665],"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":[0.0000019917802,0.0000026535006,0.00005293667,0.0000059019953,0.0000010826251,0.000030737392,0.0014438871,0.000044377277,0.0000073854567,0.9957237,0.0014856519,0.001199765],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000046878645,0.0000032822118,0.00011123277,0.00007567908,0.0000019888341,0.00006446026,0.0013077066,0.00012964147,0.000027699805,0.9746197,0.023647603,0.000006392975],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.040653016,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.021297513,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.040653016,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013094019,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014520731,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0950042},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1873709627","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1016","title":"The Myths of Judicial Activism","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial activism; Charter; Political science; Law; Supreme court; Judicial review; Judicial independence; Constitution","score_opus":0.04556992038455407,"score_gpt":0.33264858021313276,"score_spread":0.2870786598285787,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1873709627","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":[0.012956916,0.023867613,0.0016738591,0.7725769,0.002062022,0.000013527983,0.000054213902,0.00001762599,0.18677737],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8390525,0.018166099,0.0011595062,0.10911184,0.013189904,0.00013284545,0.000054132077,0.00007715306,0.019055905],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.986292,0.007914979,0.00026579184,0.0016948836,0.0023240068,0.0015082496],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9767411,0.017862309,0.0012111216,0.001274183,0.0017308821,0.0011804019],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0170393,0.00034132125,0.00046490252,0.0024176063,0.008815108,0.0115855895,0.002295687,0.009137377,0.0054274993],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026882637,0.00030593053,0.00034655313,0.0017210328,0.08683628,0.013596846,0.005053775,0.013656591,0.0007135216],"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":[0.000007798586,0.0000116723495,0.00012077795,0.000027808268,0.0000030515364,0.000025169633,0.005811499,0.000049413262,0.00001750981,0.97115785,0.018947251,0.003820197],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029301098,0.000011618316,0.00032730648,0.00028017667,0.000002824172,0.00005414871,0.006593031,0.00012654618,0.00006348745,0.77910674,0.21339615,0.000008707021],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004408734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0039935545,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0170393,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0072518536,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005628343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09011352},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1875271486","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1272","title":"Reconciling Rights: The Whatcott Case as Missed Opportunity","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection","field":"Computer Science","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Hatred; Jurisprudence; Human rights; Political science; Fundamental rights; Constitutional right; Commission; Expression (computer science); Sociology","score_opus":0.04051935539651571,"score_gpt":0.2677244446295087,"score_spread":0.22720508923299296,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1875271486","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18517172,0.008549423,0.007863822,0.35670754,0.002615587,0.00025193047,0.00019474211,0.00008502478,0.43856013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8526963,0.0020547255,0.0013183379,0.10531097,0.00035215757,0.00007038472,0.000033039905,0.000038601087,0.03812537],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98180455,0.0030273027,0.00032622204,0.0019172761,0.0057660113,0.0071587195],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9919595,0.0040404797,0.00046808357,0.00038441463,0.0015643104,0.0015831892],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00938768,0.00051966705,0.0008349292,0.00203552,0.033097617,0.014733071,0.0028975853,0.022007547,0.0033160485],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01873745,0.00081344607,0.00085144915,0.0021879328,0.032708704,0.006835852,0.006542726,0.021234302,0.00026674249],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000032662658,0.000040805942,0.0025282688,0.000052424653,0.000022574588,0.006064464,0.026627768,0.00022671901,0.00044734977,0.910803,0.03997042,0.013183536],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017963821,0.00011593869,0.010535856,0.0013240266,0.0001906512,0.003944358,0.08499679,0.0019687475,0.0023579693,0.25998625,0.6340243,0.00037542035],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8757566,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9405855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8757566,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.049246844,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.074100405,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35731256},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1877660563","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1262","title":"“In the Public Interest”: Understanding the Special Role of the Government Lawyer","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Public interest; Duty; Government (linguistics); Statutory law; Law; Political science; Professional responsibility; Accountability; Privilege (computing); Independence (probability theory); Sociology","score_opus":0.12537515861139115,"score_gpt":0.36462496471338257,"score_spread":0.23924980610199142,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1877660563","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":[0.07329762,0.01255118,0.0223569,0.23407407,0.0004895604,0.000080790844,0.00007584503,0.000061020313,0.657013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9673519,0.0034727158,0.0025475158,0.009073854,0.00031308766,0.000044829667,0.000042026957,0.000036926802,0.017117132],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995357,0.002197268,0.00009032471,0.0003241919,0.00069112936,0.0013400539],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966118,0.0017040765,0.00040685936,0.0002114022,0.0005074086,0.0005583531],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050505535,0.00041859652,0.00035429074,0.0019243684,0.012973366,0.018782862,0.0028658446,0.0077507673,0.0032054451],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005180617,0.0005121668,0.00038957974,0.0019433978,0.07699045,0.019087179,0.00518203,0.0070487075,0.00052088307],"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":[0.0000037678428,0.000008123272,0.00042909023,0.000026416494,0.0000011195292,0.0001167986,0.03324953,0.00009132374,0.000057173143,0.96135324,0.002392017,0.0022714247],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000160853,0.000016197271,0.0033493633,0.00036754875,0.000010650671,0.00020499724,0.06383999,0.0009506498,0.00021617547,0.7202336,0.21076992,0.00002467649],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3595478,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3669992,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3595478,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.058346182,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03823623,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71491003},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1878148134","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1129","title":"Aboriginal Over-representation and R. v. Gladue: Where We Were, Where We Are and Where We Might Be Going","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Representation (politics); Supreme court; Political science; Law; History; Sociology","score_opus":0.05892869499764502,"score_gpt":0.36327674237386415,"score_spread":0.3043480473762191,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1878148134","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":[0.20937847,0.2794949,0.0006646357,0.3107805,0.0017936464,0.000048378155,0.00024658465,0.000018284238,0.19757468],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83198446,0.087928906,0.0004984176,0.057445966,0.0007388557,0.000026458982,0.000093742645,0.000014350804,0.021268819],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9931322,0.0024894108,0.00022270711,0.00046007612,0.0022743936,0.0014212568],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99065137,0.004698761,0.0017607067,0.00022982643,0.0017739102,0.0008854787],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007904348,0.00015848789,0.0005152011,0.0015354047,0.005770923,0.0040931515,0.0011933573,0.003874513,0.0024262746],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023769071,0.00022109594,0.000453614,0.0019331328,0.0065330635,0.0019319179,0.0022697935,0.0054377536,0.00024079044],"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":[0.0002513155,0.000088052395,0.065259576,0.0024851651,0.00023943708,0.005202497,0.075697094,0.00033025118,0.00056095223,0.5520431,0.12818457,0.169658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007443738,0.0003111509,0.17323533,0.011442067,0.00048540335,0.0041440306,0.088884,0.00022500448,0.0012212613,0.05587803,0.66389537,0.00020391846],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5087226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.73165506,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4912774,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009819085,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025474733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9883413},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1882354232","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1278","title":"The (Re)Discovery of the Proportionality Principle in Sentencing in Ipeelee: Constitutionalization and the Emergence of Collective Responsibility","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Charter; Supreme court; State responsibility; Political science; Law; State (computer science); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Human rights; Algorithm","score_opus":0.028789289579169576,"score_gpt":0.3352638882078174,"score_spread":0.3064745986286478,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1882354232","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":[0.19072255,0.0071026855,0.1693793,0.12739533,0.0015721392,0.0004387347,0.00014386456,0.00016557619,0.50307983],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96873647,0.00081300875,0.010578464,0.0075443387,0.0003896895,0.00023263787,0.000015145911,0.000037014797,0.01165324],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98320836,0.0071519725,0.0011502034,0.002710985,0.0041555497,0.0016229675],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.983957,0.0111545995,0.0009538787,0.0014871984,0.0020495406,0.0003978934],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02829444,0.00034905304,0.00056697807,0.0013162406,0.0046559847,0.007353201,0.0018940568,0.0068729697,0.0020287142],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04072657,0.00063040084,0.000783724,0.0006919859,0.025279755,0.009752895,0.00739978,0.01812226,0.00023197268],"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":[0.0000050430276,0.0000046579926,0.00015489869,0.000020174459,0.0000038096296,0.00009126994,0.002659164,0.00014606862,0.00019193217,0.9919911,0.00053373555,0.0041981633],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000567387,0.00013065984,0.0025227508,0.00044123735,0.000050470364,0.0005069659,0.0022312498,0.0018717917,0.003405132,0.87705994,0.11159698,0.00012609069],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011352296,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00958649,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02829444,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00485199,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008520028,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1496371},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1887905165","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1091","title":"Political Litigation and the Role of the Court","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Constitutionality; Appeal; Politics; Law; Political science; Argument (complex analysis); Legislation; Political question; Government (linguistics); Law of the case; Judicial review; Court of record; Law and economics; Original jurisdiction; Sociology","score_opus":0.016121078018414343,"score_gpt":0.2795073531652398,"score_spread":0.26338627514682544,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1887905165","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":[0.03883356,0.021987835,0.0044654696,0.22579654,0.000891824,0.000041629573,0.000044346332,0.000033986857,0.70790476],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9554702,0.0038973698,0.00065910205,0.016943857,0.00091151026,0.0000495079,0.000014622481,0.000028698152,0.022025153],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9658451,0.02188869,0.00053232565,0.0023559127,0.0047741714,0.0046038064],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9569004,0.03380666,0.0022896044,0.0011979457,0.0036422545,0.002163039],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026340455,0.00029155097,0.00053131056,0.003302529,0.018283233,0.025295075,0.0023070013,0.011100867,0.00661434],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04283183,0.00039540156,0.00036163576,0.0028084754,0.05432356,0.009126228,0.0040139384,0.010336647,0.00080349494],"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":[0.0000028196139,0.0000072933367,0.00014655697,0.0000088841325,0.000001890459,0.000043602722,0.0014440733,0.00006280271,0.00002983019,0.99344796,0.0026606955,0.0021435553],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039267532,0.000026321677,0.0017622119,0.00025894414,0.0000136395865,0.0001025853,0.0075310813,0.00084409124,0.00033132284,0.8282062,0.1608477,0.00003660353],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05793936,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05624768,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05793936,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028024869,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027469305,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20333558},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1891044298","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1003","title":"The Impact of Lovelace v. Ontario on Section 15 of the Charter","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Section (typography); Political science; Art; History; Geology; Law; Computer science","score_opus":0.05418493241747736,"score_gpt":0.35494021488147326,"score_spread":0.3007552824639959,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1891044298","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":[0.06011821,0.005406105,0.0005709103,0.10529763,0.0017351971,0.00014054292,0.00080552796,0.000063961015,0.825862],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71128297,0.0054705846,0.00043191668,0.08617648,0.0007981323,0.00007908703,0.00029340084,0.000103514736,0.19536398],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9902767,0.00085696916,0.00020894295,0.0007751602,0.004633434,0.003248827],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902616,0.0032891303,0.0005906879,0.00032843198,0.003689846,0.0018402559],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041994634,0.0004402991,0.0004935831,0.0011411553,0.023526,0.008683547,0.0021607422,0.006297641,0.008636989],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015124135,0.000696677,0.00085165486,0.0015932826,0.008661811,0.0020465904,0.0022458034,0.007888252,0.0008184068],"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":[0.0002654494,0.00008692191,0.021021863,0.00032480885,0.00008958571,0.0034714444,0.014784385,0.00095018256,0.0013172599,0.5061198,0.42773798,0.023830242],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014462334,0.00007878076,0.041984644,0.00076123653,0.00025542648,0.00033776026,0.012477227,0.0007368299,0.0017170393,0.015444728,0.9257802,0.00028153267],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99023753,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99702865,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13678351,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13678351,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15408155,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9924385},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1891707747","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1254","title":"The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Arbitrariness; Discretion; Charter; Political science; Supreme court; Law; Legislature; Judicial discretion; Conviction; Deference; Judicial review; Sentencing guidelines; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.11234035499142955,"score_gpt":0.3732694735707201,"score_spread":0.2609291185792906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1891707747","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01966894,0.005366605,0.007056455,0.27341697,0.0028630614,0.000073635456,0.00016452878,0.00008066167,0.6913093],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8469308,0.004358102,0.00440935,0.072357915,0.0060375785,0.0002802597,0.00020085262,0.00015696094,0.065268174],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9852706,0.007061346,0.00043994212,0.0014583179,0.003452215,0.0023175417],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.990511,0.0046651745,0.00091325305,0.0011148307,0.0017799658,0.0010158634],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01150566,0.0005702203,0.000663618,0.0025161863,0.009842446,0.01580209,0.0022102746,0.013631373,0.009427977],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017903347,0.00045512087,0.00084261026,0.0020604224,0.02304759,0.011580408,0.0051940945,0.014245783,0.00093806064],"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":[0.0000062804647,0.0000090156755,0.0000637715,0.00000788542,0.0000015470612,0.000022268601,0.0003453355,0.00009350349,0.000017540377,0.9900316,0.00698119,0.0024201002],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056446526,0.000066238325,0.0017628659,0.0003040103,0.00002274104,0.00007377336,0.0016831349,0.0008266887,0.00021977386,0.7078051,0.28712904,0.000050231396],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.024192734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036238894,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.024192734,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011502737,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017979667,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0834586},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1896091292","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1199","title":"Remedial Minimalism under Section 24(1) of the Charter: Bjelland, Khadr and Nasogaluak","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Remedial education; Law; Jurisprudence; Section (typography); Political science; Government (linguistics); Business; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03979245113394108,"score_gpt":0.32204685933855426,"score_spread":0.28225440820461317,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1896091292","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":[0.11706079,0.020032639,0.01425264,0.16446972,0.0049797106,0.0005961547,0.0006323156,0.0004651154,0.67751104],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8634494,0.0038957456,0.008880991,0.058577746,0.0010731957,0.00026703358,0.0001386945,0.0000627243,0.063654445],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9807344,0.0023781576,0.0009398304,0.0021635292,0.010081731,0.0037023397],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9925067,0.0031363184,0.0006254633,0.0006033924,0.002549349,0.0005787768],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010023331,0.00053518894,0.00080777874,0.001367596,0.010360351,0.010506977,0.0034012238,0.0115218535,0.001804395],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023031995,0.00070195633,0.0009008899,0.0010588237,0.015557773,0.0029191999,0.0028575489,0.0135296285,0.00048193513],"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":[0.00003883348,0.000027951028,0.0005934931,0.000076830336,0.000014747794,0.00031042247,0.003345088,0.00030303962,0.0006895321,0.95518035,0.030108802,0.009311001],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019939747,0.00017207982,0.011423331,0.0010627724,0.0002194385,0.00082195987,0.005076955,0.0015157552,0.0062708086,0.34333044,0.6292922,0.0006149095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.45450854,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.61533886,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45450854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027095117,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.061883043,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.90372604},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1897915674","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1083","title":"Search and Seizure in 2004: Dialogue or Dead-End?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Parliament; Discretion; Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Suspect; Constitution; Judicial review; Power (physics); Judicial discretion; Prerogative; Politics","score_opus":0.08796202279381093,"score_gpt":0.38201766065352805,"score_spread":0.2940556378597171,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1897915674","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":[0.023421435,0.065777324,0.0045320615,0.4739362,0.0056340056,0.0000938278,0.0006318082,0.00015183061,0.4258215],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5092912,0.040890448,0.0019351011,0.272247,0.0022462718,0.00016916619,0.0006088389,0.00021895723,0.17239302],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98829585,0.00417743,0.0008568649,0.0010487171,0.00339297,0.0022281667],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9844563,0.009938611,0.00084223103,0.00086039194,0.0031104966,0.0007919019],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008642916,0.0003546931,0.0010872781,0.0027853372,0.008889402,0.012727782,0.002372852,0.011459204,0.007257667],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03906659,0.00043961342,0.00050544884,0.0032807323,0.010062733,0.012090449,0.0039487346,0.009972656,0.0012605553],"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":[0.000056901794,0.000035220986,0.0015452612,0.00035276535,0.000021030228,0.00077343604,0.019506456,0.0002466662,0.00013892054,0.60041964,0.27967608,0.09722756],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013940321,0.000024950501,0.0016452553,0.0008387461,0.000018668465,0.00030488984,0.015865374,0.00013438078,0.00033830173,0.05548137,0.9252908,0.000043260265],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.27389526,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.40389714,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.27389526,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018814066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03551505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.54460204},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1898755370","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1086","title":"Aboriginal Rights and the Honour of the Crown","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"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":"Law; Honour; Supreme court; Settlement (finance); Political science; Sociology","score_opus":0.013059753783857674,"score_gpt":0.31912765428546414,"score_spread":0.3060679005016065,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1898755370","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":[0.09169839,0.0044335695,0.0031177015,0.022820912,0.00041495444,0.000049264116,0.00003463249,0.000024668552,0.8774059],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9290057,0.0012045637,0.0016511455,0.005592043,0.00019181344,0.00003689631,0.000021607842,0.000013285003,0.062283076],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9958526,0.00095528143,0.00015009085,0.0005689512,0.0010819999,0.0013911955],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99853873,0.00050371274,0.0001250487,0.0002327764,0.00035158813,0.00024803056],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034500493,0.0002220644,0.000258508,0.00063230016,0.009477473,0.007134482,0.0010378823,0.004241108,0.0034150064],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0036609976,0.00031515944,0.00039068356,0.00045141325,0.028459134,0.0030881884,0.005086181,0.005377968,0.00032078754],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000030821375,0.0000036973977,0.00016783043,0.000008127781,0.0000021148321,0.00012282097,0.005747189,0.00005615565,0.00017397861,0.9909649,0.0011407494,0.0016094566],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025661191,0.00006492588,0.004124654,0.00027668348,0.000035931775,0.00044672764,0.012132767,0.00039135304,0.0009181431,0.59219635,0.3893181,0.00006868627],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.15308541,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.24395865,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8469146,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008848986,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014710101,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3043887},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1899114343","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1305","title":"The Constitutional Dimensions of Aboriginal Title","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Subject (documents); Law; Political science; Constitutional law; Constitutional right; Property (philosophy); Property rights; Sociology; Philosophy; Library science; Computer science","score_opus":0.06174705072543573,"score_gpt":0.382995987188844,"score_spread":0.32124893646340824,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1899114343","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":[0.06856515,0.01762048,0.006583165,0.029865406,0.00035975745,0.000046800884,0.0001675488,0.00002678468,0.87676483],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9685808,0.003708628,0.0017322011,0.0030163312,0.00021275686,0.000051826042,0.000050993807,0.000012905236,0.022633482],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9950677,0.001672614,0.00021054996,0.0006246658,0.0014521076,0.0009723279],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961016,0.0020289312,0.00034639193,0.00039486075,0.0007770733,0.00035114068],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004604997,0.00016073545,0.00034392436,0.0016080077,0.007069276,0.0072677745,0.001380026,0.0025768161,0.004038676],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006967117,0.00034653448,0.0002973625,0.0017862066,0.029289326,0.0036920654,0.003445521,0.0045610536,0.0002507293],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000020639109,0.0000015998023,0.0002806456,0.000018251343,0.0000018593851,0.000031193787,0.0026173978,0.000029843766,0.00005037464,0.994875,0.000482923,0.0016088746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002859818,0.00003968329,0.011100649,0.0006157915,0.000046551184,0.00028718123,0.008184993,0.00028258495,0.00043497805,0.7137853,0.26514968,0.000044104047],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22064777,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.31677347,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.77935225,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01331747,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016937869,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4387269},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1899518710","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1209","title":"The Patriation and Quebec Veto References: The Supreme Court Wrestles with the Political Part of the Constitution","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"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":"Constitution; Law; Supreme court; Veto; Parliament; Political science; Convention; Constitutional court; Politics","score_opus":0.07659455001087731,"score_gpt":0.29898326633194566,"score_spread":0.22238871632106835,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1899518710","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":[0.056886453,0.01537093,0.0050509223,0.14798222,0.001424805,0.00010251627,0.00040837494,0.00006839328,0.7727054],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83613485,0.0033391956,0.002218746,0.05007583,0.00043183978,0.00011498706,0.00014551579,0.00005588453,0.10748317],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98854244,0.002700522,0.0002349361,0.001373726,0.0049468493,0.002201515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99080396,0.004718198,0.00037492756,0.00056381203,0.003126128,0.00041305152],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062729362,0.00028209214,0.00045835483,0.0018570484,0.018900203,0.011064128,0.0022712206,0.008747468,0.0040065334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021873603,0.0005006994,0.0004914564,0.0029823156,0.013724759,0.002912552,0.0020167937,0.011469073,0.00034058126],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009776705,0.000005449304,0.000463708,0.000016737182,0.0000069012303,0.00012266159,0.0026209673,0.000102432765,0.000101064295,0.96843797,0.022025332,0.0060870117],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008904785,0.00005680168,0.011441476,0.00051492994,0.00006306224,0.00018226617,0.004729287,0.0012020326,0.0010400919,0.2122146,0.7683027,0.00016378796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91823846,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96249956,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.946424,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05357597,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06397695,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38872272},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1901621180","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1213","title":"Transparency Confined to the Courthouse: A Critical Analysis of Criminal Lawyer's Assn., C.B.C. and National Post","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Democracy; Transparency (behavior); Political science; Section (typography); Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.11468649768049417,"score_gpt":0.381161973295792,"score_spread":0.26647547561529783,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1901621180","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":[0.19608116,0.06306225,0.010651837,0.38018808,0.0019283056,0.0003441309,0.00016241996,0.000038329774,0.34754342],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9645309,0.005877543,0.0009847288,0.019959673,0.0004168921,0.0001007601,0.000018012923,0.000029433586,0.008082011],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9852631,0.008224345,0.0002972494,0.0008526305,0.0027891884,0.0025734985],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9675968,0.027179942,0.0010205102,0.0005149098,0.0030700916,0.0006177333],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016049609,0.00045609474,0.00062694395,0.0038267772,0.024970269,0.016094837,0.0019961512,0.00999812,0.0017381915],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031754714,0.0005962381,0.0007460976,0.003075456,0.043085206,0.010853782,0.003522183,0.012702127,0.00014587941],"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":[0.000028630639,0.00001714172,0.00040370924,0.00010272651,0.000013219289,0.0007549262,0.12041124,0.00016202491,0.00014459527,0.8564848,0.016081354,0.0053956383],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006169715,0.00006186726,0.005165815,0.0024595242,0.00008392301,0.00032448108,0.22581667,0.0008123558,0.0012400326,0.5086491,0.25519243,0.00013207074],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1563324,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.24818872,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1563324,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033895317,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026201788,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3108449},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1904965409","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1164","title":"Supreme Court of Canada Constitutional Cases 2007: Defining Access to Justice","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Dissent; Political science; Sociology; Law and economics; Politics","score_opus":0.09791640408892952,"score_gpt":0.3577640589548148,"score_spread":0.25984765486588524,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1904965409","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032667853,0.010678466,0.0023078236,0.102334715,0.002260146,0.000642102,0.006568875,0.00021304235,0.842327],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4875996,0.008832643,0.0067306706,0.1557319,0.0013423061,0.00095981907,0.002931026,0.0002647873,0.33560723],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98155206,0.0012983244,0.00068191777,0.0015721674,0.00815379,0.0067417403],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9842455,0.0051416936,0.0005758514,0.00071010436,0.0071730996,0.0021538227],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0076174536,0.0011525732,0.0012222449,0.0047225584,0.03005024,0.022576403,0.006567422,0.022154933,0.010476123],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022984928,0.0022152744,0.0013688417,0.0067044734,0.0125302505,0.0035125313,0.0043852963,0.014754869,0.0012316598],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000022082048,0.00003238134,0.0014706036,0.000066326465,0.00001961828,0.0004088315,0.0020921254,0.00037406557,0.00020634709,0.8336192,0.15705787,0.004630597],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014600654,0.00003226198,0.013293983,0.00090836023,0.00014782048,0.00027085116,0.006450979,0.0018635344,0.0009458512,0.08261776,0.8929502,0.0003724676],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9905799,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9953186,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8121687,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.18783131,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2812437,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94200057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1905402982","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1301","title":"The Punishment Agenda in the Courts","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Punishment (psychology); Political science; Law and economics; Criminology; Law; Business; Economics; Psychology; Social psychology","score_opus":0.04182299675629761,"score_gpt":0.344753683373067,"score_spread":0.30293068661676936,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1905402982","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":[0.076306425,0.03819369,0.005780037,0.42359576,0.0016865345,0.000090232665,0.00021670084,0.000076242584,0.45405433],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.897571,0.010517913,0.0016089551,0.048979614,0.00090229075,0.00007003354,0.000066535475,0.000037455164,0.040246252],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.97963953,0.0053639384,0.00040954896,0.001649175,0.006771771,0.0061660763],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9901905,0.002776582,0.0007806513,0.00037501575,0.004422334,0.0014549352],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008404282,0.00036959985,0.00082516036,0.0022544381,0.02052159,0.016350975,0.002426419,0.0076946313,0.0045395307],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021331616,0.00030810945,0.0004980913,0.0020413897,0.028508756,0.0064836973,0.0047476236,0.009415583,0.0003384613],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000092570845,0.00001075062,0.00068547035,0.000039913964,0.0000046667733,0.00013301458,0.0030706078,0.00030903346,0.00008563106,0.975834,0.01103204,0.008785668],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006138796,0.000069491856,0.009462734,0.00096053764,0.000043635202,0.00024051142,0.011507566,0.0010491761,0.00047482678,0.4006186,0.5754105,0.00010103621],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.83099306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8677484,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83099306,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08559773,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16128276,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6210579},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1906128875","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1227","title":"Canadian Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity: Should We Open Pandora's Box?","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Subsidiarity; Federalism; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Cooperative federalism; Law and economics; Government (linguistics); Sociology; European union; Economics; Politics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.14454690059098801,"score_gpt":0.36397738416182734,"score_spread":0.21943048357083933,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1906128875","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.026480334,0.048950724,0.0068441024,0.47280914,0.0018292445,0.000049612092,0.0003533473,0.00008888992,0.44259465],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8437604,0.029470684,0.0058213263,0.06353273,0.0012483621,0.00006540295,0.00019450425,0.00006633439,0.05584033],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99548364,0.000651358,0.00008154941,0.00045782235,0.0018561817,0.0014695962],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99707687,0.00095017813,0.00019581293,0.00017567864,0.0011569805,0.00044453374],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028423448,0.0003162834,0.0005645701,0.0017006018,0.014123882,0.0072598867,0.0017796364,0.0036603976,0.0049126125],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008099003,0.00025262905,0.00053264113,0.0027283358,0.01943769,0.004487066,0.0026211368,0.0056101345,0.00030845864],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000054026273,0.0000027948868,0.0003575238,0.000022116976,0.0000041831004,0.000034343826,0.00093840674,0.000073064686,0.000027643717,0.97728866,0.01405336,0.007192452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000036225807,0.00001715197,0.0070649195,0.0003481386,0.000039403865,0.0001139532,0.0027963344,0.0005704881,0.0001621286,0.4011911,0.5875854,0.00007477012],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97545743,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98404527,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.076047346,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.076047346,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12731054,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5517647},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1907548101","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1173","title":"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Officials Abroad","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Aviation","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":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Human rights; Fundamental rights; State (computer science); International human rights law","score_opus":0.015274608272261276,"score_gpt":0.29778747383546234,"score_spread":0.28251286556320104,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1907548101","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":[0.031693656,0.011981262,0.0014113506,0.08226572,0.0009504447,0.000057513476,0.000300328,0.00004237475,0.8712973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7791891,0.0090742,0.0017350967,0.020302758,0.0003636294,0.00003932495,0.00020391238,0.00004485922,0.18904713],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99411255,0.0007235042,0.00013030737,0.0005393611,0.0023599565,0.0021342565],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9960782,0.0011708734,0.00022565442,0.00021272372,0.0016021046,0.00071057206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032614016,0.00031247162,0.00035052496,0.00158725,0.01808803,0.009657822,0.0011963561,0.0034109245,0.0071199723],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006527226,0.0003315908,0.0003755331,0.0020232718,0.012802114,0.001897804,0.0023207245,0.0052147554,0.0003443773],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008719419,0.0000064131787,0.0009298722,0.000039245675,0.0000046744963,0.000102249134,0.0036787773,0.00019652485,0.00009770862,0.9492001,0.034921043,0.010814626],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017544662,0.000013783143,0.008551397,0.00021126999,0.000029018653,0.000070365364,0.005185812,0.00024681998,0.00023270017,0.028946145,0.9564225,0.000072561896],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9898732,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99316263,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06843025,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06843025,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15155834,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49649858},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1911483967","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1130","title":"A Charter Reality Check: How Relevant is the Charter to the Justness of Our Criminal Justice System?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Criminal justice; Political science; Life imprisonment; Criminal code; Economic Justice; Imprisonment; Law; Criminology; Sentence; Criminal procedure; Criminal law; Theory of criminal justice; Sociology; Prison; Computer science","score_opus":0.08301937034089657,"score_gpt":0.34823394972440774,"score_spread":0.2652145793835112,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1911483967","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":[0.01237787,0.006936605,0.0044692177,0.89760107,0.00919092,0.00006387223,0.00034872175,0.00028941798,0.06872219],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6559011,0.0144331865,0.017426997,0.24439473,0.007095931,0.00016735174,0.00093137595,0.0006264255,0.059023],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97413504,0.010164193,0.00082773436,0.0020076085,0.00830117,0.0045643286],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94035804,0.01767312,0.0042156517,0.004246107,0.024616135,0.008890919],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.024450997,0.00068627414,0.0008933729,0.002869488,0.022309477,0.023687972,0.003408435,0.00703591,0.010506373],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08700515,0.0006182937,0.0008302381,0.0024745446,0.027234634,0.025779271,0.0070931604,0.016924256,0.0019855194],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006372195,0.00006919736,0.005238602,0.00019957531,0.000027730744,0.0003961611,0.013058516,0.00053294894,0.00018382128,0.36053795,0.5275487,0.09214311],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039796076,0.0001201191,0.009880639,0.0011468015,0.000040980867,0.00023755949,0.025801923,0.00092638534,0.00043795834,0.07314461,0.8879068,0.00031635427],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5087392,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.53901076,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5087392,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.031458512,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06711811,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98830795},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1913254193","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1248","title":"Stare Decisis and Constitutional Supremacy: Will Our Charter Past Become an Obstacle to Our Charter Future?","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Jurisprudence; Law; Constitution; Doctrine; Political science; Legislature; Common law","score_opus":0.05136210201716434,"score_gpt":0.351625516492381,"score_spread":0.30026341447521665,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1913254193","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":[0.09294758,0.015006931,0.0072281216,0.29017636,0.0015518755,0.00006825797,0.00010765587,0.000072014045,0.59284115],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9168952,0.0036861491,0.001538389,0.026948333,0.00049798994,0.000025009544,0.000036284015,0.00002442153,0.05034821],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99324566,0.001267786,0.00021207816,0.0008259997,0.0024460566,0.002002369],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933356,0.002917745,0.0008419939,0.00060216524,0.0015909404,0.0007115746],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007719582,0.00017204975,0.00048987905,0.0014208454,0.011550951,0.016468823,0.0015606156,0.0075692423,0.003841602],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017645141,0.000293306,0.0005213346,0.0012179561,0.038227018,0.008304202,0.0032118522,0.009687379,0.0003262771],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000038133053,0.000006419546,0.00045016513,0.000010388538,0.000001911611,0.00006302767,0.0017133948,0.000078302655,0.000037345795,0.9899877,0.0035530108,0.0040945713],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003580204,0.00006901649,0.0101687275,0.00041739832,0.000031415428,0.00023847586,0.013238625,0.0012205683,0.0008973562,0.59600556,0.3775748,0.00010234275],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.41922432,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.58280504,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97094613,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029053893,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.042203177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83356833},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1915707574","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1101","title":"Has Everything Been Decided?: Certainty, the Charter and Criminal Justice","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Certainty; Charter; Political science; Law; Criminal justice; Economic Justice; Legal certainty; Criminal procedure; Criminology; Law and economics; Psychology; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.075023956811721,"score_gpt":0.340254609789666,"score_spread":0.265230652977945,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1915707574","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":[0.118763715,0.09618953,0.11114209,0.29218677,0.0025659993,0.00013274956,0.00040614183,0.00015172771,0.37846136],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9730085,0.008467356,0.004625723,0.006570516,0.0009908536,0.000051133884,0.00003673501,0.000027226914,0.0062220735],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9955695,0.0024914714,0.00020847787,0.0004034456,0.0009697392,0.0003572585],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98935765,0.008066281,0.0013253991,0.0005344844,0.00051350077,0.00020272321],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007605581,0.00042310683,0.00061467255,0.0027072087,0.0026373786,0.0099448515,0.0011127489,0.0044961744,0.0041073794],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019291984,0.00037757942,0.0004874151,0.002915768,0.03743933,0.018930651,0.002679845,0.0048814733,0.00025460534],"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":[0.00001713963,0.000008876621,0.0002341976,0.000035063484,0.0000035916887,0.000028109782,0.0009831393,0.00022470579,0.000016084956,0.9898024,0.0017985345,0.006848142],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023859828,0.000028103854,0.00064043025,0.00012276557,0.000012271122,0.000056596688,0.0007695732,0.0005917849,0.00008056824,0.97709686,0.020556716,0.00002057803],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013958033,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008664575,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.013958033,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004085149,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035037682,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.040222645},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1916264842","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1087","title":"Aboriginal Rights, Resource Development, and the Source of the Provincial Duty To Consult in Haida Nation and Taku River","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Jurisdiction; Law; Political science; Duty; Supreme court; Resource (disambiguation); Unit (ring theory); Geography; Archaeology","score_opus":0.013752342297664035,"score_gpt":0.27435749318491026,"score_spread":0.26060515088724623,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1916264842","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":[0.32313386,0.0018704134,0.00079371885,0.02147601,0.0001255272,0.00007313319,0.00007759644,0.000016397657,0.65243334],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93162584,0.00059386465,0.00041112033,0.0019805194,0.00002591441,0.000045826648,0.000027398026,0.0000126017385,0.065276824],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99688077,0.0004424114,0.000068616544,0.00022806226,0.00067385094,0.0017064133],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975382,0.0008205172,0.00021598481,0.00014454336,0.0005429894,0.00073780236],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018801849,0.00016890188,0.00026549672,0.0007874104,0.025490602,0.01107132,0.0016742408,0.0033735796,0.0051594614],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0039251978,0.00045511627,0.00023961786,0.0013251789,0.017174803,0.0025716017,0.004948155,0.005041973,0.0002854643],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000031409592,0.000036499692,0.005957783,0.000051136776,0.000007517597,0.0018114612,0.076895416,0.00018389456,0.00039105403,0.89760864,0.006945865,0.010079354],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006728824,0.00008542669,0.071403265,0.0007594016,0.000098004886,0.0018817959,0.27811298,0.0015717021,0.0013004307,0.17347382,0.47105628,0.00018959791],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8806187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96048677,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11938131,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03645734,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.067616075,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26451778},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1920161452","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1230","title":"The Charter Balance against Unscrupulous Law and Order Politics","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Politics; Political science; Redress; Imprisonment","score_opus":0.04140664533343985,"score_gpt":0.3352833756062549,"score_spread":0.293876730272815,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1920161452","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":[0.035876464,0.008900022,0.04833565,0.48962483,0.0039992775,0.0001527046,0.000095890384,0.00036800685,0.4126472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8683436,0.002334013,0.0122782495,0.0690109,0.004080777,0.00021874998,0.000046860994,0.00019507993,0.04349183],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96553403,0.013378482,0.0011978545,0.0043135905,0.011778202,0.0037978464],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9698206,0.016672121,0.0031589165,0.0044731814,0.003713777,0.0021613014],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.031916115,0.00044010737,0.00089693285,0.002240494,0.012578598,0.027765442,0.0023441769,0.012647598,0.0054307333],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0454574,0.00062139047,0.0007487829,0.0016421316,0.06578897,0.017303418,0.006596046,0.016837934,0.0011329277],"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":[0.0000052561377,0.000004888571,0.000059351096,0.000006221694,0.0000012346883,0.000010928112,0.000723737,0.00008504352,0.000028506422,0.9940123,0.0029461256,0.0021164045],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005091466,0.000038767866,0.00042288084,0.0001560469,0.000010125662,0.000032982884,0.0012775998,0.0005691705,0.0002866312,0.8789593,0.11815896,0.000036589103],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01497919,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02033631,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031916115,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01839932,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024991315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16879052},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1922350498","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1029","title":"Convergence of Law and Policy and the Role of the Attorney General","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Supreme court; Law; Amateur; Political science; Officer; Government (linguistics); Convergence (economics); Position (finance); Christian ministry; Business; Economics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04837447085377377,"score_gpt":0.35926071848747154,"score_spread":0.31088624763369777,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1922350498","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":[0.09099933,0.015623819,0.009872762,0.54671335,0.0007900281,0.000101935024,0.00007398293,0.000080232225,0.33574465],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9612206,0.0025909957,0.0020326655,0.01835759,0.00050396734,0.00005962289,0.00002876273,0.000043547134,0.015162273],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95464665,0.01995883,0.0015355813,0.0035186212,0.0108713405,0.009469048],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9593466,0.017073682,0.003031212,0.0015888913,0.011988926,0.0069707828],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.037501156,0.00022607733,0.00092971703,0.0040725623,0.010226898,0.023488615,0.0024013517,0.011865605,0.0047789584],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0858279,0.0005051844,0.0005476935,0.0033681442,0.03477953,0.015097076,0.009669325,0.012314901,0.0005120463],"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":[0.000019661058,0.00002049901,0.002248475,0.00003479714,0.000012835931,0.00009988404,0.0044820393,0.0005348927,0.00006525353,0.97752804,0.005392633,0.009561004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000082581224,0.00010607068,0.031376734,0.00104293,0.00006373112,0.00030422918,0.021052672,0.004837589,0.00062285847,0.7402662,0.20010898,0.0001353882],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3022208,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.17180079,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3022208,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059710685,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07280516,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6009233},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1923440742","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1112","title":"The Impact of the Charter on the Law of Search and Seizure","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Search and seizure; Charter; Law; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Common law; Political science; Constitutionality; Constitutional law; Constitution; Parliament; Expectation of privacy; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.10079378572812524,"score_gpt":0.3801849063068127,"score_spread":0.2793911205786874,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1923440742","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":[0.024926417,0.010990514,0.015420598,0.047327105,0.0010178582,0.00012794834,0.00029310273,0.00015998165,0.8997365],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8470304,0.014996513,0.008548248,0.019696124,0.0014594956,0.00014006048,0.00017112408,0.0001764161,0.10778163],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9792054,0.0027144328,0.00043664384,0.0012874006,0.0129341725,0.0034218682],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9858752,0.00756066,0.0006306264,0.0008295367,0.004371543,0.00073238404],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008949286,0.0005038285,0.0006925381,0.00306522,0.010748687,0.012901106,0.0017386061,0.0037398485,0.0056089247],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020957524,0.0005579154,0.0009858514,0.0026201073,0.03224181,0.006129043,0.003647723,0.009239788,0.0004311705],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000072420185,0.0000032497278,0.00012832084,0.000012318993,0.0000017681342,0.00004738865,0.0005257841,0.00046834143,0.000062873834,0.99110466,0.0030590112,0.0045789722],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004939663,0.0000749976,0.0059052017,0.00046587634,0.00004857777,0.00013882724,0.0013208052,0.003673742,0.0011052202,0.4055215,0.58145654,0.00023938919],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90574557,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.87422097,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.094254434,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.077501565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09510304,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5623158},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1926811835","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1290","title":"The Law of the Land: New Jurisprudence on Aboriginal Title","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Indigenous; Political science; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Milestone; Denial; Indigenous rights; Common law; Legal history; Sociology; Human rights; History","score_opus":0.028217852532724925,"score_gpt":0.3481949345341023,"score_spread":0.31997708200137737,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1926811835","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.027603498,0.39522982,0.0063965917,0.18391587,0.00326411,0.000059786144,0.00013622617,0.000039951465,0.3833542],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73960114,0.15623848,0.0052968417,0.050709527,0.0033071674,0.00009712911,0.00011764833,0.00008063651,0.044551406],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9867715,0.003977074,0.00043626444,0.0011143733,0.006400865,0.0012998807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9824759,0.012273623,0.00047244452,0.0006533985,0.0035248038,0.0005997634],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014617731,0.0003779343,0.0009422299,0.00495028,0.011459583,0.012219759,0.0030752677,0.0060841413,0.0018465811],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013242111,0.00048541508,0.00045089136,0.005356814,0.05319643,0.006380689,0.0036975523,0.009034673,0.0001727945],"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":[0.00000387985,0.0000068839086,0.00019520707,0.00013167145,0.000004771374,0.0001247324,0.011298689,0.000114815324,0.0000984269,0.97050226,0.008271858,0.009246758],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017652765,0.000026418988,0.0035552534,0.0017094626,0.000031638632,0.00019369669,0.0108386045,0.00034961393,0.0002718161,0.21508357,0.76785797,0.00006436198],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8290925,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.88508844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1709075,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06302084,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07993016,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45725036},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1928956895","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1079","title":"Freedom of Expression and the Law of the Democratic Process","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"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":"Democracy; Law; Jurisprudence; Parliament; Campaign finance; Context (archaeology); Political science; Politics; Judicial review; Law and economics; Constitutional law; Election law; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.03038866156627423,"score_gpt":0.3035396905024319,"score_spread":0.27315102893615767,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1928956895","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":[0.019907936,0.01764762,0.021207808,0.09820336,0.000607885,0.00011905175,0.000087289554,0.00006350874,0.84215546],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91417044,0.0052398,0.0035062165,0.015572791,0.00070162455,0.00019786399,0.0000482963,0.000036757447,0.060526233],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9844488,0.0050474983,0.00045200367,0.0013181816,0.0047797705,0.0039537055],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99211264,0.0052971514,0.0006710802,0.0005289826,0.0010297657,0.00036042376],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012677416,0.00043526676,0.000623978,0.0018416668,0.011910813,0.015093008,0.0020409692,0.006786007,0.0027254687],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016642472,0.0003971039,0.0007120628,0.0017838521,0.060327698,0.0049605574,0.0051649814,0.007464129,0.00042308867],"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":[0.0000011758352,0.0000012696229,0.0000273948,0.000004360791,7.6736296e-7,0.00001617007,0.0004323753,0.000048653634,0.000010781703,0.99777114,0.0007590927,0.00092681695],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001442435,0.000010387419,0.00042091866,0.00012975505,0.000010638356,0.000042496606,0.0008808134,0.00032311433,0.0001669974,0.89943194,0.09854917,0.00001934843],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26807788,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20759948,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.26807788,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02612673,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.036191303,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.533035},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1930969147","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1270","title":"The Strange Double Life of Canadian Equality Rights","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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":"Statutory law; Merge (version control); Law; Political science; Human rights; Constitutional law; Fundamental rights; Commission; International human rights law; Sociology","score_opus":0.11628625804190368,"score_gpt":0.35923234806950904,"score_spread":0.24294609002760537,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1930969147","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":[0.034065217,0.017176205,0.0067884326,0.2804519,0.0013020807,0.000042317304,0.00024257242,0.000070001115,0.65986127],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89218783,0.0074478313,0.0036984365,0.041422363,0.00047999597,0.00005291131,0.00009778638,0.000060100403,0.0545528],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9791743,0.002958298,0.00037457893,0.0021847328,0.011242932,0.0040652095],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99234456,0.0023201327,0.0003840141,0.0004578987,0.0034670576,0.0010264282],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0063167736,0.00034016639,0.00053706055,0.002974068,0.023164235,0.01327766,0.0016979575,0.0042504133,0.00541729],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013072262,0.0004367601,0.00041948954,0.0030981384,0.032411035,0.0065258592,0.005160267,0.0063877064,0.0003270725],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000062385416,0.0000025698864,0.0003908204,0.000022443366,0.000003539611,0.00007197963,0.00341599,0.000055579603,0.0000846169,0.9745293,0.008293635,0.013123244],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031914744,0.000025675052,0.0070405686,0.00040509627,0.000031473515,0.00025887619,0.0115757,0.00046310722,0.000556735,0.3843585,0.5951099,0.00014250138],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.959478,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9715152,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08594659,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08594659,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.089561395,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62358904},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1937151993","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1222","title":"R. v. Conway: UnChartered Territory for Administrative Tribunals","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Tribunal; Jurisdiction; Law; Charter; Supreme court; Political science; Legislature; Original jurisdiction; Administrative court","score_opus":0.1867295957306197,"score_gpt":0.316306743368299,"score_spread":0.1295771476376793,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1937151993","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":[0.085026436,0.0070803496,0.015382784,0.08898989,0.0026462357,0.0006338978,0.0008133792,0.0006993675,0.79872763],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6174588,0.001555225,0.0077542895,0.12030359,0.00053959375,0.0004241575,0.00029396912,0.0002110264,0.25145924],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97791606,0.002114488,0.0010407126,0.003639672,0.007816623,0.007472482],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9881428,0.0048900773,0.00055669365,0.0012256742,0.0037210316,0.0014637454],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009735704,0.00069865404,0.0010982434,0.0014698284,0.01616965,0.014867742,0.004680254,0.016725652,0.006057605],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022910219,0.0014871951,0.0018498632,0.0015054059,0.011396829,0.0062882155,0.006534264,0.018616313,0.0013371132],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008357541,0.000034945697,0.0016735308,0.00005583082,0.00002762108,0.0006922064,0.0019458643,0.00040868425,0.00093108177,0.91719997,0.06445759,0.0124890935],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030269695,0.00029262726,0.010617641,0.00046832528,0.00030855442,0.0008777571,0.0039145607,0.0024871393,0.0037549706,0.12811835,0.8482319,0.0006255608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.73623973,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.85006016,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73623973,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02758648,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.071566574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5306272},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1941973123","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1189","title":"Freedom of Religion at the Supreme Court in 2009: Multiculturalism at the Crossroads?