{"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.048449803,0.70729244,0.00004350907,0.08123551,0.0058644903,0.0023395855,0.000026482678,0.00005455852,0.15469365],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9616934,0.036811892,0.000007900154,0.00058624573,0.00027416894,0.000009769791,3.6223324e-7,0.000004058998,0.00061219366],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989262,0.00023601894,0.00021768603,0.00006421535,0.00036251382,0.00019333903],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992975,0.00011116079,0.00013274349,0.00026640794,0.00014750502,0.00004468211],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001591629,0.00005482391,0.00015372619,0.0000033681256,0.00030507994,0.000009797429,0.00028416503,0.000030698862,0.00014286835],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013715995,0.000028061557,0.0001377204,0.00013444989,0.00034775693,0.00018595422,0.000040512892,0.00006770659,0.00001795577],"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":[0.000010683705,0.000071666975,0.010059507,0.002386964,0.000044138917,2.580688e-7,0.0048782253,4.701623e-7,0.0005818687,0.8951866,0.06589213,0.02088746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016999338,0.000008050163,0.002620179,0.0010228336,0.00006152557,0.0000010683335,0.00015701263,2.9862872e-7,0.00018167551,0.00017640644,0.9957149,0.0000390393],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0024548466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0024278203,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9298228,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025566465,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000045267585,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37110102},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.066234864,0.51772946,0.0001131387,0.065426074,0.0036960223,0.0044972156,0.0013696969,0.00044340396,0.3404901],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77089655,0.21581398,0.00013946087,0.0052227834,0.0006190347,0.000058524653,0.00029381644,0.000052820804,0.006903036],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99677396,0.00031250087,0.00068987627,0.00040740825,0.0011787856,0.000637466],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99822927,0.0002893835,0.00030984913,0.0004592739,0.00036671472,0.00034549972],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009960078,0.00027433079,0.0007129923,0.00003104302,0.0009692688,0.000029170225,0.0004925302,0.0001273457,0.0016857722],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031970738,0.00026355346,0.00019315464,0.00037869797,0.00043646267,0.0003115797,0.0000705124,0.00023173452,0.000062823354],"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":[0.000024448076,0.0001646909,0.0010615521,0.0021157707,0.00010474298,0.0001442704,0.0011086948,0.0000032667667,0.0001470686,0.028834997,0.96283305,0.0034574326],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021345376,0.00006226895,0.00019092642,0.0011074686,0.0002736588,0.000045924393,0.00018950818,0.000009452044,0.00006775241,0.000039264596,0.9975023,0.00029796743],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8322778,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.80815035,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.70466167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00027625525,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0009760693,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998164},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.91209465,0.04933395,0.000081402155,0.02673817,0.0023396052,0.0017988218,0.0000036256597,0.00004920812,0.007560571],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9469174,0.05170242,0.000011279432,0.0009867988,0.00012214505,0.000058987574,0.0000010840888,0.0000061190594,0.0001937377],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99867105,0.0002756348,0.00035775732,0.00017275802,0.0003170487,0.00020573757],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937403,0.000069777285,0.00013297872,0.00029735232,0.000094835574,0.00003104673],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013534278,0.000090613314,0.0002384537,0.00004410823,0.00026275686,0.000060519546,0.0003195367,0.000043360804,0.00013349787],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017049783,0.000057547164,0.00016670451,0.00093608,0.00014462756,0.00028210046,0.00005555526,0.00021081239,0.000013034048],"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":[0.000113006536,0.0022299886,0.021656068,0.009177719,0.00030827962,0.000064195214,0.25149468,0.0024930588,0.0025901594,0.39581335,0.001197046,0.31286246],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00096318463,0.000093565715,0.018746,0.025238182,0.0010934703,0.000017778115,0.1374156,0.00014817469,0.0004080381,0.001850065,0.8134262,0.0005997305],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02800748,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.22517811,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81222916,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020327147,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014341217,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9784651},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.123878404,0.28500947,0.000071181246,0.007639276,0.00026231256,0.0024280197,0.00002005277,0.00010330437,0.580588],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85774547,0.13829389,0.0008788687,0.00052072486,0.00007768947,0.000033090313,0.0000055652295,0.000011162712,0.0024335543],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99831957,0.00030630853,0.00028216632,0.00021902788,0.00055161107,0.00032130352],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993769,0.00009293708,0.000061406354,0.00024406216,0.00012346994,0.000101223726],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016200662,0.000084002895,0.0003459364,0.000028831098,0.00014188519,0.000010253254,0.00035353735,0.00005468966,0.00028595267],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000188504,0.00008075278,0.000103145634,0.00042317912,0.00042745387,0.00020123823,0.00006146085,0.00014662083,0.000085921965],"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":[0.000049221326,0.00061071955,0.009991199,0.006924433,0.000042137228,0.00015580183,0.017612176,0.00002659702,0.000082245424,0.8988433,0.05428835,0.0113738505],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014507493,0.000035343826,0.0019050579,0.0027364518,0.00003088903,0.000011533052,0.00058334053,0.00001342991,0.000021508378,0.0004504883,0.9938981,0.00016879162],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019649835,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0017592035,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93960977,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007368842,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002259749,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9868784},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.518995,0.19025828,0.004842665,0.12113447,0.01900158,0.049536742,0.0006223046,0.0001467554,0.09546221],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9846567,0.01399283,0.0001085404,0.00013097425,0.00040266456,0.000050455954,0.0000033260076,0.000004759116,0.00064976345],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986846,0.0003793235,0.00026517993,0.00010389172,0.00032146624,0.0002455566],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99894077,0.00018549562,0.00027051478,0.00021938405,0.000329208,0.000054656124],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025719272,0.000073732226,0.000198722,0.000012521181,0.0037445105,0.000022473741,0.00019993856,0.00006836128,0.000020552643],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000036936748,0.00003543784,0.0000995374,0.00017859814,0.0014531091,0.00015247324,0.00000541446,0.00008762055,0.0000023605826],"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":[0.000007751455,0.000040711107,0.0000908792,0.00045420625,0.000019913326,1.3838928e-8,0.012063642,6.149058e-7,0.000014275808,0.9865472,0.00035148585,0.0004093539],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008216585,0.00003291779,0.0006743596,0.0004903609,0.000054784952,0.0000030181077,0.00012799726,0.00000104257,0.00041789157,0.0030429624,0.99502254,0.000049948427],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.027916957,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20175177,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99467105,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006567572,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011309228,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99755245},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.065486416,0.33597356,0.00059618417,0.01585074,0.002872477,0.013162848,0.000114964605,0.0002277033,0.5657151],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9016689,0.09185589,0.00080820505,0.0024730572,0.00018108693,0.00020750484,0.0000026583907,0.000015873291,0.002786812],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988293,0.00018273042,0.0003259538,0.00020225847,0.00024810774,0.00021164816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99907464,0.0001939124,0.00013003669,0.00031799002,0.00021241399,0.00007101308],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002488153,0.000101814294,0.00032404286,0.000009818438,0.0002471367,0.000015804279,0.0003034875,0.00003961124,0.00068754127],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039438426,0.00006627002,0.00012322444,0.00009228438,0.00075437676,0.00028952988,0.00007804629,0.00006284992,0.000011081834],"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":[0.0002983926,0.00030110092,0.015161613,0.012681171,0.00017057885,0.0000031744057,0.018659137,5.3404424e-8,0.000045457567,0.80913234,0.11936982,0.024177168],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002292607,0.000038148515,0.0007857147,0.00096073886,0.00014467121,2.1361903e-7,0.00017865065,0.0000011275949,0.000059414855,0.0047201626,0.9927853,0.000096598465],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002529125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006710092,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87341547,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000022167998,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000045369376,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.75280946},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.029518347,0.7177182,0.0000070445412,0.043205652,0.00022017346,0.0020084197,0.000013776834,0.000077748446,0.20723066],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5547394,0.44103616,0.00010142771,0.0033660324,0.000078879675,0.000026170841,0.0000013904819,0.000006552916,0.00064395386],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985352,0.00040802633,0.0002811809,0.00019762378,0.00036051724,0.00021741223],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919987,0.00029931296,0.00012500917,0.00016989018,0.00012600048,0.000079893165],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010376711,0.00012933834,0.00043536848,0.000005177379,0.0009863137,0.000024413006,0.00016926152,0.000057550602,0.000066636436],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00028591763,0.00007444573,0.00009712592,0.00010469566,0.0027008615,0.00016184508,0.00013798662,0.000116522584,0.00001286256],"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":[0.000018630264,0.00001715623,0.0009094323,0.0008415435,0.000052282343,0.0000054581337,0.006200322,8.282712e-8,0.000024758565,0.9804714,0.010611834,0.0008471168],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00042047712,0.000015872101,0.0011189459,0.0007981164,0.00009366195,0.000006635399,0.00015315204,0.0000013384199,0.000013038705,0.002132552,0.99511373,0.00013246626],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.024611108,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0047135046,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9845019,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003249015,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000020668293,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99514365},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07389379,0.3372896,0.0001665412,0.2928941,0.0010659867,0.002900593,0.00017384518,0.00006880761,0.29154673],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9671223,0.030889822,0.000008184815,0.0015654531,0.00024227184,0.000025967413,0.000013385526,0.0000026052032,0.00013000154],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99851143,0.0002452346,0.00037006452,0.00014883582,0.00053480593,0.00018962378],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990793,0.00008438704,0.00021451931,0.00018972682,0.00038543995,0.000046629193],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013636476,0.00008824266,0.00029007837,0.000030128516,0.0012626332,0.00008401941,0.00023088853,0.000038985756,0.00032882302],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000028661454,0.00005057537,0.00025315312,0.00072947366,0.0014305289,0.00027420535,0.000021719867,0.00008682571,0.0000076670685],"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":[0.0000017286133,0.000022514718,0.006619164,0.00005686185,0.00021436853,3.4072252e-7,0.00034645965,0.000014168902,0.0000055606683,0.98994005,0.0016493705,0.0011294315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000088957735,0.00001413449,0.062006075,0.0005655227,0.001217771,9.14032e-7,0.0015662941,0.000006645864,0.000037637303,0.043413304,0.89092636,0.00015640698],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9194801,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97857106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9465267,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012683196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006063791,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97112817},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.1770864,0.52091473,0.00003525134,0.28305513,0.00027648307,0.0032039317,0.000019179846,0.000121789504,0.015287143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.928802,0.06806849,0.000058107802,0.0022558717,0.00027856402,0.000086867825,0.0000023276302,0.000007719726,0.00044001197],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99811643,0.0006611174,0.00028921728,0.00022284611,0.00041145252,0.0002989209],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966952,0.0027473082,0.00014760844,0.00023194907,0.00011318499,0.00006474767],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002679104,0.00015645205,0.00031619568,0.0000041169337,0.0038008243,0.00019580983,0.00035512232,0.00005927003,0.000023196446],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0021961136,0.000059593083,0.00006979945,0.00022410152,0.0024610725,0.00021000081,0.00015335462,0.00029501523,0.000018677203],"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":[0.000006817725,0.000010476701,0.045033775,0.000351705,0.00009521042,0.0000012466961,0.032930296,0.0000024067922,0.0000014728384,0.9145197,0.001984104,0.0050627603],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00066437386,0.000020985932,0.31345302,0.001695527,0.00037031723,0.0000032134517,0.004950634,6.9925915e-7,0.0000017750492,0.010597192,0.6680069,0.00023537102],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0051690103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0052272254,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90392256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000068150264,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000031513406,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99749607},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009320742,0.69625825,0.00083826896,0.1397927,0.001649646,0.0063698725,0.000037304355,0.00045453454,0.14527869],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75357306,0.23113789,0.000038349874,0.009151901,0.0011131655,0.0001657873,0.000009146574,0.000035532485,0.0047751837],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9972035,0.00067031314,0.0004100787,0.00034813705,0.000813964,0.0005540016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998555,0.0003242933,0.0001648781,0.0005094818,0.00028391872,0.00016240947],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023559749,0.00022967465,0.00053026405,0.000013708539,0.0022081598,0.000115535,0.0008626542,0.000100916026,0.00054643594],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00025491967,0.00011246362,0.00020011174,0.00038156135,0.018569576,0.00032538717,0.0000713085,0.00029844354,0.00010205478],"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":[0.000018682289,0.000038251106,0.00071269646,0.0003220592,0.000045949266,0.000008969447,0.0031538266,3.8108604e-7,0.0000022033555,0.9548996,0.039865628,0.0009317523],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005164569,0.000026156607,0.00009273217,0.0004395546,0.00013024393,0.000033633725,0.000128464,0.000014104091,0.000011334767,0.011352355,0.9870346,0.00022036057],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013805641,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0030975072,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.947169,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000051649153,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028766933,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99909085},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010485769,0.2566505,0.000044533088,0.48207504,0.0006522422,0.0019861136,0.00003652503,0.00010524226,0.24796402],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94906396,0.04096401,0.00004300305,0.009235074,0.00012501738,0.0000143221905,0.0000015649434,0.0000053193658,0.0005477297],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986634,0.00024721536,0.00030062324,0.000166565,0.00036983736,0.00025231764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987716,0.00027789615,0.00015624755,0.00054442516,0.00018361978,0.00006617763],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011261236,0.00010148351,0.00021750246,0.0000075330704,0.0007673865,0.00004026892,0.0007056107,0.00004010813,0.0001974942],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00058007514,0.000056864672,0.00020209987,0.00025685714,0.00038908908,0.00015405612,0.000052045256,0.0001244119,0.000039459333],"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":[0.000003409111,0.00006383296,0.0009806302,0.00040388192,0.000019080037,0.0000038688036,0.0019678124,0.0000019282186,0.00030622256,0.8928036,0.08041096,0.023034787],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027036891,0.00001978122,0.005273365,0.0012757622,0.00010190721,0.000009272762,0.0002156277,4.4021678e-7,0.00003752079,0.003432186,0.98951423,0.000092854396],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013980608,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0037151477,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9385782,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005433253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016931324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59021944},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.44074386,0.47703907,0.00008150223,0.074897826,0.000726193,0.0019535352,0.000008335022,0.000051395145,0.00449828],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8394689,0.15936336,0.00007016959,0.0007886008,0.00008080473,0.000030755727,4.6533617e-7,0.0000046244986,0.00019231677],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99882406,0.00025043235,0.00024356114,0.0001965453,0.00031912656,0.00016626834],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991929,0.0002682232,0.000102463586,0.00022732923,0.0001295188,0.000079581114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025319916,0.000093269955,0.0002543215,0.000011267482,0.00030046186,0.00005293655,0.00016560068,0.00005504449,0.0002905624],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039588587,0.000052927637,0.00007616046,0.00009050074,0.00094428094,0.00037283145,0.00008422823,0.00014502552,0.000014383322],"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":[0.00062716595,0.000138694,0.02795127,0.014801344,0.00006984541,0.00002443401,0.0134224985,6.878317e-8,0.008446385,0.6714958,0.008505618,0.25451687],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00034695095,0.000052177867,0.010022164,0.009006645,0.00031162542,0.000016158818,0.00014269276,0.000015282374,0.00016039262,0.0043779877,0.9753244,0.00022354058],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0023521043,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008447712,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96681875,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000068966974,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000026989765,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.47140217},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.1930689,0.03390102,0.000044240685,0.23890065,0.0045923754,0.009546971,0.00015422469,0.00011728569,0.5196743],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9830488,0.01130931,0.00018400025,0.001240581,0.000103402475,0.00017041073,0.0000054598286,0.000015895557,0.0039221346],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99832135,0.0003227143,0.0004891672,0.00020478352,0.00040393492,0.00025802324],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869245,0.00018767193,0.00024640982,0.0006271749,0.00017778561,0.0000685171],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016833697,0.00013077966,0.00026563273,0.000029326977,0.0020362122,0.000043378084,0.00067028333,0.00007510765,0.00027378526],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000094458854,0.000058566202,0.00010800336,0.00028656697,0.0010840344,0.0000903607,0.00007649155,0.0003161749,0.000010233572],"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":[0.000002334466,0.00006993309,0.0009483814,0.000045072156,0.000030931547,1.5421429e-7,0.0011539499,1.568656e-7,0.0001696549,0.8977173,0.099511065,0.00035105305],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000106653395,0.000019156141,0.007916618,0.00033709896,0.000039508628,6.9598303e-7,0.0001369555,8.1091457e-7,0.00011130286,0.035582267,0.9556554,0.000093566625],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002973865,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10772877,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86213505,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055349014,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013650037,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999263},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0879226,0.3971137,0.010583226,0.26994008,0.002870681,0.019818356,0.000058776328,0.00038611458,0.21130645],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89091754,0.097045206,0.0005920258,0.005513105,0.00065752043,0.000489755,0.000009327039,0.000019725754,0.0047558136],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99842036,0.00034363812,0.00021973968,0.0002805442,0.0004355396,0.0003001939],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992239,0.00025252425,0.000048759593,0.00019067262,0.0001433657,0.0001407874],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019642261,0.000115971576,0.0002852411,0.000015963984,0.00097483356,0.00005730428,0.0002444193,0.000050815506,0.000056004275],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009550426,0.00007577739,0.00011174895,0.00014279986,0.00047366397,0.00016355589,0.00005630537,0.00010737329,0.00001926799],"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":[0.00034238587,0.00023736652,0.0008093163,0.004811444,0.00010811985,0.000004366884,0.012675835,0.000018468172,0.00007830595,0.77448845,0.19898538,0.0074405405],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029475812,0.00005695958,0.00020262382,0.000735797,0.00008356103,0.000015277461,0.001205346,0.000032551863,0.000016318198,0.000583626,0.9966247,0.00014845794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004083822,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029048603,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8029949,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009306582,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011037778,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.749773},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01389586,0.5309972,0.000053399257,0.12062879,0.00064072135,0.0014857837,0.00012289906,0.0000210125,0.33215433],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89287937,0.10575184,0.000012838318,0.0012317903,0.00004164544,0.000042398085,0.000002195642,0.0000010134023,0.00003693817],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990631,0.000106406966,0.00027140765,0.00012056128,0.000286226,0.00015233914],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996434,0.00008490346,0.000062009036,0.000084479296,0.000085705404,0.00003953367],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00036497953,0.00006347326,0.00017785297,0.000014661653,0.00026797305,0.0000052241817,0.00013516829,0.000018926565,0.0008459381],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001122694,0.00004880615,0.000025782048,0.0002974987,0.001129687,0.00010860124,0.000028881,0.000079893485,0.000013779616],"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":[5.935498e-7,0.000021697628,0.01935743,0.000048575228,0.0000063180323,0.000002194068,0.00022198443,0.0000020088107,0.0000017014771,0.9743088,0.0046806014,0.0013481253],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001753033,0.000006779062,0.027974106,0.0015106557,0.000023471872,0.0000036680851,0.0005097768,0.000013933447,0.00000178835,0.0078112404,0.9618201,0.00014917178],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.734524,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.969913,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96649754,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000089992136,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046093986,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92624295},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004617828,0.3511479,0.007304502,0.0018639633,0.002538208,0.007335394,0.0016595116,0.00009639238,0.62343633],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9692702,0.028245784,0.00023930808,0.0013255368,0.00023114067,0.00042027803,0.00001902143,0.000035936024,0.00021274119],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99825454,0.000030640713,0.0010561072,0.0003319316,0.000031823547,0.00029498624],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985626,0.00008296779,0.0006487271,0.0005563166,0.0000849355,0.00006445074],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012062936,0.00014761058,0.00079709606,0.000026448737,0.00012815539,0.0000374264,0.0004561964,0.00007360493,0.00041293137],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006695979,0.00014685046,0.0002626912,0.000099191995,0.0002808696,0.00026758495,0.000035791396,0.00008260649,0.00017872994],"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":[0.0000075795438,0.000033456425,0.00071817153,0.0013210967,0.000055591543,3.0576095e-7,0.00031247956,0.0000013131615,0.0000043275636,0.99294055,0.0041490993,0.00045603266],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030274483,0.000098075834,0.00043885555,0.0007061984,0.0000403244,0.0000023062023,0.00019573254,0.000043606673,0.000129898,0.21923755,0.77851987,0.00028481905],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003074902,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006430685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9646524,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005447202,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000054699223,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5988388},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.49041852,0.37993717,0.000097241,0.0713147,0.0023176984,0.009209256,0.00027938443,0.00007827198,0.046347752],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93115944,0.06629541,0.0000619202,0.00054273853,0.00017599632,0.00010342083,0.000004999208,0.000009684228,0.0016464156],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973205,0.00067595317,0.00055001647,0.00020061954,0.00082439196,0.00042852145],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977255,0.0012513654,0.00027727045,0.00025751427,0.0004195386,0.00006883049],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037750644,0.00013170386,0.00040584413,0.000006893372,0.0016588051,0.00001221649,0.00044874373,0.00005141654,0.0001088806],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013817636,0.00007426605,0.00014812803,0.00025265059,0.00086189236,0.00012272176,0.00011618164,0.00018000344,0.0000021387343],"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":[0.0002894371,0.00038265754,0.06290592,0.012966518,0.0006431374,0.000011318675,0.07273722,0.0003062669,0.0015444747,0.14701499,0.6834708,0.017727299],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019102669,0.000030272107,0.008042181,0.0010058047,0.000041228242,0.000001553351,0.0020569856,0.000023362094,0.00022167497,0.00022274589,0.9880057,0.00015748537],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7147298,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9363724,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4407409,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00051312736,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004303782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996409},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.31221396,0.50534874,0.000050154005,0.024414526,0.000531763,0.0024492699,0.00003904914,0.00003383964,0.1549187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93617773,0.06298029,0.000022720997,0.0002513074,0.000048237875,0.000012696017,3.166371e-7,0.0000023445598,0.0005043646],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988872,0.00036746252,0.0002923933,0.00008968509,0.00023255915,0.00013072578],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920464,0.00028170052,0.00022113993,0.00014794199,0.000100327954,0.000044233126],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018027516,0.0000562395,0.00023634774,0.000003084801,0.00027080803,0.00003642519,0.00016369061,0.00002815546,0.000023770266],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00042694225,0.000027366148,0.00004675351,0.00006165306,0.0007612171,0.00014503118,0.0000402098,0.00004904899,0.0000015233694],"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":[0.0000059184667,0.000004257123,0.00038832266,0.00021575611,0.000008542536,7.959693e-8,0.0007279661,3.4173386e-9,0.0000019197812,0.9952066,0.00012515284,0.0033155049],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022038323,0.000018968756,0.011576283,0.0009759203,0.000046809397,5.653163e-7,0.00014615119,0.0000022284478,0.00002020903,0.013960455,0.9729714,0.000060671413],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.27529988,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1013817,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9812461,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000013532889,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006838239,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.91501576},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012485806,0.06954778,0.00046622887,0.03425819,0.00042833784,0.0009905221,0.00002727182,0.00031721895,0.88147867],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93537456,0.057800416,0.0003665658,0.003943249,0.00030394504,0.000065948974,0.000016868373,0.000010528968,0.002117901],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99904007,0.00014145795,0.00021151337,0.00013493048,0.00027965137,0.00019235021],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99944687,0.000054352462,0.000055444,0.00023155945,0.000111968715,0.000099829],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005892867,0.00007355248,0.00015797873,0.000010825596,0.0011523106,0.000020474494,0.00029285904,0.000037534097,0.0010775606],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000761698,0.00006804721,0.00011976323,0.00018994955,0.00028501233,0.0002077953,0.000057448106,0.00015772827,0.00039032352],"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":[0.000001222251,0.000057897007,0.00037028923,0.00013428631,0.000016337222,0.0000035113512,0.001094839,8.094196e-7,0.000039596103,0.9735213,0.023174161,0.0015857443],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000042895634,0.00000534235,0.00032500474,0.0003296041,0.000013661887,0.0000056974563,0.000046245208,0.0000023482041,0.00001138259,0.0010381559,0.9980966,0.00008309423],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0024575891,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006766107,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9749224,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007153671,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014169479,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998356},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.062190477,0.40445814,0.013362297,0.19758946,0.0011058061,0.03037591,0.0001434437,0.00041998507,0.2903545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9573497,0.034456618,0.0013525931,0.00418993,0.00033041058,0.00042561768,0.0000047451954,0.000040846102,0.0018495029],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99814713,0.00036288542,0.000422955,0.00030213397,0.00035714937,0.00040776972],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99848056,0.00051632314,0.00017730307,0.0004665785,0.00019930014,0.00015990749],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035652935,0.00017766464,0.00048107756,0.000021951668,0.0006481866,0.00008489422,0.00047695803,0.00006344276,0.000084792526],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00062125694,0.00010083654,0.00020851975,0.00032722089,0.0006913244,0.0001370809,