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Toleration; Multiculturalism; Supreme court; Freedom of religion; Religious freedom; Meaning (existential); Ambivalence; Conscience; Law; Political science; Sociology; Minority rights; Human rights; Epistemology; Social psychology; Economic freedom; Philosophy; Psychology; Politics","score_opus":0.024790685148933646,"score_gpt":0.31861316228272424,"score_spread":0.2938224771337906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1941973123","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":[0.20230743,0.011144107,0.0019286363,0.28808615,0.0014309566,0.000054764787,0.00020120468,0.000039483646,0.49480733],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9188307,0.0013028048,0.00056528364,0.041741334,0.000465875,0.00003249369,0.000045468103,0.00001777228,0.03699833],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9955955,0.0011007878,0.00012728272,0.0005965647,0.00083026075,0.0017495494],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99638027,0.0016564198,0.0002356499,0.0002658486,0.00050173525,0.00096007535],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0068252897,0.00019611775,0.00055011903,0.00069513306,0.014161977,0.012198959,0.0020018246,0.01433709,0.0055429605],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01043228,0.0004520443,0.0006529338,0.0010659558,0.010760294,0.0056466535,0.0060309777,0.014759868,0.00042590086],"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":[0.000021955084,0.000038757218,0.0024730277,0.000024434854,0.000012703163,0.0005056349,0.0063132914,0.00019847983,0.00031509652,0.9623303,0.01679206,0.010974251],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012646294,0.000095177,0.019565828,0.00070772687,0.000084312735,0.00059847865,0.014327944,0.0013740659,0.0014176334,0.45231348,0.5091923,0.0001966974],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.19075112,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.37397805,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19075112,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016648576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01810079,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3792817},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1947709505","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1264","title":"Dissents and Concurrences: Seven Debates in Charter Jurisprudence","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Jurisprudence; Political science; Law; Supreme court; Dissent; Dissenting opinion; Sociology","score_opus":0.03247950035206516,"score_gpt":0.32322906412091046,"score_spread":0.2907495637688453,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1947709505","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.39578986,0.04498257,0.007847115,0.2617451,0.005485779,0.0002443311,0.00019734974,0.0001616841,0.28354615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94652265,0.0047389106,0.0022847147,0.029614633,0.0012484526,0.00011604215,0.000079944984,0.00008419733,0.015310453],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9532743,0.021389995,0.0016611147,0.0024620094,0.016118268,0.0050944057],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.952378,0.038498014,0.001122299,0.0010265454,0.004994118,0.0019810707],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.039193626,0.0006985871,0.0010715704,0.0039227377,0.04419708,0.020421542,0.0028121474,0.010571112,0.0016337187],"category_scores_gemma":[0.048022214,0.00069815683,0.00098772,0.003632026,0.041508935,0.006859213,0.012168038,0.016814679,0.00030704384],"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":[0.000058176254,0.00004436533,0.0011183833,0.00010134631,0.000019713825,0.0019232488,0.18274364,0.0003581554,0.0005062389,0.75837964,0.026186783,0.028560305],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000083990184,0.0000836459,0.0063934308,0.001061249,0.00005862665,0.0006734277,0.21540292,0.0012155004,0.0025809177,0.22702408,0.5450538,0.0003684065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07841118,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10028261,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07841118,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033128105,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.022200929,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24036235},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1952198423","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1235","title":"From Smith to Smickle: The Charter’s Minimal Impact on Mandatory Minimum Sentences","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Manitoba","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Constitutionality; Scrutiny; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Subject (documents); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.06241246396626157,"score_gpt":0.3777623568292147,"score_spread":0.3153498928629531,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1952198423","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":[0.104157284,0.01869492,0.017958295,0.24661267,0.0043701814,0.00018510953,0.0005661997,0.00024078315,0.6072146],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90009797,0.0048324247,0.0062437714,0.0454632,0.00094482,0.00007205976,0.00012235493,0.00013080492,0.0420926],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98411155,0.0022122485,0.00041166347,0.0017166506,0.00916476,0.002383181],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9786815,0.009502242,0.0009924341,0.001349235,0.008183957,0.0012907793],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011828706,0.0004218203,0.0006802169,0.0026117095,0.012254814,0.0103222905,0.0023419242,0.0048159324,0.0056924513],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04631944,0.0003887987,0.0008272554,0.0018993756,0.022552168,0.0072106346,0.0037194055,0.010487611,0.00038152296],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000035535235,0.000008508365,0.00087741646,0.000068827016,0.000012321742,0.00017301065,0.0032263824,0.0002323951,0.00032870154,0.9509741,0.024014555,0.020048248],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000664696,0.00014156142,0.011191512,0.001142132,0.00016925856,0.00022900519,0.0067524198,0.0012637053,0.0034699112,0.36353248,0.61175954,0.0002819182],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7965011,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.88387907,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7965011,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03928257,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08082934,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40939468},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1953916609","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1072","title":"The Political Impact of the Charter","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Victory; Politics; Law; Section (typography); Political science; Government (linguistics); Bill of rights; Human rights","score_opus":0.044173219618805035,"score_gpt":0.37464218048969,"score_spread":0.33046896087088495,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1953916609","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":[0.010334068,0.15710425,0.00060042064,0.56155616,0.014138827,0.00009941348,0.00022651794,0.000044243134,0.25589615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.26846662,0.101997964,0.0011974118,0.42495933,0.008089147,0.00021492195,0.00028517292,0.00012183667,0.19466767],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9856123,0.0034895444,0.00051747984,0.0010601119,0.007033766,0.0022868945],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98717785,0.007119273,0.0011860348,0.00029527102,0.003416982,0.00080459943],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011925338,0.0002549622,0.0005248897,0.001812645,0.007172218,0.008052598,0.0017411445,0.0073520495,0.004558807],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014628366,0.00040094674,0.0005882541,0.0017752919,0.007912698,0.0033804337,0.002106043,0.010174872,0.00082590966],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002935636,0.000047353944,0.0009341117,0.00036858965,0.000019757086,0.00037225633,0.002848979,0.00027318692,0.0005488716,0.5699043,0.36672544,0.05792771],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000064184937,0.000036058558,0.003399952,0.0005298304,0.000010134049,0.00006615204,0.00085848244,0.00003417751,0.00027572026,0.0051930468,0.9895592,0.000030792467],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29271856,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.32044312,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7072815,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020281605,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.053681508,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58202946},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1954752369","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1065","title":"“Thank God We’re Here”: Judicial Exclusivity in Charter Interpretation and Its Consequences","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Politics; Constitution; Parliament; Legislature; Interpretation (philosophy); Duty","score_opus":0.05347643224030228,"score_gpt":0.34916544021390894,"score_spread":0.29568900797360664,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1954752369","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":[0.2623443,0.027059674,0.02463223,0.36144775,0.0024216457,0.00014312434,0.0001201505,0.00008427547,0.3217469],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96696913,0.0021015632,0.00198049,0.023124116,0.001013011,0.00007525147,0.000021894748,0.00003821445,0.0046763844],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9250753,0.051091447,0.0020597682,0.0049446714,0.01205534,0.00477345],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8865556,0.08791302,0.0071440972,0.0056068995,0.011445106,0.0013352334],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05423964,0.00026260185,0.0008886221,0.0021738757,0.015919138,0.012584646,0.003221293,0.014590426,0.0023467266],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11465368,0.0007384081,0.0007954752,0.0028037184,0.056879453,0.009773414,0.0065652817,0.018406888,0.00032226808],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002286869,0.000017571243,0.0008218714,0.000028503135,0.000011615854,0.00028450595,0.0069402303,0.00019154328,0.00008459572,0.9803904,0.0062627024,0.0049435794],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014967527,0.00007411548,0.005464626,0.00069306674,0.00008259889,0.00045550166,0.012080378,0.0016775455,0.0011829381,0.8720673,0.105917394,0.00015484855],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.053941105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.054433923,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98709476,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012905253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014386068,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2868501},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1957645886","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1218","title":"Normative Foundations for Reasonable Expectations of Privacy","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Expectation of privacy; Charter; Normative; Supreme court; Political science; Authorization; State (computer science); Law; Law and economics; Business; Internet privacy; Sociology; Computer security; Computer science","score_opus":0.15935085854212497,"score_gpt":0.39228605571898134,"score_spread":0.23293519717685637,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1957645886","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":[0.039714746,0.0027685813,0.20501961,0.08061072,0.00039453522,0.0003131997,0.0006823892,0.00014378937,0.6703525],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96209395,0.00084948336,0.022438554,0.0069135455,0.0003974849,0.0005972306,0.00022069199,0.00006105015,0.00642796],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9621914,0.016262067,0.002597115,0.004753379,0.01084869,0.0033473922],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9460685,0.032307476,0.003925945,0.0060056327,0.009843388,0.0018490247],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.032130323,0.00070718996,0.0010037462,0.0025091828,0.005506469,0.011722456,0.0028206524,0.009785576,0.005521017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05726138,0.0008557099,0.0017258232,0.0013237756,0.036461413,0.012589287,0.005519472,0.010807213,0.0009248177],"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":[0.0000020914251,0.0000037347668,0.000056150922,0.0000067587143,0.0000028471768,0.000017609475,0.00021251608,0.00014453566,0.00001622694,0.9989692,0.00030310987,0.00026522542],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008509419,0.0000033622441,0.0000759627,0.000026116912,0.0000027468545,0.000021414926,0.00012421893,0.0004808285,0.000041027055,0.99649054,0.00271831,0.0000070200535],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01236573,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010293395,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.032130323,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012994265,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0109227495,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16992337},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1958197909","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1125","title":"Fault and Punishment under Sections 7 and 12 of the Charter","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Punishment (psychology); Jurisprudence; Proportionality (law); Section (typography); Law; Political science; Criminal law; Psychology; Computer science; Social psychology","score_opus":0.07239135689893765,"score_gpt":0.32578832363266713,"score_spread":0.25339696673372947,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1958197909","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":[0.037351903,0.0111586815,0.08971714,0.13363408,0.006047057,0.000627024,0.0006079081,0.00049851456,0.7203577],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.72118604,0.0037235247,0.045659415,0.11758079,0.004872485,0.0015178858,0.00037632367,0.00017348926,0.10491011],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.959652,0.013543622,0.003705568,0.0047587766,0.012173948,0.0061661387],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97328466,0.0137322815,0.0033006195,0.002839324,0.0058722184,0.0009708227],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026777178,0.0005337984,0.0009558244,0.0013026529,0.0049562356,0.01039856,0.0023975256,0.015593818,0.0032135823],"category_scores_gemma":[0.047937825,0.0009063286,0.0015643925,0.0007755273,0.01970907,0.0055046882,0.0037554135,0.017284391,0.001169713],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008719064,0.0000071713685,0.00017361599,0.000016945247,0.000003903239,0.000055021323,0.00034095053,0.00013978856,0.000078739045,0.98990905,0.0070439354,0.0022221946],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000063425556,0.00017347813,0.0018283476,0.0003218963,0.000038877828,0.00032926298,0.0005037697,0.00089084794,0.0009349354,0.789948,0.20482896,0.00013815261],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.025770804,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.024316208,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9742292,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0070591546,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024198556,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14161295},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1960694789","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1174","title":"When Secret Intelligence Becomes Evidence: Some Implications of Khadr and Charkaoui II","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Secrecy; Intelligence analysis; Statutory interpretation; Law; Supreme court; Statutory law; Context (archaeology); Political science; Intelligence cycle; Psychology; Judicial interpretation; Law and economics; Sociology; Military intelligence; History","score_opus":0.10335455861839292,"score_gpt":0.39145862303280926,"score_spread":0.2881040644144163,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1960694789","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":[0.012141167,0.10825815,0.0023805937,0.710437,0.0030516863,0.00007403942,0.00010645938,0.000024611094,0.16352628],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6531614,0.09982009,0.003877113,0.2103816,0.0036540362,0.00011111707,0.00006772903,0.000056408833,0.028870491],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9724984,0.009056783,0.0012769753,0.0023625423,0.011854377,0.0029508523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94993436,0.03645005,0.0016112321,0.0014478505,0.009366246,0.0011902868],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.024967276,0.00039434977,0.0011013498,0.0033977148,0.014897139,0.024034094,0.0041351463,0.016640576,0.001555219],"category_scores_gemma":[0.047516257,0.00076963543,0.0006763323,0.00442598,0.07124083,0.013155882,0.0049292254,0.019484911,0.0002987307],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012694937,0.0000073877436,0.00031311106,0.00011877172,0.000008318352,0.0006493563,0.00916303,0.000074676995,0.00007236534,0.96158975,0.018263921,0.009726684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000042788542,0.000033148375,0.0028852287,0.0027918909,0.00007764922,0.0010537426,0.027352655,0.00044752698,0.0007703818,0.4061038,0.55825317,0.00018806466],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.54848653,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5159166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.54848653,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05411587,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07307608,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.90834504},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2107408700","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1267","title":"Furthering Substantive Equality Through Administrative Law: Charter Values in Education","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Obligation; Law; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Political science; Realm; Administrative law; Context (archaeology); Constitutional law; Sociology","score_opus":0.10517733094963949,"score_gpt":0.3927593526776382,"score_spread":0.2875820217279987,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2107408700","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":[0.033717263,0.007060407,0.11867658,0.1643942,0.0010007919,0.00015997872,0.000043666736,0.00013734041,0.6748097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94112885,0.0029299161,0.026258353,0.009438976,0.00036045304,0.00011041044,0.000024378112,0.00006259787,0.019686127],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9790509,0.012291062,0.0005163069,0.00081278005,0.0044335504,0.0028953298],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9815555,0.012081751,0.0012265178,0.0013631867,0.0023252156,0.0014478633],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022026347,0.00047082998,0.0005174986,0.002549195,0.015364633,0.021798724,0.0023516817,0.0052679987,0.0034090134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023589402,0.0003467949,0.00049063895,0.0026387363,0.092846476,0.015722131,0.011010092,0.011309061,0.00046900712],"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":[0.000001794548,0.000005670738,0.00009029813,0.000011146722,5.999295e-7,0.000025103956,0.005604665,0.00009557251,0.000017901235,0.9883454,0.00091228157,0.0048896596],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010935988,0.00002298548,0.00071864773,0.0003192519,0.000006369617,0.00005504089,0.011704336,0.000709217,0.00032948627,0.8581143,0.12797134,0.000038033577],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13187376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18782638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13187376,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032521397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.047382258,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26221234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2109432895","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1292","title":"Doré: All That Glitters is Not Gold","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Tribunal; Supreme court; Law; Deference; Political science; Context (archaeology); History","score_opus":0.0986680875583345,"score_gpt":0.35984204932029845,"score_spread":0.26117396176196395,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2109432895","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0046050926,0.04009005,0.0051034233,0.7056955,0.014714082,0.000107790256,0.0003062879,0.0002809833,0.2290968],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17870197,0.012484021,0.005250444,0.534009,0.0034929116,0.00011530731,0.00018816438,0.00038034996,0.26537785],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97657806,0.0050640646,0.0007944445,0.002851019,0.012523434,0.0021890502],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97750026,0.0074182632,0.00078366976,0.0025314619,0.01048977,0.001276591],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013556569,0.0005273897,0.0011615072,0.0019813983,0.012150711,0.013554165,0.0023145569,0.010065953,0.00922258],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04408815,0.00046367594,0.0006935909,0.0012137381,0.022557797,0.007743609,0.0039938865,0.015119322,0.002151547],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000028402497,0.00001485246,0.00068212394,0.00023979893,0.000030196323,0.00030288717,0.004310021,0.00013484279,0.00039901194,0.45162377,0.4962776,0.045956444],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000071305562,0.000009540857,0.00053728366,0.0003817054,0.000010652074,0.00009252436,0.0010982349,0.00005929001,0.00022057291,0.022503184,0.9750469,0.00003305132],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.52608556,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.65502554,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.52608556,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028141769,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.047415413,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.95341086},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2112265333","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1035","title":"Positive Obligations Under Sections 15 and 7 of the Charter: A Comment On Gosselin V. Québec","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Charter; Legitimacy; Political science; Entitlement (fair division); Jurisprudence; Law; Minor (academic); Law and economics; Sociology; Economics","score_opus":0.036374362089767215,"score_gpt":0.3042601532688276,"score_spread":0.2678857911790604,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2112265333","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018787676,0.016068058,0.0010193728,0.7956412,0.0067086136,0.00026676638,0.0012942881,0.00017790921,0.16003618],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14703055,0.005723878,0.0009323287,0.7475704,0.003047676,0.0002048869,0.00024243184,0.00012248504,0.09512537],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9868466,0.002483898,0.0005108857,0.0013176096,0.0049254014,0.0039154883],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9799872,0.011661615,0.0006480745,0.00045837773,0.005978036,0.0012668369],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0153507395,0.00095355307,0.0011853002,0.0016947308,0.028432693,0.009246898,0.0069777146,0.03854565,0.0061650346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023661442,0.001264012,0.0017017502,0.0026304652,0.010537093,0.002462617,0.0019700872,0.024648039,0.0009700518],"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":[0.00012352924,0.00004475614,0.0024635887,0.00022712834,0.000045317323,0.0017921017,0.0073734373,0.00067389803,0.0007539646,0.19288373,0.78646034,0.00715819],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014319472,0.00005848281,0.01067645,0.00075580645,0.0001732952,0.0002652915,0.005103042,0.0011117872,0.0009532682,0.0157097,0.9647007,0.0003489237],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9838747,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99249774,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.100920886,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.100920886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16532408,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73223567},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2116515736","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1185","title":"Charter Decisions in the McLachlin Era: Consensus and Ideology at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Political science; Adjudication; Law; Ideology; Voting; Context (archaeology); Economic Justice; Politics","score_opus":0.040883193096728776,"score_gpt":0.3069758374462566,"score_spread":0.26609264434952784,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2116515736","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9191111,0.0031140142,0.00029387156,0.017212143,0.00009720623,0.00002344051,0.00030800412,0.000009548436,0.059830766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957585,0.0004475465,0.00006482514,0.00040369,0.000017026221,0.0000027440562,0.00004577184,0.000003850615,0.0032560152],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9945874,0.000580378,0.00006872532,0.00041050717,0.0022465198,0.0021063397],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9905522,0.0022649767,0.0011648786,0.00021086921,0.0040711476,0.0017358992],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004035093,0.00011540846,0.00044446235,0.0029038247,0.017726067,0.0063090795,0.0013052201,0.0014540027,0.0034173797],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017269138,0.00021072185,0.00027376917,0.005710408,0.006360122,0.0013869321,0.0016675299,0.0025780604,0.00018460951],"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":[0.00041677576,0.00021952142,0.39434505,0.00018524124,0.00021963166,0.0010799479,0.18988891,0.0034675924,0.0014956945,0.22579151,0.05695579,0.12593433],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004736287,0.00008203489,0.8084637,0.0002606449,0.00010355268,0.00008451506,0.09248838,0.0022894018,0.00080525444,0.009146213,0.08605219,0.00017681385],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9942794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99778146,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1234294,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1234294,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09221158,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8955472},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2117280130","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1151","title":"The Technology of Political Communication: R. v. Bryan and the Knowledgeable Voter in the 21st Century","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Constitutionality; Charter; Political science; Context (archaeology); Polling; Politics; Law; Test (biology); Law and economics; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.03267464498263206,"score_gpt":0.31778419347879694,"score_spread":0.2851095484961649,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2117280130","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06054628,0.015216637,0.004098769,0.32930803,0.0005158494,0.000050438408,0.000056601584,0.000050510374,0.5901569],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90414464,0.007801943,0.0011134162,0.042885225,0.0007950369,0.00008195895,0.000017628288,0.000033475848,0.04312663],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9894572,0.0058452254,0.00020812258,0.00082875456,0.0018904776,0.0017703169],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9922531,0.005684411,0.0008430269,0.00040998863,0.00037684414,0.00043258377],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010762121,0.00024360302,0.0005050448,0.0012931431,0.015086459,0.013886654,0.0015354867,0.01325567,0.003849047],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012056812,0.00042125053,0.00039416642,0.0015968492,0.03683899,0.011511003,0.0054695862,0.009518371,0.00077931373],"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":[0.000009542357,0.0000073826345,0.0001993687,0.000012941812,0.0000013708749,0.00017612592,0.005466838,0.00007780929,0.00006247181,0.98602957,0.0042779865,0.0036786874],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000066046865,0.00008646844,0.0019974462,0.0005676125,0.000025215208,0.0006974545,0.014593623,0.0005985585,0.0009686126,0.5831096,0.39716336,0.00012593747],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10959081,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.116221376,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10959081,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014277994,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012306019,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.21790588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2120296895","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1061","title":"Remedial Power of Administrative Tribunals","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Law; Tribunal; Charter; Constitution; Political science; Jurisdiction; Statute; Administrative law; Judicial review","score_opus":0.07423987899678985,"score_gpt":0.39523443980314216,"score_spread":0.3209945608063523,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2120296895","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":[0.065010466,0.0036343685,0.056407038,0.020339217,0.0012329472,0.00051688123,0.000111599664,0.00041305923,0.8523343],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9024142,0.00096963474,0.009933534,0.0038346106,0.000962709,0.00034190435,0.000052151267,0.00011579029,0.081375465],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.965003,0.009004434,0.0019613544,0.0043523973,0.01379726,0.00588157],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9618334,0.016022773,0.0031484303,0.0089877015,0.0072402395,0.002767413],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027355485,0.00084792235,0.0010202947,0.0057689156,0.011137479,0.01526866,0.004968903,0.007786395,0.019235577],"category_scores_gemma":[0.058788847,0.0009063118,0.0014724686,0.0020838403,0.022569006,0.008993618,0.01297678,0.011331418,0.0035453106],"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":[0.000022981458,0.000055216417,0.00055930915,0.00005318042,0.000021692767,0.00018939427,0.0015254505,0.00081789424,0.00081533747,0.9793251,0.0023877323,0.014226683],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024171696,0.0003707212,0.0031087417,0.0005403275,0.00014243687,0.0007574966,0.0035986607,0.005225826,0.0043141553,0.54252183,0.43897563,0.00020243635],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0068514696,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007527451,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.027355485,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005615311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013150596,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14467132},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2124915316","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1143","title":"Working with Bertha Wilson: Perspectives on Liberty, Judicial Decision-Making and a Judge’s Role","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Legitimacy; Economic Justice; Political science; Sociology; Law and economics; Politics","score_opus":0.03866725957518929,"score_gpt":0.30039193458137065,"score_spread":0.26172467500618135,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2124915316","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":[0.10595343,0.10304524,0.022131039,0.4152301,0.0014387032,0.000053240885,0.000048019563,0.000043814474,0.35205644],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9388939,0.013283615,0.0039065154,0.01714772,0.0006881285,0.000038698206,0.000009049136,0.000031653697,0.026000658],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.988311,0.008151788,0.00016306428,0.0007382856,0.0014257615,0.0012100189],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9833603,0.014280153,0.00074628775,0.00020527437,0.00089034386,0.00051775126],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010524438,0.00055021263,0.00051009917,0.0028140577,0.017442092,0.016206877,0.0018533046,0.008691979,0.0019394995],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01184838,0.00045634832,0.00042485484,0.0027256268,0.056170125,0.008740776,0.0030110704,0.0074857906,0.00022933129],"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":[0.000007831545,0.000011322384,0.00019831466,0.00002468107,0.0000033079575,0.0002094902,0.018608507,0.00024453772,0.00007481837,0.97133213,0.004913372,0.0043716775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021351585,0.000044832614,0.00071311946,0.00044108852,0.000015175452,0.00026085335,0.031349815,0.0007054267,0.0004480342,0.740329,0.2256052,0.00006609901],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12328782,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.17102787,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12328782,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01856196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01443023,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24514043},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2125365623","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1062","title":"Constitutional Legitimacy and Responsibility: Confronting Allegations of Bias After Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Economic Justice; Constitution; Certiorari; Impartiality; Original jurisdiction","score_opus":0.03613483300809244,"score_gpt":0.29369336116453676,"score_spread":0.2575585281564443,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2125365623","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":[0.22608282,0.013481216,0.0027219173,0.2564197,0.0010210398,0.00013129853,0.0001304818,0.00005221231,0.4999593],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9600553,0.002443361,0.00047341973,0.014666496,0.00017832592,0.000024110557,0.0000200496,0.000024342891,0.02211462],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9875257,0.0021064247,0.00022796774,0.00084603776,0.004066021,0.0052279844],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99202853,0.0046355966,0.0005214166,0.00028549402,0.0017662408,0.000762768],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0067545897,0.0002704405,0.0006071951,0.001713094,0.033984635,0.013319802,0.002370033,0.009214427,0.0024376821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020649103,0.00046427213,0.00039486666,0.0022330713,0.028724395,0.0036239454,0.0048885033,0.011225618,0.00017782464],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001771388,0.000013428978,0.0020817197,0.000043665354,0.000013156045,0.0016901455,0.037702788,0.00020439121,0.00034303463,0.9342278,0.015335826,0.008326284],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000060587045,0.00005128811,0.014037275,0.0006105184,0.0001260746,0.00086870824,0.08965297,0.000955466,0.0021476175,0.18524349,0.7060091,0.00023693792],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.936042,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97112197,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.080563396,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.080563396,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1082306,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58453107},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2139164249","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1287","title":"Constructive Unamendability in Canada and the United States","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Constitution; Federalism; Politics; Political science; Constructive; Constitutional amendment; Pluralism (philosophy); Law; Democracy; Supreme court; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.019163934244301347,"score_gpt":0.2725322793528965,"score_spread":0.2533683451085951,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2139164249","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":[0.07964818,0.020003075,0.002494263,0.024954569,0.00037276628,0.00009429117,0.00034020608,0.00007833326,0.87201434],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94929904,0.009891077,0.0020072465,0.0061622607,0.00008635505,0.00007021861,0.00013891344,0.00002825505,0.032316614],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99227494,0.0013733758,0.00019575801,0.00063758664,0.0031282832,0.0023900631],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9924251,0.0025355003,0.00057026563,0.0004210989,0.0033322978,0.00071570807],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038288822,0.00030917523,0.00043237236,0.0037070573,0.018074494,0.009544346,0.0012831148,0.002507472,0.0039206464],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013323406,0.00039949923,0.00048645752,0.0050239787,0.019549469,0.0021982412,0.00263701,0.0038521385,0.00020227578],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008179278,0.000005431867,0.0012001945,0.000032758853,0.00000971293,0.000116077324,0.001769002,0.00049159635,0.000074705815,0.98321724,0.0049513434,0.0081239315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006605229,0.000041737436,0.042403445,0.0011090324,0.00015808202,0.0002862321,0.010151367,0.002064215,0.0013186291,0.2739126,0.6682186,0.00026999458],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9801343,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9918257,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90155697,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09844304,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19303447,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7142576},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2150246512","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1204","title":"“Please, Draw Me a Field of Jurisdiction”: Regulating Securities, Securing Federalism","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":3,"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 Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Private placement; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Law and economics; Federalism; Intervention (counseling); State (computer science); Law; Currency; Political science; Economics; Business; Politics; Finance; Commission; Investment banking","score_opus":0.02072233094458181,"score_gpt":0.2647182438733661,"score_spread":0.2439959129287843,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2150246512","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":[0.05308866,0.034700636,0.01661119,0.42222002,0.0012866562,0.00012636204,0.0001719881,0.00011529361,0.47167915],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89866674,0.009485476,0.0053882985,0.057403367,0.0005375177,0.00005123994,0.00004898301,0.00002456738,0.028393917],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9956453,0.001425934,0.000096970434,0.00036069454,0.0013342131,0.0011370033],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99795246,0.0008914617,0.00013636827,0.00013043685,0.00063133094,0.0002579713],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044321343,0.00020259888,0.0002497873,0.0011068465,0.012585173,0.008148059,0.001086068,0.004570689,0.0014689071],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0074608377,0.00031086884,0.00031060254,0.001177048,0.032285463,0.0039016434,0.0021232944,0.0053786286,0.00021997665],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000040880836,0.0000041782782,0.00038049297,0.000020190282,0.0000029064786,0.00008491732,0.003034773,0.00013991876,0.00018343663,0.9768679,0.013735979,0.0055412143],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031112802,0.00002930802,0.0054724286,0.0004164419,0.000037826612,0.0001935455,0.006887248,0.00059315533,0.0007962474,0.45698574,0.5284997,0.00005715544],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7747239,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8641491,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7747239,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033554796,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06876422,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4532056},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2151831444","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1007","title":"Competing Constitutional Rights in an Age of Deference: A Bad Time to Be Accused","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Deference; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.07104288149708309,"score_gpt":0.34101486717061036,"score_spread":0.26997198567352726,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2151831444","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":[0.1416116,0.0176529,0.005136613,0.50960666,0.004212902,0.000032292628,0.00004525913,0.000056716905,0.32164505],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94562805,0.0015784305,0.0005651222,0.031598464,0.0011347183,0.000015967244,0.000008954062,0.000022696411,0.01944754],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99228036,0.0039093317,0.00016689845,0.00061087066,0.0013385823,0.0016940107],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9898555,0.0055001094,0.0008195384,0.0005577785,0.0011793792,0.0020875921],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010590062,0.00026196544,0.00043706704,0.001120862,0.01666636,0.010969449,0.0011422536,0.01010233,0.00434879],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03240563,0.00031577842,0.00026724575,0.00057614833,0.03599085,0.01198816,0.0069356062,0.016237447,0.00051997876],"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":[0.000025319781,0.00002434088,0.0004946888,0.000017569337,0.0000032453793,0.000657812,0.04945217,0.00003654354,0.00014353363,0.924786,0.01640466,0.007954078],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043314212,0.00009074751,0.0012763251,0.00029926852,0.000014847404,0.001231781,0.050537825,0.00020635698,0.00026306187,0.52054405,0.42543787,0.000054622607],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0133553175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017759176,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01666636,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0052213394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00813411,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.056006253},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2155795606","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1145","title":"Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Shadow (psychology); Economic Justice; Concurrence; Political science; Dissenting opinion; Sociology; Section (typography); Psychology; Psychoanalysis","score_opus":0.02152846567578614,"score_gpt":0.24910669533375532,"score_spread":0.22757822965796917,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2155795606","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":[0.014408134,0.24269706,0.00077481713,0.49699372,0.0037179713,0.000045654215,0.00017819424,0.000029573777,0.24115483],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5860419,0.15081489,0.0017760121,0.11671495,0.0027794926,0.000057338242,0.000105071354,0.00008233597,0.14162794],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99148214,0.0019076726,0.00012916769,0.0005197031,0.0042125406,0.0017487434],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99259055,0.002724794,0.0002664088,0.00015648943,0.0031906643,0.0010712179],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0058796275,0.0004169569,0.0005514638,0.0032129684,0.024486862,0.010313459,0.0017187559,0.005720865,0.004472503],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01058606,0.00046492068,0.00026930604,0.004604886,0.019559145,0.0036631708,0.0017943213,0.005964958,0.00041274482],"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":[0.000025949985,0.000019777473,0.0009163681,0.00015922435,0.000013849788,0.00029428612,0.01074251,0.0002378251,0.00015275933,0.6099182,0.35100472,0.026514445],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018939445,0.000013636718,0.004405418,0.0005532466,0.000020947986,0.00010741905,0.009402528,0.0001544196,0.00015148212,0.037516497,0.9475687,0.00008682632],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98702824,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944569,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10255586,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10255586,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1657947,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.74409837},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2158361136","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1240","title":"Police Questioning in the Charter Era: Adjudicative versus Regulatory Rule-making and the Problem of False Confessions","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Legislature; Charter; Doctrine; Law; Political science; Parliament; Criminal procedure; Silence; Common law; Politics","score_opus":0.06513747930688289,"score_gpt":0.3798462052119304,"score_spread":0.3147087259050475,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2158361136","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":[0.056896478,0.036635317,0.08135238,0.70166016,0.00296387,0.00018528143,0.00013761989,0.00016260991,0.120006345],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8585357,0.012271617,0.029713428,0.08614669,0.004963781,0.00039824742,0.000064642394,0.00010536346,0.0078005968],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.8156269,0.13135609,0.006834499,0.010209064,0.03031235,0.0056610783],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6278558,0.322031,0.02026688,0.011272942,0.016447771,0.0021255624],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.18380457,0.00050287857,0.002014571,0.0044130767,0.007310238,0.032395985,0.0057944725,0.025927704,0.0014741914],"category_scores_gemma":[0.2750928,0.0012908808,0.0014544098,0.0030771818,0.058934133,0.020617401,0.005762309,0.023341969,0.0005650319],"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":[0.000031485957,0.000029246941,0.00076268584,0.00009379232,0.000017130114,0.0002587803,0.0043411604,0.0004553004,0.00019989915,0.9680544,0.008282387,0.017473793],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013771384,0.0001194741,0.002860899,0.001319562,0.00009240813,0.00036973864,0.003996795,0.003786456,0.0016053969,0.88675535,0.098740496,0.00021573741],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01413831,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012331099,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18380457,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010308256,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016591117,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9720631},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2161677596","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1045","title":"Between Here and There is Better Than Anything Over There: The Morass of Sauvé V. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Officer; Chief executive officer; Political science; Management; Economics; Law","score_opus":0.036028208413606586,"score_gpt":0.30564712146575795,"score_spread":0.26961891305215135,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2161677596","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":[0.01985019,0.16536468,0.00076022855,0.71174717,0.0049783792,0.00004030355,0.00065495435,0.000029273398,0.096574865],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.43361807,0.06881492,0.0012015826,0.42946646,0.0025300821,0.0000245303,0.00034229198,0.0000600425,0.06394201],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99751174,0.00045809735,0.00006249856,0.00026213547,0.001174067,0.0005314922],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99781823,0.00083229854,0.00011933722,0.00003417051,0.00082998874,0.00036599018],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027826803,0.00039603835,0.00035222934,0.0015313048,0.015117958,0.005103795,0.0015185716,0.0056501348,0.0025254355],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0077717686,0.00027135713,0.00025819344,0.0023287714,0.006063525,0.0022378073,0.0012184543,0.007110062,0.0003548803],"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":[0.00008533543,0.000023046596,0.004419072,0.00040724827,0.000053542182,0.001406087,0.008923907,0.000112572954,0.00031992898,0.12117288,0.81714857,0.04592783],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004789196,0.000033193035,0.020202445,0.0014227957,0.00014044988,0.0006435328,0.019336896,0.00021575455,0.0007736643,0.030942218,0.92613477,0.00010628965],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95184803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9909725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04815197,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022195028,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.058021493,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16103697},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2164840683","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1088","title":"Haida Nation and Taku River: A Commentary On Aboriginal Consultation and Reconciliation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Obligation; Honour; Political science; Government (linguistics); Treaty; Sociology","score_opus":0.022478262419506637,"score_gpt":0.3336537329175343,"score_spread":0.3111754704980277,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2164840683","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0064338,0.029641131,0.00035094706,0.88841546,0.007943035,0.00005785915,0.00010330477,0.000031926724,0.06702259],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08573715,0.008545962,0.00045021166,0.8584153,0.0034255753,0.00013674436,0.00004199006,0.000061126535,0.043185916],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9785607,0.006245118,0.0007782106,0.001768184,0.0060901004,0.006557701],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9824004,0.012526755,0.0004175768,0.00022930057,0.0030455058,0.0013804508],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0152282715,0.000692315,0.0015396439,0.0018105868,0.06253534,0.015715085,0.008532572,0.05978751,0.00483262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030349713,0.0013302377,0.0017554557,0.0038501497,0.020650279,0.0052942154,0.005168974,0.061794717,0.0007906522],"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":[0.00004985964,0.000027606598,0.00045953816,0.00023118425,0.000033079046,0.001885155,0.023500198,0.00024379414,0.00020437596,0.28121185,0.68540806,0.0067453072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006907984,0.000027690727,0.0021742424,0.0012062128,0.00009302237,0.00035136854,0.03345669,0.00034138627,0.0003185574,0.0247872,0.9370066,0.00016792849],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8535722,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9253973,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14642781,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08094534,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.124381356,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5873023},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2167854740","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1159","title":"Parliament’s Response to Charkaoui: Bill C-3 and the Special Advocate Regime under IRPA","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Law; Charter; Political science; Legislature; Supreme court; Constitution; Constitutional court; Constitutional right; Politics","score_opus":0.05935781489032223,"score_gpt":0.30931081651504316,"score_spread":0.24995300162472095,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2167854740","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":[0.08324333,0.0025432163,0.004386772,0.61380935,0.008987665,0.00035290257,0.00036205488,0.00056072045,0.28575397],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.32289886,0.00067790784,0.0029579753,0.4309039,0.0016679625,0.00021271907,0.00011519472,0.00022992345,0.24033557],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9823256,0.0019158024,0.00055190217,0.0015964983,0.006326488,0.00728374],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928409,0.0028691124,0.0004058982,0.00024413737,0.0021949494,0.0014451011],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007914357,0.00049149105,0.0007083721,0.0009329711,0.027158529,0.01124163,0.0030809273,0.03305841,0.0057315505],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023907611,0.0010610092,0.0013133222,0.00090704265,0.008227802,0.0020490647,0.0041817436,0.030060232,0.0015882349],"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":[0.00023276507,0.00009841824,0.0043535186,0.00014368686,0.000046929006,0.0063688955,0.024110602,0.0007854226,0.006848817,0.44572285,0.4927903,0.01849769],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061962484,0.00007823743,0.0066699963,0.00018464582,0.00004836249,0.0005521098,0.0062168743,0.0009260329,0.0036438445,0.01559325,0.96579504,0.00022950044],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.67792517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.79030806,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.32207483,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.053968143,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050119355,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.64794314},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2235405925","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1309","title":"The Shadow of Absurdity and the Challenge of Easy Cases: Looking Back on the Supreme Court Act Reference","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Skepticism; Political science; Majority opinion; Constitution; Concurring opinion; The Void; Legislature; Politics; Certiorari; Original jurisdiction; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.12828090069208994,"score_gpt":0.33760563110301806,"score_spread":0.2093247304109281,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2235405925","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":[0.059827928,0.040030394,0.008817098,0.48430482,0.0044728243,0.000039696966,0.00003916368,0.000038033962,0.40242997],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9101952,0.008012871,0.0018845788,0.06027789,0.0034416998,0.000042164305,0.00002064559,0.000103859835,0.016021159],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9782215,0.014767772,0.00042697438,0.0011741252,0.003910164,0.0014996075],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95755523,0.036358282,0.0015775998,0.0012878843,0.0022048252,0.0010162676],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01932337,0.00028646927,0.0006478918,0.0027101599,0.012225959,0.017096132,0.0017385472,0.009511208,0.0040856376],"category_scores_gemma":[0.051571604,0.0003292409,0.00045705904,0.0015074715,0.07476084,0.018266365,0.008554181,0.017863648,0.00053565926],"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":[0.00000651338,0.000005745922,0.0001525634,0.00002653039,0.0000024198307,0.00012627174,0.009065327,0.000032546657,0.000049694077,0.98136306,0.005045855,0.00412353],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014606402,0.000025672025,0.00084572344,0.00049360876,0.000008049991,0.0002156169,0.018779004,0.00016076816,0.00019521917,0.7945536,0.18467484,0.000033336833],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010660137,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013985349,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01932337,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007341898,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005128493,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10219294},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2283363849","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1310","title":"Of Banks, Federalism and Clear Statement Rules: Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Doctrine; Supreme court; Statement (logic); Political science; New Federalism; Statutory law; Statutory interpretation; Cooperative federalism; Law and economics; Context (archaeology); Law; Dual federalism; Economics; Politics","score_opus":0.04504876488770859,"score_gpt":0.32404270331181456,"score_spread":0.27899393842410597,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2283363849","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":[0.07799875,0.0116154775,0.013025626,0.34278926,0.0019549846,0.00040160184,0.0009508422,0.00018302252,0.5510805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81179386,0.0027021072,0.005092493,0.078647956,0.00053172035,0.00021193096,0.00013173232,0.00006206533,0.10082618],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9918188,0.0016251047,0.00021247585,0.0011547306,0.0031252918,0.0020636343],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930315,0.003707047,0.00043663138,0.0003084618,0.0019019174,0.0006144783],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008330273,0.00046916274,0.00047299938,0.0013626005,0.015997335,0.009962271,0.003551775,0.013183597,0.0055574067],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026164,0.0008101669,0.0005946346,0.0017306784,0.011765412,0.0039059082,0.0023324327,0.011972504,0.00047389296],"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":[0.00002026507,0.000010830437,0.0011034857,0.00002788353,0.0000122845295,0.0002655632,0.0023972495,0.0001508015,0.00022918361,0.9575104,0.03438357,0.003888352],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024337246,0.000095337746,0.017131684,0.00063900155,0.00017612138,0.000353629,0.0046669147,0.0034032324,0.0028301477,0.2399436,0.73014396,0.00037291847],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9203476,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9480304,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07965243,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.046844777,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.066247895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33988428},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2397173121","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1316","title":"Constitutional (mis)Adventures: Revisiting Quebec’s Proposed Charter of Values","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multiculturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Charter; Political science; Reasonable accommodation; Neutrality; Legislation; Constitutional law; Constitution; Sociology","score_opus":0.17165824461162593,"score_gpt":0.41868717045690607,"score_spread":0.24702892584528013,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2397173121","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":[0.09136599,0.017784327,0.0069877165,0.402714,0.005205957,0.00030652367,0.0012343352,0.00019752492,0.47420368],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84322476,0.005408178,0.0048764367,0.072101325,0.00045486065,0.00015245078,0.00025121996,0.00006673974,0.07346409],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99079037,0.0022252072,0.00028831343,0.0010312108,0.0035041529,0.0021607964],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889381,0.0031248017,0.0004056215,0.00051949447,0.0057224697,0.0012894413],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0105898855,0.00044071485,0.0005091048,0.0021924232,0.021051582,0.015121188,0.0034097992,0.006255711,0.0050130733],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013886321,0.0003920584,0.0006908301,0.0024948523,0.021657929,0.0029138846,0.0022528856,0.00906786,0.00023364478],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001936778,0.00002154595,0.0018140888,0.000092053124,0.000010503952,0.00027134057,0.010044055,0.00063671917,0.00031836063,0.9062651,0.06692862,0.0135782575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053129497,0.000044684046,0.009557753,0.0006612694,0.000040626317,0.00012265639,0.018041838,0.0010902032,0.00048724993,0.031927217,0.9378063,0.00016714806],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99340653,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9964644,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19558288,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.19558288,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.29996747,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93300986},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2416785679","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1315","title":"Loyola High School v. Attorney General of Quebec: On Non-triviality and the Charter Value of Religious Freedom","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Freedom of religion; Vision; Value (mathematics); Political science; Obligation; Religious freedom; Sociology; Government (linguistics); Religious education; Free Exercise Clause; Establishment Clause; State (computer science); First amendment; Politics; Philosophy; Human rights; Mathematics","score_opus":0.026053522309003714,"score_gpt":0.3052817145008522,"score_spread":0.27922819219184847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2416785679","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":[0.1317295,0.017849125,0.002431175,0.27028257,0.000844028,0.00021936235,0.0010227389,0.00012137734,0.5755001],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85196775,0.0038070858,0.0008023621,0.072073095,0.00032450963,0.00014593368,0.00017126193,0.00003928059,0.0706688],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9893134,0.0025862574,0.00027818306,0.00069892145,0.003100474,0.0040226714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98491967,0.007816916,0.0008261097,0.00052441837,0.0044800285,0.0014327719],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008699796,0.00041176978,0.0006256692,0.0014870592,0.022643913,0.011517229,0.0031378951,0.011888846,0.006141051],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015657503,0.0005875503,0.00062158564,0.0016902834,0.015902743,0.0030366066,0.002452923,0.011091474,0.0005743779],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008525567,0.00007267685,0.00672939,0.00014331428,0.000035823858,0.00068806205,0.008168493,0.0003954107,0.0005772045,0.8688831,0.10314005,0.011081205],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00050176505,0.0002473384,0.078776285,0.0025913885,0.00032275444,0.00043575358,0.023080423,0.0023147345,0.0024013007,0.13679236,0.751831,0.00070491777],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97183967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9891717,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06295971,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06295971,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09195254,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45680678},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2506553429","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1333","title":"A False Start in Constitutionalizing Lawyer Loyalty in Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Supreme court; Charter; Duty; Economic Justice; Loyalty","score_opus":0.037464262260314546,"score_gpt":0.2785010715568673,"score_spread":0.24103680929655277,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2506553429","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":[0.16217236,0.018844495,0.005022004,0.47379902,0.0020996546,0.00030063506,0.0006775943,0.00016734617,0.33691683],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8431262,0.0029987048,0.0022320321,0.12331064,0.0005086951,0.00011861465,0.00010610648,0.00006769503,0.027531391],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9683995,0.0054828855,0.00097109744,0.00315977,0.010571402,0.011415262],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9764326,0.010508822,0.0008803057,0.0010335488,0.007804922,0.0033396725],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02395195,0.000501169,0.0013143184,0.0022058538,0.0416399,0.0220813,0.0058488487,0.022164244,0.0030265513],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038333062,0.001247795,0.0011019281,0.0029381197,0.032003563,0.0059605036,0.005950265,0.026470426,0.00026086008],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000031361273,0.000025211462,0.002110668,0.000051034152,0.000040091596,0.00020775647,0.0076945922,0.00031752093,0.00025002685,0.9545755,0.028383847,0.0063123037],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003772318,0.00023287689,0.029966962,0.0015821671,0.0005460127,0.00027985472,0.033351395,0.003231092,0.0029434494,0.29147416,0.6349024,0.0011124222],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99012053,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99475116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84520143,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15479858,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.27350563,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98031384},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2519018204","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1322","title":"Safeguarding the Longue Durée: Environmental Rights in the Canadian Constitution","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Environmental law and policy","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":"Safeguarding; Charter; Constitution; Human rights; Rights of Nature; Obligation; Fundamental rights; Political science; Law; Environmentalism; Environmental law; Constitutional right; Right to life; Law and economics; Order (exchange); Right to property; Environmental ethics; Sociology; Business; Politics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04265353688583372,"score_gpt":0.30653491535258603,"score_spread":0.2638813784667523,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2519018204","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":[0.023561917,0.0101389205,0.008722152,0.08250915,0.0009472718,0.00016949362,0.00054690207,0.000110646215,0.8732935],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7997579,0.009356833,0.011784605,0.032020003,0.0007203358,0.00020859795,0.00030117302,0.00010622264,0.14574428],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99350464,0.0009626332,0.00019348266,0.0005896826,0.0027551115,0.0019943255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9954839,0.0018478271,0.00016754125,0.00038612643,0.0016695693,0.00044508197],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006278491,0.0004048823,0.00054035016,0.0021047846,0.015377523,0.010908685,0.0022253182,0.007205175,0.005355211],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011177804,0.0005021751,0.00068666635,0.0024457925,0.022235833,0.0039035995,0.0028861994,0.0073413905,0.0004265416],"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":[0.00000404838,0.0000039150514,0.00021992973,0.000014147414,0.0000019617055,0.000056289686,0.001415265,0.00025697265,0.00008881661,0.9885954,0.0061337985,0.003209297],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005113258,0.000019838273,0.005419501,0.00045447107,0.000053696982,0.00011418816,0.0022092224,0.0015761686,0.00044841235,0.31315166,0.67635876,0.00014293668],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9677004,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9820463,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06669527,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06669527,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12690735,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48391032},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2519061332","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1314","title":"Hospital Knows Best: Court and Unfit Accused at the Mercy of Hospital Administrators: The Case of R. v. Conception","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints","field":"Psychology","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":"Charter; Law; Tribunal; Supreme court; Political science; Sociology","score_opus":0.07197106475697165,"score_gpt":0.3953731497477166,"score_spread":0.32340208499074496,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2519061332","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":[0.3393597,0.007201828,0.005354857,0.4066522,0.0022931234,0.00015484024,0.0000761608,0.00008695621,0.2388203],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8883078,0.0016382368,0.0011411781,0.088112734,0.0008744135,0.000070603826,0.000019873687,0.000047880585,0.019787362],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"case_report","domain_scores_codex":[0.9846847,0.005198626,0.00034132038,0.0013760584,0.0028154813,0.0055838367],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9912664,0.0046080165,0.0007255679,0.0004661565,0.0009368822,0.001997048],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012485043,0.0005075398,0.0007713322,0.0011328285,0.029564425,0.01386492,0.0024423432,0.032747407,0.0030973328],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022822322,0.001113882,0.001455478,0.0009049428,0.024891758,0.005095456,0.008177032,0.03231138,0.0005865557],"study_design_candidate":"case_report","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":[0.00007143578,0.0001246882,0.0041874717,0.00004703927,0.000035363006,0.019407278,0.050466135,0.0005092249,0.0007465292,0.86360365,0.053834163,0.00696707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028426686,0.00043913064,0.009549985,0.001350344,0.00029091825,0.020371968,0.17819004,0.0037017323,0.0029015604,0.23248228,0.5496442,0.0007934755],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1410067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.21573459,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1410067,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017793234,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027976,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2803719},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2519228174","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1327","title":"Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Constitution; Law; Charter; Interpretation (philosophy); Originalism; Constitutional law; Political science; Meaning (existential); Separation of powers; Treaty; Constitutional economics; Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.07962996588047687,"score_gpt":0.3566823282573796,"score_spread":0.2770523623769027,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2519228174","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":[0.07623178,0.005945892,0.006935927,0.06931259,0.00032587684,0.000048900012,0.00011894726,0.000052132185,0.84102803],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98744047,0.0011030699,0.0014305877,0.003250155,0.00015138216,0.000045326466,0.0000330741,0.000028600078,0.0065173674],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9837323,0.0053204433,0.00047083406,0.0018448785,0.0049634073,0.003668129],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9713093,0.016168566,0.0011200883,0.002205446,0.006912507,0.0022840379],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01910235,0.00027770616,0.0007765353,0.0038887095,0.015397766,0.012160034,0.0026187345,0.0046005645,0.0049738754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.054961562,0.00035636895,0.0004368994,0.0023019242,0.044205155,0.009647775,0.0055818283,0.005991423,0.00036490074],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005866276,0.0000019742183,0.00035241843,0.000010821648,0.000003002207,0.000018206278,0.001981852,0.0001136631,0.000026362004,0.99393207,0.0017173899,0.0018361623],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002270554,0.000012914262,0.0030457815,0.00023392124,0.000027022856,0.000045232202,0.008484097,0.0007831985,0.00017324004,0.88279074,0.10435489,0.000026201422],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5238113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.62733525,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5238113,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039830517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.037118264,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9579862},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2520075891","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1320","title":"Hart and Mack: New Restraints on Mr. Big and a New Approach to Unreliable Prosecution Evidence","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Jury; Discretion; Context (archaeology); Supreme court; Law; Federal Rules of Evidence; Political science; Admissible evidence; Digital evidence; Psychology; Computer science; Computer security; History; Digital forensics","score_opus":0.2886321541641624,"score_gpt":0.3911996219176977,"score_spread":0.10256746775353531,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2520075891","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0090809595,0.03236691,0.011702727,0.87491256,0.00673439,0.00015757603,0.00014819198,0.00009953238,0.0647972],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.24865292,0.023237891,0.033481795,0.63276666,0.0152929695,0.00028757067,0.00010358232,0.00015608115,0.04602059],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9498205,0.013828019,0.0034264857,0.0045374935,0.025269283,0.0031181853],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.92360914,0.046892524,0.0035225651,0.0046771555,0.017818596,0.0034800854],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03585006,0.00095171056,0.0011688899,0.0036506443,0.009048575,0.017168371,0.005422513,0.024011789,0.0026365446],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06492119,0.0014207095,0.0013823312,0.0026640655,0.04935101,0.014776388,0.0043619885,0.03190425,0.0006637761],"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":[0.000059149654,0.000033291457,0.001294638,0.00038048674,0.000055028275,0.0012734918,0.0064638807,0.00029582035,0.0012207783,0.7506069,0.20136108,0.0369555],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014057521,0.00009158935,0.0065439264,0.0022163673,0.00017896548,0.0011747588,0.0044351867,0.001044102,0.0012881632,0.24100192,0.7414445,0.00043991653],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3516897,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5881118,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3516897,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023381216,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.039546367,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.69928527},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2528186113","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1336","title":"Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Commission; Political science; Focus (optics); Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.09264882175162263,"score_gpt":0.33085775457067607,"score_spread":0.23820893281905342,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2528186113","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.070087135,0.0066358885,0.007092549,0.50264174,0.0049921973,0.00018890676,0.00020212152,0.000070532034,0.40808895],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.59784126,0.0017503191,0.0028864394,0.31363687,0.0007612087,0.0002273478,0.00006204571,0.00005699838,0.08277751],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98880905,0.002565307,0.00043942322,0.0015661896,0.0030336718,0.0035863928],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99480045,0.0024856871,0.0003308502,0.00030968687,0.0012412558,0.00083209603],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007705073,0.00032186892,0.00040867922,0.0007139195,0.02405887,0.008578812,0.0022126092,0.019896263,0.002410004],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011771885,0.0004892577,0.0005999754,0.00087282574,0.024444243,0.0042295265,0.0049167373,0.022869954,0.00037965065],"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":[0.00002635398,0.000024965919,0.0015737979,0.000042871317,0.000009799029,0.00055363093,0.0264398,0.00015229148,0.0003466583,0.88026506,0.08314935,0.0074154586],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006212476,0.000071862836,0.006330036,0.0006560744,0.000056493376,0.0007003988,0.029389309,0.0008723157,0.0012003463,0.17297924,0.7874636,0.00021817694],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5064031,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.67668736,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4935969,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020477759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050844114,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9930076},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2557202064","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1323","title":"Towards a Public Law of Privacy: Meeting the Big Data Challenge","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Context (archaeology); Law enforcement; Jurisprudence; Privacy law; Information privacy law; Law; Information privacy; Political science; Data Protection Act 1998; Supreme court; State (computer science); Privacy laws of the United States; Relevance (law); Privacy by Design; Privacy policy; Computer science","score_opus":0.4180145909454242,"score_gpt":0.4069288338756114,"score_spread":0.011085757069812796,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2557202064","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":[0.0069317124,0.008232472,0.102138884,0.8344996,0.0015815785,0.00008886284,0.00027980833,0.00017006489,0.046077],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6275103,0.01978341,0.12708148,0.18946764,0.017997408,0.0009317887,0.0007628595,0.0005684856,0.015896598],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.93545336,0.036228165,0.0022498823,0.0057328898,0.017337888,0.002997834],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8020926,0.15017183,0.005898082,0.027293883,0.009578488,0.004965002],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09811029,0.00074038847,0.0024291142,0.0036006693,0.011379613,0.03456457,0.005847227,0.02105968,0.0031526245],"category_scores_gemma":[0.11277472,0.0013685713,0.0020643412,0.0052645192,0.06413592,0.07779372,0.018065052,0.046206273,0.0010554167],"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":[0.0000074422105,0.000018742914,0.00017927743,0.00003918575,0.000008421243,0.000040172476,0.00093716144,0.00033629124,0.000039785453,0.9876217,0.005886906,0.00488495],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001097126,0.000006686072,0.000081821905,0.00010268847,0.0000044664666,0.00003098462,0.00061918027,0.000787178,0.00008169607,0.97254205,0.025720635,0.000011644548],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0061924034,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0043677576,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09811029,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011550171,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026865179,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.51886296},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2560948472","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1306","title":"Aboriginal Title and the Provinces after Tsilhqot’in Nation","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Women's and Gender Studies et Recherches Féministes","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Supreme court; Law; Context (archaeology); Political science; Economic Justice; High Court; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.03704934952863398,"score_gpt":0.35246408280565816,"score_spread":0.3154147332770242,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2560948472","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":[0.18216802,0.032794252,0.0021246192,0.040651366,0.0007195364,0.000065655164,0.000241218,0.000032325217,0.74120307],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94295776,0.0036135712,0.0006452327,0.0064730234,0.00010402509,0.00002964421,0.00005337296,0.000008949979,0.046114486],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.996876,0.0006972498,0.00012228312,0.00035937925,0.0007732395,0.0011717867],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99799573,0.0010775161,0.00016465891,0.00010147679,0.00047852052,0.00018217755],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024443192,0.00012265786,0.0003618623,0.0007329548,0.01018925,0.0064531756,0.0014214829,0.0035548308,0.0030122201],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0042794906,0.0003337099,0.00033839743,0.0012272022,0.0115377,0.0016797851,0.0023075293,0.0046627256,0.00022998644],"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":[0.000024370853,0.000009025588,0.0021426869,0.000080781756,0.0000072650005,0.00038675676,0.010869638,0.00012248471,0.0002389263,0.9765902,0.0038749052,0.005652962],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016726364,0.00012443832,0.055628758,0.001433243,0.0001162229,0.00072873844,0.0283999,0.00057167787,0.0019566687,0.1992636,0.7114552,0.000154279],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75493693,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8948723,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.24506307,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021317942,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03947648,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49301255},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2567411418","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1324","title":"The Past and Future of Constitutional Law and Social Justice: Majestic or Substantive Equality?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","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":"Retrenchment; Constitutional law; Law; Political science; Charter; Equal Protection Clause; Substantive law; Economic Justice; Inequality; Law and economics; Constitutional right; Sociology; Constitution; Public administration","score_opus":0.08895260459985463,"score_gpt":0.37339594091850237,"score_spread":0.2844433363186477,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2567411418","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":[0.012629908,0.31040153,0.009107967,0.53521997,0.002512291,0.000019016288,0.00005981569,0.000034714474,0.13001484],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80694145,0.1266063,0.005554898,0.045941204,0.005864563,0.00007280595,0.00005271539,0.00004215297,0.008923964],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9834803,0.0094734905,0.0005369056,0.0014847812,0.0033463684,0.0016780876],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9770225,0.016205277,0.00156138,0.0018740599,0.0020145334,0.0013221703],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02228868,0.00031179193,0.0010871503,0.0026133757,0.009200403,0.016379485,0.0024427336,0.0058567505,0.00392877],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023049567,0.00036927126,0.00049592793,0.0031916378,0.10060165,0.018862925,0.0065739364,0.0111761335,0.00036721636],"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":[0.0000031518873,0.000004482205,0.00011414291,0.000079413,0.0000037409782,0.000019484225,0.0010453132,0.00004430364,0.000021436123,0.99027246,0.001385467,0.007006623],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010930319,0.000018838695,0.0008343146,0.0008792572,0.000009083616,0.00005578523,0.003615621,0.00014529614,0.00005891021,0.88895136,0.10539591,0.000024785964],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.057523817,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06877484,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.057523817,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018655205,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030773414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.13535362},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2573745411","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1307","title":"Aboriginal Title and Private Property","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria; Banff Centre; Nexen (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Declaration; Supreme court; Indigenous; Law; Political science; Constitution; Private property; Sociology","score_opus":0.04250402339728181,"score_gpt":0.35377648332376804,"score_spread":0.3112724599264862,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2573745411","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":[0.12382667,0.008396802,0.00247519,0.015717978,0.00021067503,0.000037763562,0.00011125641,0.000016516506,0.8492072],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95064527,0.0024391382,0.00043032618,0.0024299049,0.00011365325,0.000019820693,0.000032872595,0.000010004391,0.043879062],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99694246,0.00055604026,0.00007983025,0.00034222653,0.0010403873,0.0010389695],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969963,0.0013718879,0.00044407326,0.00023730866,0.0006235607,0.00032690988],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018288488,0.000120936675,0.00022969846,0.0011114331,0.0060116714,0.005509319,0.0009467514,0.002155657,0.008004141],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004323097,0.00019804385,0.00026876508,0.0010279601,0.016541684,0.002762074,0.0037672352,0.0028781004,0.0003762593],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005155928,0.000006565021,0.0019064705,0.000027395006,0.0000044329745,0.0002301234,0.005559618,0.000072344796,0.00011598598,0.98784,0.0011011026,0.0031308187],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003856905,0.00008099395,0.041528396,0.00088211923,0.00007615218,0.00092668267,0.021594105,0.0006042609,0.0009927292,0.3830556,0.5501361,0.000084206724],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44313288,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5610111,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5568671,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0135948,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01751192,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8811071},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2588787282","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1339","title":"\"Chartering\" in the Shadow of Lochner: Guindon, Goodwin and the Criminal-Administrative Distinction at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Wrongdoing; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Administrative law; Statutory law; Shadow (psychology); State (computer science); Criminal law; Power (physics); Psychology","score_opus":0.054096900128114064,"score_gpt":0.3226209074071395,"score_spread":0.2685240072790254,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2588787282","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011708231,0.3322541,0.0012632547,0.5437792,0.0048329486,0.00008273126,0.00043178446,0.000044044133,0.10560369],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.51594967,0.1862236,0.00253272,0.22267336,0.0024836452,0.00008863935,0.00024525583,0.00010709836,0.06969593],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9921442,0.001766681,0.00022081228,0.00084625493,0.004036296,0.0009857359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98487294,0.006548459,0.0006760193,0.0004016543,0.0066678477,0.0008330983],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008840208,0.0003840467,0.0007237894,0.0028347634,0.013047493,0.011533324,0.002199934,0.006167855,0.003132564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024545306,0.00039347092,0.00035736783,0.004474461,0.021268379,0.004115593,0.0015644633,0.008295049,0.0002707423],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000032550583,0.000022354052,0.0016542284,0.00039263218,0.000030847972,0.00029471182,0.0050069606,0.00034964888,0.00017942459,0.58747,0.35690793,0.04765881],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003546157,0.000018671526,0.010882968,0.002758549,0.00008814797,0.00011717468,0.005810888,0.00030275405,0.000454766,0.0673875,0.91200936,0.0001338141],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9790998,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9901912,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07151565,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07151565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17895791,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5188848},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2591940922","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1311","title":"Easy Prisoner Cases","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Computer science","score_opus":0.10091578203378122,"score_gpt":0.3751818209481826,"score_spread":0.2742660389144014,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2591940922","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":[0.115253486,0.0062322346,0.009513438,0.027167344,0.0030372096,0.0009583142,0.001083682,0.00044426738,0.83631],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7759523,0.0028217046,0.007590942,0.036010623,0.0034462085,0.0010691348,0.0009788073,0.00027622146,0.17185415],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9763524,0.004714861,0.0019720965,0.0027643426,0.007091012,0.0071052983],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9864124,0.005873233,0.0021707301,0.001523352,0.0015004943,0.0025198841],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010652003,0.0009505366,0.001198359,0.0043012993,0.008791238,0.008510864,0.0041062483,0.00976209,0.070493065],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03533153,0.00078031805,0.0018014961,0.0020831006,0.006234215,0.0070673213,0.01711924,0.0057698837,0.008102551],"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":[0.00017174295,0.00024728038,0.013706432,0.0004357368,0.00009295159,0.027925342,0.006113726,0.0002956966,0.00073690986,0.7547592,0.13011037,0.0654047],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025119635,0.000392456,0.023166114,0.0017515098,0.0001783292,0.052450497,0.0066093192,0.0010089312,0.0016715302,0.19178085,0.7205077,0.00023151735],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033446695,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008749287,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.070493065,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0027617312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0033860467,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2358228},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2597166198","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1342","title":"Constitutional Amendment After the Senate Reference and the Prospects for Electoral Reform","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"Australian Government","keywords":"Political science; Constitution; Constitutional amendment; Parliament; Law; Supreme court; Reform Act; Government (linguistics); Federalism; Jurisprudence; Politics; Public administration","score_opus":0.03449389680122193,"score_gpt":0.3135480830917446,"score_spread":0.27905418629052264,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2597166198","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":[0.05119724,0.037853733,0.0059978506,0.22656222,0.0027498803,0.000103553626,0.00028505494,0.00006970811,0.67518085],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8963048,0.012556911,0.002208885,0.034437757,0.0022228935,0.000120719946,0.00020757549,0.000035729867,0.051904716],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9828053,0.009682744,0.0005907244,0.0012775566,0.0021257591,0.0035179614],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9885649,0.0064913663,0.0007321312,0.0012008022,0.0022558565,0.00075496966],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022576807,0.0001912651,0.00055343105,0.0016614429,0.006403806,0.010518644,0.0014237264,0.006605476,0.009060045],"category_scores_gemma":[0.028649312,0.00033574743,0.00076490076,0.0022894072,0.019746942,0.0069704764,0.0031263682,0.007865759,0.0010167724],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007408504,0.000006139418,0.00016934164,0.000015319174,0.0000020977034,0.000026305413,0.00030155206,0.00007391099,0.00003442816,0.9923292,0.0028433793,0.0041910284],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005751418,0.00010223942,0.004371788,0.000551002,0.000028337034,0.00011433446,0.0021025087,0.00042686795,0.0005352694,0.44087502,0.5507767,0.00005849906],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.057235792,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07286198,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9427642,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010642168,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02216257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11939901},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2603315218","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1321","title":"Out of Sync: Section 8 and Technological Advancement in Supreme Court Jurisprudence","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Charter; Supreme court; Statutory law; Section (typography); Law; Political science; Enforcement; Phone; Law enforcement; Internet privacy; Sociology; Computer science; Business; Advertising","score_opus":0.05558990262627044,"score_gpt":0.34674789400514555,"score_spread":0.2911579913788751,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2603315218","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":[0.026173715,0.14122656,0.0072624236,0.3126186,0.0024868029,0.00007199017,0.00018953867,0.00012228552,0.50984806],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71841335,0.08327555,0.007155994,0.13736872,0.00486415,0.00015559826,0.00024498848,0.0001983733,0.048323236],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.95298344,0.010656654,0.0019825324,0.0041449647,0.025143577,0.0050888],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94184667,0.04096046,0.0037266118,0.002309792,0.010023409,0.0011331049],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.033286307,0.00040346134,0.00087498233,0.008367806,0.012743214,0.022440048,0.004038335,0.011050389,0.0041809655],"category_scores_gemma":[0.059217766,0.000763193,0.0009778468,0.0090082465,0.048446286,0.011341962,0.006054221,0.015838217,0.00075519364],"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":[0.000005704261,0.000007404086,0.0004211309,0.00008334253,0.0000057395014,0.00014938482,0.0022750732,0.00021893263,0.000050202743,0.9703005,0.012906745,0.013575869],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021339127,0.000031827727,0.0048727645,0.002174705,0.000042919906,0.00025081978,0.0037491217,0.00071032305,0.0003645549,0.2732648,0.71442145,0.000095373754],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4473575,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4554614,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4473575,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.055056006,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.076646306,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8895072},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2604611331","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1319","title":"A Step Forward or Just a Sidestep? Year Five of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Digital Age","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Privacy, Security, and Data Protection","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":"Search and seizure; Warrant; Supreme court; Charter; Law; Probable cause; Context (archaeology); Law enforcement; Political science; Reasonable suspicion; Scope (computer science); Privacy law; Internet privacy; Information privacy; Privacy policy; Business; Computer science; History","score_opus":0.060695156761899245,"score_gpt":0.31122021389902244,"score_spread":0.2505250571371232,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2604611331","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020120969,0.027363177,0.0024729825,0.6779211,0.008709399,0.00016783505,0.0010090426,0.00015207412,0.2620834],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31746045,0.015801623,0.0032244902,0.4255244,0.0022587834,0.0001446026,0.00042279248,0.00017149579,0.23499136],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9859167,0.0013180356,0.00032363847,0.0014975677,0.0068687736,0.00407516],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889852,0.002688182,0.00027459912,0.00043864228,0.0052821324,0.0023312853],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0076676845,0.00056861766,0.0008435312,0.0019664958,0.03285333,0.02309601,0.0038570177,0.018739989,0.0069618933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01907162,0.0007476427,0.0009829885,0.0025606577,0.016540939,0.006081677,0.0038797138,0.018914036,0.0009948266],"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":[0.00002908493,0.000025559128,0.0014306665,0.000059095735,0.000019871648,0.00035648007,0.0021924996,0.00020479082,0.0002010241,0.59616864,0.38619587,0.013116309],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048966318,0.000022797874,0.0028864203,0.000513569,0.0000647377,0.00011040478,0.0039518834,0.00053313235,0.000503391,0.040434364,0.95076185,0.00016841687],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9807803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98855466,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.107422106,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.107422106,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23665804,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7794056},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2608985607","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1308","title":"You Don’t Need a Metaphor to Know Which Way the Case Goes: The Senate Reference and Constitutional Metaphors","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"Metaphor; Political science; Law; Epistemology; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.06529867385144111,"score_gpt":0.3176957255885496,"score_spread":0.25239705173710847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2608985607","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":[0.039650016,0.03258741,0.017174957,0.2566625,0.0015525185,0.00003813159,0.00021741161,0.000112771006,0.65200424],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.928111,0.007304186,0.0029994478,0.023742469,0.0003216678,0.00004237328,0.000060240367,0.00005898374,0.037359614],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995227,0.0022472348,0.000077228106,0.00022575379,0.0013195972,0.0009031865],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982815,0.000849802,0.00011256307,0.00013186943,0.00046943323,0.00015476407],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026554416,0.00038209115,0.00041174723,0.0017885852,0.010694353,0.006440308,0.0013911612,0.0028155793,0.004026134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0052292706,0.00021718383,0.0003494326,0.0024443169,0.033166647,0.006444438,0.0024492329,0.0056157853,0.00043351392],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000031774089,0.0000021923001,0.00016488628,0.00002093427,0.0000019864742,0.00005832993,0.0054418035,0.000048388214,0.000057717592,0.98289067,0.008197865,0.0031121036],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001462998,0.000016242757,0.0019221487,0.00049675186,0.000015818086,0.00028968122,0.028783277,0.00040802383,0.00039894658,0.2957424,0.6718493,0.0000627523],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6183475,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7679979,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6183475,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022412138,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025460888,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7678002},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2612725658","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1038","title":"“Reconciling Rights” the Supreme Court of Canada's Approach To Competing Charter Rights","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.038808129526871606,"score_gpt":0.2747366242445672,"score_spread":0.23592849471769559,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2612725658","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":[0.035855554,0.007243944,0.02800447,0.22988242,0.0020605663,0.00034425667,0.0007607399,0.00016669264,0.6956814],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7922691,0.0032935282,0.028480355,0.05394259,0.0010920301,0.0002935151,0.00023536403,0.0001570086,0.12023641],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97463685,0.004876775,0.0005657379,0.0020976868,0.011558373,0.0062645315],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909285,0.002964012,0.00022392972,0.0007105401,0.0041647824,0.00100821],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013441243,0.00081724057,0.0013463771,0.005301294,0.02783435,0.026492178,0.006578382,0.01719538,0.005621971],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022576014,0.0011621768,0.00139481,0.0059995963,0.03057319,0.0063119205,0.004495163,0.01625319,0.0003995135],"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":[0.000003073007,0.000004541476,0.00007861831,0.000008411214,0.000006217314,0.00002120017,0.0007662009,0.00027365852,0.000027952723,0.98853534,0.008143152,0.0021315282],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007218057,0.000012407071,0.0015828613,0.00023456462,0.00008808228,0.00006515439,0.0025161945,0.0030929216,0.00048587206,0.73262745,0.2590896,0.00013266761],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96092224,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98165613,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.119751774,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.119751774,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23882435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.868864},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2618908183","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1304","title":"To Dignity Through the Back Door: Tsilhqot’in and the Aboriginal Title Test","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Indigenous; Jurisprudence; Law; Dignity; Test (biology); High Court; Political science; Common law; Sovereignty; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.04831282771233143,"score_gpt":0.35818919162769614,"score_spread":0.3098763639153647,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2618908183","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.082296856,0.08622781,0.0064262655,0.23954502,0.0039758654,0.00014130956,0.00025938582,0.00005082072,0.5810766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86315906,0.013263855,0.0024661475,0.062927134,0.0009598459,0.000078189456,0.00009931024,0.00004359729,0.057002917],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9913504,0.0023882862,0.00030477636,0.00069553877,0.0036452005,0.0016157171],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935447,0.003915099,0.0002856608,0.00022771585,0.0016225466,0.0004042892],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008274571,0.00021120824,0.0006177956,0.0013970974,0.008314237,0.007387015,0.0021753865,0.0071541844,0.0024461986],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01757923,0.00030097654,0.00042174995,0.0015534171,0.016025696,0.0032419795,0.0021347294,0.007843831,0.00024742837],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012030872,0.0000062720965,0.00044986643,0.00009498121,0.000008545277,0.00035470567,0.005246484,0.00012992934,0.00018494105,0.9693062,0.014997015,0.009209066],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051877112,0.0000688835,0.005929643,0.0013814215,0.00009445619,0.00033613056,0.013193735,0.0007469667,0.0014369169,0.29292125,0.68368053,0.00015815812],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63946813,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7422835,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63946813,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027446289,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.051572897,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7253102},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2623466269","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1047","title":"Judging the Judges: Judicial Independence and Reforms to the Supreme Court of Canada Appointment Process","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial independence; Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Jurisprudence; Independence (probability theory); Separation of powers; Substantive due process; Context (archaeology); Constitutional law; Constitution","score_opus":0.027055425205928033,"score_gpt":0.2933051620193456,"score_spread":0.26624973681341757,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2623466269","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":[0.24864335,0.01703821,0.006557204,0.29708385,0.0018647136,0.0005436761,0.00077878666,0.00018190594,0.4273083],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9205355,0.002994198,0.0042255227,0.017667744,0.0004988417,0.000077788776,0.00013429369,0.000038209113,0.053827863],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9751745,0.0041116304,0.00059223484,0.0017883457,0.008449448,0.009883839],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9839512,0.00496232,0.00083196,0.0004907918,0.0059903455,0.0037733593],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012696626,0.00029321987,0.00074730976,0.0027469061,0.032420486,0.0133691365,0.0043859417,0.0073578423,0.005772519],"category_scores_gemma":[0.042040616,0.0007762438,0.00054213125,0.0043348307,0.010906873,0.002916966,0.003892095,0.008728131,0.00045954785],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00012024085,0.000089256966,0.009896074,0.00014834572,0.00004656643,0.0008476512,0.02101947,0.0026001579,0.0009220211,0.8410561,0.07204771,0.0512064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00033108014,0.00019292388,0.11642677,0.00078653736,0.000314656,0.00030364443,0.023967493,0.010166064,0.0018754535,0.09606845,0.74900556,0.00056147395],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98996687,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99686986,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20226523,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20226523,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.29751027,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92525923},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2756895187","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1013","title":"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Twenty Years Later","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.03437041727917637,"score_gpt":0.30895696503574077,"score_spread":0.2745865477565644,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2756895187","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":[0.12601106,0.020766487,0.0027232626,0.27336547,0.0028773316,0.00014546655,0.009099362,0.00012829568,0.56488323],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85463256,0.006376098,0.0023833716,0.009956362,0.000320187,0.000039429124,0.0012607344,0.000052039995,0.12497926],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9958947,0.00040364472,0.00008457933,0.00036518587,0.002289439,0.000962635],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98909783,0.0012000581,0.00044684898,0.0005077987,0.0072236476,0.0015237941],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031971477,0.0002668941,0.00034044834,0.002249301,0.008982262,0.006902658,0.00067726226,0.0014312582,0.00997486],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014012438,0.00020012658,0.00037016018,0.0039867456,0.00473658,0.0018557514,0.0014644307,0.0027215446,0.00047170892],"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":[0.000098971694,0.00003060587,0.027256455,0.00017185611,0.000034790908,0.00030397088,0.014633061,0.00049574726,0.00036951771,0.5655768,0.27861744,0.11241075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016780528,0.000016895052,0.063828625,0.00018724542,0.000026004322,0.0000859847,0.0053380895,0.0002928356,0.00021334253,0.00828048,0.9216311,0.0000825587],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99470276,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99645954,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08330958,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08330958,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12891339,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6044562},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2760474255","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1312","title":"Punitive in Effect: Reflections on Canada v. Whaling","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Punitive damages; Whaling; Punishment (psychology); Supreme court; Law; Political science; Criminology; Psychology; Social psychology; History","score_opus":0.13946561486101672,"score_gpt":0.41382715313013757,"score_spread":0.27436153826912085,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2760474255","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.037190724,0.08055967,0.0010614169,0.7016024,0.0031362278,0.00008864501,0.00072617014,0.00005021993,0.17558454],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42091933,0.06373323,0.0011964744,0.4795269,0.0013467137,0.000073912044,0.0002738025,0.00007907485,0.032850463],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9850914,0.002451589,0.00052122795,0.0012043403,0.006929185,0.0038021884],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.980925,0.009636871,0.0008111824,0.0003212705,0.006684091,0.0016214638],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011335274,0.0005951605,0.001003207,0.002816154,0.019772248,0.01060527,0.005878064,0.014135579,0.0042841663],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02361499,0.00067183014,0.00093893195,0.00469122,0.01930907,0.0038703193,0.002878845,0.019404398,0.0003878858],"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":[0.00013453056,0.00010411273,0.009263897,0.0008656223,0.00013841373,0.0034600515,0.023663202,0.00079920806,0.0008107783,0.5584246,0.34347105,0.058864616],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014095788,0.000101260404,0.03203883,0.0025384403,0.0003651918,0.0007153368,0.041225556,0.0005551605,0.0012412985,0.057909805,0.8627874,0.0003807649],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98878676,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99605453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.091229856,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.091229856,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19663556,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66192204},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2765463032","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1352","title":"Another One Bites the Dust! Bolstered Law Offices and a Blocked Taxman in Chambre des notaires du Québec","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Privilege (computing); Supreme court; Government (linguistics); Political science; State (computer science); Independence (probability theory); Sociology; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.042191118451924345,"score_gpt":0.2585456310494559,"score_spread":0.21635451259753152,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2765463032","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":[0.11269797,0.008352958,0.0014121786,0.6632546,0.00478202,0.000115611765,0.00060730474,0.0001146412,0.20866264],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44939873,0.0031921354,0.0007385032,0.16139919,0.00047356193,0.00003778182,0.0001391914,0.00009537834,0.38452557],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998049,0.00026513223,0.000023393386,0.0001774165,0.00034023498,0.0011447461],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998547,0.00026319924,0.000069308684,0.000044157707,0.00043669046,0.00063953915],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011801275,0.0003880304,0.00043453957,0.0007026015,0.04013695,0.006052029,0.0017558075,0.009823267,0.0107136965],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002659864,0.00047695308,0.00052125583,0.0007455013,0.0069280206,0.0026020936,0.0020238745,0.012708974,0.00081326196],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009490467,0.00009275078,0.011494134,0.00007251765,0.00003219179,0.0071269427,0.043059558,0.00022347088,0.0006640932,0.1807039,0.7342904,0.022145087],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039021594,0.00003752405,0.0136650605,0.00024445617,0.000025105874,0.0009778503,0.062043138,0.00032548417,0.00060767867,0.0068048444,0.91510016,0.00012960058],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9673804,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9920408,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9673804,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04339946,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.047108773,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31488663},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2765742902","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1332","title":"Henry v British Columbia: Still Seeking a Just Approach to Damages for Wrongful Conviction","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Damages; Law; Conviction; Political science; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Charter; Wrongful