0.00012485348,0.00012800228,0.000008666802],"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":[0.00014663786,0.000106060375,0.00012946638,0.0016503934,0.000082479106,0.000026190197,0.00643505,0.000012726,0.000035465877,0.9717015,0.01649263,0.0031813947],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005681022,0.000039372062,0.000019095112,0.0010593582,0.00031621748,0.00013707657,0.0015779443,0.0002520152,0.000008191111,0.0013352334,0.99450874,0.0001786219],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009488835,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005718473,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97801614,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003878949,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008872731,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9971071},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.040575325,0.5002842,0.010509219,0.14910544,0.0060815243,0.013704825,0.00009596904,0.0003972693,0.27924624],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78643715,0.18150811,0.00034730925,0.02553781,0.0007469023,0.00018850261,0.000051870164,0.000034265388,0.005148076],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975997,0.00038242294,0.00046781724,0.00023529094,0.0009630484,0.0003517178],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987707,0.00016121486,0.00023819033,0.00049535156,0.00017169339,0.00016285617],"candidate_categories":["sts","scholarly_communication"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023459618,0.00020364905,0.00027747793,0.000011180907,0.0028566816,0.0013062365,0.0005738267,0.00009424975,0.0006251067],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022380792,0.00010087105,0.00010158082,0.00014478677,0.007031591,0.0022284011,0.000083632,0.00021020483,0.000081450904],"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":[0.0000021171618,0.000012073398,0.00023513511,0.00022452492,0.000022564678,8.5294533e-7,0.009699333,5.416254e-7,0.000003181639,0.97889787,0.0099594565,0.0009423771],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018623708,0.000021024189,0.000087385124,0.00084017415,0.00015979815,0.000008860946,0.00040696707,0.000012043013,0.00020845815,0.045608673,0.95228577,0.00017463144],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00045237184,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0026662182,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9423263,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012975832,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000115037816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997305},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17216049,0.5046277,0.000017507082,0.18637393,0.0010773633,0.008817522,0.00024792316,0.0003223961,0.12635519],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7904181,0.13855313,0.004594412,0.06145288,0.0009226241,0.00046102252,0.00024961212,0.00007912716,0.0032691145],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961067,0.0008740433,0.0015969849,0.0003408132,0.00046241202,0.0006190657],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980021,0.00037871438,0.00056052546,0.0005073604,0.00027867834,0.00027263854],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030823944,0.00012782225,0.00088811765,0.000018169381,0.00031428097,0.000015862424,0.0002461515,0.00016929774,0.0036564104],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013130816,0.00015780955,0.00012231109,0.0002635047,0.00011301746,0.00030270958,0.0001178202,0.0008655346,0.00011932175],"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":[0.000035033667,0.0005073401,0.06988516,0.29774028,0.000055903136,0.000038284757,0.009339779,9.3601807e-7,0.000014985326,0.017409787,0.354935,0.25003752],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005582625,0.00010160101,0.004223209,0.044455983,0.000031187687,0.000004029122,0.0019009069,0.000005539301,0.0000016359252,0.00010809039,0.9484652,0.00014433915],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.18210182,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.49526486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6182576,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007856826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007881407,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9972544},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0043187677,0.2831106,0.0004263483,0.022516128,0.00074276194,0.0009320138,0.00036390833,0.000040368213,0.6875491],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9752996,0.0044872947,0.00016853919,0.019315153,0.0004574113,0.000010343783,0.000007901726,0.0000073939955,0.00024638342],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986406,0.00041870086,0.0002193557,0.00012111651,0.00023239771,0.0003678318],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986982,0.0005267527,0.00007012651,0.00021425456,0.000094993855,0.0003957114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011223131,0.00009941361,0.00024864424,0.000011260279,0.0004344813,0.000023324092,0.0002217389,0.000050446746,0.00036524606],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017117913,0.00007273189,0.00006644913,0.00011819126,0.0014954705,0.000116496216,0.000029118804,0.00010122484,0.00003811465],"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":[0.0000013315106,0.0000053075696,0.00010428283,0.00002745351,0.000017634371,5.327172e-7,0.0013927427,0.0000017162249,0.0000026307018,0.9923778,0.0056915795,0.00037694396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039775015,0.000008567826,0.000075609474,0.0004189112,0.000078312456,0.0000017031396,0.00084921194,1.5419167e-7,0.0000086409345,0.0095277745,0.98888713,0.00010422202],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69388056,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3375666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98319554,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008609769,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005978705,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6745211},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010147049,0.8055733,0.0000756309,0.17091888,0.00084248657,0.0012246047,0.00004547426,0.00008513021,0.020219823],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3246569,0.64313895,0.00006860353,0.030157896,0.0017226563,0.00009634052,0.000008911463,0.000010135504,0.00013961688],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976122,0.00021098781,0.0003751017,0.00040734065,0.00095350045,0.00044090545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99873793,0.00013651192,0.00019092417,0.00020111116,0.0006159807,0.00011756979],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011384446,0.0002774926,0.00057280844,0.000023636589,0.005247965,0.0003930665,0.0003788261,0.00008250674,0.000075805365],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00086041156,0.0001918575,0.00012462445,0.0005329738,0.0029903173,0.000631962,0.00011941122,0.00026957024,0.00014395575],"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":[0.000009754872,0.000049397586,0.00007583061,0.0012136166,0.00007001911,0.000017673892,0.0005548733,0.000002747718,0.00002233703,0.98212177,0.013063144,0.0027988118],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001795934,0.000024772944,0.00046696127,0.025350627,0.00017212375,0.000011570186,0.00005414151,0.0000010197022,0.000026852396,0.017073706,0.9563693,0.00026935572],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014191119,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0033666322,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9650481,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020829795,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00132425,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99972296},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08537492,0.44252637,0.000049911498,0.116566025,0.0017415247,0.0028404745,0.000040920997,0.0007898672,0.35006997],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7854342,0.17906633,0.0023056353,0.029327093,0.0019352887,0.000035177865,0.00002932743,0.000031094427,0.0018358522],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977993,0.0003461421,0.00040760884,0.00039738356,0.0006007471,0.00044883715],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989646,0.00025975678,0.00014908514,0.00028122088,0.00019171472,0.00015358809],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010361435,0.00021022167,0.0005011277,0.000012992045,0.0010777772,0.00009230385,0.00034068638,0.00010645206,0.00045361213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008985978,0.00016856441,0.00020434354,0.00022939508,0.00020083095,0.00023570012,0.00003670233,0.00025963262,0.0004443879],"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":[0.00009242151,0.00050078356,0.00119324,0.0015275236,0.00038813386,0.00011449127,0.044237304,0.00005060671,0.0024476212,0.36262485,0.16730867,0.41951436],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013434401,0.000035960355,0.0004707428,0.0036935476,0.00007175812,2.774362e-7,0.00041707407,0.0000046086025,0.000085354826,0.0018501343,0.99297243,0.0002637432],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006474237,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0037842023,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8256638,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00033123855,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006915515,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97871524},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00095384713,0.06893175,0.0000035045641,0.0073161777,0.00043536123,0.00028808942,0.000003133178,0.000089029396,0.9219791],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.32306686,0.5373545,0.00034043848,0.043189507,0.0019622566,0.00008582426,0.000013572969,0.000060243096,0.09392679],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989966,0.00013999213,0.00016080363,0.00016099657,0.00030932637,0.00023229425],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994968,0.00004557112,0.00005710222,0.00019232917,0.00006539644,0.00014277361],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005006519,0.00006329082,0.00018258227,0.0000622653,0.0016501261,0.00009558401,0.00018938087,0.00004148178,0.0017020085],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022691017,0.000076370176,0.000109709305,0.0002547334,0.00037402188,0.00023372969,0.000012842143,0.00013661594,0.0010466009],"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":[0.000002894457,0.00003845855,0.00003112291,0.00040567995,0.000013279172,0.000072970026,0.0022199317,3.043396e-7,0.000010301355,0.47902548,0.5072165,0.010963056],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000431783,0.000013131142,0.000031655334,0.000710722,0.000014205938,0.0000054153397,0.000034441742,1.338855e-7,0.0000013669409,0.00020621503,0.9988468,0.00009268384],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.24482377,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.65846103,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82805234,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043678912,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046110974,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997312},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003054106,0.15582934,0.002664342,0.36209184,0.0020576674,0.0024108822,0.00001549783,0.0002500481,0.47162628],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91283697,0.075744525,0.000047073027,0.010196871,0.00079201243,0.00007556935,0.00000683145,0.000006093757,0.00029402936],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988708,0.00011652642,0.0001904803,0.00015007291,0.00044390376,0.00022821342],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996105,0.000042355285,0.000059254497,0.00014082021,0.0000853532,0.00006173221],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00071069313,0.00009050381,0.00017489502,0.000006600837,0.001006239,0.000033157958,0.00021620635,0.000037160164,0.00036142673],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006496114,0.00005585916,0.0001112255,0.00018744307,0.00075656496,0.00012361714,0.000036511723,0.00010268219,0.00025925282],"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":[0.0000020025789,0.000016091552,0.000032892538,0.000023029772,0.000015619777,0.0000011366645,0.00023373611,0.0000019920055,0.0000057521397,0.9981092,0.0005364922,0.0010220293],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012161048,0.000011632722,0.00046851556,0.0006706182,0.00005683157,0.0000012774001,0.00019136132,2.2425635e-7,0.000005916237,0.06105155,0.9373188,0.00010162991],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003022233,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01905981,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9370577,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000106125844,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017916314,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988398},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10652293,0.34922013,0.00082852866,0.092471436,0.00418195,0.007262494,0.000025602507,0.0000788798,0.43940803],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98174417,0.017416969,0.0000146424945,0.00029314484,0.00015594758,0.000022350581,3.4405053e-7,0.0000028079096,0.00034960467],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988425,0.0004432108,0.00021210822,0.00007065855,0.0003086474,0.00012286818],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99940753,0.00013085907,0.00018306177,0.00016145849,0.00008414721,0.000032925156],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002124565,0.000055873425,0.00018218707,0.000005249267,0.00021990399,0.0000075662697,0.00012200544,0.000028871293,0.000104257175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011486473,0.000028395936,0.00008636103,0.00010340518,0.0005216057,0.00019297235,0.000041010953,0.0000721109,0.0000034234363],"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":[0.000034350447,0.000067453504,0.0036576677,0.001261982,0.0000465616,6.2873646e-8,0.01544653,5.785172e-7,0.0003418876,0.9726649,0.0023626022,0.0041154046],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016307688,0.00002048724,0.0039754338,0.0014902764,0.00017757482,0.0000013725391,0.0002633981,0.000004402364,0.000306567,0.0006567374,0.9928851,0.000055542412],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0012827954,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00061621756,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9905225,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000030871655,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003225401,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.19392116},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.046863765,0.42647198,0.0005425618,0.37419674,0.0010876869,0.011331363,0.00037646177,0.0002968961,0.13883252],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.835522,0.09213008,0.0026868447,0.049877822,0.0020569162,0.0002779205,0.000020117199,0.00006463535,0.017363654],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99884605,0.00010064809,0.00023758072,0.00024122436,0.000188123,0.00038637783],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99954015,0.00008286801,0.000073026094,0.00013694944,0.000026367434,0.00014065544],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00090050546,0.000109177585,0.00028459434,0.000025701402,0.00025040715,0.000079885904,0.00012271646,0.000058554557,0.00023431049],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019900918,0.00011182733,0.00008343358,0.0001967566,0.00010896792,0.00034704266,0.00001806915,0.00009859791,0.000027368902],"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":[0.000025909438,0.000085601714,0.0013867702,0.0017660941,0.000038335762,0.000016759568,0.003563867,0.0000036245237,0.00024366351,0.570569,0.38779825,0.034502156],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002027747,0.000021990169,0.000688091,0.0012447145,0.000020224943,0.0000046193118,0.000026040398,0.000011590244,0.000029540854,0.00090268545,0.9967095,0.00013817428],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03293177,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.47064656,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78865826,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017681472,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000103921615,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.973508},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020231325,0.5036296,0.000027704737,0.052401215,0.0012234645,0.001462134,0.000026398466,0.00008499377,0.42091313],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7910505,0.18523987,0.0001441427,0.011945729,0.00048340336,0.000057196685,0.0000036574445,0.000031546046,0.011043994],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977321,0.0004912988,0.00043267256,0.00027248703,0.00055434415