death","score_opus":0.06746170237539233,"score_gpt":0.3345962879397789,"score_spread":0.2671345855643866,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2765742902","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":[0.08484426,0.018144256,0.004069051,0.3192726,0.0026167755,0.00016703372,0.00027493306,0.00021085519,0.5704001],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7289434,0.007580772,0.0028326276,0.12669703,0.00054140226,0.00010758668,0.00013141379,0.000085492764,0.13308029],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99400556,0.00077731954,0.00020313321,0.0006034455,0.0024357801,0.0019748176],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99655294,0.0011708603,0.0001377662,0.00019790108,0.0011964719,0.00074409676],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002890745,0.0004460801,0.00036727343,0.001081841,0.01702585,0.013112155,0.002187046,0.009858957,0.004138627],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011731247,0.00053304975,0.00025700522,0.0010659844,0.013200015,0.0030009255,0.0033364522,0.014060071,0.00049366924],"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":[0.000042441978,0.000034791832,0.0036999956,0.00015927685,0.000030047719,0.0020528173,0.012400212,0.0006491691,0.001473434,0.76553184,0.16382486,0.050101154],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009491103,0.000082314866,0.017480485,0.0014234126,0.000110473695,0.0011531302,0.0210889,0.0010937381,0.0019675188,0.11537003,0.8396834,0.00045159593],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95127106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98246044,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.048728943,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.047340184,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10135029,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34347868},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2766578199","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1317","title":"Many Questions and a Few Answers: Freedom of Association after Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, Mounted Police Association of Ontario and Meredith","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","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":"Freedom of association; Legislation; Supreme court; Charter; Law; Jurisprudence; Scope (computer science); Section (typography); Political science; Association (psychology); Sociology; Psychology; Human rights; Business","score_opus":0.015020979838332808,"score_gpt":0.2833895447669223,"score_spread":0.2683685649285895,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2766578199","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":[0.012120628,0.018549368,0.00062622933,0.9058914,0.0020504848,0.000022829563,0.00035014696,0.000018534267,0.060370322],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.39493158,0.021125454,0.0014979453,0.5046838,0.0017558803,0.00006794157,0.0002908779,0.000056568915,0.075589985],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9938467,0.001584341,0.00023407339,0.0010139879,0.0017681555,0.0015526477],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9927658,0.004136831,0.00036271836,0.00018971392,0.001656869,0.00088806916],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008565993,0.00043194025,0.0005843209,0.0012657167,0.026720244,0.012578451,0.0027596084,0.016167065,0.008987616],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010191319,0.00056871085,0.00073139503,0.0028832215,0.03417912,0.010718545,0.004326579,0.017031947,0.001097426],"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":[0.000025534215,0.000025626774,0.0020981242,0.00012553982,0.000015152752,0.00033161088,0.01535538,0.00013437026,0.00015336787,0.74669737,0.22235106,0.01268687],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005877049,0.000018731938,0.011051424,0.0011715074,0.000036338137,0.00017437265,0.08926781,0.0001982526,0.00037387823,0.16517009,0.7322272,0.00025166562],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9079159,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94902074,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09208411,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.060799222,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08982333,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44113135},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2898893873","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1355","title":"The Hours are Long: Unreasonable Delay After Jordan","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Maxim; Charter; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Sociology","score_opus":0.05316084632723779,"score_gpt":0.3553215033738679,"score_spread":0.30216065704663014,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2898893873","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":[0.071334854,0.109759316,0.004041068,0.5125674,0.008113447,0.00010086712,0.0003950377,0.00010638188,0.29358166],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.54540324,0.021327775,0.0014718733,0.36615172,0.0042460896,0.000116059535,0.0001555985,0.0001127534,0.061014973],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99066657,0.0031212266,0.0005139443,0.0015953825,0.0026399195,0.0014628726],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9791381,0.013706948,0.0020246294,0.0013109131,0.0025976214,0.0012217044],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010708312,0.00024029713,0.00052131567,0.00052319415,0.0042962455,0.00443487,0.0016475682,0.008124966,0.008566734],"category_scores_gemma":[0.044155404,0.00037845437,0.0005683516,0.0006373042,0.0060799164,0.006743923,0.0029581392,0.013797545,0.0013829285],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00047031598,0.0001427364,0.0058495225,0.00053063233,0.00008621264,0.0018693131,0.007056591,0.0004702135,0.0007818349,0.6677951,0.22459167,0.09035579],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011288562,0.00028038863,0.0057462454,0.0010841398,0.000091930146,0.00074369455,0.0054297065,0.00019478527,0.0016256282,0.12624666,0.85834575,0.000098168995],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.018112246,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03714519,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.995623,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00437702,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009382417,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.056631684},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2901759511","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1363","title":"Diagnosing Administrative Law: A Comment on Clyde River and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Administrative law; Law; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Skepticism; Political science; Public law; State (computer science); Rule of law; Argument (complex analysis); Common law; Duty; Politics","score_opus":0.07116693918474473,"score_gpt":0.3280372216470354,"score_spread":0.2568702824622907,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2901759511","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0014916725,0.0060099866,0.00020283145,0.97981834,0.003993287,0.000024606597,0.00011539432,0.000023590657,0.008320183],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.013254596,0.0019558053,0.00033807647,0.973854,0.0019483531,0.000051381954,0.00003213224,0.000030018715,0.008535579],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.986285,0.0032507784,0.0006599818,0.0022106715,0.00486897,0.0027246522],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9755034,0.017967599,0.00072391756,0.00036909073,0.0038647212,0.0015712745],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015730493,0.0012862667,0.0014196085,0.0016033814,0.035590533,0.011995167,0.008989761,0.06764575,0.005368493],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03815739,0.0015632295,0.0018304756,0.0027068765,0.020833569,0.008792168,0.0041556736,0.054743458,0.0010752687],"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":[0.000038305545,0.000018321414,0.00043617497,0.000140052,0.000018537312,0.0004984599,0.008909691,0.0001434969,0.00020457843,0.07111183,0.9142922,0.004188336],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000080974394,0.0000337698,0.0028919738,0.0007089656,0.00006601706,0.00021217954,0.016007617,0.00029965144,0.00048942096,0.013355128,0.9656127,0.00024147671],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82165,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8874571,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17834997,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.036676727,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08191115,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3588006},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921267321","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1366","title":"Recontextualizing Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia: Crown Land, History and Indigenous Religious Freedom","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Indigenous; Charter; Worship; Supreme court; Ceremony; State (computer science); Political science; Religious freedom; Law; Context (archaeology); Geography; Environmental ethics; Politics; Archaeology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03205819652791799,"score_gpt":0.274209235990027,"score_spread":0.242151039462109,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921267321","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":[0.23869564,0.009362286,0.00095236016,0.044931773,0.00053752674,0.00015359008,0.00034976265,0.000039505994,0.7049776],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88681096,0.003369161,0.0004956376,0.023333708,0.00008844265,0.00009066841,0.0000949444,0.00001979924,0.08569672],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99743915,0.00036214307,0.000081914965,0.00025839027,0.00075860065,0.0010997112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974015,0.001184039,0.00012515728,0.00013182922,0.00078611285,0.00037127145],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019989794,0.00029223974,0.00035632343,0.0015351985,0.019958002,0.009591959,0.001820963,0.005872369,0.0044490723],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0044104652,0.00041694797,0.00028748432,0.002030961,0.013160383,0.0023181648,0.0037911674,0.009355934,0.00031609286],"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":[0.000047108988,0.000045139957,0.0076721394,0.00016251756,0.00002459775,0.002744521,0.030822642,0.00050858717,0.001174853,0.89109045,0.045687784,0.020019528],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011841421,0.000082426806,0.04562541,0.0017055087,0.00018643442,0.00090879726,0.09518471,0.0012690466,0.0021992216,0.08164677,0.77073014,0.00034316233],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9730022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9910931,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.042939052,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.042939052,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.081779085,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3115461},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2925102901","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1344","title":"Constitutional Cases 2016: An Overview","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Constitution; Constitutional law; Political science; Law; Constitutional court; Supreme Court Decisions; Set (abstract data type); Constitutional right; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.18330509882943144,"score_gpt":0.4246887779126451,"score_spread":0.24138367908321365,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2925102901","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003858497,0.6607501,0.0026633546,0.049134236,0.014795264,0.000162044,0.0017271593,0.00018861613,0.2667208],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.04482353,0.8055291,0.00423766,0.02015309,0.016306395,0.00031965808,0.0042425366,0.00045372304,0.10393428],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99253064,0.0009892453,0.0007836941,0.0006058645,0.0042177476,0.00087282027],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993211,0.0027713594,0.0006405591,0.00035050622,0.0019345231,0.0010920647],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006398632,0.000700391,0.00083813834,0.01768365,0.0055471673,0.012820905,0.00201558,0.004035091,0.015216983],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010349825,0.0011638209,0.00085596024,0.024974674,0.005800552,0.011518015,0.0049208854,0.0056764903,0.00486286],"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":[0.000025233154,0.000077075354,0.0010504589,0.0019324885,0.000016210168,0.00030244893,0.0034359891,0.0005530852,0.0004940626,0.3108028,0.46437183,0.21693832],"study_design_scores_gemma":[9.431703e-7,0.000003764257,0.00058629306,0.0006086047,0.0000011354682,0.00005249073,0.0003152521,0.000020681213,0.000029402598,0.00350768,0.99486697,0.0000068152917],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11959154,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1745884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11959154,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023302939,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024783831,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23779088},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2936949072","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1329","title":"The Promise and Limits of Cooperative Federalism as a Constitutional Principle","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Cooperative federalism; Dual federalism; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Sovereignty; Political science; Separation of powers; Law and economics; Constitution; Politics; Law; Doctrine; New Federalism; Sociology","score_opus":0.043831659416338466,"score_gpt":0.34425328387324444,"score_spread":0.30042162445690596,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2936949072","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":[0.028449042,0.017834546,0.120165765,0.16956183,0.0009943886,0.000102247024,0.00019888229,0.00014381115,0.6625495],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.926824,0.004908994,0.023423785,0.017172528,0.0016292991,0.00040869132,0.00009918355,0.000097438686,0.025436057],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9686508,0.011754939,0.0008826425,0.0048444243,0.010533542,0.0033337085],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9683565,0.020761753,0.0011244335,0.0039606,0.0041461713,0.0016504664],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.042163324,0.0005613779,0.0013262086,0.0016174351,0.0128311515,0.0155592915,0.0036642936,0.009153149,0.00383076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034041144,0.0007019566,0.001121671,0.0016599811,0.08618546,0.019533347,0.009531642,0.017124834,0.0007139096],"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":[0.0000012402609,0.0000011093364,0.000015383679,0.0000036729116,9.5219974e-7,0.000004988542,0.00020216867,0.00006199623,0.000010947743,0.9987663,0.00025174674,0.0006795658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011629377,0.0000080219315,0.00009493798,0.00007306091,0.000006720157,0.000016980228,0.00020048502,0.0004549322,0.000063689135,0.9669146,0.03214217,0.000012671526],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12971935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09901971,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12971935,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028665805,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032413337,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2579286},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2937420946","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1346","title":"Identity and Federalism: Understanding the Implications of Daniels v. Canada","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Redress; Indigenous; Identity (music); Political science; Economic Justice; Law; Federalism; Sociology; Public administration; Politics","score_opus":0.09335284316115666,"score_gpt":0.3267550024709092,"score_spread":0.23340215930975255,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2937420946","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.042094838,0.17593567,0.00060097995,0.42651507,0.001767086,0.00009630822,0.00047235112,0.000024665238,0.35249302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78067636,0.078458294,0.0008229004,0.103841744,0.00084746163,0.00009171564,0.00018116712,0.000037083264,0.035043266],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99138695,0.0016727204,0.00020011423,0.00067518913,0.0029714655,0.0030935637],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9922659,0.00378276,0.0004211149,0.000173853,0.0023440006,0.0010124043],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007358504,0.0003145339,0.00073418487,0.003991349,0.02568207,0.012606394,0.003564842,0.00819269,0.0034371351],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01316729,0.00036956833,0.00059350306,0.0057075303,0.023833554,0.0034166526,0.0026856572,0.007006751,0.00018921195],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000015486843,0.000014385933,0.0011433134,0.00022900353,0.000013593725,0.00042202845,0.011820294,0.00025236988,0.00007956628,0.9266445,0.04744179,0.011923663],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053952695,0.000030271935,0.014745557,0.002999188,0.00011415002,0.00020266858,0.0403168,0.0005116434,0.00033385254,0.1044543,0.8360998,0.0001378469],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99040085,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99385804,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15305464,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15305464,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2973061,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9823366},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2941184567","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1331","title":"Thinkable: The Charter and Refugee Law after Appulonappa and B010","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Fondation pour la recherche juridique","keywords":"Refugee; Charter; Government (linguistics); Political science; Law; Supreme court; Immigration law; Law enforcement; Enforcement; National security; Immigration; Deportation","score_opus":0.016672040647199737,"score_gpt":0.28835292571396326,"score_spread":0.2716808850667635,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2941184567","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16747682,0.023465736,0.0013154916,0.32676464,0.002616226,0.00007933577,0.00019785512,0.00003637168,0.47804755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78335315,0.006488109,0.00055915443,0.1430267,0.000981078,0.00015208434,0.00009953998,0.000026569105,0.06531352],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99809045,0.0004584713,0.000050321032,0.0002987877,0.00039318373,0.0007087601],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982875,0.001099568,0.000112241956,0.000065653534,0.0002132897,0.00022181496],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002217759,0.0002932568,0.00031624778,0.0006651652,0.014098607,0.006754926,0.0013980045,0.0132110985,0.0033551638],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004876445,0.0003070816,0.00049415417,0.0006634279,0.010830713,0.0036334533,0.0029376154,0.01526735,0.00036142117],"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":[0.000026139467,0.000029364375,0.0016382422,0.00007316586,0.000010326125,0.0027091298,0.013755892,0.00010886118,0.00020212302,0.8755439,0.090008944,0.015894061],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000646824,0.000097255666,0.0121617885,0.0012914699,0.000051456213,0.0025001415,0.058035925,0.00027060692,0.00055847503,0.09991264,0.8249434,0.00011214574],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20188253,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2062348,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20188253,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004913699,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010488705,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40141493},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2941607365","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1347","title":"Daniels v. Canada: Reflections on Constitutional Technique","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Interpretation (philosophy); Supreme court; Constitution; Law; Originalism; Certainty; Constitutional interpretation; Constitutional law; Political science; Sociology; Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.10593349318229006,"score_gpt":0.3992322901122735,"score_spread":0.29329879692998345,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2941607365","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":[0.016824303,0.034558237,0.0102633415,0.26218286,0.0028156603,0.00015413713,0.0005587129,0.000120917866,0.6725218],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7705462,0.02508995,0.012187299,0.10108889,0.0022456325,0.00036295087,0.0003133051,0.00020986742,0.08795596],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9680244,0.008518528,0.0010006885,0.0035109872,0.012702868,0.006242528],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9867077,0.008141515,0.000433342,0.0007659503,0.0032551198,0.0006964061],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021811312,0.0007086847,0.0010606722,0.006057281,0.030224165,0.020238975,0.0067252824,0.012335433,0.0053325924],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033699796,0.0008206,0.0011832402,0.007577008,0.08470025,0.00728189,0.005367627,0.022625662,0.00052672677],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000027612978,0.000001823979,0.00006180768,0.000015613876,0.0000022224099,0.000033473534,0.0017078847,0.000056894154,0.000019885423,0.991531,0.0051720897,0.001394645],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003640018,0.00001394706,0.0011323163,0.00066067674,0.0000345558,0.000115929666,0.008426739,0.00052318396,0.00037497166,0.5344264,0.45416015,0.00009459954],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9418102,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.943904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17307416,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17307416,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17415564,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.95911676},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2942719136","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1337","title":"Caron, Carter, and Bedford at the Supreme Court of Canada: Society Can Change But History Will Always Stay the Same","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Legislature; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional court; Constitution; Philosophy","score_opus":0.06991777902156548,"score_gpt":0.28270529773256386,"score_spread":0.21278751871099838,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2942719136","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":[0.00909923,0.054267388,0.0015208737,0.83918786,0.007651472,0.00012286723,0.000677932,0.000059098136,0.08741322],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1925503,0.030713167,0.00385111,0.6388963,0.0025428203,0.00016587674,0.00032587012,0.00012223591,0.13083234],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9945431,0.0009980189,0.00017210646,0.0005357694,0.0027631002,0.0009878471],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993786,0.002661083,0.00018098122,0.00013585035,0.0024946597,0.00074133265],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0046181697,0.0006988964,0.0007530546,0.0012777306,0.028202266,0.011025814,0.002349251,0.015364223,0.0051744767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013115332,0.00060051604,0.0005935302,0.0025215347,0.012987539,0.0047454657,0.0022177536,0.021226013,0.00075159996],"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":[0.000028434966,0.000019120505,0.0011657602,0.000092078175,0.000023970322,0.00028199318,0.008714146,0.00011329017,0.000217655,0.26562443,0.70980906,0.013909988],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003537353,0.000014445619,0.004356178,0.0006596138,0.00005322953,0.00012399795,0.01001269,0.00017786311,0.00055134617,0.045265507,0.9386084,0.00014152289],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93190175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9793211,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06809825,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04151326,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.078871965,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.30120122},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2942953341","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1328","title":"Structural Cooperative Federalism","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","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":true,"ca_institutions":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Cooperative federalism; Constitutionalism; Constitution; Dual federalism; Political science; Law and economics; New Federalism; Law; Sociology; Democracy; Politics","score_opus":0.04175302995429229,"score_gpt":0.3337088205165825,"score_spread":0.2919557905622902,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2942953341","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":[0.021367552,0.0016026782,0.061366726,0.0108363135,0.00021392228,0.00014269142,0.00030007592,0.0001533034,0.9040168],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94611204,0.0014018752,0.012121307,0.0020241113,0.00017237118,0.00017738751,0.00024166587,0.000039805054,0.037709393],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99523735,0.00079299154,0.00010798067,0.00087775156,0.0019899227,0.0009939842],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970004,0.00058151234,0.00022300746,0.00054829416,0.0013794437,0.00026739543],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041711,0.0002745329,0.00041870188,0.0018722365,0.005114326,0.0036676652,0.0014466447,0.0016883068,0.008977391],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0070421128,0.00022142063,0.0005782736,0.0018717651,0.011171346,0.0024588725,0.0029542022,0.0021402347,0.0007521219],"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":[9.3141944e-7,0.0000012886445,0.00007373308,0.0000072480693,0.0000014310974,0.0000039529095,0.00012894213,0.000116911215,0.000022466891,0.996923,0.0007492382,0.0019708385],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018505385,0.000017196882,0.001355979,0.000093810304,0.000022987055,0.000056241133,0.00033838153,0.001380068,0.00021218808,0.8189854,0.17750531,0.000013905783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22964534,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2990333,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.22964534,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022369415,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.028990312,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4566173},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2943113700","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1348","title":"A Withering Instrumentality: The Negative Implications of R. v. Safarzadeh-Markali and other Recent Section 7 Jurisprudence","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Political science; Parliament; Legislation; Jurisprudence; Legislature; Politics","score_opus":0.09600120144211084,"score_gpt":0.39102804646399125,"score_spread":0.2950268450218804,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2943113700","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021507192,0.014234959,0.0025877873,0.7196908,0.0013572989,0.000041125717,0.00018615373,0.000045054698,0.2403497],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5956236,0.010670889,0.0023379046,0.3510534,0.0021156427,0.000048344806,0.00009436764,0.00007632619,0.037979543],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98816305,0.0027428754,0.0003091526,0.0014913701,0.0056576882,0.0016358165],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97175264,0.017413726,0.0015313129,0.0010467983,0.0071391435,0.0011163569],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0174354,0.00040939084,0.00067226926,0.0018989271,0.0129035525,0.009854731,0.0034067172,0.012009704,0.0040402873],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031956848,0.00041315833,0.00064806314,0.00211372,0.035149973,0.0050938535,0.002573404,0.018555433,0.00068447203],"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":[0.000022644526,0.000016954988,0.0009657778,0.00006181199,0.00002153192,0.00023564254,0.0037567276,0.00009268429,0.00014834332,0.9415124,0.04307798,0.010087474],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011865284,0.00004988061,0.008815466,0.00076453347,0.0001726624,0.00041133224,0.008964727,0.00049436046,0.001292031,0.39207223,0.58671254,0.00013163516],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49538103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6406783,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49538103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02259088,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.046815954,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9849952},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2943469719","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1338","title":"R v Smith and Judicially Reviewing the Scope of Criminal Law under the Charter","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Law; Possession (linguistics); Charter; Political science; Criminal law; Authorization; Criminal procedure; Scope (computer science); Philosophy; Computer security","score_opus":0.05240966874915045,"score_gpt":0.3235476951893797,"score_spread":0.2711380264402293,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2943469719","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":[0.053836644,0.027282601,0.016168995,0.1778294,0.0045325966,0.0006328549,0.0008046656,0.0004748193,0.7184374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5111408,0.013434243,0.018866831,0.17813797,0.001976305,0.00041053788,0.0004650256,0.0001590216,0.27540928],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9872162,0.0019472187,0.00068635365,0.001899885,0.005664495,0.0025858388],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9883267,0.0057679485,0.000570697,0.00049467845,0.0044341395,0.00040577204],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009403733,0.00044232726,0.00053002837,0.0019112827,0.008142058,0.006066204,0.002320454,0.011315631,0.0032331035],"category_scores_gemma":[0.028195564,0.0006037347,0.0009993303,0.001396953,0.009064498,0.0029363488,0.0017898586,0.008857246,0.00073494256],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000015328553,0.000012573717,0.0009600986,0.000108567634,0.000014953504,0.0004545,0.0028701557,0.0003621279,0.0005561764,0.8501693,0.12510324,0.019372942],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000052632393,0.00006786162,0.006676622,0.0006139898,0.0000990854,0.00036899283,0.0020658628,0.0011229973,0.0020027116,0.108896166,0.87784153,0.00019162375],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7689351,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8480621,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7689351,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026846325,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08246572,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46485138},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2943781916","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1335","title":"Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay: Neutrality and Narrative","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Narrative; Neutrality; Normative; Constitution; Prayer; Identity (music); Politics; Meaning (existential); EPIC; Sociology; Religious studies; Political science; History; Law; Philosophy; Aesthetics; Literature; Art; Epistemology","score_opus":0.024464441208777842,"score_gpt":0.2780911787961424,"score_spread":0.2536267375873646,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2943781916","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":[0.15279648,0.015510012,0.0017904551,0.17179917,0.0010490273,0.0001129953,0.0005851063,0.000098386365,0.6562584],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8130014,0.0020816987,0.0003653802,0.01888957,0.00010407571,0.000077469915,0.00009500633,0.000053829757,0.16533151],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983724,0.0005453311,0.000019428298,0.00017440655,0.0002979793,0.00059046],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989002,0.00043513018,0.00005940821,0.000044764794,0.00034559585,0.0002149454],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014972022,0.00034052218,0.000294457,0.00068880134,0.025995152,0.011165557,0.0012360022,0.004525565,0.008861428],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0028510035,0.000247153,0.00026604682,0.0010260155,0.014262205,0.0025582972,0.0019919493,0.0047366815,0.00041653874],"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":[0.00004606775,0.00002529278,0.0019606934,0.000056351688,0.000010316896,0.0012476952,0.11110732,0.00027166627,0.0005626311,0.75431573,0.118674405,0.011721923],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010701037,0.0000146131715,0.0026327113,0.00018992116,0.000008687594,0.00025826372,0.069067284,0.00029902454,0.0003201845,0.019924102,0.9072112,0.000063282816],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96982926,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97855866,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.087433726,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.087433726,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0478506,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.634379},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2943934257","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1350","title":"R. v. Lloyd and the Unpredictable Stability of Mandatory Minimum Litigation","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Constitutionality; Adjudication; Charter; Law; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Political science","score_opus":0.04625977716531772,"score_gpt":0.2678553226525908,"score_spread":0.22159554548727312,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2943934257","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":[0.17349543,0.03124813,0.011982162,0.45715636,0.0016996345,0.0001821687,0.00033435726,0.00029611454,0.32360563],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87412876,0.0037608428,0.0028207328,0.09297773,0.0009711262,0.00007182771,0.000047973954,0.00009009789,0.025130946],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98192585,0.0033518185,0.00083753635,0.0025384792,0.0079146875,0.0034317218],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97875994,0.014017827,0.0017558625,0.0010657454,0.0035867211,0.00081384956],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018753426,0.00022547522,0.00068240985,0.0018168644,0.008673075,0.009917489,0.0027590995,0.012738524,0.0015961318],"category_scores_gemma":[0.049691744,0.00078031316,0.00085883145,0.0014088616,0.017507384,0.004680545,0.0037373656,0.01271034,0.00042902172],"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":[0.000034425022,0.000017297412,0.0012156585,0.00004974213,0.000013316605,0.00047122428,0.0028609612,0.00027769318,0.0004583304,0.94305825,0.0390997,0.012443258],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017282073,0.00022053237,0.016961128,0.0012608367,0.00013155937,0.00093410676,0.0061214697,0.0029851464,0.003849507,0.48965508,0.47725645,0.0004514778],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3416754,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.39999816,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3416754,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016387854,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027022561,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67937326},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2944015268","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1340","title":"R. v. Nur: A Positive Step but not the Solution to the Problem of Mandatory Minimums in Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Constitutionality; Conviction; Possession (linguistics); Supreme court; Law; Parliament; Sentence; Context (archaeology); Political science; History; Politics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0335330232733288,"score_gpt":0.29734338735551935,"score_spread":0.26381036408219055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2944015268","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.078892864,0.014849712,0.0058888737,0.67238855,0.0029931935,0.00025908588,0.0008327547,0.00028631132,0.22360867],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.58333826,0.009985389,0.01350166,0.31722978,0.0010570261,0.00012699304,0.00038545544,0.0001662221,0.07420929],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9913059,0.0007155953,0.00037382529,0.0009293208,0.0040570395,0.002618445],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9855269,0.0034094253,0.00060312473,0.00046153655,0.0067826184,0.0032163358],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007132871,0.00039977639,0.0007392281,0.0013697611,0.013778404,0.006920063,0.0037197517,0.008458043,0.0035419145],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020301508,0.0006476334,0.00076582085,0.001374991,0.006021455,0.0028647387,0.0028673045,0.013702361,0.0003781821],"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":[0.00009099821,0.00008370846,0.009096899,0.00032455745,0.00008408306,0.0017618206,0.0036586681,0.0009980651,0.0023735364,0.639007,0.2716032,0.07091753],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001812289,0.00025123902,0.032601003,0.0013908686,0.00031767224,0.0009906375,0.0067199185,0.002742902,0.0038445105,0.07949522,0.8709842,0.00048065593],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97952604,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99479103,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061317682,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.061317682,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.28036717,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.444893},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2944752172","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1326","title":"Constitutional Cases 2015: An Overview","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Premise; Charter; Scope (computer science); Law; Federalism; Political science; Economic Justice; Constitutional law; Roberts Court; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.1288022743471286,"score_gpt":0.3887176382874412,"score_spread":0.2599153639403126,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2944752172","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0140489265,0.7085471,0.0032708638,0.021658551,0.0052705887,0.00016378683,0.0026614869,0.00019202312,0.24418665],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19710715,0.7052121,0.005056359,0.016891185,0.0053038215,0.00023256388,0.0063706157,0.00021897959,0.06360731],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9951728,0.0006677785,0.00056688493,0.0005003835,0.0023479548,0.0007441694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99623847,0.0019299464,0.00046669532,0.00017195012,0.00082047324,0.00037241526],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005068691,0.000528793,0.00064469187,0.01826091,0.003357558,0.006973084,0.0014500743,0.002285743,0.009875313],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010476212,0.0006962811,0.00085893663,0.015683902,0.0029512066,0.005858694,0.0029590265,0.0026689821,0.0016828657],"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":[0.000028263146,0.000072300885,0.0033567832,0.0020097557,0.000043647717,0.00031304822,0.0017258867,0.0010721253,0.00051503076,0.54310733,0.19799767,0.24975811],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000024535966,0.000016358023,0.006616665,0.0017725545,0.000012924892,0.00015097961,0.0005676701,0.000106169085,0.00012251353,0.008143917,0.9824667,0.000021192647],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.116233386,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.15803435,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.116233386,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015480877,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01681241,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23111367},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945015473","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1371","title":"McLachlin’s Law: In All Its Complex Majesty","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Law; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Principle of legality; Majesty; Dialectic; Sociology; Political science; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.11783457454489336,"score_gpt":0.3753411928913321,"score_spread":0.25750661834643873,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945015473","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":[0.05794011,0.2306364,0.0022348561,0.49480283,0.0012625528,0.000029287308,0.00003586474,0.00004843844,0.21300967],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8824529,0.028815903,0.001445243,0.057594527,0.0008731943,0.00005069752,0.000020227659,0.000042290823,0.028704932],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99489516,0.0026241818,0.000120548764,0.0006608227,0.0013206054,0.0003786825],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99412364,0.003890412,0.00036162577,0.00017674702,0.0010301283,0.00041759346],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034551616,0.00019631906,0.00035940175,0.0011447464,0.010480443,0.01121772,0.0008662641,0.0039956756,0.0014010238],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009932995,0.00020397974,0.00012185486,0.0015263101,0.01770393,0.0037766492,0.0021745346,0.005244921,0.00024576095],"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":[0.000014691171,0.000024296744,0.0018656518,0.00017554052,0.000014672913,0.00037253107,0.042105127,0.00013749246,0.00035710548,0.8268228,0.08696735,0.0411426],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012228764,0.000040069852,0.004550962,0.0010191395,0.000015341788,0.0004173332,0.02926565,0.0002643569,0.0004715306,0.11832779,0.8455708,0.000044887707],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14163496,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.23462449,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14163496,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013049703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016131729,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.28162104},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945058320","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1330","title":"Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), The Constitutional Attack on Canada’s Ban on Assisted Dying: Missing an Obvious Chance to Rule on the Charter’s Disability Equality Guarantee","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Constitutional right; Economic Justice; Section (typography); Political science; Criminal code; Constitutional law; Sociology; Criminal law; Business","score_opus":0.11774662583268196,"score_gpt":0.3546349874853857,"score_spread":0.23688836165270372,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945058320","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":[0.06912741,0.033844136,0.0025024181,0.44316387,0.004789687,0.00042899503,0.0030163387,0.00031075662,0.44281647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40452898,0.010098971,0.0034134767,0.3522395,0.0006804005,0.00028185846,0.00055670727,0.0001120309,0.22808808],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952583,0.00035466414,0.0001469508,0.00039458685,0.0019316162,0.0019138099],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9967134,0.0011105431,0.0001148679,0.000077522,0.0012202306,0.00076333503],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031842918,0.0004318723,0.00042407046,0.000900164,0.019758359,0.0063090203,0.0027592056,0.014841679,0.004206658],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0071773035,0.00070912443,0.0005669535,0.0012217951,0.0054149604,0.0016363037,0.0012734254,0.010334286,0.0004963445],"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":[0.000068281406,0.000053800242,0.0037663756,0.00016722843,0.000031780794,0.00086198765,0.0056993663,0.00034336795,0.001018064,0.5094415,0.46058628,0.017961966],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001330771,0.000052527233,0.015985122,0.00049370824,0.00009078515,0.00021114582,0.004870338,0.0004645361,0.0014594108,0.020294013,0.95572186,0.00022350415],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9889976,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9960486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05248529,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05248529,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14433855,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3808092},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945789502","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1349","title":"The Refined Approach to Punishment in Section 11 of the Charter","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Supreme court; Charter; Punishment (psychology); Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Section (typography); Meaning (existential); Order (exchange); Interpretation (philosophy); Psychology; Criminology; Social psychology; Computer science; Business","score_opus":0.04924821194412113,"score_gpt":0.3381313596829856,"score_spread":0.2888831477388645,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945789502","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":[0.016466469,0.008914976,0.116076715,0.15484303,0.01466768,0.00096253876,0.0008725727,0.00053855503,0.6866574],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4566916,0.0034978255,0.06801655,0.19226333,0.0043051136,0.0015704671,0.0004030694,0.00025168186,0.27300036],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9675848,0.010808298,0.0014818521,0.0051074727,0.009631756,0.0053858557],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9913283,0.0035299158,0.0005266086,0.0007517682,0.0034000168,0.00046336104],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016081177,0.0013817041,0.0010577927,0.0016858798,0.010240039,0.011691516,0.004941846,0.021971978,0.0037520647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018637363,0.0011663968,0.0025200779,0.0014122301,0.027030403,0.005919228,0.004419018,0.03607656,0.0011357875],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009994917,0.000009709632,0.000095522504,0.00001946598,0.0000024934327,0.000057568745,0.0007356982,0.00030443733,0.000111826645,0.9855069,0.0106473705,0.002498944],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010068345,0.00017728256,0.0012758339,0.00047113272,0.00005712775,0.00026883392,0.00080595247,0.0020297277,0.0013023809,0.3987643,0.5944099,0.00033693758],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.36100343,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.39032537,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6389966,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.036693983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06070129,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7178043},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946156491","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1356","title":"Remedial Postscripts — Reflections on Carter II, Suspensions, Extensions and Exemptions","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Health, Medicine and Society","field":"Health Professions","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":"University of Victoria; York University; Bishop's University","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Declaration; Law; Legislature; Supreme court; Political science; Extension (predicate logic); Remedial education; Politics; Computer science","score_opus":0.17179023338056948,"score_gpt":0.4836431376490976,"score_spread":0.31185290426852813,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946156491","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016802438,0.011522851,0.0028037096,0.81309056,0.008773227,0.00016013502,0.00020922183,0.00010157952,0.14653626],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23175284,0.0041356245,0.002308584,0.6669944,0.0056993784,0.00030737583,0.00009304836,0.00015461622,0.08855409],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9634831,0.0072345072,0.0017928251,0.004535391,0.013047428,0.009906739],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9588016,0.025801295,0.0014830768,0.0013722484,0.009512928,0.0030288137],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.031086087,0.0007634007,0.0011483594,0.0017782206,0.02720476,0.020588757,0.007759185,0.036003705,0.0073902076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06932278,0.0011150854,0.0015039266,0.0017563568,0.039455384,0.0108295735,0.008204228,0.054375175,0.0014690778],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002510618,0.00003508617,0.00048199703,0.000089263136,0.000012227435,0.0005478869,0.00787705,0.00016241574,0.00037258508,0.79174006,0.18865632,0.010000001],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000919407,0.000088116816,0.0019549935,0.0009837132,0.0000440038,0.00039042486,0.022303475,0.00041827114,0.0010800103,0.10653449,0.865821,0.00028956804],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5336046,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5989376,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5336046,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03782283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09106254,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93828416},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946520075","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1373","title":"Punishment and Its Limits","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Criminal justice; Punitive damages; Supreme court; Law; Punishment (psychology); Political science; Legislature; Criminology; Government (linguistics); Economic Justice; Criminal law; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.03857463052905277,"score_gpt":0.331561922940301,"score_spread":0.2929872924112482,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946520075","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":[0.009884748,0.39640328,0.0040276702,0.095272005,0.0016330667,0.000031584947,0.00025428244,0.000041448202,0.49245197],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62145346,0.2536989,0.002058008,0.051048525,0.0033726958,0.0001996828,0.00029269012,0.000075655065,0.067800395],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9947797,0.0015067502,0.00021016545,0.0008399294,0.0019365228,0.00072696415],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966185,0.0016090481,0.00027352522,0.00033887653,0.0009021802,0.00025788802],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003109496,0.00052180834,0.0009412397,0.0019679517,0.005365301,0.0076219533,0.0013711145,0.004039967,0.0067237983],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00710185,0.00031647916,0.0004945085,0.0014001349,0.028839134,0.005017271,0.0041482504,0.006140519,0.0008859707],"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":[0.0000072882704,0.00001073237,0.00024942146,0.000122037585,0.000010284629,0.000040656254,0.00051753764,0.00021732616,0.000050074188,0.96507937,0.012142301,0.021553075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017000066,0.00003384964,0.0028014544,0.0014541262,0.00001498246,0.00018215925,0.0008492478,0.00012706763,0.00009749649,0.49124524,0.5031505,0.00002682494],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08509004,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08371584,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08509004,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011754999,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018956883,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16918951},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947294571","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1370","title":"Assn. of Justice Counsel: The Section 7 Liberty Interest in the Context of Employment","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Law; Supreme court; Charter; Political science; Economic Justice; Context (archaeology); Constitutional right; Sociology; Law and economics","score_opus":0.07428482307714,"score_gpt":0.34827542114241916,"score_spread":0.27399059806527915,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947294571","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":[0.055076998,0.00869935,0.0013112203,0.44414857,0.0061666192,0.0005126981,0.0020538222,0.00015073843,0.48188004],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23664501,0.0027842422,0.0015505297,0.48619938,0.00194203,0.000357054,0.000349127,0.00009358982,0.270079],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98924166,0.0009825523,0.00044764893,0.001537949,0.0028909103,0.0048993286],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953837,0.0020705143,0.00026797553,0.00014361243,0.0013085123,0.000825629],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0040729726,0.00079807674,0.0012085331,0.00093075045,0.028342431,0.008987943,0.0033891988,0.038110334,0.012060096],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012994742,0.0016195718,0.0008665674,0.0014057236,0.0064044124,0.0030566773,0.00270865,0.023636097,0.0026648373],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00010419616,0.00011673847,0.0057159625,0.000101144025,0.00004247491,0.0030086155,0.011022385,0.0003670534,0.0013783637,0.5232632,0.44457245,0.010307404],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016317026,0.00012465061,0.014940354,0.0006529836,0.00011742339,0.0008763348,0.010276603,0.0012615419,0.001184762,0.04529593,0.9247961,0.00031012742],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.84058493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.92059946,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84058493,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027217444,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06738328,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32070774},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951719751","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1369","title":"Extradition, Assurances and Human Rights: Guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada in India v. Badesha","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","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":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Surrender; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Appeal; Receipt; Trial court; State (computer science); Business","score_opus":0.0307838434405291,"score_gpt":0.28607071441741216,"score_spread":0.2552868709768831,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951719751","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":[0.028886423,0.12382015,0.002870163,0.36034894,0.0023032988,0.00034625645,0.0014894456,0.0001601346,0.47977528],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5911416,0.10856056,0.009252023,0.18743627,0.00120797,0.000304969,0.0010728681,0.00023397742,0.10078982],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9859367,0.0021331098,0.0008901237,0.0009432159,0.0058531463,0.0042437515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9711184,0.014760791,0.00088481675,0.00052026135,0.0100527415,0.0026630955],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012879646,0.0009586644,0.0013259472,0.0061025866,0.026497245,0.018564444,0.0058722766,0.015178447,0.00569213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034025673,0.0013792877,0.00096246245,0.008720725,0.014516992,0.0047022244,0.0045031058,0.01846968,0.00066981436],"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":[0.000040152107,0.00006552886,0.004071588,0.0005519191,0.00005855802,0.0017816405,0.011660284,0.0011065553,0.0003127546,0.6859264,0.25736433,0.03706034],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000774739,0.000028149134,0.010056506,0.0029578952,0.00015508861,0.00039779127,0.008006418,0.00066954555,0.00055910944,0.06444489,0.9123523,0.00029480085],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9852642,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9940416,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12537377,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12537377,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3057056,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9096546},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951911434","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1345","title":"The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, 1980-81","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Constitution; Charter; Law; Politics; Political science; Narrative; Resistance (ecology); White (mutation); Sociology; Public administration","score_opus":0.03954499209650328,"score_gpt":0.26376913142513714,"score_spread":0.22422413932863386,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951911434","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":[0.005368373,0.061204348,0.0019409804,0.059614792,0.0077742506,0.00070816645,0.015085192,0.00031454317,0.8479893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.09771461,0.04003307,0.0061519225,0.0401746,0.0011781051,0.0009818578,0.007817731,0.0003388747,0.8056092],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9876874,0.0009950968,0.00049999496,0.00076345814,0.0073165614,0.0027374562],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9907432,0.000877884,0.00021185534,0.00042480938,0.0070332843,0.0007089099],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005406439,0.0011500245,0.000843017,0.0060575134,0.015476749,0.010523161,0.0032244406,0.0061386563,0.011753454],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016554046,0.0011377985,0.0006795148,0.008678792,0.007160371,0.002361491,0.0020615424,0.006712013,0.00280625],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024658997,0.000017499577,0.00058646547,0.00014404695,0.000012234874,0.00013071869,0.0014814234,0.00028844373,0.0002117458,0.26770818,0.7128626,0.016531939],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006420299,0.0000029542348,0.0023004555,0.00015783802,0.000009759473,0.00001518622,0.00039792055,0.000044283213,0.000066829125,0.003140021,0.99383295,0.00002533663],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9939845,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99615437,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8278682,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1721318,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.41476676,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9602098},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953966777","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1357","title":"Reconciliation and the Constitution: A Transcript of the Roundtable","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor; McGill University; University of Toronto","funders":"University of Toronto","keywords":"Constitution; Indigenous; Human rights; Amnesty; Political science; Law; Politics; Supreme court; State (computer science); Indigenous