,0.00051707856],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989411,0.00018047488,0.0001483067,0.00034439506,0.00012712886,0.00025859533],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020326006,0.00017526028,0.0003412031,0.000010167163,0.00083305157,0.00013240859,0.0005741833,0.000061261315,0.0004151245],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021785623,0.00012533941,0.00007760775,0.00018379813,0.0005119629,0.00031672005,0.00010305184,0.00022757992,0.000018776493],"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":[0.0000094477455,0.00002285508,0.0015974359,0.00043619974,0.000016258957,0.000046185698,0.0013283452,3.1027818e-7,0.0000064896462,0.92492044,0.06454046,0.0070755635],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007083414,0.000011595264,0.00080333126,0.0013723046,0.000044296354,0.000009665471,0.00023776706,0.0000020147581,0.000008153421,0.0010682506,0.9961959,0.00017585518],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9945103,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99983037,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93165547,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030367146,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00070854026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.64072436},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0018879925,0.7590954,0.0000067008464,0.055614244,0.0005622576,0.0012426245,0.0000032022958,0.00011499041,0.18147263],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77099365,0.21392013,0.00024249317,0.0102063995,0.0012085258,0.00010771327,0.0000025421268,0.000013901504,0.0033046473],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983875,0.00047025073,0.00021835307,0.00014953394,0.0003399094,0.00043444222],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993696,0.00015434249,0.0001006731,0.00014678914,0.00010180377,0.00012676533],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019784064,0.00013667029,0.00032277853,0.0000042505358,0.001353946,0.00007105553,0.00019469147,0.00005725274,0.00022486014],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00046320254,0.00007047623,0.00011840225,0.0001534721,0.00068007066,0.0003348104,0.00008998769,0.00018036293,0.000123973],"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":[0.000012091752,0.00004348724,0.0022545583,0.0007810047,0.00014534543,9.702637e-7,0.066360936,2.3773486e-8,0.000057627803,0.8597867,0.05719674,0.013360525],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001868066,0.000004948342,0.00037290718,0.00044454387,0.000094859344,0.0000021762944,0.0010910237,3.7101165e-7,0.000007740933,0.00028738278,0.9973841,0.0001231904],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0026267145,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00093951786,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94018734,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006744292,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000013044704,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999462},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0031889332,0.47524384,0.000022738011,0.132129,0.0022544875,0.0037742278,0.000013638169,0.000268064,0.38310507],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49383518,0.47041827,0.0005664959,0.0311924,0.00073735905,0.00033388534,0.0000060585553,0.000025898864,0.0028844457],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983306,0.00036007373,0.00024315095,0.00022777231,0.00044638288,0.00039200156],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99917716,0.0001359252,0.00007273896,0.00028154603,0.00017543379,0.00015721045],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012017499,0.00014521022,0.00030064394,0.000006418357,0.0009690728,0.00011116386,0.00056644325,0.000051394924,0.0018085199],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00041925165,0.000082473416,0.00015589246,0.00024185886,0.00044369622,0.0004397732,0.00014204337,0.0001303555,0.0012401316],"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":[0.000009275521,0.00009794671,0.0007107806,0.0005808742,0.0001470291,0.000011695638,0.081290044,1.8060284e-7,0.000027753977,0.71755594,0.12159711,0.077971384],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039058865,0.000016202746,0.0009078309,0.0007959748,0.00005899919,4.4010272e-7,0.0016359924,8.085884e-8,0.000017155293,0.00077457353,0.995612,0.0001416827],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012652801,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017185753,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8740149,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000098601035,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003651778,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995375},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0018812262,0.29681468,0.00003472034,0.0745285,0.0012288683,0.0011658575,0.00020201362,0.000026026963,0.6241181],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9389951,0.058303945,0.000018911758,0.0023261928,0.000110197194,0.000009164989,0.000002651473,0.0000019152305,0.00023191686],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99800324,0.0001918253,0.0004060225,0.00012871252,0.0008932145,0.00037700176],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99880654,0.0002282003,0.00020295588,0.00021553773,0.00045551368,0.00009126002],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00076008955,0.00010715054,0.00030041937,0.0000060750262,0.0012687653,0.00001239597,0.0004274185,0.00003302519,0.00012806764],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00059616676,0.00006120805,0.00014043521,0.0002681344,0.0031202065,0.0000674832,0.0000523624,0.00011162461,0.0000035936673],"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":[0.0000041118233,0.000018649123,0.0008717035,0.000042465817,0.000029563482,6.7208657e-7,0.00006171614,0.0000031927598,0.000011328387,0.9738209,0.02405219,0.0010834989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007675466,0.000012926011,0.0034750032,0.0007015742,0.000057107096,0.0000011621812,0.00013148613,6.7022154e-7,0.00003564503,0.0161916,0.9792359,0.00008017113],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.40060592,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.72031486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9576293,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016990106,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036364791,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995927},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003657241,0.37099758,0.00021359455,0.050761327,0.00031317753,0.0010411541,0.0000644118,0.0001851636,0.57276636],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7107938,0.27014747,0.0006705789,0.016411368,0.00044463846,0.000031400945,0.000017493356,0.000010629885,0.0014726198],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986071,0.00017131947,0.00027475232,0.00020218627,0.00042445434,0.00032021693],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99923617,0.00010422125,0.0000969973,0.00021902799,0.00010279082,0.00024081429],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005289907,0.00012175193,0.0002793784,0.000016809126,0.0005281386,0.000065235414,0.00024209468,0.000047548798,0.00031148494],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000097666074,0.000113352384,0.00008260037,0.00014743091,0.0010217143,0.00028675143,0.00006699158,0.000116699885,0.00030311116],"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":[7.640754e-7,0.00002322051,0.0008131357,0.00013501476,0.000015655092,0.0000049607625,0.00007354712,3.6567462e-7,8.2844366e-7,0.9745607,0.0218487,0.0025231477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007057692,0.000014617276,0.00009815653,0.0004924125,0.00007796574,0.0000111308855,0.00003536368,7.482212e-7,0.0000014634894,0.0009303572,0.99812716,0.00014002106],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004726328,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01205415,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9762785,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011949895,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003733513,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71448255},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035762753,0.20699774,0.0030211625,0.055840287,0.023299467,0.008245929,0.000059026042,0.0012915351,0.6654821],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6102419,0.26685622,0.00015801008,0.036669005,0.0015804463,0.0016443044,0.000036302452,0.00013845356,0.08267536],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99818987,0.00032476077,0.00048997445,0.0004444899,0.00020457388,0.00034630945],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99884444,0.000079144345,0.00017630424,0.0006131566,0.00016023144,0.00012668943],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.000539521,0.0002235952,0.00034693736,0.000038415623,0.0006030408,0.000028777888,0.00016578774,0.00015039543,0.0032283033],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000057108955,0.0001429584,0.00011438503,0.000286582,0.00050265575,0.00011389643,0.000034231507,0.0003472986,0.0023823474],"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":[0.0005764255,0.00029593587,0.0004208325,0.0005753537,0.0004073996,0.00013713635,0.0008010473,3.7810403e-7,0.00037774534,0.049699135,0.4850627,0.46164593],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006590983,0.00019965238,0.0025258223,0.0002477913,0.00003799382,0.001313991,0.000045868986,0.000009542846,0.000012294711,0.00011136006,0.9946525,0.00018408115],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003527062,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00018620002,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.58280677,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003457482,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000025708734,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9983944},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5969081,0.20813625,0.000011536382,0.18051732,0.0010660266,0.0027408525,0.000102050086,0.00021645607,0.010301452],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89518684,0.10253115,0.000499252,0.0012135848,0.00014164735,0.00005557001,0.000009475008,0.000018258,0.0003441974],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975442,0.00039131514,0.0004958766,0.00037661495,0.00067424687,0.0005177123],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985713,0.0001853995,0.00028641085,0.0003720118,0.00042253005,0.00016237606],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012725947,0.0002671614,0.0007591335,0.000024797466,0.0005005641,0.0001073501,0.0005469648,0.00014529837,0.0001041073],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009345991,0.00020702045,0.00017491913,0.00043768447,0.0026088606,0.00034491275,0.00017506865,0.00043908964,0.0000101237265],"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":[0.00012688854,0.0012793913,0.07538295,0.018366644,0.00063598575,0.00013702805,0.281067,0.000010055772,0.008878315,0.40042338,0.078092895,0.13559945],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023057456,0.000050196722,0.0016056591,0.0013781429,0.000054914453,9.101694e-7,0.0018373937,0.0000012067993,0.00033847487,0.004542127,0.9896053,0.00035511728],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05811432,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.47516957,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9115124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022336346,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019583858,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9612456},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007064799,0.05030342,0.00011963185,0.12734692,0.0007860152,0.0014021536,0.0000074301947,0.000104678795,0.8192233],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.764275,0.09648615,0.00023347903,0.1344159,0.0016593849,0.00060007535,0.0000063911093,0.000015237185,0.0023083766],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989633,0.00008263093,0.00017839756,0.00017182247,0.00033150296,0.00027236802],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99936754,0.000056366825,0.00003725148,0.0001284615,0.00025577316,0.0001545999],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00033872627,0.000089553854,0.0002138575,0.00001244547,0.0006376518,0.00010821158,0.0003634555,0.000029324721,0.003084207],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019817246,0.00007241354,0.000070086666,0.00023918858,0.00022715349,0.00038064516,0.00010717096,0.000062969055,0.0043486445],"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":[7.517723e-7,0.000019540284,0.00020929873,0.00019447473,0.000016304084,0.0000014254146,0.00022358209,1.8503387e-7,0.0000076149086,0.767535,0.22320166,0.008590192],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028282604,0.000007774244,0.00092987175,0.00068180554,0.0000646422,4.0798153e-7,0.0000659819,2.4895766e-7,0.0000028958395,0.0070144916,0.991092,0.00011158852],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0112952255,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0035298034,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8169149,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000044149212,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000795578,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9978271},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0047639613,0.10016753,0.00007046805,0.05743613,0.00074290344,0.0010781894,0.0000053664003,0.00010329423,0.83563215],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82317173,0.1698782,0.002782542,0.0016888999,0.00008573854,0.000049613875,0.000006118816,0.000009483616,0.0023276845],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99887556,0.0003878438,0.00023350514,0.00007632489,0.00030903355,0.00011773576],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985659,0.00046520113,0.00014614034,0.0005441863,0.00022703286,0.00005154297],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002799352,0.000046620225,0.000115683964,0.000009445435,0.0006052953,0.000034168082,0.00051010324,0.00004516731,0.0003272981],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012174192,0.00003099468,0.00006017555,0.0001660475,0.0005393337,0.00015532547,0.000050636394,0.00014265646,0.000076873126],"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":[0.0000035416547,0.0000103530765,0.000036682763,0.000060289178,0.0000019368063,5.9684616e-8,0.00027578312,9.755163e-8,0.0010028959,0.97141886,0.022792827,0.0043966756],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004124913,0.0000054892557,0.00008562037,0.0005551922,0.0000092646815,3.5650183e-7,0.00009311751,0.000005313316,0.00027727327,0.013910463,0.9849754,0.00004127113],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00079337275,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007982301,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9621826,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000093172075,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012785257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4655503},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0020785353,0.4623726,0.000013249773,0.017154032,0.00042975103,0.0005635447,0.000029063813,0.000024565117,0.51733464],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.299878,0.66669846,0.00010620743,0.0072172894,0.00043401748,0.00001938974,0.0000045813385,0.000013481373,0.02562857],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992077,0.00015331066,0.00017233055,0.00008856855,0.000225625,0.00015248265],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994597,0.00013466536,0.00007331501,0.00015880451,0.00007669806,0.00009681233],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00056461734,0.00004945801,0.00021116338,0.000025298175,0.0009858768,0.000026526372,0.00016142955,0.000032017222,0.0002869719],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016029684,0.00004418604,0.000071397866,0.00011547539,0.0021904262,0.00007938523,0.000021165146,0.00007784528,0.00003062583],"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":[0.0000010535318,0.0000074892882,0.000033561515,0.00050960004,0.000008400424,0.0000030761285,0.0032233493,3.2433995e-8,6.916319e-7,0.9495571,0.04606567,0.0005899335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001230195,0.0000048622524,0.00006273055,0.0003457774,0.00013850242,0.000005154055,0.00017936979,5.5622553e-7,7.022005e-7,0.0015613505,0.99752456,0.000053411088],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21617821,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18903287,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9514589,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007006811,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034110472,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8257652},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