rights; Refugee; Sociology","score_opus":0.07135062782059755,"score_gpt":0.32737763228149425,"score_spread":0.2560270044608967,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2953966777","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021579642,0.014101094,0.012367299,0.67026305,0.02517499,0.0010262302,0.0014034623,0.0002359636,0.25384837],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3103213,0.0073009124,0.0078658415,0.36584947,0.0068508675,0.002611508,0.0008195255,0.0007554454,0.2976251],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95510906,0.024285689,0.0016628928,0.0025811596,0.00998829,0.0063728937],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95913476,0.03445351,0.00068298005,0.0014957557,0.0034978783,0.0007352208],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.034461528,0.00064789114,0.0009726616,0.0020139012,0.025542628,0.01290992,0.004193368,0.023590384,0.009637966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06744996,0.0013820555,0.0016665156,0.0033245808,0.012539746,0.008192016,0.008541152,0.036090452,0.0022378785],"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":[0.000042475185,0.000038811693,0.0001562285,0.00023895995,0.000013393864,0.0010981564,0.046709366,0.00027552745,0.0007121546,0.5766185,0.36486286,0.009233587],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022014196,0.000021615966,0.0005425945,0.00046635864,0.00001485934,0.00015246002,0.0152315,0.00021284404,0.0005935973,0.03288443,0.94976765,0.00009015298],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08597917,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10528883,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08597917,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021895278,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027972454,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18225217},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954009616","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1368","title":"B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Assn. v. British Columbia (Attorney General): Mandatory Registration Rules, and Limits on Third Party Political Expression under the Charter","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Charter; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Dilemma; Democracy","score_opus":0.02213353209609633,"score_gpt":0.26596642299843887,"score_spread":0.24383289090234253,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954009616","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":[0.05510846,0.008328294,0.0020805504,0.072842285,0.0022019527,0.0008736858,0.01123277,0.0005622336,0.84676963],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.27479538,0.0039331615,0.004424094,0.15060556,0.0003842341,0.00094723137,0.002495446,0.000120653756,0.56229424],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99544513,0.00022353297,0.00020337658,0.00035772522,0.0018236758,0.0019466276],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99574727,0.0011906883,0.00016502361,0.00016133372,0.0021553156,0.0005805054],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019250893,0.0005297208,0.00045603566,0.0013976716,0.017239982,0.00564939,0.0020519432,0.013478746,0.009912972],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0049894373,0.0009432489,0.0007709434,0.0016851657,0.0026651693,0.001111286,0.0010625573,0.0064388406,0.0026152781],"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":[0.00015974537,0.00017057023,0.008638702,0.00035874386,0.000042037253,0.0014414467,0.0039889943,0.00076235115,0.0026274063,0.23703578,0.71668506,0.028089141],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014852344,0.000082826184,0.048094396,0.000437326,0.00011672635,0.00031123258,0.0018494827,0.00085810287,0.0017989962,0.0095486855,0.93650615,0.00024760957],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98379403,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.994408,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031242387,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.031242387,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.073929235,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22668046},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954057586","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1359","title":"Land Acknowledgment, Scripting and Julius Caesar","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"York University; Canadian Mennonite University; University of Manitoba; Harvard University","keywords":"Honour; Oppression; Constitution; Presentation (obstetrics); Supreme court; Political science; Law; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.039322145840312135,"score_gpt":0.31222321921292673,"score_spread":0.2729010733726146,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954057586","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":[0.033567768,0.047161162,0.0065516923,0.20706114,0.0035462356,0.000033121207,0.00006365913,0.000098510995,0.70191675],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8301627,0.0135754775,0.0023854952,0.027107103,0.0013341112,0.0000497023,0.00003843543,0.00014066271,0.12520634],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99617285,0.0023053011,0.00008687645,0.00033391494,0.0007404674,0.000360645],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99666613,0.0021452073,0.00022414979,0.00027472628,0.0004440744,0.00024555385],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036666356,0.00022019552,0.00020451393,0.0006107227,0.0076526026,0.0063883355,0.00081316475,0.001611889,0.0025539973],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007504846,0.00021320628,0.000118092714,0.0007770468,0.029434733,0.0035921652,0.0022676804,0.0043921717,0.00068833743],"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":[0.00000512511,0.000003915179,0.00014945521,0.00002340411,0.000001251161,0.00007884039,0.011014315,0.00005982625,0.00006210388,0.94873494,0.032519262,0.007347486],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004992976,0.00000988186,0.00056459656,0.00022937536,0.0000027867165,0.00012437772,0.013385684,0.00012296703,0.00028081716,0.12957169,0.85568565,0.00001717155],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04158828,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07704551,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04158828,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006876323,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007617258,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.082692385},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954590437","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1372","title":"Chief Justice McLachlin and the Division of Powers","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Federalism; Economic Justice; Political science; CLARITY; Rigour; Judicial review; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.027869817210957087,"score_gpt":0.32689943396874566,"score_spread":0.29902961675778855,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954590437","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":[0.0071201106,0.10373131,0.0011015051,0.6944719,0.003881338,0.000056483477,0.00019224014,0.000047416343,0.1893977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33431828,0.03578516,0.002019925,0.460885,0.0041591804,0.00011881544,0.00010969461,0.00005381763,0.1625501],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9924414,0.0012828889,0.0002157445,0.0011040336,0.0031498505,0.0018060948],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992109,0.0029580959,0.0003894437,0.00022923666,0.0034000427,0.00091421534],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004072926,0.000288357,0.00042373,0.0017943366,0.015082939,0.0074183666,0.0019557907,0.0072108596,0.0049205166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01320842,0.00037012453,0.0003984464,0.0018598982,0.013380638,0.0026649588,0.0019121615,0.007451377,0.00067616143],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012125799,0.000009374953,0.0006608281,0.0001245548,0.0000078984185,0.00014361487,0.0025377832,0.00012487605,0.00012245958,0.6202406,0.36088926,0.015126586],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012823666,0.000013491969,0.002553317,0.00030776623,0.0000134485745,0.00008559019,0.0020307885,0.00013771773,0.0001787751,0.035565916,0.95906866,0.000031685046],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8643175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.927961,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94493884,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05506117,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08884878,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39949864},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2955403393","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1360","title":"Justice Suzanne Côté’s Reputation as a Dissenter on the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Unanimity; Economic Justice; Law; Majority opinion; Political science; Reputation; Sociology","score_opus":0.028367765994975907,"score_gpt":0.30968370781091603,"score_spread":0.2813159418159401,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2955403393","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":[0.2117322,0.029448032,0.0006206909,0.46790436,0.004813734,0.00006587523,0.00030498128,0.000056206638,0.28505394],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90771854,0.0065226676,0.00029367697,0.02915193,0.00044242523,0.000011471905,0.00003941409,0.00004216217,0.05577766],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944074,0.00096268405,0.00009647818,0.0007253001,0.002152325,0.0016557316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98764056,0.0031676623,0.0005384433,0.000266269,0.0051491316,0.0032379727],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0042126086,0.00022902778,0.00044906195,0.0015357601,0.041049086,0.007719859,0.001146279,0.0032489581,0.004280151],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019717727,0.00025880366,0.00018580665,0.0019419296,0.008324162,0.0016328519,0.0017879928,0.005368422,0.00032086033],"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":[0.0000868159,0.000061373925,0.031347007,0.00015992271,0.0000472403,0.002196457,0.04393601,0.00046677492,0.0012503641,0.18684788,0.66135883,0.07224133],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012250735,0.000060354025,0.063938975,0.00052528613,0.00004073695,0.000644519,0.05021492,0.00040545387,0.0012571395,0.005330994,0.8773576,0.00021175259],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9570649,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9875896,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05607867,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05607867,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07358784,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40688115},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2955687574","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1364","title":"Delegation, Deference and Difference: In Search of a Principled Approach to Implementing and Administering Aboriginal Rights","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Environmental law and policy","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":"Duty; Law; Supreme court; Obligation; Jurisdiction; Political science; Agency (philosophy); Statute; Sociology","score_opus":0.03505222911102914,"score_gpt":0.35730735757055915,"score_spread":0.32225512845953,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2955687574","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":[0.061009932,0.027091235,0.054193117,0.31694847,0.0019200927,0.00041372734,0.00006301568,0.00011877215,0.53824157],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8966196,0.004560343,0.0137207825,0.051996287,0.00059700286,0.00025928463,0.000025390165,0.000047704867,0.0321736],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9590328,0.020864896,0.001195785,0.004391161,0.009229222,0.005286199],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9842854,0.009302767,0.0006732048,0.0019515416,0.002875229,0.0009118551],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.047799356,0.0005081773,0.00092299236,0.0015232104,0.015033587,0.01069111,0.005382247,0.015000121,0.0019779473],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03393983,0.00083556905,0.0011350515,0.001018434,0.061780684,0.009318566,0.009772887,0.022341533,0.00033511492],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000070528868,0.000010162318,0.00020024712,0.00006581895,0.000008415848,0.000088695204,0.0074096243,0.00018248832,0.00011660666,0.98581034,0.0018531713,0.00424742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000104014944,0.00011020114,0.0017751553,0.0014208828,0.00008293451,0.00039550013,0.00921615,0.0011132793,0.00075436255,0.7804631,0.20447902,0.00008543488],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.35642362,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.41004762,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6435764,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03138775,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08854447,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70869803},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2955814727","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1351","title":"Keeping the Scale of Justice Balanced – Québec Justices of the Peace and Judicial Independence","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Safeguarding; Judicial independence; Misconduct; Law; Economic Justice; Political science; Legislature; Independence (probability theory); Constitution; Separation of powers; Government (linguistics); Balance (ability); Administration (probate law); Judicial activism; Judicial review; Supreme court; Psychology","score_opus":0.04058203566118073,"score_gpt":0.32967354935368126,"score_spread":0.2890915136925005,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2955814727","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":[0.062311262,0.029331848,0.0019286328,0.09758357,0.0013187771,0.00013913163,0.0009001508,0.00005777633,0.8064289],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87436855,0.006138535,0.001341367,0.01237679,0.00032854686,0.00009894153,0.00017932936,0.000030934123,0.10513711],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99519277,0.0011692828,0.00010376649,0.00046709907,0.0017792345,0.0012878398],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946418,0.0011941192,0.00030104083,0.0002744565,0.002775615,0.0008130041],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036928689,0.00022542945,0.00037165158,0.0022178488,0.013724057,0.008714115,0.0009346651,0.0021193903,0.0139757395],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008385309,0.00020048201,0.00028742952,0.002431329,0.006279152,0.0022311383,0.0016032401,0.003421738,0.0005166577],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000074356,0.00005466796,0.010277793,0.00021235937,0.000057749465,0.0004135221,0.007997498,0.0005780156,0.0006174764,0.7079123,0.17658381,0.09522043],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043381227,0.00003851513,0.06264663,0.0006895564,0.00004811128,0.00017158427,0.007313479,0.00043999066,0.00038659072,0.027985612,0.90016174,0.000074903095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9662712,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9882138,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9408212,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059178833,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.081114054,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42937446},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2956128234","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1362","title":"There Is a There There: Forum Selection Clauses, Consumer Protection and the Quasi-Constitutional Right to Privacy in Douez v. Facebook","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","funders":"","keywords":"Redress; Statutory law; Context (archaeology); Privacy policy; Internet privacy; Consumer protection; Business; Service provider; Supreme court; Power (physics); Vulnerability (computing); Consumer privacy; Information privacy; Service (business); Political science; Law; Computer security; Computer science; Marketing","score_opus":0.020385955675059235,"score_gpt":0.2523212359180849,"score_spread":0.23193528024302568,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2956128234","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":[0.14638796,0.0061493893,0.007496942,0.1273016,0.0009887394,0.00025689238,0.00059359986,0.00008565542,0.71073925],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92133576,0.0008578153,0.0016348836,0.026765024,0.00028470895,0.00017254133,0.000077709374,0.00003144813,0.048840135],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99146396,0.0021315827,0.00032380066,0.0012480838,0.00268007,0.0021523703],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99249333,0.0050289626,0.00043102354,0.00050592894,0.0010378958,0.0005029536],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0116665065,0.00042106202,0.0005708,0.0012901464,0.014597482,0.012760454,0.0027361405,0.015004545,0.004157823],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014205167,0.0006583058,0.00080136466,0.0012974383,0.016934333,0.0055636554,0.0044678985,0.009024073,0.00045075215],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018106033,0.000013676813,0.0006854037,0.000014257227,0.0000050628196,0.00016818749,0.00241052,0.0000885647,0.00015022566,0.9844781,0.009416585,0.002551302],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020870406,0.00007607328,0.008647157,0.00053816783,0.00014077747,0.0003060091,0.011217114,0.0017399994,0.002923059,0.5231504,0.45080194,0.00025060627],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4777824,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.55881417,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.52221763,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017468417,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025623426,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9500028},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2961110486","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1343","title":"Constitutional Constraints on Electoral Reform in Canada:Why Parliament is (Mostly) Free to Implement a New Voting System","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"University of Waterloo","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Charter; Constitution; Political science; Voting; Electoral system; Constitutional amendment; Government (linguistics); Law; Electoral reform; Public administration; Democracy; Law and economics; Economics; Politics","score_opus":0.0490881735934815,"score_gpt":0.3052383308283495,"score_spread":0.256150157234868,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2961110486","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":[0.29411155,0.008425007,0.0034696972,0.23199746,0.00066079077,0.00038303607,0.0012945099,0.00015812932,0.45949984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631441,0.0017874866,0.0015765724,0.014037284,0.00013004136,0.000064263564,0.000149037,0.00004837517,0.019062743],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9739654,0.0032219433,0.00070207904,0.001986062,0.0093146395,0.010809841],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.974708,0.006172066,0.0010852662,0.0013767316,0.012199621,0.004458395],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017319325,0.00029767537,0.0009809892,0.0026519545,0.02518707,0.013969115,0.0036283163,0.0037609518,0.0063720094],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04147283,0.0006952785,0.0006361169,0.0039881263,0.017994191,0.0032762152,0.004013208,0.007398667,0.00043193856],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001029015,0.00005385699,0.010203262,0.00018276578,0.00007104365,0.00024421734,0.008779755,0.0019041398,0.0010458259,0.9155585,0.030774133,0.031079607],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00056934793,0.00015440103,0.13487451,0.0010852229,0.00041092993,0.00020028024,0.021759385,0.0055446005,0.0027600282,0.12421964,0.7078771,0.0005445225],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9940078,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9968265,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20248197,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20248197,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.30786464,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9250079},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2964923292","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1365","title":"Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator: A “Frack-tious” Divide on Statutory Immunities and Charter Damages","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Statutory law; Supreme court; Damages; Law; Political science; Plaintiff; Tribunal","score_opus":0.018979849479046115,"score_gpt":0.2877238270162798,"score_spread":0.26874397753723367,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2964923292","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":[0.067551546,0.020218857,0.005079007,0.26740116,0.0027279586,0.0001723957,0.0006481127,0.00025362815,0.6359473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6092611,0.0054771826,0.004317183,0.2163874,0.00077175145,0.0001383184,0.00025698764,0.00008401021,0.16330607],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9860241,0.0011393343,0.0002725222,0.0010467914,0.008341493,0.0031758805],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993232,0.0035569153,0.00021788289,0.00019375967,0.0021212953,0.0006782166],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0066321823,0.00049761106,0.00060314575,0.0023754903,0.016215015,0.010743668,0.0039200988,0.019046592,0.004306937],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0105967475,0.00095863105,0.0009675947,0.0023032816,0.011149554,0.0028568031,0.002257454,0.013985723,0.00045799516],"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":[0.00004844837,0.00003117317,0.0017309003,0.000058410697,0.000024029267,0.0005226412,0.0025516916,0.00038543082,0.000794723,0.9023984,0.079368345,0.012085884],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028337399,0.00013852425,0.025538115,0.0010736934,0.0002791209,0.00041604065,0.0071787075,0.0026628773,0.0032203263,0.17969604,0.7789762,0.00053695036],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95297,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98415667,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05510911,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05510911,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1278796,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3998465},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2965004679","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1334","title":"The Pragmatic Limits of Access to Justice","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Economic Justice; Political science; Computer science; Internet privacy; Law","score_opus":0.09009961212703126,"score_gpt":0.37789147344065155,"score_spread":0.2877918613136203,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2965004679","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":[0.027378617,0.0066470644,0.012674621,0.10363973,0.0003285517,0.00007490642,0.00016160526,0.000046027682,0.84904885],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96673375,0.0018309532,0.0029566125,0.012478814,0.00037437136,0.0001838363,0.000061293984,0.000052130275,0.015328183],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9666154,0.012081314,0.0010997823,0.0038285556,0.011947049,0.004428054],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98471457,0.008848238,0.0007449631,0.0018611533,0.002633568,0.0011975621],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01573228,0.0005216331,0.00092950935,0.002648233,0.014470651,0.019172926,0.0027797378,0.007846532,0.00669922],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027196543,0.00079606514,0.00074980396,0.0016433375,0.10149774,0.01445118,0.01558081,0.01154358,0.0005858913],"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":[0.0000021643334,0.0000027291774,0.00004608431,0.000010796999,0.0000019586998,0.000015465028,0.0011732904,0.000027362492,0.000036974878,0.9969528,0.00071456464,0.0010158817],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012362667,0.000005859816,0.00031227653,0.00009572786,0.000006493708,0.000039463615,0.0017775411,0.0001072407,0.000058277514,0.96092016,0.03665253,0.000012003489],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12570477,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12616345,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12570477,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029200869,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03819653,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24994618},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2976100056","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1374","title":"A Chief and Court in Transition: The Wagner Court and the Constitution","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Dissent; Majority opinion; Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Concurring opinion; Economic Justice; Political science; Roberts Court; Constitution; Precedent; Original jurisdiction; Court of record; Politics","score_opus":0.03622582227224764,"score_gpt":0.28642562578894604,"score_spread":0.2501998035166984,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2976100056","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":[0.20852882,0.029392552,0.0008032162,0.36522856,0.002886312,0.0000514212,0.00023472142,0.000037097718,0.39283732],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91912574,0.003156031,0.00022613474,0.030811151,0.0007627376,0.000030023693,0.0000565457,0.000024522067,0.04580715],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99550277,0.001411118,0.00008998017,0.00042064427,0.0008208371,0.0017546839],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99780923,0.0010995328,0.00018505527,0.00007473144,0.0002127906,0.00061867904],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030666152,0.00016547549,0.00028193998,0.0015109989,0.014304325,0.013763373,0.0010076766,0.005650344,0.004047845],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009525301,0.00024815695,0.00033893358,0.0015521352,0.01104932,0.0043760166,0.003524949,0.0076959166,0.00051777955],"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":[0.00004436428,0.00004207651,0.0037564216,0.000026995845,0.000009899973,0.00071570626,0.009549779,0.00008851968,0.00020643028,0.9203205,0.05450359,0.010735662],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006803201,0.000068908295,0.0193241,0.00040383413,0.000042712592,0.00046119437,0.042650886,0.00027122925,0.0004694764,0.1423827,0.7937776,0.00007929633],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.114082694,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3947885,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.114082694,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013412207,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018150168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22683734},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2985659700","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1382","title":"Methods and Severity: The Two Tracks of Section 12","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Sentence; Proportionality (law); Charter; Section (typography); Jurisprudence; Law; Life imprisonment; Political science; Punishment (psychology); Constitution; Psychology; Philosophy; Computer science; Social psychology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.11393883092333436,"score_gpt":0.43000025474578124,"score_spread":0.3160614238224469,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2985659700","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":[0.055082172,0.011471042,0.23628865,0.1106787,0.0070526456,0.0049304566,0.0048406664,0.0005853736,0.56907034],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63618207,0.006756523,0.16320921,0.036210243,0.0027739839,0.0128835095,0.0026102033,0.0005830525,0.13879123],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9531944,0.022262787,0.003135409,0.0049792593,0.014450927,0.0019772854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94602007,0.025166042,0.0064347447,0.010235008,0.009896581,0.002247392],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.036017377,0.0006597586,0.0009395924,0.0034189324,0.0026355092,0.0065049534,0.0025482932,0.0021829428,0.024028536],"category_scores_gemma":[0.12308163,0.0008736577,0.0012394453,0.0026914417,0.011466926,0.0076176873,0.0064075785,0.0054298164,0.002821189],"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":[0.00024402811,0.000083572064,0.008625363,0.00063127704,0.000058150057,0.000056454686,0.004771316,0.00020270098,0.00052261143,0.83628047,0.029997816,0.1185263],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019522801,0.0004232424,0.036608953,0.0027249567,0.00016965326,0.00040013186,0.0049015665,0.001054381,0.002534242,0.5699765,0.38087627,0.00013471599],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011274565,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016242245,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.036017377,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005590932,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013484993,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19048035},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3017331670","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1389","title":"Bad Ad(Vice): On the Supreme Court’s Approach to Press Freedom, Source Protection and State Interests in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc.","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"Vice president; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Order (exchange); State (computer science); Islam; Terrorism; Freedom of the press; History; Business; Politics; Computer science; Management","score_opus":0.055672316826921996,"score_gpt":0.27964853787094224,"score_spread":0.22397622104402024,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3017331670","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04386151,0.010639306,0.004786254,0.4708399,0.0058413204,0.00050835573,0.0009351644,0.00018006102,0.4624081],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4893407,0.0025625485,0.0026369353,0.35377955,0.0018247677,0.00031782416,0.00018529117,0.0001401314,0.14921218],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98287624,0.0029422855,0.0005844788,0.0020424325,0.005708144,0.005846385],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98916864,0.005614864,0.0002817884,0.0003341009,0.0030782607,0.0015223752],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012856816,0.00085925014,0.001032032,0.0022940713,0.04054748,0.026508128,0.005148225,0.037195463,0.0050261864],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022807311,0.0013789409,0.0013938507,0.002200848,0.019291768,0.0045017973,0.0037719035,0.034400597,0.00076477136],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006493032,0.00004676595,0.0012332737,0.000049242626,0.00004624029,0.0011633075,0.0057457695,0.00036018,0.0005453368,0.78953356,0.1956138,0.005597509],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025514947,0.00010625,0.0070694885,0.0007736357,0.00035906225,0.00040089193,0.012507574,0.0024021468,0.0026753224,0.1412504,0.83164287,0.0005572148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89752406,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9476591,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10247594,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05751677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09266181,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4173153},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3033733861","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1387","title":"Charter Rights, State Expertise: Testing State Claims to Expert Knowledge","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"University of British Columbia","funders":"China Scholarship Council","keywords":"Charter; Statute; Law; Supreme court; State (computer science); Political science; Test (biology); Psychology; Computer science","score_opus":0.06008862318757573,"score_gpt":0.2832239923298646,"score_spread":0.22313536914228888,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3033733861","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8263841,0.0009860859,0.0034275507,0.009274478,0.0000919671,0.000260081,0.00058180816,0.00001647287,0.15897733],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.996845,0.00017659212,0.00055321335,0.00079945114,0.000043766133,0.000119864155,0.00011658587,0.0000033085105,0.0013423329],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96212244,0.01192796,0.0017269878,0.0033393821,0.015891597,0.0049916054],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6986868,0.2380228,0.0270081,0.013978865,0.018131144,0.0041723447],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0343855,0.00027793448,0.0007689796,0.0056851227,0.005179575,0.0064981095,0.002305009,0.0049487795,0.009394769],"category_scores_gemma":[0.24251406,0.00027881324,0.00078985543,0.005612455,0.014656704,0.012256598,0.0056103957,0.0044167447,0.000663765],"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":[0.0010113349,0.0014118082,0.46377802,0.00039889076,0.00037072823,0.0017274492,0.056580126,0.003181832,0.0006410376,0.38616058,0.009686786,0.07505135],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004740375,0.0013209938,0.4937211,0.0021781365,0.000860566,0.0012525675,0.109665856,0.013422188,0.0035626243,0.31920826,0.054034844,0.00029873825],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04969828,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.052355457,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04969828,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0051358044,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008687969,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18185008},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3034896080","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1422","title":"Vavilov and the Culture of Justification in Contemporary Administrative Law","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Ombudsman and Human Rights","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"CLARITY; Supreme court; Administrative law; Judicial review; Doctrine; Law; Political science; Citizenship; Confusion; Agency (philosophy); Standard of review; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.11703072414492736,"score_gpt":0.37751435522991417,"score_spread":0.2604836310849868,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3034896080","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":[0.046210755,0.06248895,0.013573816,0.36473808,0.0013375138,0.0000612016,0.000084601044,0.000092852744,0.51141226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9417717,0.009516963,0.00344698,0.026837634,0.0005867711,0.00009111437,0.00003010272,0.000082179984,0.017636498],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9609446,0.019686194,0.0011151494,0.0029901403,0.010880706,0.0043831957],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9641164,0.025544949,0.0020755418,0.0017396604,0.0051675183,0.0013559347],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028365362,0.00031273774,0.00082064926,0.0050589493,0.019819822,0.024881564,0.0026454006,0.009613823,0.0023721738],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038562126,0.00053541374,0.00036297433,0.005177794,0.1365163,0.009776487,0.00592329,0.011934298,0.00030672696],"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":[0.000002397501,0.000002431981,0.00010893986,0.00001521623,0.0000016533318,0.000022481567,0.0064416463,0.000045382585,0.000023733766,0.9881832,0.0021478923,0.0030049183],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002076231,0.00001842058,0.001219947,0.00038406817,0.00000781546,0.00008915638,0.0107323155,0.00033737507,0.00015788333,0.69982725,0.28715125,0.0000537171],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4228874,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.42875698,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4228874,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06452235,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07368995,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8408519},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3091653381","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1377","title":"The 2018 Pan-Canadian Securities Regulation Reference: Dualist Federalism to the Rescue of Cooperative Federalism","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","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":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Jurisdiction; Commerce Clause; Supreme court; Political science; Normative; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Law and economics; Politics; Economics","score_opus":0.05956805710657967,"score_gpt":0.3174764434066724,"score_spread":0.2579083863000927,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3091653381","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":[0.0067781154,0.036254272,0.0032879636,0.52506304,0.016224582,0.00014172049,0.0016266421,0.00023517721,0.41038853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.20184858,0.026802095,0.008325807,0.42157766,0.0057256795,0.00023737577,0.000935396,0.00029631902,0.33425108],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98274416,0.0012551687,0.00041850246,0.0016403109,0.011185959,0.0027559462],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862592,0.0027872438,0.00042403507,0.0005699541,0.009064761,0.0008948091],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007140047,0.0007773638,0.00076223357,0.0033976957,0.017177755,0.01180819,0.0036329804,0.01627356,0.006629371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020796867,0.0006559179,0.001156099,0.0044738944,0.010208885,0.003336211,0.0025595059,0.014900048,0.0010546659],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018382263,0.000010504016,0.00035610737,0.00009079357,0.0000083569485,0.00020016615,0.0016081226,0.00017183302,0.00020204663,0.48251668,0.5046234,0.010193637],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015611558,0.000007339382,0.0015655954,0.00030422566,0.000022031623,0.000059036087,0.00060136546,0.00022767963,0.00026193197,0.018756242,0.9781311,0.000047902988],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97293526,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9841726,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88442504,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11557493,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16870025,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8385588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121144733","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1385","title":"One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Substantive Equality, Systemic Discrimination and Pay Equity at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science; Employment discrimination; Equity (law); Jurisprudence","score_opus":0.11048186756575164,"score_gpt":0.36175911527094223,"score_spread":0.2512772477051906,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121144733","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":[0.04270093,0.01891188,0.0032409695,0.6296998,0.003998405,0.00009221017,0.00061266875,0.0001228676,0.30062017],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6957354,0.006205046,0.0023720805,0.19496623,0.0015626985,0.00008120359,0.00023626129,0.00011589325,0.09872525],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9886197,0.0009000499,0.00017880855,0.0014076532,0.004751788,0.0041419654],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9938133,0.0018188771,0.00019242709,0.00024106455,0.0023874,0.0015469495],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005029053,0.00043077325,0.00075037725,0.0010983114,0.031619906,0.017762654,0.003086935,0.011972673,0.007498027],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012179495,0.0005539926,0.0006067467,0.0016841639,0.018525112,0.0045399484,0.003242511,0.019799557,0.0005626692],"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":[0.000023172666,0.000019214662,0.0018508879,0.000042660988,0.000024471736,0.00034249286,0.0025711413,0.0002491812,0.0002240569,0.8201632,0.16066672,0.013822774],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001334838,0.000041280626,0.0117592905,0.0008277097,0.00016731463,0.0002312494,0.012095313,0.0022205203,0.0010629593,0.27417186,0.69693136,0.00035764932],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98125494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99034894,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11054537,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11054537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17069377,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.80206656},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121298405","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1313","title":"The Recognition of Prosecutorial Obligations in an Era of Mandatory Minimum Sentences of Imprisonment and Over-representation of Aboriginal People in Prisons","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Proportionality (law); Law; Political science; Duty; Obligation; Supreme court; Discretion; Criminal justice","score_opus":0.04384079011650743,"score_gpt":0.3721512146296763,"score_spread":0.3283104245131689,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121298405","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.69146436,0.0063692713,0.0023491147,0.23962536,0.0007167351,0.000047655576,0.000039837323,0.000030590334,0.059357014],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9841064,0.0008597655,0.0008374018,0.009222219,0.00013474068,0.000014497555,0.000006021578,0.000010514114,0.004808411],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9914722,0.0030730339,0.0002481453,0.0005555709,0.0013732315,0.003277926],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9860763,0.007053926,0.001495011,0.000454802,0.0022947355,0.0026252728],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008819392,0.00016760686,0.00029752386,0.0007895398,0.024224686,0.006643784,0.0019343899,0.005618025,0.0014140839],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02200353,0.00046304168,0.00037579326,0.0005668114,0.02052262,0.00287199,0.0058452757,0.007866775,0.000098130084],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007520445,0.000027268487,0.01519523,0.00015599346,0.000018310757,0.0038256166,0.5661603,0.00024483463,0.0020488917,0.37429225,0.011510981,0.026445182],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030619365,0.00012682953,0.13829459,0.0013650565,0.00007129503,0.0028321256,0.49642545,0.0008786042,0.0018777585,0.057983268,0.29985258,0.0002618293],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7726041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89991313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7726041,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03656887,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06766999,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45747012},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121308364","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1034","title":"Breaking the Law's Grip On Equality: A New Paradigm For Section 15","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Unanimity; Interpretation (philosophy); Section (typography); Law; Supreme court; Tacking; Political science; Trilogy; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.10673640855730362,"score_gpt":0.3740450030483598,"score_spread":0.26730859449105615,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121308364","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.053090066,0.010844852,0.1529991,0.18935302,0.0020974255,0.00013120622,0.0001663232,0.00011411207,0.591204],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92858,0.0025896558,0.025616713,0.02236816,0.0015894319,0.00023779282,0.000053226253,0.0001062266,0.018858746],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9861588,0.007296965,0.00042723375,0.0018842503,0.0026882438,0.0015445326],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9925668,0.0040969905,0.0007292041,0.0010954754,0.00094784336,0.0005636577],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012412037,0.0006063068,0.0010137294,0.0021820704,0.010571616,0.015687987,0.00368694,0.009760745,0.004346709],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00987826,0.00067905773,0.0013602608,0.0013310671,0.08039054,0.020841027,0.01089987,0.016086845,0.00051006995],"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":[0.0000018644569,0.000001995804,0.000030089977,0.0000047790763,7.895413e-7,0.000008796239,0.0006926654,0.00005335313,0.000018833456,0.9983329,0.00024956188,0.0006043048],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008244807,0.0000142932695,0.00011829286,0.00009425185,0.0000051305874,0.00002469255,0.00077038194,0.00030052636,0.00010058159,0.9680766,0.030474357,0.000012712551],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014692751,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01385904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.015687987,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0143730445,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017426925,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10428423},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121420720","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1160","title":"Ignoring the Golden Principle of Charter Interpretation?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Charter; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Certiorari; Political science; Judicial interpretation; Sociology; Original jurisdiction; Philosophy","score_opus":0.05787098581992551,"score_gpt":0.348874749366013,"score_spread":0.2910037635460875,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121420720","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":[0.04231943,0.02826878,0.06612852,0.6273337,0.0057622897,0.00014063383,0.00011030941,0.00019351044,0.22974278],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8447367,0.010552261,0.018051302,0.10248052,0.004842638,0.0002294148,0.000053076346,0.00019642603,0.018857637],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9610268,0.019987788,0.0015694876,0.00418646,0.010499932,0.002729459],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96560794,0.023388166,0.0029961984,0.003005958,0.0045054187,0.0004963055],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04607444,0.00034407488,0.0011921682,0.002065245,0.0045466167,0.009967902,0.0028406316,0.0076195365,0.0018932185],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07080782,0.0005636917,0.00090907456,0.0013671018,0.0433106,0.014526211,0.004133715,0.0118153645,0.0004974932],"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":[0.0000061457436,0.000003287215,0.00018799672,0.000034543296,0.000004392215,0.000043466513,0.0021376132,0.00008945694,0.000045453446,0.9844057,0.00429208,0.008749874],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021390979,0.000025071966,0.00040620827,0.00034867518,0.000012900551,0.0001554799,0.002116868,0.00043758008,0.00040387438,0.8848982,0.11114283,0.000030967778],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015100735,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013089313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04607444,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009701735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01381397,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24366784},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121649698","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1212","title":"\"The question calls for an answer, and I propose to answer it\": The Patriation Reference as Constitutional Method","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Jurisprudence; Law; Context (archaeology); Convention; Political science; Constitutional law; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.1268063496359986,"score_gpt":0.4228136742720102,"score_spread":0.29600732463601165,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121649698","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":[0.0021480534,0.0038087596,0.0052217464,0.9567979,0.003954797,0.000024446937,0.0000657711,0.00004567102,0.02793293],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.20149615,0.009412656,0.012813906,0.7092366,0.009063507,0.00026954504,0.00013660478,0.00017229951,0.05739872],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9949734,0.0021776631,0.00015809391,0.0008510396,0.0011164878,0.00072332745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9910484,0.004273093,0.0006942638,0.0004662651,0.002883301,0.00063465955],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011017301,0.00054088683,0.00067784736,0.001036412,0.009303466,0.008077568,0.0034875781,0.011858942,0.008655479],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024279721,0.00022740214,0.0006516985,0.0016970952,0.035574503,0.012032867,0.004362262,0.015120159,0.0024857516],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009686496,0.0000073941164,0.00028330533,0.00005482397,0.0000044117483,0.00006266547,0.003350849,0.000054001186,0.00006657137,0.8934329,0.096369125,0.0063042934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024574989,0.000029389897,0.0011328028,0.0004381225,0.000014685177,0.00025759,0.017070387,0.0006018456,0.00030988306,0.4320938,0.5479536,0.000073298266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12409395,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12107432,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87590605,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00791675,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01908681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24674326},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121693181","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1157","title":"Charkaoui and Bill C-3: Some Implications for Anti-Terrorism Policy and Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Torture, Ethics, and Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"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":"Government of Canada; Government of the United Kingdom","keywords":"Legislature; Political science; Torture; Law; Parliament; Terrorism; Deportation; Commission; Certificate; National security; Public administration; Human rights; Politics","score_opus":0.09543591481719776,"score_gpt":0.37328382678778804,"score_spread":0.2778479119705903,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121693181","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":[0.055185013,0.008711092,0.006485389,0.7892234,0.0019695933,0.00017219882,0.00007280129,0.000057780187,0.13812277],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.72463,0.0039699813,0.008229379,0.22440587,0.0018668757,0.00047558863,0.000041706666,0.00006471463,0.036315884],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98199904,0.009223254,0.0005975608,0.0009884095,0.0033359537,0.0038557572],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9755922,0.01961661,0.0012299581,0.0007846207,0.0019322406,0.00084433466],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022885494,0.00051266234,0.00092036836,0.0016779924,0.013501516,0.01257498,0.0030640925,0.035209645,0.0037204642],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031797577,0.00062250363,0.0014811638,0.0023657435,0.02088212,0.008425286,0.003920862,0.018847127,0.0005092276],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003075347,0.000026956694,0.00032014993,0.000054343043,0.0000049368837,0.00045529785,0.00539514,0.00026023787,0.00025225693,0.975721,0.013151377,0.004327601],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008794664,0.00017964191,0.0056190835,0.001106897,0.000039006212,0.0005601406,0.032998648,0.0020340192,0.0018728108,0.6549854,0.30024895,0.00026737739],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.047652133,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.046732064,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9523479,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017797504,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018668856,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12913048},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122127272","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1261","title":"The McLachlin Court and the Charter in 2012","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Political science; Law; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Unanimity; Commission","score_opus":0.029108986470560115,"score_gpt":0.29518634674801403,"score_spread":0.26607736027745393,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122127272","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07058312,0.30555698,0.0017707031,0.28364843,0.005054434,0.00007224885,0.0006151395,0.000103186874,0.3325957],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7550108,0.076062046,0.0013911591,0.07210198,0.003675686,0.0001498098,0.0005411884,0.0000863304,0.09098091],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.992063,0.0023934927,0.00038252972,0.0009381351,0.0030772674,0.0011454069],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9910617,0.004960487,0.0011664781,0.00022844457,0.0021500173,0.00043289192],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0054048365,0.0003036049,0.0005249517,0.0035834683,0.007389099,0.010873273,0.00097153586,0.0066261403,0.0039045748],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027965857,0.0005181101,0.00034494378,0.0061325557,0.0058305725,0.0063236104,0.0020454943,0.00744048,0.00041596676],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000726747,0.000035742498,0.002224128,0.0003444915,0.000018649194,0.00023763646,0.005854613,0.00037846467,0.00025325283,0.7652131,0.15537763,0.06998962],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015382131,0.00003496477,0.014781379,0.001411572,0.0000223208,0.00013200073,0.0025148948,0.00025456015,0.0004885919,0.020800509,0.959481,0.000062836734],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21387136,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.27421352,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78612864,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.037825104,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024650967,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42525297},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122820070","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1286","title":"Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal and Constitutional Studies","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Democracy; Original jurisdiction; Certiorari; Court of equity; Court of record; Public administration; Politics","score_opus":0.02751140719575689,"score_gpt":0.2368840862889685,"score_spread":0.2093726790932116,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122820070","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.837136,0.006953913,0.011523003,0.03380373,0.002341204,0.0014010959,0.0050290725,0.0005611264,0.10125085],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9667574,0.0021847119,0.00578954,0.002562882,0.00066084956,0.0003577297,0.0022898118,0.000103231505,0.019293875],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.97094226,0.005897115,0.0026822572,0.0017118537,0.014117468,0.0046490086],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9291733,0.019425958,0.017680734,0.0046538967,0.023871073,0.005195098],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0332319,0.00020799391,0.00047737037,0.0052007586,0.0060760076,0.00958782,0.0014292717,0.0016810626,0.0018496185],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09059632,0.0008228763,0.0005879275,0.010256944,0.0026417018,0.004273748,0.004319482,0.0052042087,0.00060900685],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.0006016212,0.0009407041,0.3126011,0.0008710418,0.00014559817,0.0011356671,0.047777697,0.005706156,0.0035783995,0.087794736,0.085274026,0.45357338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046157264,0.0004743442,0.65394646,0.00047258477,0.000049587285,0.00022613353,0.017087037,0.0025401101,0.0025453637,0.0046176687,0.31778735,0.00020727285],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11682278,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.22140925,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11682278,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026144847,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.039343458,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23228562},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122866139","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1197","title":"Comment on Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr (2010)","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Charter; Supreme court; Political science; Government (linguistics); Context (archaeology); Constitutional right; Repatriation; Remedial education; Sociology; Politics; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.029259562911359848,"score_gpt":0.30345479351412763,"score_spread":0.2741952306027678,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122866139","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016356127,0.006573649,0.0005229243,0.75550604,0.006102563,0.00025176612,0.0061893137,0.00030024233,0.20819733],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.04075083,0.0017264436,0.00042628028,0.818374,0.0008440089,0.0001242468,0.00059994136,0.00007335701,0.13708092],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99600935,0.00017150675,0.00011250798,0.00044084148,0.0014463661,0.0018193229],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99675447,0.00092543295,0.00013890075,0.000070971175,0.0015086855,0.00060152117],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020930774,0.0007625754,0.0008450602,0.001345353,0.032298367,0.0068084896,0.0038915607,0.0327983,0.014193934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0062571964,0.0010802164,0.001242873,0.002413137,0.00450703,0.0017935017,0.0015525062,0.016903784,0.0027117906],"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":[0.00004585331,0.000024123945,0.001486636,0.000069550384,0.0000123363325,0.00073485315,0.0022553504,0.00012590813,0.00029401906,0.027627168,0.9645321,0.0027921489],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006398207,0.000025903562,0.008609365,0.00019233608,0.00006235901,0.00021396013,0.0038210093,0.0002038264,0.00055641955,0.003067475,0.9830372,0.000146204],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9860356,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99432325,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06426654,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06426654,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11808461,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46628857},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123170955","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1066","title":"Judges and Politics: An Essay From Canada","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Politics; Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.02987739487511638,"score_gpt":0.2944399156730049,"score_spread":0.26456252079788856,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123170955","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":[0.015592067,0.18115328,0.000661631,0.4549623,0.0049596047,0.00005705443,0.00041035985,0.00003310984,0.34217057],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42834115,0.16072215,0.0013260697,0.15464799,0.002860059,0.000122067824,0.000280153,0.0002228026,0.2514776],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99542254,0.00060531223,0.00010193489,0.00039867827,0.0019449606,0.001526515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963748,0.0013157327,0.00011065292,0.00006734855,0.0014948562,0.00063657534],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028289023,0.0005610505,0.0006193403,0.0028899878,0.033133894,0.011947068,0.0019536624,0.00804681,0.006545463],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0065167667,0.00064540503,0.00038698202,0.0071527376,0.017171534,0.0033432422,0.002818025,0.008063967,0.00069786713],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000023234144,0.000031846812,0.0013912664,0.0001860719,0.000014182418,0.00043792438,0.02232682,0.00035489132,0.0001989719,0.56581265,0.39196953,0.017252667],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018535211,0.0000042179545,0.0028331396,0.0004828269,0.000011991439,0.00005952943,0.009887657,0.00010153751,0.00008884809,0.018880835,0.9675944,0.00003648444],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9897803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99507844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81506187,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.18493815,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1882797,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94535625},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123265210","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1128","title":"The Charter of Whiteness: Twenty-Five Years of Maintaining Racial Injustice in the Canadian Criminal Justice System","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"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":"Injustice; Charter; Political science; Criminal justice; Economic Justice; Law; Racial profiling; Legislation; Government (linguistics); Critical race theory; Mass incarceration; Race (biology); Criminology; Racism; Sociology; Gender studies","score_opus":0.05880741501285712,"score_gpt":0.33170948987890886,"score_spread":0.2729020748660517,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123265210","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":[0.40348268,0.035322886,0.0031253356,0.42801344,0.004720178,0.0001281473,0.00028408345,0.00015602866,0.12476724],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9456916,0.006434756,0.0011562585,0.021234028,0.00040612306,0.000036273756,0.00007819791,0.000068669346,0.02489418],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9843918,0.0027165997,0.00031436846,0.00096461136,0.005727214,0.005885352],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98047,0.0025030274,0.0011193958,0.0007140274,0.008301918,0.006891651],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017650994,0.0006124568,0.000555665,0.002904573,0.07002123,0.01614129,0.0032185994,0.003950524,0.0025430215],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020222392,0.00056651485,0.00058806315,0.0027048218,0.038847666,0.005291183,0.007276119,0.0082231965,0.00018186944],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00020445285,0.00015089013,0.030620692,0.0003202974,0.00010128865,0.0009826623,0.40998894,0.0012762093,0.0019090534,0.23955844,0.13314803,0.18173908],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002430902,0.00020989618,0.068323895,0.00070678984,0.00012780979,0.00023273128,0.22956103,0.0005648716,0.0012296254,0.0155541655,0.68304294,0.00042189923],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98393804,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99246734,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14867388,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14867388,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.27551192,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98741764},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123315520","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1294","title":"Charter Values and Administrative Justice","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Charter; Political science; Law; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Public administration","score_opus":0.06732334647677912,"score_gpt":0.36161497194753944,"score_spread":0.2942916254707603,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123315520","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":[0.03249639,0.0038968935,0.019027976,0.08090806,0.0008898585,0.00010276203,0.00014496027,0.00010644266,0.86242676],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9619511,0.0013055403,0.006913864,0.0059305886,0.00021741458,0.00007739702,0.000055970075,0.00006207719,0.023486072],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97342265,0.009528389,0.0006088749,0.0018278941,0.009434609,0.0051775714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98081976,0.0060906196,0.0017263157,0.0023724101,0.0062433104,0.0027475308],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019751212,0.00045878193,0.0006871131,0.0030369963,0.020717032,0.029261993,0.0022027893,0.004465918,0.0037194232],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032330096,0.00040479412,0.0005576967,0.0035490405,0.08897107,0.009285525,0.0061456272,0.009216713,0.00040106635],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000014917877,0.000002118665,0.00012587692,0.000004808198,9.843382e-7,0.0000059850518,0.0012873585,0.000067099914,0.000013485516,0.99525404,0.0014192405,0.0018176676],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015033657,0.000022411708,0.0025858083,0.00021279619,0.000014285719,0.000039160775,0.0075272094,0.00050633674,0.00025801215,0.804989,0.18375944,0.00007054084],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.48555312,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.60720694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9348612,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06513881,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.113278985,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.96545374},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123469577","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1155","title":"Conceptualizing Collective Bargaining under the Charter: The Enduring Problem of Substantive Equality","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","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":"Supreme court; Collective bargaining; Charter; Labour law; Political science; Deliberation; Argument (complex analysis); Law and economics; Politics; Sociology; Law; Legislation; Treasury; Context (archaeology); Freedom of association; Economics","score_opus":0.09416346425117318,"score_gpt":0.33889082971712653,"score_spread":0.24472736546595336,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123469577","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":[0.025246626,0.0078302445,0.20584455,0.06572576,0.0012296238,0.0001234371,0.000057044443,0.0000820844,0.6938606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9272473,0.0028899573,0.024849873,0.008535296,0.0016661687,0.00046939778,0.000047258764,0.00007137405,0.034223396],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9818085,0.010625486,0.00039080516,0.0017310621,0.003673972,0.001770125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9955249,0.0028065473,0.00051576656,0.00045586593,0.0004205866,0.00027636354],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018288327,0.00062513934,0.00087808765,0.002905233,0.008320963,0.014629783,0.0030980485,0.009138616,0.0046219546],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011446778,0.00038777784,0.0010763633,0.002151553,0.059407387,0.013827378,0.0060383226,0.009288351,0.00061681104],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[4.8721716e-7,0.0000011649785,0.0000075908715,0.0000016607562,2.7357447e-7,0.000004427454,0.00023495831,0.00006193566,0.0000046709083,0.99929225,0.000104740386,0.00028584432],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000005927383,0.0000061364303,0.000037028207,0.000025978141,0.000001915812,0.0000103976345,0.00027400377,0.0003373306,0.000018685016,0.98849875,0.010779631,0.0000042343368],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009596319,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005521284,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99040365,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009952789,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0098971715,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.096719086},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123508446","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1285","title":"The Bungling of Justice Nadon’s Appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université du Québec à Montréal","funders":"Australian Government","keywords":"Nomination; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Economic Justice; Parliament; Politics; Chose; Government (linguistics); Supreme Court Decisions; Political question; Majority opinion","score_opus":0.030005130473400515,"score_gpt":0.289306940117719,"score_spread":0.2593018096443185,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123508446","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":[0.07275601,0.016333342,0.00276838,0.5452978,0.009953831,0.00011663654,0.0004335107,0.00009442319,0.35224602],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7151321,0.0038629468,0.00093032053,0.100887425,0.00080607453,0.0000307857,0.00006250473,0.00006009663,0.17822766],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9933735,0.00089399255,0.00010652422,0.0009006305,0.0026670806,0.002058225],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99511516,0.001432096,0.00014134253,0.00011908479,0.002426418,0.0007659571],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033368417,0.00022251096,0.00038656816,0.0008475561,0.028081607,0.0076158494,0.0012725216,0.005870011,0.0029654386],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0139307985,0.00040066856,0.00033602346,0.001024509,0.007278627,0.0014775265,0.0016295051,0.009274868,0.00027542378],"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":[0.000060235543,0.00002115003,0.0031169755,0.000089331,0.00003695113,0.0014277892,0.013926182,0.0003036143,0.0007965406,0.5900192,0.36863756,0.021564495],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012613894,0.00002122725,0.0048750187,0.00013479956,0.00002694744,0.00016073714,0.0060528885,0.0003461906,0.00082761736,0.01318931,0.97426593,0.00008667819],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97398573,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.988347,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07236614,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07236614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10422487,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5250555},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124214863","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1191","title":"Does Section 2(b) Really Make a Difference?: Part 1: Freedom of Expression, Defamation Law and the Journalist-Source Privilege","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","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":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Doctrine; Political science; Common law; Freedom of expression; Privilege (computing); Sociology; Human rights","score_opus":0.017410409841237016,"score_gpt":0.27970707021532926,"score_spread":0.2622966603740922,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124214863","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":[0.063918695,0.008760799,0.00970881,0.19911684,0.0027222314,0.00016932042,0.00046786104,0.000121206496,0.7150142],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75475496,0.002946715,0.004118107,0.13246743,0.0023695142,0.00033961213,0.00023744216,0.0001125766,0.102653526],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99306315,0.0015754146,0.00029991163,0.0009150204,0.0027712097,0.0013753228],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902508,0.006794155,0.0006325377,0.0006492752,0.0012760618,0.0003971122],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0075444914,0.00030642154,0.000457254,0.0008601332,0.005309777,0.011102395,0.0017982485,0.0153345885,0.008985139],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014612333,0.00041263032,0.0009505325,0.00079869264,0.013366205,0.0069891335,0.0022424166,0.009153922,0.0018719317],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001891548,0.000044700988,0.0015153404,0.000051878633,0.000007964661,0.00015853318,0.0018935426,0.00012248578,0.0003857893,0.9685896,0.021580223,0.005631005],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007337298,0.00014876982,0.012792567,0.0008341558,0.00006142247,0.00057788054,0.00501252,0.0007212655,0.003772341,0.57155055,0.40431792,0.00013725147],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.049969144,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04491012,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95003086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0054361215,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00934445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09935659},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124905978","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1100","title":"The End of Umpire?: Federalism and Judicial Restraint","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Supreme court; Ultra vires; Law; Political science; Constitution; Judicial review; Jurisdiction; Statute; Justiciability; Separation of powers; Legislature; Legislation; Jurisprudence; Original jurisdiction; Federal jurisdiction; Human rights; Doctrine","score_opus":0.030955360206700148,"score_gpt":0.30748826681018404,"score_spread":0.2765329066034839,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124905978","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":[0.102324195,0.024962924,0.008126449,0.26324248,0.0011566051,0.000051895564,0.00017166897,0.00008157188,0.5998821],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93060833,0.003026924,0.0012797925,0.03810494,0.00055711705,0.00004297722,0.00004274521,0.000036452384,0.02630063],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9914608,0.0021000304,0.0001906161,0.0008544451,0.0025352794,0.0028587212],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99613756,0.002123702,0.00027697755,0.00037162015,0.00069333694,0.00039686367],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062937685,0.00020992552,0.0006113814,0.0013698315,0.014796845,0.012787527,0.0021026644,0.006197326,0.0037502632],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013011547,0.00032664562,0.00042773582,0.0014434796,0.031064795,0.0068503763,0.0036631327,0.009282083,0.00042797523],"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":[0.0000066693387,0.0000048472234,0.0003264187,0.0000070074807,0.0000023018788,0.000038775474,0.0019631472,0.00003687536,0.00005203484,0.98937374,0.0048301015,0.0033580717],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049438153,0.00003337744,0.0054094153,0.00031820207,0.000021525899,0.00014172653,0.010271915,0.0005880455,0.00045684772,0.71624684,0.2664044,0.00005820585],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46664956,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6179893,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46664956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027069317,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.028843857,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9278667},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125049935","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1036","title":"Harsh, Perhaps Even Misguided: Developments in Law, 2002","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Plaintiff; Charter; Political science; Limelight; Sociology; Law and economics; Engineering","score_opus":0.06384175180557475,"score_gpt":0.3442274930813688,"score_spread":0.2803857412757941,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125049935","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0078667095,0.047774915,0.00074010354,0.43510038,0.0033601779,0.000049652368,0.00024521627,0.00011907883,0.5047437],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1917494,0.02312116,0.0016752131,0.22900021,0.002080558,0.000092811104,0.00019402431,0.00008886563,0.5519978],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99667126,0.0005845668,0.0001114876,0.00050486124,0.0014295272,0.00069840084],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99697816,0.00074597704,0.00021945871,0.00012843736,0.0013134732,0.00061441393],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041588577,0.00034310267,0.00025266447,0.0012042152,0.014929755,0.01794424,0.002003318,0.013561507,0.010345621],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00604081,0.0005532322,0.0003106437,0.0016848528,0.016179979,0.005038616,0.0024016225,0.011132176,0.0015043082],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010668674,0.00004480825,0.00061555585,0.0000667331,0.0000029709217,0.0003209382,0.0034369626,0.00012632717,0.0002455306,0.6183351,0.35304743,0.023746861],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000044422045,0.0000089160985,0.001319138,0.00027033134,0.000002637998,0.000070537295,0.0015601341,0.000084503605,0.00008269413,0.010033645,0.98654836,0.00001464978],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7379156,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84939414,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7379156,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.074452996,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06279851,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.54019684},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125408551","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1219","title":"\"Constitutional Chicken\": National Security Confidentiality and Terrorism Prosecutions after R. v. Ahmad","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Constitutional right; Legislation; Confidentiality; Jury; Parliament; Secrecy; Terrorism; National security; Politics","score_opus":0.04501341516142714,"score_gpt":0.31891517556036436,"score_spread":0.2739017603989372,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125408551","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":[0.32618317,0.015822358,0.006567469,0.19752635,0.001751168,0.0002714671,0.00023462196,0.000065421445,0.45157796],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94405866,0.0020971226,0.0011553853,0.027368406,0.00036205235,0.00004750919,0.000039018545,0.000017363054,0.024854442],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98615915,0.0031185627,0.0004001176,0.00127689,0.0050990307,0.0039461576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9877707,0.0083627775,0.0008627784,0.00048536144,0.0017519173,0.0007664721],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013863767,0.00023059334,0.00054600916,0.0014648115,0.017672107,0.009034886,0.0026458672,0.013237936,0.002648199],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026567742,0.00052263885,0.00077348074,0.0013528005,0.017857978,0.0039296355,0.0042386255,0.015437578,0.0002498897],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000033292097,0.000026916674,0.0016601714,0.000041050975,0.000012929661,0.0012302328,0.009575673,0.0002769376,0.00047087626,0.9710297,0.009254651,0.006387539],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030774777,0.0004036428,0.04056166,0.0012542795,0.00033381247,0.0022216102,0.05315229,0.0032048947,0.008337285,0.39603287,0.4937442,0.00044574018],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.51849943,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.618993,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9713702,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028629798,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050757494,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.96867245},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125446755","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1215","title":"Of Scandals, Sources and Secrets: Investigative Reporting, National Post and Globe and Mail","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Political science; Wrongdoing; Globe; Confidentiality; Law; Charter; Element (criminal law); Statutory law; Privilege (computing); Government (linguistics); Psychology","score_opus":0.08565082396682538,"score_gpt":0.32771588401058277,"score_spread":0.24206506004375739,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125446755","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5061091,0.011999045,0.0013027589,0.11462722,0.00066119316,0.00014480621,0.0007026591,0.000083825325,0.36436945],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9582845,0.001836159,0.00052760256,0.018471092,0.00049414556,0.000056104942,0.00008917178,0.000020332773,0.02022085],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9902776,0.0035456517,0.00053558813,0.0006467197,0.0028552238,0.0021391532],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95926034,0.032155737,0.0036324025,0.0014273013,0.0025624451,0.00096178934],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013873294,0.00024940036,0.00045037526,0.0024352623,0.01032288,0.014458266,0.0013438092,0.011311307,0.0024098011],"category_scores_gemma":[0.035899885,0.00046452624,0.00035741043,0.0022946028,0.009394552,0.0044053025,0.003269158,0.0067604887,0.00025836853],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00031126896,0.00016251717,0.03502857,0.00033262462,0.00006981062,0.0064113326,0.12094839,0.000346952,0.0018203689,0.66329527,0.099362366,0.07191065],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014226571,0.000391219,0.17710382,0.0018529793,0.00033806526,0.003208771,0.18939157,0.0019049416,0.00786991,0.07552421,0.5419232,0.0003491184],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12708594,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2776685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8729141,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011431296,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009082565,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2526924},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125688282","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1303","title":"Law, Politics and Legacy Building at the McLachlin Court in 2014","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Trilogy; Law; Politics; Political science; Charter; Economic Justice; Supreme court; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.07072506130949477,"score_gpt":0.3600675183671795,"score_spread":0.2893424570576847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125688282","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":[0.16452812,0.24773131,0.0009279924,0.16559367,0.004448414,0.00011207381,0.0002483722,0.000043912936,0.4163661],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8287828,0.055934925,0.0006145486,0.039301246,0.0011971865,0.00011578386,0.00014092676,0.00004517333,0.07386751],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99462104,0.0018453797,0.0001933516,0.0006600531,0.0017560723,0.0009240437],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9952118,0.0025363753,0.00046358476,0.00017033314,0.0009643912,0.0006534309],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006869654,0.00016294385,0.00038779265,0.002661676,0.013836009,0.015029573,0.0013291112,0.004620202,0.0028845132],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012048346,0.00043952442,0.00026013757,0.0039812527,0.012358587,0.0056509334,0.004091803,0.0059928293,0.0003562185],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002896624,0.000053783795,0.004078204,0.00026776665,0.000020046618,0.0006187877,0.025552992,0.00022185003,0.00030076582,0.85590637,0.066244096,0.046706405],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012520912,0.000054592063,0.016810657,0.0013856043,0.000023923312,0.00028874713,0.024167707,0.00007973442,0.0006633268,0.032894924,0.9235535,0.000064646374],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12642817,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.26997176,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8735718,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025702635,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023164555,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.25138456},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125919187","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1284","title":"Deliberate Disregard: Judicial Appointments under the Harper Government","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"University of Ottawa","keywords":"Diversity (politics); Racialization; Government (linguistics); Principal (computer security); Identity (music); Political science; Law; Constitutional law; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.03106755276336939,"score_gpt":0.297525379356055,"score_spread":0.26645782659268563,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125919187","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.75257194,0.004181577,0.0064482153,0.08118884,0.0004903474,0.00011360125,0.000075545744,0.000066569395,0.15486328],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.992547,0.00025674555,0.0002569322,0.0041438253,0.000110410256,0.000011261362,0.000006027054,0.000008795896,0.0026591825],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9568583,0.013482595,0.0011338025,0.0033614228,0.013470449,0.011693405],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9672046,0.019391762,0.0042743017,0.0017567129,0.0041907676,0.0031818426],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.025792208,0.00014234049,0.000653086,0.0020298238,0.0282686,0.010159127,0.0023562473,0.0051139933,0.0019894417],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06138344,0.0004769187,0.00043189633,0.002580471,0.021697672,0.0029182702,0.005897749,0.008915537,0.0001973543],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000104963154,0.00007090643,0.014894418,0.00008658481,0.00006300327,0.0012271242,0.118161455,0.0006346775,0.0009488552,0.8179094,0.01296608,0.032932587],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019165248,0.00024535693,0.14122821,0.0007914921,0.0002519104,0.0010608146,0.19409634,0.0026108494,0.0033438208,0.27473977,0.3810157,0.00042411],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3750124,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5121905,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6249876,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026822282,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.039871674,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7456592},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3134350734","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1416","title":"Ending the Erasure?: Writing Race into the Story of Psychological Detentions – Examining R. v. Le","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Coercion (linguistics); Construct (python library); Race (biology); Supreme court; Law enforcement; Psychology; Social psychology; Criminology; Law; Political science; Ethnic group; Sociology; Gender studies","score_opus":0.14484145803454884,"score_gpt":0.4063267709386004,"score_spread":0.2614853129040516,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3134350734","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":[0.027823122,0.01754277,0.0006890943,0.8789943,0.0017768213,0.000020721433,0.00003343248,0.000014828641,0.07310488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6360819,0.015814513,0.00052206946,0.31511915,0.0032784224,0.00012275386,0.000030632353,0.00009199777,0.028938642],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98456824,0.011165835,0.00024531604,0.00092298945,0.00086717255,0.002230479],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9832392,0.013053233,0.0009859592,0.0003636491,0.0008203597,0.0015375768],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013363035,0.00043680504,0.0006966973,0.0009880827,0.027878525,0.0122725405,0.0022377733,0.019814922,0.0030251804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033358004,0.0005017065,0.00070398755,0.0008684373,0.027032847,0.0133696515,0.0051087174,0.03396785,0.00059894245],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00010356361,0.00009047687,0.0016962757,0.0001785389,0.000030451014,0.0031705187,0.3208634,0.0001293014,0.0002714789,0.47113878,0.17973378,0.02259348],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048137823,0.00010338019,0.002631514,0.0014671731,0.000033203552,0.0010323522,0.29857165,0.00020817059,0.00037944087,0.08327704,0.61216587,0.00008205835],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.043282483,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06743946,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9567175,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00939078,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010383957,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08606112},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3139342882","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1411","title":"Climate Change Class Actions in Canada","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Environmental law and policy","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; Law; Political science; Government (linguistics); Climate change; Supreme court","score_opus":0.07229959233707602,"score_gpt":0.335047603879767,"score_spread":0.262748011542691,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3139342882","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":[0.093548395,0.006836273,0.0006363835,0.088377714,0.0022614934,0.000268889,0.0011172974,0.00012085165,0.8068327],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5818921,0.005086543,0.00082381995,0.093674764,0.0004573274,0.00019231124,0.0005921316,0.00009707272,0.31718397],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99422485,0.00019274116,0.00006778433,0.00044477158,0.0019797906,0.0030901383],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997165,0.00031509646,0.000082288425,0.000087349734,0.0011282295,0.001222024],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018577,0.00042870265,0.00044674336,0.0018738857,0.042250134,0.00831419,0.0026231995,0.009477853,0.019788392],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0047031394,0.0006060281,0.0010060105,0.001875841,0.0056445817,0.0013753729,0.0038150356,0.009285302,0.0011385087],"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":[0.00008040282,0.00024346607,0.0197385,0.0001536255,0.00007955527,0.0024249135,0.011923753,0.001178732,0.0013526892,0.5544741,0.36097,0.04738025],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007842066,0.000042032596,0.037460692,0.0002532628,0.000088101195,0.00021537369,0.008396557,0.0008971816,0.0006390051,0.010619714,0.9411755,0.00013401532],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9955466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99835026,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12927696,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12927696,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24005207,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9379744},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385509996","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1425","title":"Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act: How to Make Space for Some Certainty","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Jurisprudence; Certainty; Political science; Power (physics); Criminal law; Statement (logic); Expansive; Sociology; Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.059303696513317475,"score_gpt":0.3350643466073373,"score_spread":0.27576065009401984,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385509996","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":[0.005174854,0.028629098,0.06064861,0.78053254,0.007033117,0.00008894174,0.00017838404,0.00030471335,0.11740978],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.54419285,0.0153843,0.062137965,0.33998725,0.008212948,0.0003734011,0.0001680042,0.00044471602,0.029098485],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95707935,0.0188492,0.0023964387,0.0061114426,0.012829952,0.0027336052],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9253632,0.05326355,0.0023868214,0.006332444,0.010794536,0.0018594053],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.050863165,0.0014381313,0.0025450434,0.0030757647,0.013697561,0.02442121,0.0063653314,0.027355801,0.005184767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.107594095,0.0012681294,0.0017079975,0.0020645515,0.07544807,0.0476954,0.010997471,0.037694488,0.0017243327],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011252191,0.00000703834,0.000077558194,0.000048182566,0.000009943452,0.00007308612,0.0018379228,0.00031456997,0.000059176222,0.97576004,0.013120833,0.008680426],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018598199,0.000016496448,0.00011182922,0.0004246255,0.00002114597,0.00004864206,0.001625222,0.00045186945,0.00017323553,0.83664346,0.16039647,0.000068409856],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1051301,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.068269834,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8948699,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019295143,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.035448257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26899332},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510009","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1431","title":"Joe’s Justice: Substantive, Procedural and Remedial Equality","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Disadvantaged; Remedial education; Adjudication; Law; Statute; Economic Justice; Political science; Champion; Constitutional law; Procedural justice; Sociology; Public administration; Psychology","score_opus":0.06489671300055498,"score_gpt":0.3705517571365437,"score_spread":0.3056550441359887,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510009","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":[0.038267095,0.031191528,0.015568743,0.382104,0.0033270968,0.000120557444,0.00008475387,0.000068504596,0.52926767],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80176675,0.0038725615,0.005105854,0.121402085,0.0019242195,0.00019543548,0.000029433975,0.00006775941,0.06563595],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97567844,0.007936034,0.00088816567,0.0031178542,0.006978613,0.005400917],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99052876,0.006401234,0.0003999184,0.0005781971,0.0013769969,0.00071480795],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017719593,0.00040043908,0.0011583031,0.002058438,0.016366437,0.018707484,0.001980481,0.0194037,0.0028062037],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024737058,0.00064987905,0.0009152902,0.0014202388,0.056134418,0.011137615,0.0076622986,0.022343308,0.00043097185],"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":[0.0000051004454,0.000007492188,0.000117006006,0.000017331075,0.000004694791,0.000082159066,0.0022399304,0.000043642634,0.00006208823,0.9897942,0.004953879,0.002672616],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002865544,0.000045435867,0.0014025033,0.00034570709,0.00003056468,0.00023821498,0.00472643,0.00027668796,0.0005242217,0.6646661,0.3276372,0.00007836745],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09427407,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12642491,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09427407,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012123447,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026027435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18745065},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510020","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1423","title":"Triage and Dissensus at the Supreme Court of Canada: A Review of the Court’s 2020 Constitutional Decisions","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Dissenting opinion; Law; Political science; Jurisprudence; Precedent; Constitutional court; Scholarship; Constitution","score_opus":0.08471932435059226,"score_gpt":0.34456676063460734,"score_spread":0.2598474362840151,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510020","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016095197,0.9581986,0.00016737115,0.024220156,0.00079944124,0.000058420967,0.00023928967,0.000012652653,0.01469457],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.056877844,0.9034907,0.0010352185,0.03240828,0.0008282925,0.000113707945,0.00042905484,0.00003463841,0.0047821277],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9784492,0.0030070983,0.0015128854,0.0012890014,0.01367989,0.00206183],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9475242,0.020980578,0.0018705851,0.0007444567,0.027170856,0.001709224],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028069656,0.0007466463,0.0015291345,0.013919215,0.009538303,0.0109387,0.0044596368,0.006321474,0.002135409],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05682015,0.0012372996,0.0009818802,0.025876336,0.009908088,0.0027229413,0.0020717504,0.0077780336,0.0005468753],"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":[0.00010145559,0.00008926899,0.002270213,0.0123051815,0.0002580915,0.0008158559,0.0057590907,0.0008033746,0.0007241503,0.16070646,0.38768193,0.42848492],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030971376,0.000031223306,0.006429217,0.017371463,0.00021155871,0.00014833674,0.0015591034,0.00013460296,0.00031156756,0.0043762927,0.96931106,0.00008457608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9132079,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9489158,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10685386,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10685386,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.30914113,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7752826},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510024","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1428","title":"Equality before the Charter: Reflections on Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":11,"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":"Jurisprudence; Law; Supreme court; Charter; Sociology; Political science; Equal Protection Clause","score_opus":0.08100061302339426,"score_gpt":0.3664157798178432,"score_spread":0.2854151667944489,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510024","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":[0.019651568,0.04125827,0.0011120706,0.67674893,0.0042441217,0.00010809631,0.00030278956,0.00006544054,0.2565088],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.35865352,0.017925208,0.0015663193,0.4908396,0.0014740606,0.000111020636,0.00012234511,0.00017524345,0.12913278],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97328407,0.0035572008,0.0004192604,0.0025699856,0.010519142,0.0096502565],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9939022,0.0025896719,0.00021475922,0.00014082398,0.0018658062,0.001286598],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010945078,0.0008903111,0.0009392004,0.0029497829,0.07578764,0.019882865,0.0059365234,0.02700731,0.006494177],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01570878,0.0010219422,0.0010878367,0.0042213667,0.046618387,0.006917983,0.0056891995,0.028003229,0.0005242632],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003035033,0.00003336181,0.0007574959,0.00010730746,0.000015744448,0.0008789377,0.029589426,0.00027982309,0.0002546413,0.76293314,0.19129689,0.013822859],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041226784,0.00003413739,0.0040216213,0.0007203817,0.000040208677,0.0002508103,0.031065749,0.00029507754,0.00037664085,0.05296797,0.90993905,0.00024711242],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.995131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9970668,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.23846082,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.23846082,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.28444478,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.88327754},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510027","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1429","title":"Rigour Required: Recent Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on Binding and Non-Binding Sources of International Law in Charter Interpretation","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Supreme court; Law; Charter; Political science","score_opus":0.020681955451480293,"score_gpt":0.28313078012288667,"score_spread":0.2624488246714064,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510027","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":[0.015503895,0.068764985,0.0054632095,0.7065033,0.004631417,0.00012348454,0.00034344828,0.00011833168,0.19854791],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5210475,0.06403693,0.013728546,0.34145275,0.0048504653,0.00015594234,0.00046749949,0.00028775312,0.053972643],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9378109,0.012320079,0.0025883291,0.00587064,0.03285892,0.008551112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.86406374,0.064411685,0.0041301246,0.004934064,0.055506527,0.0069538206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06632227,0.0006799291,0.0012984044,0.005034976,0.026464744,0.03037776,0.006280967,0.01658855,0.00569817],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09226334,0.0011388687,0.0013608653,0.008233585,0.040521026,0.009754064,0.0058350847,0.032471936,0.0005673311],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000026159332,0.000020598007,0.00094156933,0.00018909608,0.00002247694,0.00022501273,0.0054679946,0.0004442307,0.00024787989,0.8729623,0.092967026,0.02648569],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006696239,0.000033595847,0.004902315,0.0022925807,0.00010733254,0.00013570227,0.005462497,0.0011494984,0.0010884732,0.107441805,0.87704605,0.00027308785],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.963078,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9743871,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15828247,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15828247,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.29191026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.976273},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510037","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1426","title":"Touch of Evil: Disagreements at the Heart of the Criminal Law Power","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Parliament; Political science; Criminal law; Jurisprudence; Power (physics); Criminal procedure; Criminal justice; Politics","score_opus":0.059901766982270975,"score_gpt":0.3523978768534113,"score_spread":0.29249610987114033,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510037","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":[0.014107129,0.34057552,0.0043030838,0.52954465,0.00282781,0.000024866353,0.00006642465,0.000019098541,0.10853143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5682729,0.13946068,0.003112824,0.26873648,0.0059658135,0.00010138966,0.00008586728,0.000075395925,0.014188683],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95811146,0.026615333,0.0014434656,0.0025212977,0.009265916,0.0020426156],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9482468,0.043754876,0.0014733509,0.0016181318,0.0041615698,0.00074534887],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.029846808,0.00041057976,0.0013648357,0.0033714396,0.0075234943,0.013569417,0.0022789142,0.010218517,0.0026983249],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04897007,0.0004893165,0.0006072396,0.002146371,0.043863155,0.016400108,0.004996383,0.017239723,0.00063061476],"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":[0.000041811352,0.000033410342,0.00077926094,0.0007623325,0.00006325403,0.00050921063,0.010079449,0.00014341334,0.00045145932,0.8659212,0.056343816,0.06487145],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000037070906,0.000058717404,0.0029701716,0.0042911936,0.000049212384,0.00041506143,0.015231437,0.0001491741,0.0005876141,0.4790395,0.497097,0.00007399464],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014734745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029738484,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.029846808,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007875324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010620566,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15784687},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385510060","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1424","title":"Indigenous Peoples’ Transboundary Claims, Access to Justice, and the Canadian Constitutional Structure: The Uashaunnuat Case","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Indigenous; Law; Jurisdiction; Adjudication; Political science; Economic Justice","score_opus":0.03968060700097151,"score_gpt":0.3316240375522118,"score_spread":0.2919434305512403,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385510060","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5203256,0.005510535,0.0012117196,0.033940822,0.00026631352,0.00013706791,0.00023347519,0.00003202433,0.43834248],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97103745,0.0010998809,0.0006830957,0.0040854174,0.000036348218,0.000038453552,0.000054172688,0.000013166297,0.022952061],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99233043,0.0006178156,0.00011488311,0.00055945443,0.0021233086,0.0042541474],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99641234,0.0013016023,0.00019715194,0.000160894,0.0011353298,0.0007926681],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003586311,0.00049387326,0.00049738033,0.0020690223,0.049264215,0.010562966,0.0031296143,0.0058194497,0.0042693634],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006918356,0.0006105336,0.0005504592,0.0030116318,0.022473494,0.0025657073,0.005066811,0.005415818,0.00019400365],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000067720495,0.00004515001,0.009441187,0.000083521234,0.000026391986,0.0020296706,0.0509725,0.0006741034,0.0007620635,0.91206765,0.012396709,0.011433356],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024553508,0.0001352097,0.07357809,0.0009557362,0.0003585508,0.0015402162,0.27862942,0.004831056,0.0029098026,0.10097931,0.5350339,0.00080312457],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9963786,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99886525,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15992083,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15992083,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15517358,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97437274},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511486","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1414","title":"The Right to Vote and Freedom of Expression in Political Process Cases Under the Charter","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Canada Research Chairs","keywords":"Constitutionality; Redistricting; Political science; Charter; Supreme court; Voting; Law; Politics; Campaign finance; Section (typography); Election law; Public administration; Business","score_opus":0.038654659610531356,"score_gpt":0.3395399228910601,"score_spread":0.3008852632805288,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511486","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":[0.067850426,0.003115893,0.00877813,0.026457796,0.0006037993,0.0003621628,0.0005572099,0.00007355553,0.89220107],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92324036,0.0012209344,0.0033508893,0.012061889,0.00045498417,0.00035481137,0.00021414002,0.00004949644,0.05905247],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9759975,0.005036234,0.0009948396,0.001761837,0.008129046,0.008080537],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98771995,0.007913692,0.00069690787,0.0009731706,0.0018735442,0.00082265364],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017685827,0.00043321584,0.0008565072,0.002280875,0.015589026,0.014418285,0.0022650182,0.008998227,0.0050262026],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026523124,0.0007030174,0.00085099495,0.003072659,0.025303895,0.0041787024,0.0043561608,0.0105675515,0.00064509443],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011281168,0.000011441862,0.00046550867,0.00001468482,0.0000029636424,0.00012780819,0.0015038159,0.00012800824,0.000104456165,0.9906024,0.004447975,0.002579681],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018778357,0.0001303185,0.016660854,0.00068142405,0.00011037616,0.0004094518,0.007330828,0.0020200415,0.0021273524,0.5757448,0.3943152,0.0002815095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69002724,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8320416,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30997276,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023771761,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.056948595,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6235965},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511488","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1412","title":"Saving the Planet Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Save the Federation: Greenhouse Gases Are Not a Matter of National Concern","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitutionality; Greenhouse gas; Governor; Parliament; Supreme court; Law; Ultra vires; Appeal; Political science; Public administration; Government (linguistics); Engineering; Politics","score_opus":0.0544650652449444,"score_gpt":0.30635185532107106,"score_spread":0.2518867900761267,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511488","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":[0.04167568,0.017894743,0.0010473144,0.36519867,0.002191083,0.000058786416,0.00038672108,0.000079089936,0.5714679],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6569975,0.008381431,0.0013169982,0.16600594,0.000636509,0.00005473527,0.00021558639,0.00006259471,0.1663287],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99448025,0.00043909307,0.00010030256,0.0006222101,0.0021091285,0.002248982],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969426,0.00085427414,0.00014769305,0.00015669603,0.0012476341,0.00065107585],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003196721,0.000235041,0.0005487619,0.00079547934,0.022979245,0.0117182145,0.0013394144,0.008742425,0.00479339],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007164247,0.00038647512,0.00039315858,0.0014986728,0.013729873,0.0022241825,0.0015858066,0.009908013,0.0006159269],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000025481891,0.000016217802,0.002410907,0.000091760136,0.000017274531,0.00052184245,0.0051552854,0.00018796453,0.00041871358,0.7985622,0.17842,0.014172363],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029403904,0.000023964003,0.010616337,0.0003710844,0.00006466333,0.00019217945,0.007984559,0.00027533475,0.0006588336,0.043047123,0.93666166,0.0000748203],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9627721,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9852284,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.061115257,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.061115257,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11929257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44342428},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511498","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1410","title":"Introduction – 2019 Constitutional Cases at the Supreme Court: Up Close and in Person","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Government (linguistics); State (computer science); Law; Constitutional right; Political science; Constitutional law; Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Law and economics; Sociology; Medicine","score_opus":0.08557566092977888,"score_gpt":0.41314344589634944,"score_spread":0.3275677849665706,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511498","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"editorial","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"editorial","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0066587282,0.014356779,0.0026116087,0.36133268,0.017076015,0.00011867574,0.000465246,0.00016168477,0.59721863],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2422514,0.009371866,0.0036527393,0.387911,0.017907524,0.000276953,0.0007242504,0.00028995986,0.3376143],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98976237,0.0025945066,0.00058890524,0.0010898807,0.003636305,0.0023281018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9900079,0.005678834,0.00032975498,0.0005965689,0.0020176356,0.0013693837],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00954142,0.0002979383,0.0003209558,0.0018687468,0.012655341,0.019713376,0.0020213395,0.016092028,0.021103274],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023249755,0.0006660847,0.00078615197,0.0014468657,0.011247408,0.010437903,0.004795902,0.018387247,0.0059904153],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000016942757,0.000038294063,0.00056480354,0.00006518601,0.000003436311,0.0003928418,0.0029939087,0.00007481486,0.00030327076,0.6472391,0.33339787,0.014909578],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008049669,0.000015110153,0.0013577252,0.0004572564,0.0000042187326,0.00020058146,0.003001931,0.000085039894,0.00024591203,0.055339362,0.9392544,0.000030401017],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.042232793,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08300744,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9577672,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014535613,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013797169,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10546374},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511500","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1421","title":"The Impact of Vavilov: Reasonableness and Vulnerability","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Citizenship; Supreme court; Law; Trilogy; Judicial review; Political science; Immigration; Standard of review; Vulnerability (computing); Administrative law; History","score_opus":0.05779535309543207,"score_gpt":0.39809654890772705,"score_spread":0.340301195812295,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511500","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":[0.16782434,0.06343264,0.012168131,0.4623512,0.0016422117,0.00016728288,0.00063008326,0.000031230164,0.29175287],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96719867,0.0064130034,0.000752968,0.022025364,0.00033268813,0.000045774053,0.00005230448,0.000014928655,0.0031643717],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97421426,0.011335158,0.00095701753,0.002542992,0.007711638,0.0032389227],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94202584,0.045167882,0.0043367264,0.0014890442,0.005383341,0.0015971493],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020021934,0.00030841216,0.0006988895,0.00453905,0.008090734,0.009555134,0.0020932814,0.004908162,0.001982934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07222116,0.00032673968,0.0008612034,0.0037387826,0.029722173,0.00796733,0.0060302457,0.00812713,0.00011627948],"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":[0.000028391922,0.000009122153,0.0072809868,0.000115272436,0.000051127543,0.0003067094,0.0059171934,0.00028828898,0.00005002545,0.96909493,0.007918668,0.008939349],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002924603,0.000060961225,0.022788757,0.0015723989,0.00029995668,0.0005144808,0.014817408,0.0009392595,0.00069452234,0.84000564,0.1181739,0.00010341964],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.32764295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.43210152,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.32764295,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024283398,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030445594,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.65147173},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511509","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1418","title":"The Supreme Court on Federalism, Bankruptcy and Maritime Law","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Supreme court; Law; Bankruptcy; Political science; Legislation; Conflict of laws; Context (archaeology); Court of equity; Supreme Court Decisions; Federalism; Original jurisdiction; Politics","score_opus":0.0409648956452713,"score_gpt":0.26988920830046703,"score_spread":0.22892431265519572,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511509","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":[0.07048745,0.06383013,0.002612139,0.25631997,0.0024271216,0.00015592099,0.0017856136,0.000106669824,0.602275],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80724466,0.021589046,0.0015492592,0.07854151,0.0022475796,0.00013650751,0.00058870297,0.00008401951,0.08801871],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9905523,0.0014236817,0.000272542,0.00066802965,0.0039329235,0.0031505316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9865196,0.0076586204,0.00046348377,0.00043979124,0.003948334,0.0009700992],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01010243,0.00038301878,0.0010685464,0.0033517214,0.018019212,0.016395718,0.0028713823,0.012344068,0.0049567507],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018676195,0.0007092421,0.00073089544,0.004942915,0.014541803,0.002995609,0.0020235782,0.010231238,0.0007572562],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000021824186,0.000021033358,0.0010495044,0.00005074135,0.000019844352,0.00023276046,0.0012553971,0.00041564653,0.00017106647,0.91751754,0.07148176,0.007762934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012268353,0.00005692238,0.020495035,0.0018447831,0.00021585972,0.00015357058,0.0055939127,0.0018608208,0.000911698,0.26458728,0.70393753,0.00021987043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92570496,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9561254,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92570496,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06856307,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13035737,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4974622},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511511","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1417","title":"Policing Arbitrariness: Fleming v. Ontario and the Ancillary Powers Doctrine","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Arbitrariness; Law; Jurisprudence; Doctrine; Political science; Power (physics); Philosophy","score_opus":0.03635044261269767,"score_gpt":0.3190331780598511,"score_spread":0.28268273544715344,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511511","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":[0.07918143,0.019789865,0.0042571826,0.113313995,0.0004885921,0.00015814257,0.00033876655,0.000034039665,0.78243804],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91425854,0.0064682723,0.0020182473,0.01928903,0.00032842642,0.00007740548,0.00010586686,0.00002112855,0.057433274],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9941742,0.00064909144,0.0001530173,0.00068107934,0.0029552788,0.0013873945],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99579334,0.0018864791,0.0005098371,0.0002581989,0.001061878,0.00049031206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00514204,0.00031330268,0.00033699616,0.001629249,0.011084196,0.005059576,0.0018716343,0.0064746547,0.0036802462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014415027,0.00046303062,0.00043028974,0.001767224,0.012730508,0.0027710488,0.002363259,0.0041291807,0.00025746482],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000052804917,0.000014347111,0.004404743,0.00007657629,0.000014080968,0.0011452393,0.007498307,0.0002768815,0.0002825146,0.9403797,0.024293229,0.021561533],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001947506,0.00006700704,0.035041198,0.00090750563,0.00010447966,0.0006937077,0.005626223,0.0014404978,0.00073210726,0.25652048,0.69847155,0.00020050578],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94926035,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9736189,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.050739646,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.047413338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07217553,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3440094},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511513","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1420","title":"Seven