016694235,0.2414963,0.00006599793,0.01029774,0.000630074,0.0006255553,0.000046068217,0.00012372514,0.7450451],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7550337,0.13469332,0.00032928627,0.010468033,0.0013265914,0.00024863845,0.00008355156,0.00005414185,0.09776276],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99891984,0.00015401638,0.00022883479,0.00018370696,0.00028655547,0.00022706803],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995262,0.000027641123,0.00006930168,0.00019106746,0.00008530034,0.00010047766],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004078153,0.000084712534,0.00020297291,0.00006385756,0.0003697512,0.0001703436,0.00017316571,0.00005985245,0.004354337],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000042450956,0.000100760735,0.00015525926,0.00016871338,0.0003303331,0.00026203578,0.000017269334,0.00008614652,0.00079183676],"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":[0.00001979511,0.00008472854,0.0007015899,0.0011914211,0.000030504836,0.0000678993,0.00121379,0.0000010832808,0.000014681327,0.2756043,0.6851017,0.035968486],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005701178,0.0000073989536,0.0006860865,0.0007516353,0.000058727986,0.0000014516792,0.000014271656,9.826672e-7,9.0848806e-7,0.0012966769,0.99700594,0.00011888866],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4528571,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.75336426,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005152048,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020335255,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999862},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5181768,0.0006555623,0.00015264642,0.01760095,0.0046074586,0.0030962618,0.000039150516,0.00011092442,0.45556027],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9895134,0.00033562435,0.00012590968,0.0062562115,0.0002519016,0.000035611392,0.0000067241485,0.000007832472,0.0034668026],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99857306,0.00010487575,0.00030732268,0.00011670357,0.00069869764,0.0001993368],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992718,0.000027676359,0.00015610423,0.000303612,0.00014121488,0.000099553865],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006345058,0.000106679334,0.00019393367,0.00001487469,0.00039174125,0.000060916707,0.00029233616,0.00007662142,0.0030612478],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000033543543,0.000069598165,0.00012928802,0.00012887578,0.00012560893,0.0004151507,0.000047003265,0.00023226677,0.0001745557],"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":[0.000014198623,0.0000972196,0.00043293863,0.00054641924,0.00003998069,5.910093e-7,0.013732448,0.0000014646226,0.00039544454,0.95884216,0.024214284,0.0016828787],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010598336,0.0000291365,0.005268685,0.00043793223,0.000078130885,0.0000012828841,0.00014370032,0.0000016104789,0.00018765287,0.0011037056,0.9925358,0.00010632538],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015290587,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.62695694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96832156,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022097862,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013852194,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99785006},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.078704774,0.7815113,0.000035841098,0.05125598,0.0018514855,0.002673975,0.00016443069,0.00016349688,0.08363868],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9321717,0.06379967,0.00021185269,0.0025865156,0.00031204676,0.000036188078,0.00000535716,0.0000134776,0.0008631807],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9968485,0.00056618656,0.00056997174,0.00027606796,0.0010132734,0.0007259672],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982356,0.0003432229,0.00027104898,0.00029150935,0.00036447358,0.00049415557],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002550924,0.00023609443,0.00071078754,0.000009776387,0.000701408,0.000033903976,0.00038841114,0.000096167074,0.00051261415],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012750981,0.00018690241,0.00012089915,0.00023899258,0.0006364097,0.0004811309,0.00017703277,0.00019662028,0.000020270594],"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":[0.000030415436,0.00034149,0.099155776,0.01036223,0.0005449127,0.0000085804195,0.019779623,0.000002033755,0.00025561618,0.45445126,0.40946802,0.005600037],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012278312,0.000013264711,0.012668681,0.0009784875,0.000121172176,0.0000011293874,0.00066552334,0.0000011394649,0.00005096494,0.000117471754,0.984974,0.0002853719],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6704554,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.62009233,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8534669,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030760156,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00048480462,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.76216596},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10570179,0.2733929,0.000008903677,0.028457906,0.002703119,0.0030278838,0.00059330795,0.000017580865,0.58609664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93088067,0.0664523,0.000029538718,0.0024513195,0.00004768019,0.000008981848,0.0000050939248,0.000006404878,0.00011800222],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997278,0.0005489737,0.0007006119,0.00014671612,0.0011446435,0.00018109403],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985461,0.00047517003,0.00041494315,0.0002862016,0.00024477814,0.000032765845],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027002662,0.00011569554,0.00042671195,0.000009840749,0.00015087034,0.0000059918357,0.0008096088,0.000024768033,0.00027343538],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0023015293,0.00006880675,0.00018037493,0.0002182026,0.00053695944,0.00008571957,0.00015068409,0.00021369525,0.0000022935585],"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":[0.000026814512,0.00031995616,0.01208981,0.022543412,0.00018616614,0.000006711922,0.0076859714,0.0000018396603,0.0017017925,0.8147281,0.13399042,0.0067190216],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017285607,0.000055417062,0.005125946,0.032340623,0.00007292043,0.0000012042277,0.0012014918,0.0000024858216,0.00018851286,0.00034555816,0.96034676,0.00014621692],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.15233935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6075011,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82635635,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000085252716,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028574647,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8533053},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0005008662,0.013975842,0.0017019943,0.0037204633,0.00033095336,0.00044131462,0.000022234099,0.000037244434,0.9792691],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98289025,0.004756503,0.00032890798,0.011106044,0.00007682694,0.00003721566,0.000016143893,0.0000031953646,0.00078489986],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981263,0.00069505157,0.0003336791,0.00019298712,0.00036863008,0.0002833194],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99933255,0.00017877085,0.000083336054,0.00014729788,0.00013150266,0.00012651605],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014183419,0.00010566924,0.0002479215,0.000023584793,0.00024062769,0.00002888264,0.00014087322,0.00005568981,0.0015749016],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006673689,0.00010243575,0.00009599766,0.00020314162,0.0018088156,0.00021691513,0.000013300772,0.00013242275,0.0003341304],"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":[0.0000028089205,0.000030071096,0.00025460238,0.00010646312,0.000007198355,0.000003675726,0.00014854921,0.0000038596054,0.0000020643652,0.99852103,0.0006820433,0.00023765888],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009911158,0.000013720651,0.000021212842,0.0008247261,0.000021072492,0.000007573925,0.000069009024,0.0000040710165,0.0000050094795,0.013668425,0.98513734,0.00012870641],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0029506935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00077393505,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98485255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018180598,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001714985,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993378},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019967826,0.04665011,0.0000054018637,0.0071949847,0.00046473116,0.00088983186,0.000017166836,0.000090690046,0.9247193],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9424353,0.023188014,0.000048419995,0.0060925484,0.0008017586,0.000052284897,0.000028401046,0.000015617588,0.027337618],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99875355,0.0002757338,0.00021549412,0.00022439717,0.00030592145,0.00022487683],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994257,0.00008939739,0.00009188879,0.00019489384,0.00012946437,0.000068655216],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000627419,0.000120975164,0.00020750337,0.000008061223,0.0012260926,0.0001067752,0.00016728051,0.00005859307,0.0015433624],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002159539,0.00007716513,0.000071128256,0.00010034429,0.0005460626,0.0001695206,0.000041474425,0.00013416146,0.00033011296],"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":[0.0000033480794,0.000020948342,0.00010440742,0.00012748779,0.000007594437,0.0000022571085,0.00036259566,5.5078605e-8,0.000012041673,0.9511653,0.047934428,0.00025954735],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007797526,0.00003456169,0.00033944877,0.00036385143,0.00003970892,0.0000027853118,0.000045563484,7.179137e-7,0.000021849257,0.01299413,0.98596424,0.00011518363],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0038418404,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1492108,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93817115,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000075392316,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000067336034,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993694},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019058881,0.45202723,0.00085082155,0.068289764,0.0011996883,0.004250033,0.00009644415,0.0006715306,0.45355558],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.11728949,0.87148803,0.00039951442,0.0073899752,0.00045701707,0.000047262576,0.000022277176,0.000024538826,0.0028818715],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99881905,0.00023315211,0.00019588367,0.00022874553,0.00028290474,0.00024028854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999458,0.00003719662,0.00006591253,0.00021342258,0.00007748702,0.00014797792],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00076285936,0.00010151106,0.00019515197,0.000025268442,0.0006378792,0.000030406572,0.00016692729,0.00003587593,0.00034111686],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001263049,0.0000769096,0.00005116698,0.00018529211,0.00030588408,0.00029524424,0.00005996668,0.000113717986,0.00030271124],"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":[0.000054925833,0.00033707733,0.0013738612,0.010180737,0.00011463509,0.00039298835,0.012262513,4.1992112e-7,0.00043454077,0.5563682,0.20852923,0.20995091],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007951371,0.000036267702,0.00015358224,0.00080552674,0.00006308561,0.000020729492,0.00012669261,0.0000015084578,0.000011278858,0.00019653545,0.99838597,0.00011929062],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002124282,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005173025,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78985673,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003256431,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000053625627,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49061152},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01922149,0.14731583,0.00001802156,0.02660938,0.0016095918,0.0007505489,0.0003332078,0.000078043406,0.80406386],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9800815,0.013524391,0.000058918708,0.0034091864,0.00026598736,0.00009476185,0.000011719858,0.000018713345,0.0025348153],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989823,0.000020450252,0.0003914876,0.0002753992,0.000115772644,0.00021456798],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991676,0.00008656926,0.00017745055,0.00028810516,0.00021254407,0.00006773557],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00072156143,0.00013913361,0.00027009237,0.000030750773,0.00030326052,0.00008636898,0.00024914503,0.00006525502,0.0010408798],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005728498,0.00011603218,0.00017590716,0.00013265981,0.0001698596,0.00013819608,0.00003652125,0.00019527896,0.00087293546],"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":[0.0000065157597,0.00002274241,0.000090127316,0.000053056006,0.000014692922,6.247458e-7,0.00004053425,2.768963e-7,0.0000017078536,0.9636827,0.035739545,0.00034746696],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000109243534,0.000017352464,0.0060308385,0.00013096911,0.0000043365985,0.0000049064274,0.000027517004,0.000017237677,0.000008076823,0.18438093,0.8091423,0.0001262878],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00009876298,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00026389334,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011254335,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000045108212,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999905},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.001991822,0.26054257,0.00008374698,0.08144108,0.0010049847,0.00067282753,0.000017505716,0.00013266812,0.65411276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8426926,0.14968471,0.000031264924,0.006232579,0.0005304831,0.00005345891,0.0000074290615,0.000005531934,0.00076189934],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99865216,0.00025196408,0.00023383356,0.00013981306,0.0004817695,0.00024046745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937624,0.00013206401,0.000068978654,0.00017064881,0.00018807809,0.0000640018],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075776415,0.000103291175,0.00021772705,0.000011100019,0.0037580736,0.000035136993,0.0003584228,0.000036530255,0.00093503535],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018178487,0.00006986625,0.0001571052,0.00021899708,0.0020396248,0.0001592506,0.000102141596,0.0001924387,0.00040070404],"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":[0.0000029336018,0.00003783853,0.00071102445,0.000040402203,0.000052593896,0.000008227799,0.000957441,2.8664766e-7,0.0000033711474,0.94519186,0.051496003,0.0014980172],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051186413,0.000010092343,0.0011340029,0.00044709115,0.000039988823,0.000013839721,0.00017914103,4.971032e-7,0.0000023063938,0.007536918,0.99049103,0.000093876995],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012498777,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0057938206,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93899506,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000073113086,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00030079516,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99997824},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003823544,0.21131887,0.000036892954,0.056113727,0.00082253217,0.001060752,0.000023500535,0.00013918246,0.726661],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82725775,0.1516783,0.00019602428,0.012191232,0.0004061173,0.000045471894,0.000007694967,0.000019477451,0.008197957],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982405,0.00021249254,0.00025076262,0.0002526611,0.000660992,0.0003826349],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990972,0.00012028752,0.00009028132,0.00028114914,0.00020242433,0.00020864616],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005770461,0.00012791369,0.0003300812,0.00001005357,0.00070270774,0.000016004235,0.0003458198,0.00004866724,0.0011607019],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033351147,0.00011614086,0.00009877841,0.00022445565,0.00035592206,0.00024940367,0.000041949046,0.00015757699,0.00013883873],"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":[0.000008095237,0.00003386397,0.0004988958,0.0005961982,0.00002701391,0.00017113665,0.0008848033,3.1578685e-7,0.000009716983,0.31677777,0.6781932,0.002798972],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004371365,0.000014383899,0.00025097627,0.00094117125,0.000044913864,0.0000150519845,0.00009912337,4.4558712e-7,0.00001573532,0.00034338026,0.99807584,0.00015528746],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82506603,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.904812,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8234342,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00041400056,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016685723,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99975234},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010385774,0.6614399,0.000012370797,0.045923665,0.0015744432,0.0012156244,0.000027251368,0.00011490406,0.27930608],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87531555,0.11965227,0.00015030992,0.003657334,0.00042715835,0.000028211298,0.000006170022,0.000004631687,0.0007583778],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99879074,0.00017036917,0.0001753349,0.00012741607,0.00036731097,0.00036883538],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999441,0.00007122936,0.00006790785,0.00009603035,0.000117564385,0.00020622894],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006815359,0.00011185189,0.00025114277,0.0000043826617,0.00078813656,0.000028998164,0.00011038606,0.000042857875,0.00026451566],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002267965,0.00008553202,0.00004239684,0.00007027363,0.00046808488,0.00029908752,0.00004018786,0.0000952174,0.000037996604],"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":[9.680587e-7,0.00001399794,0.0056548053,0.0004556678,0.000030624808,0.0000021984001,0.0010368134,5.277804e-8,0.000007507211,0.89943284,0.09147286,0.0018916473],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055866178,0.000002893095,0.0013359995,0.000436712,0.00006093697,0.00000221203,0.00024261385,1.4878947e-7,0.0000051792326,0.00005729895,0.997672,0.00012814137],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91770166,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8961493,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90619916,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002945442,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024636567,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6061789},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.38953257,0.13413778,0.000023832978,0.15899046,0.001565231,0.009246677,0.00003739617,0.0025071546,0.30395892],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95863247,0.016627511,0.0014363517,0.021656167,0.00021159876,0.00021325043,0.00006184556,0.00004706625,0.0011137493],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975655,0.00016025302,0.0006085835,0.0008700273,0.0004210404,0.000374578],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970229,0.000016075224,0.0002496463,0.0022635919,0.00028541495,0.00016231505],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011443298,0.00026647208,0.000686831,0.00007794941,0.00020173866,0.000008840075,0.00020601408,0.00015303819,0.00046182418],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00036923238,0.00020570811,0.00014959589,0.00023838856,0.00020336833,0.00008156136,0.000082923034,0.0005117935,0.00013540941],"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":[0.0010681968,0.002312858,0.0059867552,0.016724035,0.00042242822,0.0002222875,0.00032659475,1.9565023e-7,0.013722566,0.53132397,0.30784386,0.120046265],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00052575616,0.0011714884,0.040580604,0.004570571,0.00017131031,0.00010805805,0.000018098895,3.8502674e-7,0.009729989,0.00076326466,0.9421079,0.0002525739],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00024569008,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000027277241,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63426405,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019486852,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000091468144,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83885336},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024472555,0.38597003,0.0022083784,0.13613245,0.0059454977,0.007252227,0.000035376135,0.0009277778,0.4370557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.70770985,0.27170604,0.0001877437,0.016595954,0.0022882693,0.00016542528,0.000029866038,0.00003754524,0.0012792957],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979677,0.0007902213,0.00024902556,0.00014744408,0.0004420192,0.00040357342],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99896693,0.00024363294,0.00013004262,0.00042519692,0.00013394137,0.000100278805],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0039127255,0.00011486247,0.00012661019,0.000008527503,0.001797528,0.00012874542,0.00042504695,0.000043608776,0.00009864192],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019868105,0.000063007596,0.00008817366,0.0001874954,0.00019082945,0.00045536092,0.00008484676,0.00020086174,0.00071728264],"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":[0.0000059729296,0.000079724545,0.00010173994,0.0006067529,0.000036696794,0.0000011125722,0.0033838023,5.33838e-7,0.000023393028,0.9315813,0.019841934,0.044337034],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000038191127,0.000011555147,0.00035358733,0.00036582223,0.00014840794,0.000001515086,0.0013294646,0.0000041406715,0.000012671411,0.00029539675,0.9973398,0.00009944843],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002299143,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00065744563,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9774979,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009286183,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005596423,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999502},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016848102,0.040719274,0.00044296644,0.024870668,0.0008563535,0.0016888507,0.00009013789,0.0000532563,0.9295937],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9915746,0.006542189,0.00008299812,0.0014456483,0.00016728851,0.000032243,0.0000070229717,0.0000021799412,0.00014584447],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984503,0.0005056057,0.0003480058,0.00013721459,0.00041064323,0.00014823773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990432,0.00018955718,0.00025032365,0.00016226151,0.00030114062,0.000053488086],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015941348,0.000086648935,0.00022935319,0.000009847233,0.0011610431,0.00003488378,0.000271026,0.00005854456,0.00034649528],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00052762957,0.000050471714,0.00014311052,0.00018585399,0.00967462,0.00029713326,0.00006875066,0.00016575403,0.000018634986],"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":[0.0000066644247,0.00001980809,0.0003959566,0.00008830099,0.000023743658,2.7495378e-7,0.00075439387,1.1765429e-7,0.000004512045,0.998035,0.0003982245,0.00027301506],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00077109627,0.000012858878,0.0009343513,0.0013211789,0.0002896334,0.000004878574,0.0003076851,0.000005287383,0.000020339226,0.23067492,0.7654886,0.00016913938],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001652731,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00041254275,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9898898,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000038145994,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00045031507,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9930205},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12550344,0.2360492,0.000023520708,0.09196172,0.0005866648,0.0019548475,0.000007395846,0.000105214385,0.543808],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93151337,0.06260472,0.00006742312,0.0052749594,0.0001720728,0.000033378965,0.0000017652724,0.0000042010656,0.0003281086],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876094,0.00025996348,0.00020292115,0.00018553833,0.00033655905,0.00025409015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994987,0.0001607582,0.00004582692,0.00018736425,0.000039847197,0.00006746571],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001152567,0.000095967545,0.00021515555,0.000015838039,0.00070902007,0.00004389359,0.00025228603,0.00004002217,0.00030095511],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000054856773,0.00006196938,0.000056626282,0.00017720646,0.00031620846,0.0003022794,0.00002689546,0.00014501873,0.00008013525],"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":[0.000009043752,0.00008214556,0.002076284,0.0008120803,0.000013824188,0.00015251369,0.026473073,1.3091942e-7,0.000037287085,0.9175481,0.048771594,0.0040239054],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000065058375,0.000016376474,0.0006960931,0.00082894316,0.000023140416,0.000025639933,0.00019998016,7.6617636e-7,0.000006683324,0.002326643,0.9957075,0.0001031415],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002837964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006403933,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94693595,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002933829,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003884782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5453281},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.092741996,0.322684,0.00006601934,0.0270686,0.00093011535,0.0016357135,0.00002054991,0.0002637616,0.5545893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8429408,0.13881573,0.00012641214,0.0049226284,0.0003875116,0.00002284873,0.0000045236566,0.000008846185,0.012770712],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998959,0.00012926837,0.0001709475,0.00017679992,0.00038451346,0.00017944771],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99945474,0.00010084471,0.000056205816,0.00013391579,0.00015268977,0.000101588295],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005777604,0.00008114575,0.00018042824,0.000012500043,0.00063210184,0.000027849648,0.00021026065,0.0000365012,0.0017396186],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010708773,0.00006595561,0.000060340768,0.00004225686,0.00038653048,0.00030842246,0.000030930558,0.00008117253,0.00020305767],"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":[0.0000013191005,0.0000069970283,0.00011855686,0.00015246066,0.000006117743,0.000011152004,0.00027068867,1.526987e-8,0.0000041254757,0.9918585,0.007437832,0.00013226316],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004527856,0.000014576817,0.00037487157,0.0019858975,0.000018290973,0.000012866526,0.0000028572504,0.0000015651273,0.000009682326,0.015029246,0.9823974,0.00010751208],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000998099,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0012676313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97682923,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000038842296,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000940057,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991729},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011207117,0.09706174,0.00011190262,0.22937956,0.0015843937,0.003143322,0.000012792525,0.00010481487,0.65739435],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.678238,0.29378304,0.00014379257,0.020857438,0.0002707519,0.000094611176,0.000018705308,0.000022297392,0.006571363],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986135,0.00011427582,0.00032914616,0.00015676122,0.0005335233,0.0002527954],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99875516,0.0005582238,0.00014548292,0.00031986265,0.00013632471,0.00008496201],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001136883,0.00010316705,0.0002284795,0.000010302679,0.00095290644,0.000024658408,0.00034894765,0.000040103296,0.00043185105],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033822976,0.0000682532,0.00012505411,0.00013609398,0.0005136894,0.00021502822,0.00003928209,0.00011220818,0.00023883629],"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":[0.00001594977,0.000044431592,0.00012988853,0.00028683938,0.000014534713,0.0000021716924,0.0011059063,7.24914e-7,0.0000036472186,0.9028239,0.088999264,0.006572738],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000065178014,0.00005292945,0.00012892218,0.0011915728,0.00003275176,0.0000020509178,0.0001020671,0.000002960035,0.000017316283,0.0014928409,0.9968239,0.00008752945],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007123864,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.009363338,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90782464,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009747261,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015567025,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99948776},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08422571,0.404434,0.0036559354,0.03991302,0.0038384404,0.0032079043,0.00011229898,0.0003190185,0.46029368],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9750332,0.023518426,0.0005210001,0.0003764632,0.00028451026,0.00001866651,0.000007902112,0.0000045113497,0.00023526956],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991686,0.00007947133,0.00020981094,0.00014317378,0.0002838537,0.00011508853],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991874,0.00006380995,0.0001447996,0.00017108784,0.00035075608,0.00008215656],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005900224,0.000074969306,0.00019315368,0.0000130856215,0.00030071853,0.000023546296,0.00012221302,0.00007624771,0.0008469258],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015694994,0.00006276554,0.000043163724,0.00013877192,0.0009915107,0.00017280466,0.000030239977,0.000118056916,0.000019026149],"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":[0.0000032744567,0.000035399476,0.0019329117,0.0004783798,0.000007336688,0.0000013151073,0.00018229069,5.1715807e-7,0.0006189781,0.990738,0.0025609082,0.003440731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012189964,0.000010754153,0.0016188625,0.0018134947,0.000030772004,0.000003229443,0.00006941871,0.000004892,0.0000796522,0.00095883536,0.99520224,0.00008592888],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00064780726,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0023808235,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9926413,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000011187714,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013953018,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9273243},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6707577,0.14863095,0.000096539006,0.14678325,0.0005886117,0.0121103125,0.000054558448,0.00013036605,0.020847682],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9917561,0.006615988,0.00018220913,0.00094094535,0.00018659378,0.000107709486,0.0000014572312,0.000007967043,0.00020104641],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985084,0.00026285247,0.00031824465,0.00024373634,0.0003659169,0.0003008713],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99903286,0.00014958308,0.00009352277,0.00019570427,0.00024198323,0.00028636953],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015717668,0.00011767112,0.00029553036,0.000032800315,0.0013904074,0.00006387747,0.00023941902,0.000058385882,0.000085441876],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00049637584,0.00008349236,0.000058478083,0.00023020912,0.00054067886,0.0002917863,0.000031774052,0.00011061906,0.000010794754],"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":[0.0020599572,0.00050581596,0.005840451,0.018677961,0.00047247068,0.00062368554,0.120855436,0.0000048635366,0.0005354521,0.6412886,0.1596127,0.049522653],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0020696686,0.00033391622,0.0013854716,0.013221907,0.0004328443,0.00012125177,0.00046543474,0.0000126026525,0.000065131404,0.0059872516,0.97536105,0.00054344116],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.25649306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6750151,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8157484,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045259352,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00035288557,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99990964},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0027444873,0.3493883,0.00002925024,0.3489194,0.00045377767,0.004585315,0.0007387249,0.000022251981,0.2931185],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98900795,0.010148668,0.000022467733,0.0006601068,0.0000476968,0.000061264596,0.0000016902329,0.0000017552371,0.00004842667],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993655,0.00006631853,0.0002007401,0.00009020317,0.00013554459,0.00014169002],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992666,0.00014984522,0.00010231771,0.0001091608,0.00030827418,0.0000637874],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004257557,0.000058568497,0.0001698298,0.0000045150837,0.0017844887,0.000012360394,0.00020810936,0.000026749673,0.0000073408205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015915958,0.00002810292,0.00008585746,0.00013636556,0.0011047329,0.00004828634,0.000020369596,0.00004046886,0.0000019046103],"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