Out of Nine Legal Experts Agree: Expertise No Longer Matters (in the Same Way) After Vavilov!","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Confusion; Deference; Certainty; Political science; Focus (optics); Sociology; Law and economics; Epistemology; Philosophy; Psychology","score_opus":0.05062344579733579,"score_gpt":0.3702091998426819,"score_spread":0.3195857540453461,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511513","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":[0.005183063,0.0032468825,0.0042756987,0.96155185,0.009327966,0.000031640342,0.0001309155,0.00015436375,0.016097594],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.112066634,0.002606951,0.0047979285,0.834051,0.0028454033,0.000076069635,0.00020574384,0.00015190072,0.04319831],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9909213,0.001815222,0.0007719893,0.0021662354,0.0031355012,0.001189841],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9703427,0.010957967,0.0013795143,0.0015574462,0.011570421,0.004191912],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012461602,0.0005242717,0.0007523065,0.0012168376,0.008237278,0.0064605386,0.0017788471,0.012846114,0.011355872],"category_scores_gemma":[0.055785555,0.00040942983,0.00085288804,0.00082181767,0.0060753045,0.0070053376,0.0045674187,0.021301717,0.0041479785],"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":[0.000082162675,0.000041315798,0.0044373623,0.00019463424,0.000060137983,0.0004093964,0.0064729694,0.0001215166,0.00090490846,0.078514405,0.8694843,0.03927693],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024941803,0.000047034067,0.0042624236,0.00052937353,0.00006222272,0.00077725056,0.018743405,0.00048502174,0.0017076657,0.051203914,0.92197216,0.00018454647],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012814625,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02667718,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012846114,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038904813,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007952299,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06590402},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511539","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1419","title":"Of Dominant Tides: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and the Growing Acceptance of Provincial Jurisdiction in Maritime Matters","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Statutory law; Law; Jurisdiction; Context (archaeology); Political science; Federalism; Supreme court; Liability; Common law; Geography","score_opus":0.013301218422681857,"score_gpt":0.22374858142675497,"score_spread":0.2104473630040731,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511539","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":[0.1354701,0.00793204,0.0017857314,0.34655517,0.001544956,0.00010475116,0.0012282566,0.00009409097,0.50528485],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7640976,0.002479753,0.0006392263,0.09118892,0.00019454739,0.00003894244,0.00033485924,0.000047887046,0.14097826],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963612,0.0002789664,0.00007301144,0.0003826942,0.0015473344,0.0013568153],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99602735,0.0009074364,0.00021445051,0.000108749555,0.0020049477,0.0007370306],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023131347,0.00027895762,0.00021576296,0.0009849891,0.018704172,0.0077370973,0.0017794941,0.0077529396,0.007925754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005936405,0.0003619436,0.0004613318,0.001697517,0.0065140384,0.0020110884,0.002064568,0.007082515,0.0005309527],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009175982,0.00004755423,0.016774237,0.00012692052,0.0000372748,0.0015431907,0.01816787,0.0003278716,0.0010054297,0.58975035,0.34792963,0.024197964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006984049,0.00004788841,0.047650933,0.00031270395,0.0000919081,0.000441007,0.026819043,0.0010285266,0.0015674081,0.026337469,0.8954623,0.00017096999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9776188,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9919993,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.051343724,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.051343724,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0806899,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37252653},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511540","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1415","title":"Sidestepping the Charter, Again: Muting the Right to Habeas Corpus in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Habeas corpus; Charter; Law; Supreme court; Principle of legality; Political science; Government (linguistics); State (computer science); Immigration; Preparedness; State of emergency; Refugee; Politics","score_opus":0.03941747296194391,"score_gpt":0.302507838068831,"score_spread":0.2630903651068871,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511540","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":[0.028459193,0.014504865,0.002446221,0.799048,0.0058269007,0.000099768076,0.0005989608,0.00007202305,0.14894411],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42616645,0.010058528,0.0031256846,0.4937039,0.0022303148,0.000114036906,0.00031535642,0.0001555519,0.06413018],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9880084,0.0023619144,0.0003765175,0.0013680797,0.004970171,0.0029148816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98593,0.0066438597,0.00044210482,0.00047633803,0.005006676,0.0015010476],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015019904,0.00045348844,0.00080038107,0.0024686814,0.025277546,0.015054213,0.003940725,0.015046099,0.0038911172],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032270122,0.00069909426,0.00064032676,0.0023929998,0.030398406,0.006591364,0.0043718116,0.025921738,0.0005127735],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000040885392,0.000017078322,0.0015516422,0.00010382871,0.000026712327,0.00055218715,0.010187153,0.00022511966,0.00035693726,0.67598414,0.2961806,0.014773603],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010655948,0.00004208651,0.008109445,0.0013634736,0.0001230412,0.00024283849,0.024616744,0.00066747,0.0014909584,0.13043731,0.83252907,0.00027102866],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9661084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98159397,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0525311,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0525311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14571303,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3811416},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385511548","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1413","title":"The Frank Dissent’s Novel Theory of the Charter: The Rhetoric and the Reality","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Dissenting opinion; Dissent; Supreme court; Law; Legislation; Political science; Rhetoric; Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.04514344550061427,"score_gpt":0.31047285911309314,"score_spread":0.26532941361247886,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385511548","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":[0.009702876,0.0127170095,0.033485476,0.51416224,0.005872443,0.00008765657,0.00026262575,0.00010335701,0.42360646],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.67383194,0.004766359,0.015383201,0.1831772,0.005562035,0.0002862244,0.00009208933,0.0001810308,0.1167199],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9916216,0.0037559627,0.00022928318,0.001278478,0.0024287847,0.0006858258],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99452645,0.0038438786,0.00022761305,0.00026681105,0.0009148978,0.00022029354],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00917536,0.000712354,0.00060963864,0.002478895,0.010459428,0.00982664,0.002072262,0.0109199425,0.0029359204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014099508,0.00036306534,0.0007340134,0.0014547616,0.07602559,0.009666081,0.0028514278,0.0138036655,0.0006744238],"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":[0.0000033812473,0.0000017402165,0.000015194436,0.0000074062077,9.081023e-7,0.00001861228,0.0008176457,0.00003997085,0.000016347502,0.989494,0.008711379,0.0008733206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002565292,0.000009942453,0.00010006,0.000110880814,0.0000066882185,0.000059813094,0.0009788703,0.00036957453,0.00019374785,0.80407155,0.19404715,0.000026121259],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09937981,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09611902,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09937981,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01806078,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015475811,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19760269},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512088","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1388","title":"Ewert v. Canada: Shining Light on Corrections and Indigenous People","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Indigenous; Charter; Supreme court; Alienation; Economic Justice; Law; Political science; Criminal justice; Service (business); Criminology; Sociology; Business","score_opus":0.04312486217968218,"score_gpt":0.30159071501481893,"score_spread":0.25846585283513673,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512088","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":[0.03247812,0.38586438,0.00085475383,0.40670645,0.0032804024,0.00009349818,0.0009196417,0.00006085946,0.16974185],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45815018,0.20479357,0.0018996551,0.28917715,0.001620096,0.0000894949,0.00030468858,0.000078370715,0.043886766],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98818433,0.0018062437,0.00033694794,0.00089782506,0.0064098183,0.0023649363],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9818449,0.008805855,0.00075154577,0.00038790551,0.006734857,0.0014748607],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008742441,0.0004538854,0.0006971758,0.0048009343,0.013473561,0.008813838,0.0026198481,0.007829445,0.0029721176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019671526,0.00039162693,0.00053648907,0.0070230067,0.017768186,0.004023353,0.0026950443,0.008062171,0.00021742251],"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":[0.00008514994,0.00003374373,0.0051852027,0.0015715596,0.00011917745,0.0013511511,0.014952073,0.0004946285,0.0005735053,0.55141616,0.33576506,0.088452555],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000064675456,0.000035145527,0.019740736,0.0044901795,0.00022511263,0.0003264791,0.015915813,0.0002683552,0.0007173357,0.038491778,0.9195481,0.00017609303],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9912538,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99633443,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07912491,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07912491,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23101331,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5740941},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512090","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1391","title":"From Ford v. Québec to the Act Respecting the Laicity of the State : A Distinctive Quebec Theory and Practice of the Notwithstanding Clause","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Sherbrooke","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Legislature; State (computer science)","score_opus":0.05270121961710043,"score_gpt":0.3456913995351534,"score_spread":0.29299017991805293,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512090","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":[0.05600342,0.067735195,0.0015931341,0.2318158,0.0027622993,0.00013016777,0.0015771578,0.00006430671,0.6383185],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6993824,0.016247902,0.0013749745,0.1118013,0.00049040513,0.00009001252,0.00038692923,0.00006365629,0.17016241],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9970192,0.0005415275,0.00007310768,0.00042003515,0.0011385093,0.0008076551],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9959352,0.0014507162,0.00016671966,0.00016297537,0.0017515406,0.000532885],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025174648,0.0002830372,0.00028344739,0.0016146762,0.015454381,0.006101572,0.0013369088,0.0046735527,0.0065552564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006926501,0.00032129898,0.0003782122,0.002303929,0.00841015,0.0019829038,0.0011098329,0.005411944,0.00039184638],"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":[0.000051598625,0.000028419287,0.0052359626,0.00020779535,0.00002586932,0.00064502563,0.010866128,0.00041208926,0.0003025568,0.6316115,0.32161397,0.028999073],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035031,0.000019933677,0.013714284,0.00044430187,0.000046649708,0.00015073898,0.004692296,0.00023806297,0.00032445273,0.013143414,0.96712005,0.00007069058],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9953354,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99784756,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09510711,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09510711,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13732545,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6900536},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512091","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1380","title":"The Geography of the Crown: Reflections on Mikisew Cree and Williams Lake","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Mining and Resource Management","field":"Engineering","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Honour; Fiduciary; Duty; Sovereignty; Law; Politics; Colonialism; Crown (dentistry); Sociology; Political science","score_opus":0.027584644321546385,"score_gpt":0.249729583969794,"score_spread":0.2221449396482476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512091","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":[0.08925682,0.031198665,0.0028809002,0.53346246,0.001789795,0.00007074335,0.00009698386,0.000040588322,0.34120312],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8077601,0.012643852,0.0012487693,0.09293418,0.00089718844,0.00008635482,0.00003032788,0.00010225709,0.084297046],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99523216,0.0014298883,0.00009651759,0.00069782726,0.0013084715,0.0012350116],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951121,0.0032850958,0.00019339118,0.000121320874,0.0007554441,0.0005326433],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005225494,0.0004425033,0.0005273882,0.0016860451,0.033724476,0.018068425,0.0036865075,0.013086843,0.005959594],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0098188855,0.0006478519,0.00041057856,0.0023396036,0.05920656,0.011085059,0.008288654,0.015461005,0.0004712811],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009894113,0.000012478759,0.0006889002,0.000046600984,0.0000054077395,0.0009797373,0.072808295,0.00016729612,0.00021435367,0.8839326,0.035453953,0.0056804707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013829355,0.000015582773,0.0026388431,0.0005271273,0.000015524094,0.00041542118,0.13915543,0.0002907892,0.0005648801,0.097298525,0.75895333,0.000110714485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7976681,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86638075,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2023319,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03841888,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03876044,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512092","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1390","title":"Vice, Universe, and Everything","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Mantra; Context (archaeology); Vice president; Statutory law; Sociology; Political science; Law and economics; History; Philosophy; Management; Economics","score_opus":0.035456778749210174,"score_gpt":0.29457408848870914,"score_spread":0.259117309739499,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512092","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":[0.013385069,0.019063627,0.0011622484,0.23332466,0.003612692,0.00006911892,0.0007201052,0.00014551055,0.72851694],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.26964763,0.006587306,0.0012084418,0.22557794,0.0009263837,0.00006197559,0.00034018737,0.00009680427,0.49555334],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99636227,0.00029951797,0.00007691818,0.0004227153,0.0016064681,0.0012320966],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983966,0.00036816238,0.00006858718,0.000061198894,0.0005950028,0.0005105166],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014735023,0.00034317942,0.00023072089,0.00084095873,0.012326297,0.009005794,0.0014388566,0.0070683924,0.009326287],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0046376023,0.0003328739,0.00034855673,0.00083024794,0.0071402905,0.0022585618,0.0016762504,0.006741713,0.0012362824],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001763758,0.0000100330235,0.0010311592,0.00005319672,0.000008012905,0.00021997862,0.001365276,0.00005298604,0.00028113407,0.60315156,0.3801251,0.013683808],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011202145,0.000008667085,0.0023309668,0.000106210646,0.000015961077,0.00009804984,0.001929034,0.00006799108,0.00032400034,0.0106801605,0.98440003,0.000027874654],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9134883,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9599229,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9134883,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019564051,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0572806,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17404228},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512093","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1376","title":"Comeau and Constitutional Interpretation","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"University of Cambridge","keywords":"Originalism; Supreme court; Constitution; Original meaning; Law; Constitutionalism; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional interpretation; Political science; Meaning (existential); Jurisprudence; Constitutional law; Doctrine; Original intent; Federalism; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology; Politics; Democracy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.05283352769002525,"score_gpt":0.32325391950510945,"score_spread":0.2704203918150842,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512093","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":[0.0062842756,0.019167654,0.004683078,0.051142912,0.00072408386,0.000052078307,0.00015661404,0.00006113065,0.9177281],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8415651,0.00879635,0.0046625263,0.036706403,0.0018603846,0.00025950815,0.0001870128,0.00010213777,0.1058606],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99361366,0.0020729874,0.00016152905,0.0012724719,0.0017478559,0.0011315063],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99740785,0.0014112563,0.00013384926,0.00028520488,0.000600851,0.00016094909],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0047646873,0.00045118158,0.0006598885,0.0033535713,0.012535165,0.009251735,0.0017759933,0.006650141,0.00810244],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008331806,0.00027341442,0.00075302477,0.001865774,0.036398284,0.0042392937,0.0027919859,0.006397286,0.0007477194],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000011853055,7.765739e-7,0.000015649024,0.0000053360136,7.7016756e-7,0.000013999242,0.00030821108,0.000015357646,0.0000064126643,0.9962825,0.0026750823,0.0006746969],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016944257,0.000008870542,0.00034361193,0.00015039818,0.000009290852,0.00006272183,0.0005216131,0.00020506182,0.00011668224,0.7135018,0.28504735,0.000015753065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2420061,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.22909804,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.75799394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03370436,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014198652,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4811949},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512096","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1379","title":"Consultation, Cooperation and Consent in the Commons’ Court: “Manner and Form” after Mikisew Cree II","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Law; Parliament; Constitution; Legislature; Constitutional court; Political science; Duty; Supreme court; Statute; Politics","score_opus":0.05714488711552555,"score_gpt":0.31310194961183657,"score_spread":0.255957062496311,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512096","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":[0.09376345,0.009116789,0.023744153,0.19698258,0.0018343868,0.0003389473,0.00015285653,0.000102425896,0.67396444],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8950559,0.0009295022,0.0024102898,0.030218348,0.00031972944,0.00017948884,0.000036482696,0.000041193274,0.070808955],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9792555,0.009947983,0.00063629297,0.0024226482,0.003721644,0.0040159207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9903709,0.0071943174,0.00032431938,0.0007227287,0.0008427593,0.00054504763],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018533194,0.00035102724,0.0005163003,0.00074093055,0.01679696,0.0115011595,0.002149213,0.016429642,0.0034242738],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02695789,0.00060359744,0.00053220877,0.0010706363,0.04450066,0.00864878,0.007140047,0.01565951,0.00048584605],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001208898,0.000004444964,0.00011913738,0.000010508739,0.0000025589675,0.00018696525,0.008815625,0.000070026166,0.00017606355,0.98379,0.0042951247,0.0025174497],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008056461,0.000073083,0.0019098873,0.00031970014,0.00002508295,0.00038385083,0.0154585475,0.0007082827,0.0015667521,0.5802028,0.39910737,0.00016411107],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26874945,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.31836993,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7312505,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01729003,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026732001,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5343703},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512099","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1386","title":"The Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University: Complicated Answers to a Simple Question","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Trinity Western University; University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Accreditation; Law; Columbia university; Political science; Sociology; Media studies","score_opus":0.0417729288231093,"score_gpt":0.2996309573106084,"score_spread":0.2578580284874991,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512099","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":[0.023601787,0.013538239,0.0010390725,0.7839982,0.0022469657,0.000066326844,0.00035860002,0.000053740674,0.17509708],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5071072,0.013386705,0.0023680886,0.35312736,0.0016521364,0.00010955415,0.0003636503,0.00010536141,0.121779904],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99396473,0.0013173663,0.00036231373,0.0005695385,0.0018173604,0.0019686741],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98844016,0.006393932,0.00036937871,0.00035359926,0.0031250948,0.0013178106],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00640194,0.00039513235,0.00057161285,0.001814208,0.016830618,0.01100406,0.002142565,0.015391313,0.0083291195],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025651747,0.000689814,0.00037109823,0.0031357643,0.016441721,0.006808831,0.0029534257,0.014985454,0.00096621923],"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":[0.000024902016,0.000015936466,0.0023451324,0.00014103514,0.000018116756,0.000898003,0.010897388,0.00021350218,0.00021302678,0.5169004,0.45057347,0.017759057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005418831,0.000018336417,0.008359185,0.0011968716,0.00005938122,0.00054360856,0.032582644,0.00066630996,0.00041538134,0.2138633,0.7420651,0.0001756708],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8708485,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93802875,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12915152,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.041316275,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09129047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2997719},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512102","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1378","title":"R. v. Comeau: A Crack In the Wall?","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Possession (linguistics); Corporation; Law; Economic history; History; Business; Political science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.1230823411716574,"score_gpt":0.37116021248468095,"score_spread":0.24807787131302356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512102","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":[0.01745992,0.095026694,0.00075303623,0.57167345,0.0039054807,0.00007201585,0.0004962104,0.00009453459,0.3105187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23665458,0.03843103,0.00087728776,0.6033498,0.001804988,0.00009473882,0.00023478288,0.00007264327,0.11848011],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9959561,0.000536912,0.00012034426,0.00065714103,0.0015753232,0.0011541866],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9949492,0.0019381888,0.0002490628,0.00014230542,0.0019371235,0.00078411953],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037126353,0.00044443566,0.00066754123,0.0017571853,0.013468682,0.0065704375,0.002468543,0.014119068,0.009497791],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012369656,0.00046356834,0.0006612697,0.0016692812,0.00794184,0.003940074,0.0016627089,0.0108725745,0.0015191241],"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":[0.000060522663,0.000022290176,0.0030455617,0.00027668194,0.000050224407,0.0023956783,0.0037543804,0.0000666157,0.00033324468,0.28201717,0.6663103,0.04166732],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040965697,0.00004230992,0.0059694275,0.0011979154,0.00006684326,0.0008201739,0.004094263,0.00007860153,0.0004343029,0.015753947,0.97143483,0.00006641182],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8378857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9339032,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16211432,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023965392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040590234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32613808},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512103","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1384","title":"Whose Right is it Anyway? Adjudicating Charter Rights in the Context of Multiple Rights Holders","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Context (archaeology); Fundamental rights; Law; Political science; Reservation of rights; Censorship; Freedom of expression; Bill of rights; State (computer science); Law and economics; Human rights; Right to property; Sociology; Computer science; History","score_opus":0.06894310356870742,"score_gpt":0.3283241320384032,"score_spread":0.2593810284696958,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512103","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":[0.060357314,0.0073325536,0.042237993,0.31461775,0.0032035387,0.00030000287,0.0001549976,0.00010603549,0.57168984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89163756,0.0029641974,0.015960906,0.041856784,0.001800598,0.00034356772,0.00007300571,0.00012404165,0.0452394],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.921532,0.040372398,0.0030789583,0.008277134,0.013305204,0.013434313],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93247503,0.043224536,0.003893942,0.008026853,0.0088751055,0.003504496],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09352767,0.00044431153,0.0014471848,0.0018098913,0.021373214,0.027122362,0.005114355,0.018864866,0.0061747036],"category_scores_gemma":[0.103437856,0.0007191114,0.0010560076,0.0021440254,0.067436434,0.027001215,0.012239332,0.022371564,0.0008818918],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000073027536,0.000007966768,0.00022152686,0.000013664969,0.000003977779,0.000090796086,0.0054142987,0.000050708804,0.00005616669,0.98732376,0.0037007974,0.003109028],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053782594,0.000033829867,0.00094566785,0.0005189426,0.00003862004,0.00020172891,0.017404474,0.00075574033,0.00048133713,0.76633054,0.21312761,0.000107795066],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10506073,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.113976024,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8949393,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018075569,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.044880554,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49462748},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385512108","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1383","title":"A Comment on R. v. Reeves: Investigative Issues with Shared Electronic Devices and Data","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Adaptation (eye); Internet privacy; Sociology; Political science; Computer science; Law; Psychology","score_opus":0.10151853592939351,"score_gpt":0.3568311269141614,"score_spread":0.2553125909847679,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385512108","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0021293203,0.002150766,0.00064218155,0.9788296,0.0035916849,0.000064740874,0.00025414096,0.000105113766,0.012232387],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.006361605,0.0005628268,0.00045917992,0.9852085,0.0014196616,0.000064278,0.000031645,0.00004702118,0.0058452636],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97082865,0.0059041064,0.0022748683,0.005488763,0.010853241,0.004650438],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9235841,0.054750387,0.0024162848,0.0019574782,0.013911053,0.0033807259],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027553063,0.001446281,0.0029763523,0.0021172643,0.019367406,0.013445057,0.014737764,0.13751857,0.0065000616],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08045815,0.0031447338,0.005320837,0.0032646721,0.015029162,0.010073231,0.005921628,0.08491805,0.0046242564],"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":[0.00009258068,0.000043649354,0.0009887505,0.00014002215,0.00006694812,0.00093750696,0.003333375,0.00016965932,0.00044475505,0.071558505,0.9166797,0.0055445735],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002702098,0.0001391952,0.0038173401,0.0012784749,0.00033313662,0.0009128022,0.0059646764,0.0010217022,0.0018135157,0.043196704,0.94075936,0.00049291365],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.41792285,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5849262,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.41792285,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016154358,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04221733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83098054},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518157","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1001","title":"Equality: The Most Difficult Right","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Social Policy and Reform Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.06527068037599286,"score_gpt":0.3726214964129904,"score_spread":0.30735081603699754,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518157","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":[0.009009924,0.00861035,0.010316767,0.46580324,0.004614924,0.00004113776,0.00015275263,0.00006579992,0.50138503],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6692884,0.00524927,0.0060841455,0.19703089,0.006333347,0.0001658972,0.00016068947,0.00028744867,0.11539991],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9793093,0.008369596,0.0005390517,0.0038076246,0.004413545,0.0035608779],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9901244,0.0049123126,0.00032591115,0.0015087776,0.0017922005,0.0013364013],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016058188,0.00053744717,0.0011917265,0.000984966,0.016726192,0.012519729,0.0025053308,0.010897839,0.018259065],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026032725,0.00040631794,0.0007131745,0.00077153766,0.057801522,0.019736653,0.011118469,0.017165089,0.0034917053],"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":[0.0000059642357,0.0000061853148,0.00008800075,0.000011574009,0.0000026099435,0.000044741835,0.001190816,0.000025178568,0.000031670726,0.9789336,0.014511572,0.0051481137],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001537179,0.000009746614,0.0001868019,0.00018543501,0.00000531286,0.00010249653,0.0038477262,0.00010131489,0.0001208958,0.7725919,0.22281508,0.00001787146],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.029760674,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029313818,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.029760674,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009796237,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013735091,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08492488},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518158","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1148","title":"The First Years of the South African Constitutional Court","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Constitutional court; Constitution; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Dignity; Democracy; High Court; Charter; Human rights; Sociology","score_opus":0.0383977175940013,"score_gpt":0.2967878873949738,"score_spread":0.2583901698009725,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518158","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":[0.05813331,0.11143623,0.008636037,0.17281123,0.0037068927,0.00022283668,0.00017278672,0.000050131588,0.6448305],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87801015,0.0305096,0.0025686424,0.014747351,0.0010478516,0.00021126136,0.000070247566,0.000054573575,0.07278039],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9892061,0.005039401,0.0005716772,0.00076266384,0.0028992572,0.0015209134],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9882781,0.008289096,0.00074190187,0.00052990025,0.0015964119,0.00056460756],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012621615,0.00041364424,0.00046990276,0.0028876227,0.009637315,0.011642471,0.000792108,0.0046728407,0.0042107427],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027054634,0.0008504462,0.00038766215,0.0023756733,0.016312629,0.008705128,0.004422038,0.013113229,0.0004914777],"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":[0.000007875788,0.0000060543466,0.00011954186,0.00004201732,0.000002518002,0.00012239936,0.0042760605,0.000088393135,0.000091396076,0.9856118,0.0034310126,0.006200893],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019175262,0.00003322361,0.0018222502,0.0008740384,0.000009224288,0.00023092765,0.0040937685,0.00030221877,0.0007832137,0.16958822,0.8221991,0.000044664765],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03877778,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.042584546,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03877778,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024424458,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.022430375,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17721266},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518163","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1103","title":"A Corner Turned: Supreme Court of Canada Decisions of the Year Past","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Policy and Governance","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":"Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; History","score_opus":0.024011499560066436,"score_gpt":0.2736496001270324,"score_spread":0.24963810056696595,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518163","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.033654537,0.06634533,0.0005331081,0.69621813,0.014405226,0.00018218737,0.0043179695,0.000080152844,0.18426333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.34349194,0.034706093,0.0013901001,0.41413692,0.004245323,0.00014253636,0.0014074469,0.00020404233,0.2002757],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9811014,0.001324896,0.00055716163,0.0015819228,0.008482387,0.006952234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97952133,0.00398572,0.00068867754,0.0004348931,0.012112816,0.0032565638],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010230716,0.0007194672,0.0012385083,0.005042741,0.040491503,0.023319677,0.004944437,0.02431517,0.009971851],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031601362,0.0012438324,0.0013545475,0.008621614,0.010603825,0.0048164427,0.0029823738,0.020263968,0.00085177494],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000092186194,0.00003414297,0.0030636576,0.00016636282,0.00007459167,0.0004370538,0.0035376363,0.00024513173,0.00016018315,0.11321496,0.863219,0.015755085],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008019275,0.000025542127,0.026161913,0.0009384492,0.00025932398,0.00012426123,0.010642945,0.00029599378,0.0005165853,0.012935687,0.94773555,0.00028347952],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.994493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99855286,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18194963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.18194963,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3591627,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9488225},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518178","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1090","title":"Some Thoughts on Appellate Advocacy in Constitutional Cases","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law; Constitutional right; Psychology; Law and economics; Sociology; Constitution","score_opus":0.03280284234061416,"score_gpt":0.32745395326906335,"score_spread":0.2946511109284492,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518178","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0028357296,0.024496084,0.0021162925,0.7945553,0.0043440606,0.00003249622,0.000049703358,0.000032501986,0.1715379],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3359931,0.03165791,0.004420146,0.51176405,0.03168696,0.0004695599,0.0001284069,0.0002161664,0.08366371],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9630373,0.023697373,0.0010350968,0.0026971118,0.004669362,0.004863736],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9469632,0.044385657,0.0013893673,0.0014874742,0.0032953036,0.0024790305],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.041223958,0.0007833593,0.0012717751,0.0039532473,0.024380077,0.030800277,0.006192849,0.05227235,0.018289655],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06582778,0.00087514916,0.0020681403,0.00570193,0.052655563,0.039596293,0.0093507115,0.027746856,0.0019681558],"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":[0.000009612439,0.000022978169,0.00022219114,0.000063790285,0.0000062361173,0.00020776883,0.0069776434,0.00009552522,0.000021822203,0.9062184,0.0822987,0.0038554256],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035214212,0.000016943532,0.00047098615,0.0010651569,0.000010147178,0.00019018257,0.0150729595,0.0003500022,0.00007628062,0.4379073,0.5447613,0.000043538188],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0329657,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.040985577,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05227235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025389215,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012460386,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.21801573},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518181","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1014","title":"Governing in a Rights Culture","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Human Rights and Development","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Environmental ethics; Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03707041060404945,"score_gpt":0.3248211760363,"score_spread":0.28775076543225053,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518181","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":[0.013480087,0.0014439662,0.0074783713,0.054332476,0.0008537066,0.000084519204,0.000114074224,0.00007851363,0.92213434],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5980613,0.0020735313,0.006780251,0.03516649,0.00048093463,0.00020097593,0.00014932599,0.00015637057,0.35693076],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99112296,0.0036076228,0.00030491455,0.0018110466,0.0013885843,0.0017648397],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935794,0.0018794204,0.0003441212,0.0016281711,0.0015440256,0.0010248641],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011702508,0.0005899809,0.0004885703,0.0010462118,0.01672036,0.016769411,0.0013888645,0.004767449,0.021806179],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007529646,0.0003561056,0.00044436025,0.001335067,0.051421747,0.010110363,0.008075452,0.0094401585,0.003011898],"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":[0.0000024784008,0.0000058795395,0.00010429279,0.000005501012,0.0000015124419,0.000024030363,0.004245851,0.000041688025,0.00008602987,0.98635536,0.006525064,0.002602441],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000134126785,0.00001517767,0.00053535745,0.00018817365,0.0000071718446,0.00006251425,0.008688976,0.00020152,0.00026536512,0.25891283,0.73107773,0.000031822274],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21033522,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2534265,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21033522,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023477303,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04131557,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4182219},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518186","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1182","title":"Appointment of Thomas A. Cromwell to the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Economic Justice; Government (linguistics); Political science","score_opus":0.042000117219170095,"score_gpt":0.3210072597370037,"score_spread":0.27900714251783365,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518186","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.037273407,0.0557817,0.002352438,0.3687955,0.01484078,0.00035477555,0.0006534594,0.00014452163,0.5198034],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.343328,0.025745222,0.0020344453,0.10674396,0.0016252103,0.00007760694,0.00021248794,0.00008341221,0.5201497],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99675375,0.00034630546,0.00007383652,0.00033724995,0.001394451,0.0010944279],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99722916,0.0007014097,0.000103083294,0.00004403189,0.0014439161,0.00047843027],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017295139,0.0002519709,0.00043792828,0.0017071611,0.01807133,0.004543402,0.0011261061,0.0043186247,0.0074895257],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008646335,0.00040579092,0.00036610116,0.0014351693,0.0028283412,0.0010710857,0.0012225424,0.0069304225,0.0007001841],"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":[0.000040678933,0.000042761905,0.0038930632,0.0001385618,0.000022316293,0.0015037521,0.0036584989,0.00034759764,0.000634328,0.27796796,0.67572993,0.036020525],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017404109,0.000030508278,0.008840792,0.00033628324,0.00003321438,0.00026853263,0.0039937864,0.00035055174,0.00075575284,0.008126495,0.97715557,0.00009107447],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9593693,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9875049,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0406307,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039904557,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08385624,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2895292},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518192","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1005","title":"The New Truth: Victims Never Lie","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Torture, Ethics, and Law","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":"Philosophy; Psychology","score_opus":0.056906497968595315,"score_gpt":0.34801168656406256,"score_spread":0.29110518859546725,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518192","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":[0.010774617,0.010250759,0.0042829127,0.65177774,0.009351169,0.000035074023,0.00012046864,0.00006511831,0.31334206],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.51639986,0.0077387313,0.0012716184,0.32501295,0.0060627814,0.00008256153,0.00013352965,0.00016490504,0.14313307],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99133533,0.0030754975,0.0002744632,0.0011464588,0.0023546724,0.0018136923],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99397296,0.00276796,0.00047686993,0.0007947767,0.0013318207,0.0006555514],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0075546377,0.00048917474,0.00090113113,0.001078415,0.015803529,0.012568315,0.0021229337,0.016974254,0.011619137],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025525566,0.0005173511,0.0005276491,0.00070870563,0.044874836,0.015513759,0.0074625215,0.021970067,0.0027152204],"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":[0.000013617405,0.0000075636885,0.00031861998,0.000043370514,0.000010093197,0.00037683957,0.01236681,0.000034789977,0.000054949258,0.88542795,0.09496139,0.006384039],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001601601,0.000017647913,0.00026711635,0.0004185578,0.000022254317,0.0006621466,0.028067121,0.00009799232,0.00019606626,0.29642132,0.67378384,0.000029975856],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03053468,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.048012834,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03053468,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007811002,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011784344,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.060713887},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518197","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1073","title":"Equality Rights and Social Benefit Programs","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statute; Supreme court; Law; Statutory law; Petitioner; Discretion; Political science; Premise; Context (archaeology)","score_opus":0.07514013986686569,"score_gpt":0.3631276397393052,"score_spread":0.2879874998724395,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518197","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":[0.033686288,0.0020027726,0.008024115,0.04642813,0.00016716334,0.000077554076,0.00013010675,0.00003154342,0.9094523],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9257307,0.0007622484,0.0025947036,0.014423354,0.00025195035,0.00021937162,0.000068919944,0.000020665673,0.05592803],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98336893,0.0063408706,0.0003628729,0.0017657604,0.004006669,0.004154976],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99574417,0.0020180505,0.00034967688,0.00064469315,0.0007434535,0.00049989333],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009553843,0.00033847665,0.0005142951,0.0010631451,0.008136264,0.0067676166,0.0013825445,0.0063624973,0.00987467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011726925,0.00031903962,0.00044447233,0.0010392447,0.031085642,0.0042048986,0.0069793174,0.005340074,0.0005774791],"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":[0.0000023518292,0.0000040329887,0.000105060215,0.0000046200053,0.0000013287644,0.000011598055,0.00029899884,0.000048047896,0.000015536512,0.9970542,0.00078802375,0.0016661071],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000044942815,0.000039541646,0.0025629462,0.00017435248,0.000017673041,0.000066952336,0.0010521682,0.00050261547,0.00029802305,0.8709063,0.12431157,0.000022908946],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10171834,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.116312355,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10171834,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01197476,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017295888,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20225257},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518201","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1053","title":"In Harm’s Way: The Limits to Legislating Criminal Law","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Harm principle; Law; Constitutionality; Charter; Harm; Supreme court; Legislature; Criminal law; Political science; Discretion; Sociology","score_opus":0.10647320265844608,"score_gpt":0.38585393060511947,"score_spread":0.2793807279466734,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518201","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":[0.052070443,0.015589187,0.098969266,0.27950355,0.0018764433,0.0002053924,0.0001929621,0.00018283699,0.5514099],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9026671,0.003441148,0.022159075,0.052878115,0.0016152511,0.0005819838,0.000087222055,0.00010938876,0.0164606],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.93957096,0.029938713,0.0030788851,0.0069834227,0.016953405,0.003474586],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9300107,0.0535916,0.0033569804,0.006060083,0.0056011737,0.0013794624],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.051020727,0.00051506166,0.0010954583,0.0023957482,0.009884923,0.018644629,0.003667822,0.015005483,0.0025509477],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08449761,0.0010209759,0.001351344,0.001420897,0.06934607,0.018301876,0.008067335,0.022051403,0.0005879968],"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":[0.000008429967,0.000013911529,0.00022615306,0.000028582059,0.000007170814,0.000027970513,0.0019117576,0.00023523734,0.000100109726,0.9894872,0.0025244493,0.0054290975],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001869943,0.00003311844,0.00053521764,0.00027639116,0.000018080604,0.000054543634,0.0018378265,0.0004432808,0.00039406234,0.9397256,0.056623846,0.000039256945],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0151977455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016638985,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.051020727,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006342662,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013517751,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2698266},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518207","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1341","title":"The Process of Electoral Reform in Canada: Democratic and Constitutional Constraints","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada","keywords":"Referendum; Democratic legitimacy; Electoral reform; Democracy; Legitimacy; Political science; Process (computing); Normative; Law and economics; Constitutional amendment; Public administration; Law; Constitution; Economics; Politics; Computer science","score_opus":0.023882534930232638,"score_gpt":0.29163259855129775,"score_spread":0.2677500636210651,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518207","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":[0.27208692,0.010107947,0.0068622325,0.09765489,0.00040754722,0.00042618669,0.0008453789,0.00013781854,0.6114711],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631525,0.002416375,0.0018378132,0.0026413717,0.00006992536,0.00005684984,0.000120385885,0.000026843823,0.029677879],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9821998,0.0022354748,0.00041529752,0.0010851164,0.0071193813,0.006944894],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99010056,0.002719618,0.0006850952,0.0005307888,0.004341248,0.0016227597],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0070502,0.00021526896,0.0006111457,0.0026605355,0.023124764,0.011031369,0.0019866251,0.002001076,0.0057909572],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027888523,0.00050105486,0.00041552982,0.0043265857,0.009738407,0.0022873145,0.00366213,0.004511741,0.00032630074],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005542213,0.00003378079,0.009219699,0.00014612052,0.000029855199,0.00023138936,0.011505317,0.002290687,0.0003884652,0.9270864,0.013104383,0.03590837],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019891886,0.00007864359,0.11131633,0.00059067016,0.000168105,0.0002054361,0.028349182,0.00704243,0.0022973865,0.13240819,0.7170272,0.00031761738],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9938921,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99728346,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21162239,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.21162239,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3465044,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9144063},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518230","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1251","title":"The View from Down Under: Freedom of the Press in Canada","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism","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":"Charter; Freedom of the press; Scope (computer science); Law; Political science; Cousin; Bill of rights; Statutory law; Freedom of information; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Sociology; Constitution; Politics","score_opus":0.050750643809554304,"score_gpt":0.31121908401569176,"score_spread":0.26046844020613746,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518230","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":[0.06312203,0.09502231,0.0018541416,0.2962742,0.001808641,0.00006934109,0.0010106793,0.00006811655,0.54077065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84084487,0.032204602,0.00097221934,0.049494583,0.0007755601,0.000041586023,0.00030001937,0.00006478796,0.07530193],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99126107,0.0010534673,0.00019529782,0.0006934194,0.0043641757,0.0024325869],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9907594,0.0033498977,0.00036367268,0.00034133438,0.0037925427,0.0013932418],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00411763,0.0002832953,0.00067795656,0.0033019956,0.014244671,0.01596387,0.001657695,0.0042796223,0.0072802496],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011364403,0.00032084718,0.00046036142,0.0050981375,0.012302049,0.004085273,0.0025820865,0.005576484,0.00044336508],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007977874,0.000019239444,0.0027975172,0.00029539526,0.00003997946,0.00028816744,0.005329665,0.000731863,0.00036228017,0.8888683,0.06734925,0.03383848],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000528666,0.00003061838,0.016669465,0.0007034753,0.00010392072,0.00012519199,0.0053571356,0.00052385125,0.0006631371,0.08316701,0.8924802,0.0001230567],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.987224,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98933417,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0942414,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0942414,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1902884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.68377244},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518240","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1042","title":"Counting On the Court: The Preservation of Fundamental Freedoms and Liberties in the Era of the Security Revolution","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Sun Gro Horticulture (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law; Civil liberties; Politics","score_opus":0.03259333115086746,"score_gpt":0.2887017072870774,"score_spread":0.25610837613620996,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518240","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":[0.06004391,0.06846261,0.006382522,0.375154,0.003892534,0.000041298754,0.00013378372,0.000043537304,0.4858458],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88915974,0.023222571,0.0015264901,0.04874864,0.0044878237,0.000053254997,0.00005530482,0.000056519064,0.03268966],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99253666,0.00321071,0.00023165054,0.00074828963,0.002044969,0.0012278318],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902526,0.006514071,0.00052524323,0.00085815665,0.0014551819,0.00039476072],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009946768,0.00029843464,0.00087260286,0.0020312935,0.0069958577,0.013455072,0.0016404055,0.009032986,0.0049189804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019653805,0.00033837566,0.0005666197,0.0022522416,0.024850653,0.012342156,0.0029801133,0.012523873,0.00056701945],"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":[0.000016997046,0.000010978242,0.00014868975,0.000034496,0.0000074286468,0.000060242295,0.00063832855,0.00022873346,0.000092920316,0.9662067,0.020296082,0.012258455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021977374,0.000016668146,0.00093203405,0.00022188491,0.000024607296,0.00005213654,0.0012099476,0.00028167764,0.00032249812,0.867508,0.12938045,0.000028176639],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.017464679,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.027466571,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.017464679,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006427822,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010082612,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05260414},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4385518287","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1049","title":"The Greening Garden: Equality Rights Under the Canadian Constitution","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","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":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Immigration; Constitution; Criticism; Section (typography); Law; Political