":[8.945503e-7,0.000009938844,0.000036061556,0.000040920833,0.000017988368,3.649987e-8,0.00018016658,9.8402914e-8,0.0000036844615,0.9991764,0.00034447233,0.00018937713],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005068339,0.000019821942,0.00043196764,0.0004265706,0.000050802955,4.6033705e-7,0.000045618257,5.599742e-8,0.000040952367,0.30532715,0.6935667,0.000039264298],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44515213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9542878,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98626345,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000059489597,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006449639,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99951506},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.014114142,0.8479214,0.0000071651316,0.04882448,0.00091114425,0.0014203711,0.000013593347,0.00014705116,0.08664068],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.21332829,0.77819836,0.00022018433,0.0037633735,0.00015653837,0.0000140174525,0.0000032954197,0.000010301148,0.0043056356],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983136,0.00019912049,0.00034762066,0.00021756004,0.0006039331,0.000318131],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990969,0.00009660344,0.00014664416,0.00021808626,0.0003363895,0.000105427345],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005560114,0.00014169431,0.0004809543,0.000009406795,0.0006500629,0.00002885167,0.0003286266,0.000071986215,0.0016615578],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019706742,0.000108505315,0.00022060571,0.00018151551,0.00071461307,0.0005420833,0.000073191375,0.000118933836,0.00026029957],"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":[0.000016895745,0.00039028574,0.009559806,0.006898363,0.000491504,0.000046634923,0.11292515,0.000001024588,0.00040395,0.22909126,0.6118199,0.028355233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007919058,0.000016784561,0.00047663125,0.00155527,0.000049891376,0.0000025810552,0.00068401155,4.20804e-7,0.00012848587,0.00021237675,0.9966464,0.00014793228],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003692284,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0017735482,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.38482654,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009322194,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007219388,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99925107},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022486987,0.70502496,0.00002511652,0.048085324,0.0013808302,0.0027682101,0.000045009205,0.00018572605,0.21999785],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82832724,0.16065101,0.000010780861,0.0038040064,0.0006775914,0.00012723893,0.000015742684,0.000026260626,0.00636011],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99749297,0.00056711404,0.00050826033,0.0003487257,0.0005918916,0.00049106905],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989047,0.00024306314,0.00022163274,0.00028721092,0.00022341439,0.00011996326],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020987578,0.00020897061,0.00040369743,0.000025804367,0.0015593256,0.00017293259,0.0003088917,0.00013981052,0.0017045563],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00038544319,0.00012441089,0.00008290593,0.00067303324,0.0004974962,0.00033289404,0.00008078366,0.00030238964,0.00024776655],"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":[0.000025259626,0.0002268374,0.005276476,0.0020999915,0.0001160589,0.000034388977,0.011915339,0.000028389315,0.00022208967,0.22442771,0.74248767,0.013139769],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019129939,0.00002585981,0.0006636224,0.0012306942,0.00006550778,0.000015924074,0.0002526463,0.000079333695,0.00001407896,0.000121296325,0.99714917,0.00019055865],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026424909,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11108782,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80584025,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021878269,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000068463814,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997405},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.90806377,0.051653713,0.000003999229,0.023362892,0.00022114122,0.0012175807,0.0000055688315,0.000011603788,0.015459752],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9611278,0.03818247,0.0000063420734,0.00048324667,0.000062176136,0.000062587205,7.630244e-7,0.0000025034515,0.00007208378],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990956,0.00012926957,0.00026613445,0.00014735005,0.00020852283,0.00015312634],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996095,0.00010330974,0.000085742366,0.00008869677,0.0000789663,0.000033810833],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00068610354,0.0000806403,0.00019338129,0.0000109079265,0.00047131875,0.00003969701,0.000092920585,0.00003402062,0.00001980624],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001290033,0.000045944278,0.000028681581,0.00019512212,0.0009168676,0.000209576,0.0001032012,0.000113745264,0.0000013356726],"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":[0.0000036090814,0.000025528778,0.22408831,0.0002245614,0.0000101217065,5.171895e-7,0.00026073636,1.4913539e-7,0.000015433128,0.77218115,0.00005878499,0.003131071],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014076693,0.000006187403,0.8559436,0.0007180736,0.000018561494,0.000003402849,0.00011235078,0.000005976305,0.00000476672,0.07179758,0.07116668,0.00008201947],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022638896,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04145097,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7003836,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002387529,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000063641324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98386943},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00061034755,0.5471948,0.0000031267552,0.0032137865,0.00035162765,0.0003914686,0.000009601296,0.000022457307,0.4482028],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9521743,0.02044245,0.000040899096,0.0023798095,0.00022548928,0.00004811057,0.0000019711931,0.000012014253,0.024674935],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99919933,0.00010438396,0.00024320166,0.00012872218,0.0001755113,0.00014886518],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995316,0.0000635234,0.000108269094,0.00016869379,0.00010065211,0.00002722667],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00021937849,0.00012433933,0.00026198913,0.0000034569061,0.0007513034,0.0000318125,0.00016407501,0.000016633394,0.00068886805],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000056301527,0.000048201462,0.00012175978,0.000032036958,0.00033204714,0.00005974006,0.000044647706,0.000109794135,0.000015527497],"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":[3.9427994e-7,0.000013253244,0.0000588366,0.00033112627,0.000027818172,2.6368392e-7,0.00069843465,4.206864e-8,0.0000026954474,0.98182404,0.016724547,0.0003185742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067195695,0.000019817719,0.000043181033,0.00077916624,0.0001070216,0.00000299012,0.000100356585,6.6804944e-7,0.000014662161,0.0060343705,0.9927456,0.00008498033],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00046088133,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008347969,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97602105,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000019009693,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000007984088,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7542622},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.096425235,0.25348237,0.0036345075,0.07955024,0.003094029,0.0032674556,0.00007691306,0.00032835032,0.5601409],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9725759,0.01389102,0.00009662368,0.012510785,0.00055649545,0.00005161075,0.0000039768374,0.000009246012,0.00030436768],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99854434,0.00037047692,0.0002202021,0.000176803,0.0003208054,0.00036740006],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991741,0.00021292262,0.00006381096,0.00023024343,0.00011931086,0.00019958089],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016445372,0.00011520174,0.00026626507,0.000022427284,0.00088070624,0.00009828387,0.00019812216,0.000034291967,0.0007111866],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009773784,0.00008189224,0.00012216039,0.0002645638,0.00025683997,0.00024131183,0.00005530126,0.00011831196,0.00023007796],"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":[0.000003433991,0.000036887854,0.0002713682,0.0003408708,0.000034297715,9.581561e-7,0.011493367,1.2925665e-7,0.000019694979,0.9702623,0.0014992626,0.016037432],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003410716,0.000020563812,0.00015803218,0.00066005427,0.0008967748,0.0000051954476,0.044494182,0.0000019825554,0.000010909709,0.00011916188,0.95345664,0.00014240197],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0069534844,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011079351,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97014314,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056181016,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000025033589,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996593},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0305352,0.00071939075,0.000086606386,0.41341162,0.0040848632,0.0022565096,0.00016500024,0.000050301263,0.5486905],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9849224,0.0018008273,0.00009231336,0.012166791,0.00033321325,0.000050254897,0.00005253504,0.000004975715,0.00057666603],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99847347,0.0003366594,0.00029939547,0.00011770324,0.0006660294,0.0001067632],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99875635,0.0005370423,0.0001759387,0.00020085734,0.00030866324,0.000021132088],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014070424,0.00006485182,0.000094601804,0.000018273175,0.00030850727,0.00006256952,0.00031673294,0.000042202017,0.0003536828],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008340449,0.000041373918,0.00006087078,0.00019494354,0.00011288941,0.00025770694,0.000013247383,0.00021387746,0.000009688564],"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":[0.0000020326593,0.000019402009,0.00014516995,0.000014222478,0.0000064381816,3.611766e-7,0.00023641017,0.0000072843213,0.00004863218,0.99202967,0.0072453124,0.0002450618],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047000638,0.0000079634065,0.0007899217,0.0002241208,0.0000120838195,7.9417026e-7,0.000051738843,0.000028543733,0.000057589674,0.006891081,0.9918408,0.000048366735],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7517461,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9805991,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9851386,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001372965,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003114277,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38725784},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0043206224,0.17109042,0.000099170946,0.09020505,0.0009235836,0.0011710506,0.000010301439,0.00035184147,0.731828],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4436328,0.48199487,0.0017067108,0.04185652,0.0020563141,0.00012346417,0.00001849521,0.000057592286,0.028553214],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976948,0.0003134181,0.0003854267,0.000360699,0.0007128878,0.0005327784],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987231,0.000227743,0.00010992505,0.00038031142,0.00024542175,0.00031351065],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009088908,0.00018742839,0.00044074148,0.00001640998,0.0009853063,0.000059014335,0.0005328435,0.000099719924,0.0012065336],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00048876595,0.00016462318,0.00022442032,0.00031091485,0.00065070007,0.00052158243,0.0000789452,0.00023962301,0.0010113146],"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":[0.000014835096,0.00010576338,0.00019696634,0.0016548232,0.000021627162,0.00017636779,0.0011165886,5.2090957e-7,0.000021131893,0.5325054,0.4582818,0.005904201],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000089696165,0.000043644064,0.00017107125,0.0016123846,0.00020511124,0.00003386131,0.00004661203,0.0000036556683,0.000005627048,0.0007864615,0.99677557,0.0002263176],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014604579,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0027509884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7032747,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000090676185,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00029340357,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997665},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.052954037,0.47212845,0.0001364494,0.21950218,0.00055301446,0.0033452867,0.000116253395,0.00021456258,0.2510498],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8985347,0.09774191,0.00039707287,0.0022550963,0.00028648766,0.000017950377,0.0000042036763,0.000009763251,0.00075282226],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986185,0.000108722445,0.00032151164,0.00019225638,0.0004914864,0.000267513],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993404,0.00005747534,0.00023199592,0.00009976043,0.00016319545,0.00010715002],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006583713,0.0001287182,0.00044378432,0.00000340476,0.0006678649,0.000022732158,0.00021604108,0.00007231686,0.00015507029],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035173926,0.000096484146,0.00012783718,0.00016808725,0.0005401118,0.00027502686,0.00016279418,0.00010974902,0.000023323853],"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":[0.0000037717557,0.00002452068,0.0001409039,0.00067316386,0.000033782162,8.8227154e-7,0.009145094,2.488128e-7,0.000025018488,0.9813049,0.0027177376,0.005930017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00036042152,0.000024152869,0.0032249952,0.0010070149,0.00007104704,4.9979957e-7,0.00060485007,8.908785e-8,0.000053191397,0.0150057245,0.979461,0.00018698962],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02176715,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.015972696,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9767433,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000262606,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001501757,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.984747},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.014498191,0.09253896,0.00007269694,0.0057771825,0.00022366265,0.00065879675,0.00003075573,0.000036710833,0.88616306],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9681919,0.028336054,0.00032412785,0.002360904,0.000097332064,0.000015246727,0.0000038003493,0.0000048594,0.00066575705],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99873275,0.0002043413,0.00027351113,0.00012313781,0.00043751596,0.00022872098],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999465,0.00007142686,0.0000799202,0.00014455892,0.00014285598,0.000096240976],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006006235,0.00007934525,0.00030040558,0.00001843301,0.00017668345,0.0000039819183,0.00017865044,0.000037806014,0.00043405363],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016235703,0.00007294694,0.000094020565,0.00018399062,0.00092893734,0.00007915647,0.000021527574,0.00009517957,0.000047440513],"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":[0.0000023809569,0.000041029194,0.00031114015,0.00027606255,0.0000061800006,0.000015551792,0.00029002593,8.572053e-7,0.000011353556,0.9960645,0.0026829282,0.00029798297],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008410461,0.000020001764,0.00024844593,0.0011653466,0.000033936845,0.0000124843145,0.00008666082,3.9995763e-7,0.000024311137,0.0002383791,0.9979922,0.000093733295],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006757931,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0016078743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9958261,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000086476255,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010193841,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998562},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010735164,0.098098986,0.000049028666,0.007734782,0.00012533955,0.00024588755,0.000017024582,0.000054693493,0.8926008],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93680465,0.046008505,0.00055719254,0.01017434,0.0006144275,0.000022489437,0.000019024932,0.000009021843,0.0057903505],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991615,0.00010085939,0.00016434054,0.00012960301,0.0002160975,0.0002276019],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