science; Greening; Sociology","score_opus":0.09124198618698011,"score_gpt":0.3688927088192851,"score_spread":0.277650722632305,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4385518287","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":[0.031404853,0.022014564,0.0037535354,0.08730332,0.0015100061,0.000094833216,0.00057794154,0.00006108545,0.85327977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7140658,0.012314456,0.003930514,0.056919124,0.00053415576,0.00008847065,0.00022766509,0.00006869892,0.21185112],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9915005,0.0006722761,0.00015617452,0.0006523981,0.004439447,0.002579234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99857974,0.000507908,0.00007481982,0.00008967802,0.0005340265,0.00021376518],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033156245,0.00046169804,0.00051212875,0.001715792,0.022835886,0.009650455,0.0021115236,0.008457555,0.006380631],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006254733,0.00044676787,0.00049452967,0.0027665377,0.016705995,0.0028126023,0.002967413,0.0061928113,0.00047033053],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009755691,0.0000052802147,0.00037283308,0.000034587254,0.000004166459,0.00017069865,0.0026689542,0.000106023486,0.00019243007,0.96780056,0.019687746,0.008946864],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003865505,0.0000201481,0.0072028856,0.00034017855,0.000038373957,0.00017811278,0.004531594,0.0003558682,0.0005685505,0.14592089,0.8406981,0.00010658741],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.986803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9946025,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.063608564,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.063608564,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12776518,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4615146},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600231","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1436","title":"Judging Youth Time","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Youth Education and Societal Dynamics","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":"Queen's University","funders":"U.S. Department of Justice","keywords":"Psychology","score_opus":0.060950391842772594,"score_gpt":0.35399477554606756,"score_spread":0.293044383703295,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600231","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":[0.17578399,0.058915485,0.014606213,0.06937925,0.0018344959,0.00006979914,0.00019432562,0.000040287345,0.67917615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9787637,0.0062051755,0.00093187817,0.0041390564,0.0004202225,0.000031737698,0.00003467092,0.000024914958,0.009448616],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954098,0.00230932,0.00020104105,0.00060174434,0.0008123858,0.0006657328],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889103,0.0071170405,0.0013805106,0.00037805145,0.0014094724,0.0008046759],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006281571,0.0001836124,0.00036440155,0.0019005844,0.0032068763,0.005339041,0.00085781567,0.002521664,0.004496721],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01620402,0.0001484875,0.00024819293,0.0012452198,0.020870384,0.0070714117,0.003936082,0.0032182229,0.0003887135],"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":[0.000015517378,0.000008899349,0.0056786234,0.000058714366,0.0000064177348,0.00014679412,0.012133741,0.00010066848,0.000101456295,0.9565952,0.005173511,0.019980436],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017729322,0.00009648312,0.024223667,0.0009215378,0.000030161185,0.00039443932,0.042295925,0.00040860928,0.00081623014,0.42946187,0.50129604,0.000037263388],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02096656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02652611,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02096656,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0035013983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0037849233,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.04168904},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600234","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1440","title":"Insulating the Church: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga and the Suppression of Public Law in the Construction of Religious Communities","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","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":"Redress; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Religious freedom; Sociology; High Court; State (computer science); Constitutional court; Constitution; Politics","score_opus":0.05914093009292188,"score_gpt":0.31107352325989424,"score_spread":0.25193259316697236,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600234","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.40970826,0.076493055,0.0006877296,0.10900285,0.0008098776,0.00009702293,0.0002333857,0.000010248117,0.4029576],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9549719,0.01244888,0.00024516127,0.015046068,0.00010650483,0.000014777488,0.000026058073,0.0000037153209,0.017136926],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983297,0.00036152496,0.000021510032,0.00008868874,0.0004801739,0.00071831],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987275,0.00056947686,0.0001180698,0.0000307572,0.0003411924,0.00021297202],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022521997,0.0001595216,0.0002033306,0.0007672624,0.010474383,0.005247606,0.0009708854,0.0037712622,0.0014320455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0026982978,0.00017486534,0.00014624053,0.0010279822,0.007629902,0.00094679097,0.0009967183,0.0029541855,0.00008655708],"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":[0.000056467106,0.000050959705,0.007533921,0.00026866494,0.00002772201,0.0015585916,0.017072396,0.0005408464,0.0007970724,0.91543883,0.03260625,0.024048233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014007182,0.000097959775,0.09696396,0.0024248366,0.00027309242,0.0007359635,0.088271536,0.0010538752,0.003300776,0.07882465,0.72770125,0.00021201548],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8705376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95390844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12946242,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024892123,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06507441,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26044965},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600235","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1439","title":"A Professional Comedian’s Fundamental Right to Publicly Bully a Child Because of His Disability? Scrutinizing Ward v. Quebec Human Rights Commission Through a Disability Lens","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Brock University; Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Human rights; Dignity; Political science; Charter; Fundamental rights; Sociology","score_opus":0.04365900974685586,"score_gpt":0.32925566203898066,"score_spread":0.2855966522921248,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600235","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.25606322,0.0067082294,0.0020126798,0.3970589,0.0014064164,0.00020606733,0.00024393,0.0000652158,0.33623537],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7990612,0.0018230687,0.00061215094,0.13676085,0.00031180878,0.00007851137,0.00004106437,0.000049287955,0.06126202],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9894009,0.0019499242,0.0002141212,0.0009158279,0.0027583383,0.004760939],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99191463,0.0028014465,0.00031924623,0.00028101413,0.0027162442,0.0019674392],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006850824,0.00043630548,0.00049474684,0.000943106,0.033278175,0.0103781875,0.0030316978,0.0143234655,0.004006775],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011180382,0.0006445285,0.00055956293,0.00073357945,0.015804041,0.0031692493,0.0035529074,0.017235903,0.00042936706],"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":[0.000103838756,0.00013329358,0.017540347,0.00016068557,0.00006377571,0.004895278,0.09042966,0.00060124113,0.002521064,0.6270296,0.22938035,0.027140904],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011707771,0.00027893746,0.03324947,0.001463038,0.00021130357,0.0014368094,0.15766545,0.0017854584,0.004121503,0.040926326,0.75825864,0.00048591013],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.959236,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98421836,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06637077,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06637077,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09436724,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48155588},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600255","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1433","title":"POGG Post References Re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act GGPPA","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Climate Change Policy and Economics","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":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Greenhouse gas; Environmental science; Pollution; Business; Natural resource economics; Economics; Geology; Ecology","score_opus":0.15796043915204497,"score_gpt":0.2978947602449952,"score_spread":0.13993432109295026,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600255","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":[0.005167823,0.0035125765,0.0016014681,0.08806345,0.00822455,0.00036788688,0.0051151738,0.00048437205,0.8874628],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.038095705,0.0020923438,0.0017220626,0.17639133,0.002345371,0.0005039991,0.0012688162,0.00020461869,0.77737576],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99393797,0.0004363409,0.000245636,0.00079307094,0.0033385446,0.0012483685],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9950781,0.0018594766,0.00017255034,0.00033896771,0.0023397962,0.00021097806],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028908688,0.0010249756,0.00078515627,0.0018350423,0.008846979,0.009010043,0.0031632292,0.029344594,0.028427364],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011530084,0.001035843,0.0015130615,0.002114572,0.0027163504,0.002767051,0.0016902463,0.016492791,0.014708117],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000031245818,0.00005778674,0.00045747508,0.000070608614,0.000015425228,0.00034581067,0.0004413571,0.00023409612,0.00073478953,0.20832403,0.7808853,0.008402078],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023523633,0.000026452391,0.0030500763,0.0001979779,0.00002300603,0.00008081721,0.00037226683,0.00028149073,0.0006179262,0.01824607,0.977001,0.000079449375],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.45327547,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.62910587,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98669964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013300357,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017230315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9012742},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600269","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1438","title":"The Significance of R. v. Albashir in the Evolution of Constitutional Remedies","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Law and economics; Economics","score_opus":0.051597291133065964,"score_gpt":0.3273445897171541,"score_spread":0.2757472985840881,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600269","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":[0.23767827,0.011154588,0.009631214,0.13482307,0.0012696139,0.00030174898,0.00026360838,0.00024439106,0.60463357],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94817454,0.0016666366,0.0021712207,0.01671914,0.00025698822,0.000030806706,0.000040141145,0.00007197642,0.030868541],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97413945,0.0038034087,0.00075838587,0.0036906765,0.011234078,0.0063739563],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9771985,0.010057135,0.0022275806,0.0013872043,0.0068293973,0.0023002431],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01576968,0.00033738837,0.0007651439,0.002915262,0.013776045,0.014043548,0.0027074842,0.007684113,0.0048322477],"category_scores_gemma":[0.039976623,0.0006767707,0.0010628965,0.002042933,0.03037126,0.0058254004,0.004427285,0.011204552,0.00035767918],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000049176342,0.000041100673,0.0035498408,0.000060166443,0.00002804459,0.000523396,0.004191963,0.0012577915,0.0009624051,0.9609567,0.005816474,0.022562934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030173897,0.0005022637,0.0835929,0.001052279,0.0005091168,0.0009810297,0.015210821,0.0064051845,0.008318371,0.31876716,0.56337714,0.0009819479],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.84944487,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90101594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91578794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08421208,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11486687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.61100423},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600400","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1432","title":"“’Tis a rock—a crag—a cape? A cape? say rather a peninsula!” The Supreme Court of Canada’s Revisitation of the National Concern Doctrine","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Doctrine; Peninsula; Government (linguistics); Context (archaeology); Political science; Cape; Law; Geography; Archaeology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04229890318743268,"score_gpt":0.3157237289327867,"score_spread":0.27342482574535404,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600400","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":[0.060244944,0.0080638,0.013591134,0.38675803,0.00251206,0.00010802541,0.0005040738,0.000105690684,0.52811223],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75739604,0.002999551,0.0050239568,0.14018431,0.0005509941,0.000046622397,0.00012008827,0.00007315389,0.09360524],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99390334,0.00075894746,0.00012981571,0.000717894,0.0033511475,0.0011388307],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99578875,0.0013283576,0.00013831024,0.00016923045,0.0022776998,0.00029764953],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0049516354,0.00026731327,0.00038277073,0.00088515953,0.01414819,0.008051813,0.0020524238,0.0069391606,0.0024435713],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010784475,0.00040009947,0.0005586258,0.0012644171,0.018877253,0.0029073376,0.0019682073,0.013912404,0.00031587356],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000003733748,0.00000320998,0.00036909123,0.000011752306,0.0000044097933,0.00009364472,0.0016005085,0.00014346189,0.00015747972,0.9681694,0.026197422,0.0032458971],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035768913,0.000027896469,0.0067842277,0.0003214012,0.000038995036,0.00017908779,0.0047897273,0.0022802402,0.0014554424,0.20559397,0.7783261,0.00016709669],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9563098,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96984667,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9496987,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.050301287,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09773398,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36496305},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600462","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1437","title":"“Silly Anecdotes”: From White Baselines to White Juries in R. v. Chouhan","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Toronto Metropolitan University","funders":"","keywords":"White (mutation); White paper; Art; Political science; Law; Biology; Genetics","score_opus":0.06038181993000382,"score_gpt":0.3639288062861421,"score_spread":0.3035469863561383,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600462","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4311266,0.017820923,0.013540289,0.19741291,0.006906579,0.00033668109,0.00048612806,0.0002156046,0.3321543],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9346329,0.0037990578,0.0029909073,0.024223175,0.0011976071,0.00013628049,0.00011001978,0.00013626217,0.03277377],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9768534,0.015976183,0.00043201356,0.0012139935,0.0038195467,0.0017049211],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9771756,0.017096246,0.0015577796,0.0007263777,0.002245076,0.0011988559],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010843512,0.0007289199,0.00062507077,0.0029369758,0.024235023,0.009178777,0.0014915606,0.004731144,0.0037717975],"category_scores_gemma":[0.041755218,0.00063313026,0.00031066738,0.0022843708,0.013655582,0.0069363713,0.0076760487,0.009455135,0.00057756633],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008472241,0.00004528796,0.0019943558,0.00023374724,0.000022153517,0.00318887,0.7790317,0.00011001894,0.0009769162,0.1208696,0.066668496,0.02677418],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011125167,0.000046420333,0.0030686432,0.00067928317,0.000022933404,0.00096120016,0.56444734,0.00030473658,0.0007993968,0.020049985,0.40951803,0.00009080014],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.034518525,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10713727,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96548146,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008499311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005110741,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.068635225},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600469","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1441","title":"Open Courts, Privacy and Equality in a Digital Era: The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2021 Open Court Jurisprudence","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","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":"Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal; CBC (Canada); University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Law; Context (archaeology); Political science; Roberts Court; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.05767073297775256,"score_gpt":0.3553411341393194,"score_spread":0.29767040116156684,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600469","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":[0.13488644,0.014156106,0.006285965,0.39658162,0.0009184833,0.00011065302,0.00047673014,0.00007291941,0.44651118],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89187783,0.0036956496,0.0024630288,0.046752114,0.00026795772,0.000052818825,0.00012831629,0.000040998813,0.054721266],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98280716,0.0018329549,0.0002650493,0.0012875705,0.009008833,0.0047983686],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897714,0.004482688,0.00036412707,0.00042874797,0.002820946,0.0021321427],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006944868,0.00042508316,0.00045368233,0.002162649,0.039405532,0.024665,0.0029277657,0.009258582,0.0040667993],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014485304,0.0005136874,0.00059697794,0.0030946264,0.039100915,0.0056916196,0.0066846013,0.011495766,0.00029480868],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009221445,0.0000110341925,0.001103261,0.000018602123,0.0000060267457,0.00022317536,0.0102283405,0.0003450136,0.00011424366,0.96484715,0.015621639,0.0074723023],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005419089,0.00002336365,0.01094874,0.0007130901,0.0000648679,0.00021892396,0.034177706,0.002910927,0.00068197824,0.2879657,0.66200835,0.00023224817],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9890588,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9917597,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19374517,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.19374517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25241777,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9351413},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600470","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1442","title":"Does the Supreme Court of Canada Give a “Freak” About Disability Dignity?: The Inclusion Fallacy 25 Years After Eldridge","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Disability Rights and Representation","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":"Statistics Canada","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Oppression; Law; Dignity; Fallacy; Equity (law); Psychology; Medical model of disability; Sociology; Political science; Psychiatry","score_opus":0.02316854668208217,"score_gpt":0.31480840373122976,"score_spread":0.2916398570491476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600470","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":[0.035519123,0.031501267,0.0010902461,0.71004426,0.0023556503,0.000061580606,0.00028230625,0.000051280822,0.21909423],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.59963334,0.018308163,0.0011108879,0.30114982,0.0014641915,0.000060072533,0.00017655727,0.000082938524,0.0780141],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9838583,0.0018013505,0.00032147308,0.0011760987,0.008087303,0.004755554],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9882733,0.0035488135,0.00035142957,0.00032266445,0.005452191,0.0020516247],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007934709,0.00040936098,0.00087470136,0.0017412921,0.033256643,0.014289092,0.0040457672,0.013743813,0.0040907306],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0206852,0.0004812181,0.0007241136,0.0024607691,0.024345089,0.004485931,0.004012107,0.015770352,0.00048833824],"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":[0.000030752577,0.000037276077,0.0024850213,0.00011286693,0.000035629448,0.00048596133,0.009360171,0.00028781837,0.00026220974,0.7625178,0.19374669,0.030637845],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000079478494,0.000047803547,0.012097482,0.0015403994,0.00012424793,0.00019377709,0.017314034,0.0006700344,0.00047948197,0.09281587,0.8743954,0.00024209019],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9894644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9924184,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1254867,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1254867,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24629417,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.910474},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600480","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1434","title":"Walking the Line: The Politics of Federalism and Environmental Change","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"American Environmental and Regional History","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Politics; Line (geometry); Political science; Law","score_opus":0.029306381970918536,"score_gpt":0.24133957195120512,"score_spread":0.21203318998028658,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600480","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":[0.03999412,0.031308293,0.012847437,0.3396447,0.0011276006,0.00002733578,0.00007549423,0.00006207996,0.57491297],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94815296,0.0052618673,0.0012585499,0.026594406,0.00090493733,0.00003301952,0.00002336013,0.000029186825,0.017741727],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9939844,0.0032793286,0.0000818734,0.00053444604,0.0009547687,0.001165182],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99763787,0.0017428114,0.00013832848,0.00013232113,0.00021995122,0.0001287654],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044715353,0.0001755282,0.00031330145,0.0010601075,0.008665788,0.008887818,0.00086466013,0.0056586126,0.0027037966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007088725,0.00022649138,0.00036348766,0.0013799237,0.021797327,0.0056079407,0.0018953914,0.0060796426,0.00025139187],"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":[0.000001931191,0.0000021111223,0.000058201436,0.0000048597203,0.0000017722349,0.000017691827,0.000360708,0.00015385746,0.000020908723,0.995634,0.0023867018,0.0013571861],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000126487985,0.0000100239795,0.0007943714,0.00006620763,0.000009361732,0.000022521972,0.00085637695,0.0004981562,0.000108732456,0.8992902,0.098318994,0.00001227693],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.112462685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13436298,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.112462685,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019308502,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0108021675,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22361618},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4391600492","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1435","title":"Where Can an Aboriginal Rights Holder Exercise Their Rights? Reflections From R. v. Desautel","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Indigenous; Supreme court; Constitution; Law; Political science; Human rights; Bill of rights; Fundamental rights; Indigenous rights; Sociology","score_opus":0.07186610764409139,"score_gpt":0.37879059672575316,"score_spread":0.30692448908166176,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4391600492","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":[0.0258805,0.03850557,0.0005536205,0.8349594,0.0009870186,0.000014552402,0.00003732445,0.000007279203,0.09905479],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6162468,0.05335193,0.0014182861,0.29737863,0.002132108,0.000060293773,0.000042700696,0.000044904147,0.029324364],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9904446,0.0049695284,0.00031502865,0.0010358477,0.001342069,0.0018929879],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98838323,0.008936679,0.00039538942,0.00022924558,0.001243779,0.00081171043],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016771574,0.0003247156,0.00071176974,0.00109581,0.015005849,0.011090925,0.003370921,0.014812766,0.0026529308],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013528292,0.00048596555,0.0006828627,0.0011122677,0.039971408,0.013816257,0.0042764475,0.022110619,0.00048230833],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000019790943,0.000034730343,0.001063927,0.00016226505,0.000013058927,0.0011965993,0.09770696,0.00012066498,0.00023307992,0.8293675,0.05567569,0.014405711],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028867355,0.00005090386,0.0037624843,0.0017064551,0.00004082193,0.0007493191,0.20874643,0.00016049852,0.000509184,0.20943801,0.57470846,0.00009861704],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3863745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.496986,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6136255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014952421,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01880437,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7682511},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092856","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1445","title":"From Rights to Justice: Perspectives on Access to Disability Justice in BritishColumbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Economic Justice; Political science; Criminology; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.07085717314053648,"score_gpt":0.3558371160412499,"score_spread":0.28497994290071343,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092856","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":[0.066428214,0.07014788,0.0021314893,0.32751673,0.0010141678,0.00009695824,0.00026005832,0.000018916013,0.5323855],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87332845,0.020097468,0.0007736928,0.052353173,0.0006104438,0.00011057775,0.00010916103,0.000040591232,0.05257645],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.982746,0.005232713,0.00032509374,0.0009789065,0.0034436518,0.0072735827],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909174,0.005584407,0.000357821,0.0002101885,0.001514193,0.0014161167],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00975265,0.0005989162,0.00095431565,0.0040509393,0.04660438,0.022469074,0.004452022,0.01866278,0.0072701247],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011345855,0.00071856193,0.00077788625,0.005702183,0.051300466,0.008924921,0.007297135,0.017216465,0.00032834813],"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":[0.000011023983,0.000021635824,0.00075978955,0.00009861278,0.000009284991,0.0006578438,0.031228662,0.00011327261,0.00010571488,0.9499296,0.012872994,0.004191607],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005536891,0.00006546533,0.011438533,0.0018078806,0.00007322202,0.00049225026,0.13340984,0.0004062147,0.00035882188,0.28226486,0.569386,0.00024148423],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95684886,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97598743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09614757,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09614757,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09788911,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6976027},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092863","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1448","title":"Sharma: The Erasure of Both Group-Based Disadvantage and Individual Impact","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Agricultural risk and resilience","field":"Agricultural and Biological 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":"Erasure; Disadvantage; Group (periodic table); Psychology; Computer science; Artificial intelligence; Chemistry","score_opus":0.02503410936198798,"score_gpt":0.2800854686475364,"score_spread":0.25505135928554845,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092863","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":[0.11179058,0.004375519,0.005835589,0.21044113,0.0019478045,0.00010698335,0.00014328137,0.00007941075,0.66527975],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87786126,0.0013018758,0.0031953913,0.053240374,0.00047184053,0.000055374454,0.000031991418,0.000042352727,0.06379946],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9901428,0.0021064372,0.00029322942,0.0013642868,0.0040556625,0.0020376102],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935068,0.0031520429,0.00034711792,0.0005483652,0.0017881772,0.00065751973],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008542638,0.00029072462,0.00042762005,0.0007684211,0.012566309,0.007484229,0.002366296,0.008010444,0.0038925186],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016065529,0.00028827426,0.00058239826,0.00052735273,0.02676281,0.00426774,0.0062848106,0.01105079,0.00037148036],"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":[0.000019418483,0.000008424903,0.0016575196,0.000043697546,0.000011142497,0.00028936588,0.014273514,0.00014191179,0.00044771214,0.95204246,0.016175613,0.014889187],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053513606,0.00013866494,0.01730295,0.0007945441,0.00016194776,0.0010491918,0.032597028,0.0014109018,0.0054654223,0.38845083,0.55225486,0.0003202588],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49405167,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.62652177,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49405167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014578735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.033521287,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9823519},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092874","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1451","title":"A Lifeline During Custodial Interrogations? The Right to Counsel and Reflections on R. v. Dussault and R. v. Lafrance","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Right to counsel; Political science; Law; Criminology; Psychoanalysis; Psychology","score_opus":0.05705271651545326,"score_gpt":0.3901966772321616,"score_spread":0.3331439607167084,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092874","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":[0.024153052,0.013096594,0.0013856936,0.7828637,0.0019385865,0.00004476637,0.00011880457,0.00004590916,0.176353],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49574685,0.009582133,0.0012048065,0.43770882,0.0020752887,0.00012580553,0.000067647554,0.000097512115,0.053391077],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9758463,0.010311792,0.0007140682,0.002075339,0.0038630462,0.007189471],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9816403,0.01221904,0.0007959642,0.00081998727,0.0022367458,0.0022880184],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023521712,0.00052425446,0.0007181383,0.0010792768,0.027655078,0.01639295,0.0051465547,0.037693173,0.004642621],"category_scores_gemma":[0.034597762,0.00088636426,0.0009100131,0.0007986439,0.047011774,0.011517233,0.006960585,0.028397826,0.00085447915],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006229862,0.000054009397,0.0013878078,0.000085254826,0.00001235913,0.0024232354,0.0917642,0.0001407267,0.0005503429,0.77164847,0.11324953,0.018621873],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000077788274,0.00008354669,0.004422002,0.0014791742,0.000038831073,0.0013271073,0.100386344,0.00021208885,0.0009225705,0.09881051,0.79198635,0.00025369358],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6154698,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7489313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6154698,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03515201,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.050283786,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7735895},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092875","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1447","title":"Un-Democratizing the City? Unwritten Constitutional Principles and Ontario’sStrong Mayor Powers","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Political science; Constitutional review; Law; Public administration; Politics","score_opus":0.03967969198596153,"score_gpt":0.30378241854892585,"score_spread":0.2641027265629643,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092875","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":[0.13911033,0.006063488,0.004019677,0.28203616,0.0003767475,0.0001184737,0.00032366137,0.00006268242,0.56788886],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95305854,0.0013576775,0.0010434956,0.008164642,0.00012472068,0.000038785,0.00004092237,0.000024104236,0.036147],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928584,0.0014484345,0.00020679763,0.00082781794,0.0020791553,0.002579355],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946983,0.0016482752,0.00049380463,0.0005152808,0.0014415366,0.0012028796],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0066669765,0.00018494691,0.00032723407,0.0009173986,0.015101863,0.010077583,0.0015853891,0.0033664526,0.0033179687],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008430347,0.00036134367,0.0003179177,0.001257131,0.028113874,0.0028967534,0.0031187125,0.0039727264,0.00026536538],"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":[0.000008434652,0.0000073612064,0.002143489,0.00003112711,0.0000074025234,0.0001439715,0.009584454,0.00021730157,0.00021515369,0.9711269,0.010934042,0.0055802814],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008133445,0.000029897144,0.027588692,0.00034349744,0.000061995954,0.00016496048,0.022581244,0.0012295875,0.0006997084,0.2804341,0.6666711,0.000113827555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9371424,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97998387,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06285763,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.060643565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08196231,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44000196},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092878","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1444","title":"Council of Canadians with Disabilities: Another Reminder to Resolve Cases on the Merits","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Psychology; Political science","score_opus":0.11468067553825669,"score_gpt":0.3321221844529251,"score_spread":0.2174415089146684,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092878","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":[0.005954385,0.006248401,0.0026961719,0.8166534,0.0048413374,0.00005539671,0.00009528723,0.00005123969,0.16340446],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31160316,0.00793904,0.009639477,0.525707,0.0046501467,0.00012375037,0.00018210088,0.0001972995,0.13995805],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.978511,0.0036438995,0.00056076667,0.001454337,0.011248292,0.004581781],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9873768,0.003995456,0.00033085354,0.0005012945,0.0062714457,0.0015242039],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010123208,0.0007254065,0.00071256794,0.0022899364,0.042883158,0.014647844,0.0036775197,0.026768476,0.0052060303],"category_scores_gemma":[0.028179593,0.000598969,0.0010610855,0.0021942798,0.022787405,0.008868731,0.0056351256,0.031997014,0.00072008587],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000099230865,0.000016104761,0.00057521136,0.000046314726,0.000008100996,0.000575179,0.010872038,0.00012392951,0.00018652344,0.6855536,0.29098564,0.011047418],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022234799,0.000013129734,0.0007767494,0.00020554976,0.000016152744,0.00031646885,0.008577592,0.00016048388,0.00020193464,0.039418742,0.9502111,0.000079880905],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89271206,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9399501,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89271206,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05450206,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.096339904,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39544195},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092884","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1452","title":"Exploring the Intersectional and Spatial Implications of the Police Power to Search Dwellings Incident to Lawful Arrest: A Comment on R. v. Stairs","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","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":"Stairs; Power (physics); Architectural engineering; Sociology; Geography; Engineering; Civil engineering; Physics","score_opus":0.09057996816577145,"score_gpt":0.3447645751527907,"score_spread":0.2541846069870192,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092884","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":[0.25023404,0.0037821538,0.003884138,0.55034614,0.0027789397,0.000148024,0.00037069916,0.00013235824,0.18832359],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84654504,0.0017233772,0.0008698365,0.11591647,0.0011545417,0.00007210204,0.00008015583,0.00009207913,0.033546284],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98935074,0.0018296713,0.00039073132,0.0015412249,0.0026704278,0.004217181],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871546,0.0072507714,0.0005401706,0.0005237683,0.0034233583,0.0011073116],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00856492,0.00067442283,0.0007760652,0.0012738063,0.039569885,0.013564339,0.006434632,0.020507522,0.002956722],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017679632,0.0009639583,0.0014412187,0.0017735013,0.028297132,0.0044899764,0.0068793,0.028249497,0.0004708563],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00014901288,0.00006572704,0.008181801,0.00017243599,0.00008320435,0.0041169804,0.2568035,0.0008240351,0.0016325468,0.56778234,0.14447112,0.015717337],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000104107436,0.00015495653,0.02132321,0.0009018692,0.00030374713,0.00079844514,0.4376927,0.0015105953,0.003127748,0.055984803,0.47762153,0.00047635776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91420937,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94450194,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91420937,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.037160885,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.058961365,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2696224},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092896","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1450","title":"How the Dissent in Sharma Opens the Door to Indigenize the Section 15(1) Charter Analysis","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Bangladesh Politics, Society, and Development","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":"Dissent; Charter; Section (typography); Political science; Law; Business; Advertising","score_opus":0.04432768571470187,"score_gpt":0.3392810711972846,"score_spread":0.29495338548258276,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092896","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":[0.05108407,0.0038980437,0.025620677,0.4241864,0.014152982,0.00026702665,0.00012720002,0.00012985623,0.48053372],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6674897,0.0020073722,0.013375631,0.17703693,0.0028000236,0.00015167722,0.00007962373,0.00020004711,0.136859],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9730666,0.009349865,0.00079412555,0.0036757358,0.0098888455,0.0032247696],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9873625,0.0073854662,0.00037258613,0.0005229436,0.0036724359,0.00068411214],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02459877,0.00053889066,0.00046814597,0.0011950146,0.017238244,0.0114882635,0.0027126123,0.011298035,0.002688833],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0319541,0.0004716772,0.0010087092,0.00058414275,0.028169535,0.006124984,0.00513838,0.019593326,0.000769455],"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":[0.000015595062,0.000010096863,0.0002640662,0.000035660632,0.000007838594,0.00044513415,0.019710977,0.00025641377,0.00051842275,0.93396634,0.035968985,0.008800549],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029287712,0.00005947297,0.0012294404,0.00034659542,0.000049878072,0.00041529778,0.02167477,0.0014516047,0.0030586503,0.26984537,0.7015434,0.00029634245],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20196974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2546225,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20196974,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018371645,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030071234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40158832},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092897","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1446","title":"Legislative Choices in Using Section 33 and Judicial Scrutiny","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Scrutiny; Section (typography); Legislature; Political science; Law; Business; Advertising","score_opus":0.06737450936170093,"score_gpt":0.36371738814732113,"score_spread":0.2963428787856202,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092897","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":[0.16294463,0.00463022,0.02347376,0.04645729,0.00046360857,0.00028196728,0.00014013518,0.000093663155,0.7615147],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9765372,0.0010234796,0.003655606,0.0076825167,0.00015440668,0.00010054863,0.0000225727,0.000052546755,0.010771149],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.93624526,0.022372529,0.0024266671,0.0074074273,0.01957103,0.01197703],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9634115,0.02430702,0.0026456723,0.0026764197,0.005859767,0.0010997137],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05197314,0.00029845626,0.00053381646,0.0029372817,0.009838683,0.01162697,0.0022870458,0.004538677,0.0032886767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06821167,0.00090855896,0.00071657787,0.0027412886,0.024247633,0.0046502165,0.003646079,0.006880476,0.00036279875],"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":[0.000028815532,0.000010779949,0.0025988673,0.00003803197,0.000020584912,0.000111915295,0.010209209,0.00043005688,0.0011945204,0.96994025,0.0029099423,0.012507029],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011531627,0.00017205704,0.040590394,0.0012027146,0.00018677094,0.00022750851,0.023758203,0.002126362,0.0051040524,0.44967267,0.47639796,0.00044600075],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3559614,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.55883557,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3559614,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03072578,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040316086,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70777893},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408092913","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1449","title":"R. v. Sharma: Reckoning with Destabilizing Truths in Constitutional Equality Adjudication","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Human Rights and Development","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":"Adjudication; Political science; Philosophy; Law","score_opus":0.08101065998455888,"score_gpt":0.3678138380142963,"score_spread":0.2868031780297374,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408092913","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":[0.06902309,0.011569717,0.008395759,0.69082195,0.003283725,0.0000818249,0.00009774982,0.00019686515,0.21652935],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83972925,0.002443907,0.0038758775,0.12644398,0.0017980998,0.00004625243,0.000039333445,0.00010112966,0.025522176],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96952313,0.007191771,0.0014013441,0.00446002,0.01163538,0.0057883533],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97747165,0.013231963,0.001124096,0.0012967219,0.0052820323,0.0015934932],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020545399,0.0005039174,0.000794233,0.0014893032,0.02639672,0.022899536,0.005204786,0.020750107,0.0020006371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.043482564,0.000737196,0.00082820345,0.0012874882,0.054541674,0.009321854,0.0071579814,0.032677174,0.00044945398],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000017026905,0.000006822454,0.00046193067,0.00002943063,0.0000084386365,0.00047215167,0.01225538,0.00024004975,0.00032255313,0.959784,0.019138409,0.0072637084],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006449556,0.00007127444,0.0026381304,0.00055713754,0.000071955146,0.0005627697,0.023852682,0.002742926,0.0029571254,0.62885326,0.33727244,0.00035582017],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5996042,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6971384,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5996042,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039584085,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06997575,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.80550766},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408098657","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1456","title":"Speaking Like a Judge: Using Artificial Intelligence to Empirically Assess JudicialSpeech in Supreme Court of Canada Hearings by Language Spoken and Gender of the Speaker","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","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":"Supreme court; Linguistics; Political science; Psychology; Indirect speech; Law","score_opus":0.1223243855538632,"score_gpt":0.3959795779785803,"score_spread":0.2736551924247171,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408098657","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9803823,0.00023559539,0.0004607528,0.0006377762,0.000017042565,0.00008077842,0.00017928537,0.0000072694133,0.017999211],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9977604,0.00015809314,0.000595716,0.00016151596,0.000007908887,0.000035661018,0.00025058512,0.000006217486,0.0010240085],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.990954,0.003463469,0.00034367945,0.0007735119,0.0035296718,0.00093577715],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9656254,0.016455691,0.0047789817,0.0010658097,0.009665738,0.0024084637],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009443513,0.00042653445,0.00051715487,0.004271768,0.009968048,0.007495401,0.0015076014,0.0009602788,0.0017656485],"category_scores_gemma":[0.049028717,0.00037825856,0.0003564031,0.0046992684,0.005330243,0.0018534388,0.0026070285,0.0018084508,0.00027790747],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00028377835,0.0003639343,0.7761656,0.00012704947,0.00024553502,0.000448141,0.16825585,0.0017758515,0.0012451818,0.0063913795,0.0035362153,0.0411614],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027577486,0.00008493426,0.86966187,0.00015237251,0.000101949896,0.000087448534,0.11269999,0.007498683,0.00069614383,0.002351023,0.006523421,0.00011455344],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96926874,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9826214,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.035899263,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.035899263,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031343825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2604686},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408098658","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1457","title":"Beyond the Numbers: Statistical and Data Literacy, Domain Literacy and Supreme Court of Canada Data Analytics","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","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":"Supreme court; Literacy; Analytics; Data analysis; Data science; Computer science; Political science; Data mining; Law","score_opus":0.08441459102929164,"score_gpt":0.4060856858116627,"score_spread":0.3216710947823711,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408098658","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":[0.3679343,0.0063800993,0.020777995,0.2131321,0.00024387454,0.0001948892,0.0013172077,0.00019528912,0.3898242],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9850271,0.0015783608,0.0023911616,0.0033477119,0.000068350135,0.000042643103,0.00021025029,0.000051228606,0.0072832447],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98092735,0.0077047586,0.0009777762,0.001201852,0.0074433736,0.0017448553],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.80042505,0.13009934,0.012991143,0.0067162393,0.03955423,0.010213977],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018185474,0.00018342184,0.00045619198,0.0032241037,0.0066701663,0.018700382,0.0011101548,0.0013686559,0.008160717],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1780678,0.0002890732,0.00025651904,0.006352659,0.014605914,0.013005994,0.0052942354,0.0038560228,0.0004733056],"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":[0.00008557799,0.00012471738,0.15031524,0.00038406684,0.00005969545,0.00047827756,0.15422392,0.0013833205,0.0003693077,0.5480221,0.028185103,0.11636867],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023814007,0.000063408035,0.23059946,0.0020996155,0.00005811949,0.00040772138,0.15003377,0.0065023433,0.00096270617,0.3274583,0.28156376,0.00022702831],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7367804,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.73685753,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2632196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020535037,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0657495,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.52953947},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408098665","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1455","title":"R. v. J.J., Judicial Discretion and the Charter","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Judicial discretion; Discretion; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Judicial review; Sociology","score_opus":0.02106667931831491,"score_gpt":0.3169317766388853,"score_spread":0.29586509732057037,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408098665","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":[0.07687513,0.05757176,0.023252932,0.37130278,0.0049980064,0.00039823362,0.0008973023,0.00041018738,0.4642936],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7322095,0.006572521,0.009462851,0.16432668,0.0012962937,0.00020000707,0.00016695255,0.00011453172,0.085650705],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98861516,0.0019767266,0.00044659324,0.001690858,0.0045771417,0.00269361],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9911957,0.0049237707,0.0006092208,0.00040582856,0.0023552615,0.000510187],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011607364,0.0004065101,0.00043328418,0.001121522,0.011674449,0.0075180456,0.0022043367,0.012414381,0.0017482418],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02470809,0.00075326563,0.00084069866,0.0010913658,0.010994733,0.002910166,0.0016551646,0.009853619,0.00049590925],"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":[0.000042473846,0.000015086537,0.00090296223,0.000063168736,0.000018071329,0.00035325153,0.0023793073,0.00034529247,0.00073514413,0.91444695,0.070348375,0.010349941],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002716607,0.00013177458,0.010543099,0.0005158869,0.00013770981,0.0004702611,0.0021684403,0.0016305039,0.0032745716,0.29949543,0.68097633,0.00038434836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6690584,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7615197,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33094162,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01697817,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.036384832,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66578114},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408098667","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1454","title":"Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication: Brown and Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis","field":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Section (typography); Criminal code; Code (set theory); Criminology; Psychology; Criminal law; Computer science; Programming language; Operating system","score_opus":0.12650505370611664,"score_gpt":0.4094091081421843,"score_spread":0.28290405443606764,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408098667","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":[0.23610188,0.0062284344,0.012718184,0.09722834,0.001619523,0.00029028498,0.0003220445,0.00010368826,0.6453877],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8317127,0.0022293215,0.0040735835,0.027220787,0.00039898945,0.00014909118,0.00010416593,0.0000592596,0.13405202],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9897474,0.0030744064,0.0002882704,0.00093541713,0.0029419502,0.0030125454],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99404824,0.0030055693,0.0007160003,0.00026414273,0.0013495911,0.00061645696],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0057758475,0.00042278407,0.00036850042,0.0013435936,0.009156276,0.009888833,0.0013964456,0.009902471,0.002884841],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0132135935,0.00049622793,0.0005670681,0.0012104858,0.010450366,0.0043947496,0.0043552285,0.007885319,0.00048124653],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000021393404,0.000024477136,0.0011089838,0.000020978958,0.0000032966452,0.00029086304,0.008719818,0.00018718895,0.00022560463,0.9739358,0.011108436,0.00435327],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006380416,0.00031088473,0.028922623,0.0011822366,0.00007650186,0.00064679486,0.035454586,0.004884057,0.0037082508,0.3670405,0.55724865,0.00046110663],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49959078,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.65574074,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.50040925,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026375305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026809251,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9933657},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4408098671","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1458","title":"A Quantitative Analysis of Leave Applications to the Supreme Court of Canada in Constitutional Cases","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","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":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Constitutional review; Constitution","score_opus":0.05086536609379105,"score_gpt":0.36600254458371767,"score_spread":0.3151371784899266,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4408098671","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.76697385,0.0026492407,0.0056931,0.0070284777,0.0000769593,0.00047982647,0.0061071455,0.00008786028,0.21090342],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99129874,0.0004225325,0.0009348774,0.000253954,0.00003531814,0.00007983833,0.0010413448,0.000015364567,0.005918061],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9861459,0.0024883216,0.00034078286,0.0007095511,0.007962226,0.002353201],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9352512,0.029612882,0.0070332657,0.001091406,0.023932712,0.0030786206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008377962,0.00021138009,0.00048057863,0.009741365,0.0047609783,0.0055669122,0.0015151945,0.0007995501,0.005256303],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0578345,0.00023046517,0.0003700977,0.018028006,0.0049622282,0.0019273254,0.0016443344,0.002320443,0.00033638903],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.00025763919,0.00030638007,0.37289205,0.0005560189,0.00034115728,0.0007288834,0.023658054,0.009792314,0.0012654588,0.46725434,0.03851666,0.084431104],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027917748,0.00008136279,0.89267236,0.00026380256,0.00018025734,0.00009827798,0.019100508,0.011500987,0.00059570104,0.032086413,0.043277465,0.00011501206],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9029334,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9431146,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09706658,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05654581,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040777564,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.41027045},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W6917917768","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1170","title":"Speech on the Occasion of the Constitutional Cases Conference of Osgoode Hall Law School","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Supreme Court law review","topic":"Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism","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":"Governor; Pleasure; Constitutional law; Table (database); First amendment","score_opus":0.1273800135315626,"score_gpt":0.36036414313767395,"score_spread":0.23298412960611134,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W6917917768","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01731845,0.010210164,0.0011498709,0.60247046,0.07888792,0.0005386768,0.002915374,0.00033459338,0.28617454],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.050538972,0.0023197753,0.0005487222,0.130424,0.008798365,0.00027516636,0.0005334687,0.00014044381,0.80642116],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99806064,0.00026836406,0.00008376497,0.00036959935,0.00070348504,0.0005141459],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.996781,0.0011325461,0.000109605426,0.00013573229,0.0009773815,0.00086379686],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003588709,0.0003346121,0.0005356353,0.001024633,0.010289573,0.005980018,0.0014292839,0.008916098,0.067056045],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008089746,0.00045527032,0.0004850927,0.00087420444,0.00248491,0.0020473367,0.002310372,0.0096157165,0.011747456],"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":[0.00002176604,0.000027436714,0.00022619711,0.00002679363,0.0000039116208,0.00021372414,0.00069254875,0.000019530871,0.00028870004,0.009341815,0.98550284,0.003634844],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009364769,0.00000993905,0.00090363837,0.000042092113,0.0000034663458,0.000021933149,0.0008750077,0.000032482152,0.00020906665,0.0006362885,0.99724686,0.000009869391],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.087814964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.25548404,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.087814964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008183164,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0075803977,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22432482},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}