995858,0.00008507194,0.00004842272,0.00011683548,0.00007692484,0.000086929045],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00035077435,0.00007643831,0.00017756608,0.0000075879584,0.00034825184,0.00003698186,0.00010807398,0.00003381536,0.00042029013],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005851884,0.00006876126,0.000049931732,0.00009925924,0.0008185395,0.000115545256,0.00002150556,0.000060001898,0.00009773653],"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":[3.5564923e-7,0.000008808452,0.0007798893,0.000063490144,0.0000028898824,0.000002280849,0.000007728413,1.6140467e-7,0.0000013313191,0.98430467,0.013989651,0.00083874236],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003691297,0.0000055424184,0.0002605784,0.00026883447,0.0000275726,0.0000030778774,0.000013626061,2.133807e-7,0.0000012920785,0.0036980372,0.99559045,0.00009383594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012868529,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029925047,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9816008,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000039797003,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002924265,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99370486},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0076569873,0.33385432,0.00030771547,0.25935894,0.0005708644,0.0032072025,0.000027563701,0.00011410348,0.3949023],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9243737,0.07283655,0.00031451823,0.0022429263,0.00007537539,0.000035207628,0.0000045944234,0.000005614197,0.00011155579],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99800366,0.00066717656,0.00050541846,0.00013528606,0.00050375727,0.0001846746],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998398,0.0006230617,0.00038547002,0.0003013303,0.00022685743,0.00006527315],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025952826,0.000096760356,0.00029624472,0.000011032538,0.0006019992,0.000088936205,0.00037659297,0.00005468984,0.00010900621],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00048354632,0.000050482027,0.000100083846,0.00017026668,0.0036137002,0.00044204836,0.000059509224,0.00008580006,0.00001589804],"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":[0.0000075135263,0.000014377151,0.000028966411,0.00021542776,0.000010985671,7.4723545e-8,0.000431842,5.9196225e-7,0.000100580175,0.994257,0.0015555039,0.0033771468],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000312106,0.000016533006,0.000019904133,0.0011225817,0.00004170818,0.0000012814883,0.00032086097,0.000032930126,0.0004017129,0.028761828,0.9688929,0.00007569703],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002397113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011262104,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96733737,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000023111765,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000676571,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990979},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.184221,0.12434863,0.0011279379,0.0009994244,0.0005000013,0.0020611049,0.000094409115,0.0001713926,0.6864761],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9844432,0.01465409,0.00012461022,0.00033527816,0.00003857079,0.000009768333,0.0000060410944,0.0000046029104,0.0003838516],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992329,0.00012938985,0.0002219556,0.00012883206,0.00015397568,0.000132932],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99957,0.000048509453,0.00009864025,0.000114250455,0.000091033144,0.00007753644],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00031328213,0.00007566313,0.00024013339,0.0000147890505,0.00016952332,0.000013348715,0.0001081347,0.000042306707,0.0010688966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000033033528,0.00005997974,0.000069801245,0.00004211943,0.00051706855,0.00020989256,0.000015154963,0.000057977137,0.000034501976],"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":[0.000013678296,0.00007752545,0.00026865595,0.00032255665,0.000028559805,0.0000023423627,0.018800447,4.2073548e-8,0.00004839231,0.96049595,0.00066647906,0.01927535],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0014330829,0.00041157551,0.0057307743,0.007316839,0.00073906407,0.000013724354,0.0014457424,0.00015197457,0.00038687134,0.16076593,0.82080656,0.0007978431],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00074239663,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0038110248,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82014006,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002170823,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000050705887,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99984425},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0028995816,0.71159524,0.00067056826,0.036906768,0.00094424374,0.0032088752,0.000119758806,0.00008813354,0.24356681],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6108609,0.3760761,0.0010227845,0.01168151,0.00024768425,0.000042103933,0.000005438771,0.000012491606,0.00005097586],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961687,0.00052345364,0.000858832,0.00045069182,0.0016470512,0.00035132217],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99482256,0.0032730282,0.00046749512,0.00028069768,0.0009797657,0.00017642301],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003249483,0.0002574292,0.0006895583,0.000024443469,0.0014259838,0.0000725979,0.00058576505,0.000101764366,0.00054131955],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004358204,0.00018669164,0.00022869527,0.00045617408,0.0018141518,0.0007322372,0.00011285072,0.00029990156,0.000047103087],"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":[0.00011693935,0.00009772263,0.00004182039,0.0052542635,0.000046779307,0.000045617628,0.0015422436,4.2892714e-7,0.0000053509425,0.9230214,0.057844393,0.011983035],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015597872,0.00018835026,0.00029024505,0.07572297,0.0004082877,0.00009250304,0.00051092193,0.0000045609745,0.000010644358,0.010504546,0.9118153,0.00029568555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00066031143,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0038746595,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91251683,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010592547,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00088279037,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999874},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008790576,0.30622712,0.0022010596,0.47986186,0.001844239,0.0053801583,0.00016915538,0.0004174951,0.19510834],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89288163,0.06545878,0.00082520786,0.03672318,0.00076676544,0.00021311433,0.000009397152,0.000038622722,0.0030832696],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99824405,0.00011341243,0.0002591266,0.0002619224,0.00058575737,0.0005357158],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99898916,0.000049067967,0.00008872164,0.00030438902,0.0001707896,0.00039786627],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005778433,0.00013644899,0.00032230414,0.000012160538,0.00041287497,0.00020895082,0.00028359413,0.000052777534,0.00022399021],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015960366,0.00010627568,0.00007783227,0.00027355697,0.00016364199,0.00041806765,0.000035565427,0.0000970608,0.00022658502],"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":[0.0000011930221,0.000027121825,0.00008939488,0.00020768955,0.000011764602,0.000007829646,0.00089369307,0.000010861825,0.0000021547012,0.9933761,0.0040447633,0.0013274836],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013711903,0.000039385508,0.00023480336,0.006722956,0.000035448167,0.0000039900715,0.0001699419,1.5571894e-7,0.000008939061,0.0032266816,0.98924696,0.0001736136],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03343789,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.055499602,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9901494,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00040402624,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00053856726,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97299856},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5622852,0.056752622,0.0009851581,0.07344274,0.0015713928,0.013654357,0.000106131374,0.000038980786,0.29116344],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99767154,0.0015385075,0.000019787807,0.00067423773,0.000017226044,0.00003567381,0.0000018912758,0.0000036618865,0.000037462345],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99874955,0.00043896996,0.0002956359,0.00009587872,0.00021851077,0.00020147745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99938333,0.00019243459,0.000109544104,0.00018348437,0.00010140959,0.000029780342],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034979845,0.000056759873,0.00016830611,0.000023323451,0.00013080284,0.000019296105,0.00040917014,0.000035752244,0.00006778231],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013664433,0.000030806485,0.00008770951,0.00022815987,0.00018771928,0.00010447627,0.000023351911,0.000105067,9.069307e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024429994,0.00005968738,0.03536439,0.00068687514,0.000018650991,8.8829876e-7,0.20658362,0.000010809169,0.000047986567,0.7091854,0.0004425815,0.04757465],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00046461396,0.00010259272,0.06374194,0.0074017625,0.00005454046,7.987232e-7,0.0060567283,0.00087659876,0.00012620188,0.0023111766,0.9186719,0.00019115921],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47566026,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7449682,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9182293,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009441669,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002442015,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5278314},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020539625,0.7114866,0.0049036196,0.176077,0.0032988065,0.006282713,0.0005608868,0.00019169958,0.07665909],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98198074,0.013285399,0.0005600954,0.002931088,0.00076328526,0.000079025995,0.00001752231,0.000008227584,0.00037462343],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981755,0.00021632329,0.00041920025,0.00016821423,0.0006932173,0.00032756018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988908,0.0002595387,0.00019083629,0.00023069799,0.00025426768,0.00017382437],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037242481,0.000114389426,0.0003136753,0.000009871274,0.00048583883,0.00002871092,0.0002942792,0.00004374369,0.00048066847],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00038878885,0.00007748579,0.00021580733,0.00010718406,0.00086931285,0.00045259434,0.00003909235,0.00009051432,0.000018497201],"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":[0.000027408609,0.000042773037,0.0040284325,0.0013595177,0.0000411562,4.573222e-7,0.0005102667,9.7278466e-8,0.000023855904,0.97006285,0.022014579,0.0018885911],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009460802,0.000017210758,0.000875176,0.0016171915,0.00017641256,0.0000032565454,0.0002312742,5.563712e-7,0.00007736055,0.00566106,0.9911327,0.00011324046],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011626467,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010304311,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96911806,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055169698,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005044468,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5262983},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.034425408,0.5456303,0.019750886,0.19897988,0.004431118,0.012960396,0.000068064925,0.00083852484,0.18291545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84656334,0.10567682,0.018564226,0.018558657,0.00035255408,0.00044494122,0.00002190193,0.000091188165,0.009726357],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99812233,0.00020263152,0.00042633052,0.00034607243,0.0005144551,0.0003881613],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99839157,0.00013105145,0.00018059273,0.00084728893,0.00029686262,0.00015263107],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010520204,0.00019562438,0.0004685617,0.000019502777,0.00020753266,0.000115420575,0.0007534007,0.000047942296,0.00021197979],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011449146,0.0001286421,0.00008929392,0.00029859936,0.00016003093,0.00039799532,0.00020955672,0.000178904,0.000056540914],"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":[0.000029775516,0.00009645108,0.00027759065,0.0046223435,0.00023782458,0.00005470862,0.00022344096,0.000015021481,0.0011722868,0.46739042,0.38157654,0.1443036],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00079515396,0.00006722276,0.00028467237,0.0020557425,0.00007655111,0.00017768133,0.000017221411,0.0028509486,0.002795837,0.006895915,0.98359835,0.0003846742],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.24524602,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.067778766,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81213796,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056031487,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024526234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94923186},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00018894544,0.7628871,0.0000291871,0.06615808,0.00019204697,0.0013133676,0.000007992187,0.0000221301,0.16920115],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49484092,0.48581332,0.000057035788,0.018589314,0.00040028518,0.00015226273,0.00000474052,0.000005610231,0.00013649491],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99785894,0.0007733621,0.00028579426,0.00013238552,0.0006573637,0.00029214445],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99904567,0.00027439487,0.0002155507,0.00024547952,0.00016491434,0.00005398422],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003686808,0.00013296344,0.0003520955,0.000006027733,0.001474724,0.000015726031,0.0003694054,0.00002147525,0.000394211],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000071110095,0.000057595156,0.00012821477,0.00023907772,0.0010962599,0.00022026265,0.000082962484,0.00019306301,0.000050848164],"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":[0.0000030483366,0.000035598125,0.0003323352,0.00066090777,0.0001460383,8.93704e-7,0.00490434,8.126374e-8,0.0000012416527,0.95813173,0.032348167,0.003435637],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045600595,0.000017899758,0.00021537591,0.009022121,0.00031022052,0.0000012404919,0.0003496555,6.598924e-8,0.000004904795,0.0045244372,0.98541504,0.000093409246],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0076082256,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006850766,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95360726,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000054530832,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000082226776,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99982524},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.089033656,0.70212257,0.00016528393,0.055492003,0.0036325322,0.0056722234,0.00007662365,0.0001728223,0.1436323],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9608007,0.036050294,0.00036253835,0.001851666,0.00038321177,0.000054987613,0.0000055835385,0.000025138497,0.0004658703],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99590105,0.0005516119,0.00080989226,0.0003072482,0.0014344788,0.0009956951],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978995,0.0007621654,0.00033442455,0.00041905988,0.00035446347,0.00023041974],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004145285,0.00029082497,0.0007749658,0.000026070767,0.0009256194,0.000049789276,0.0007683394,0.000102099795,0.00051789754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0014061214,0.00019267383,0.0002342876,0.00043014644,0.00043570058,0.0004798083,0.00023481717,0.00035293732,0.000033204582],"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":[0.00009641411,0.0005568865,0.12925437,0.0058498704,0.00071401824,0.000048803984,0.04840469,0.00009235827,0.00024078277,0.28397688,0.44625476,0.08451018],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023287421,0.000012911223,0.0068590236,0.003094921,0.000108783366,0.0000026253674,0.00194489,0.0000072848375,0.000057920774,0.00033589252,0.98704314,0.00029973037],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5420929,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86861295,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87176704,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008094338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047916113,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7857011},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021819174,0.10857865,0.000038787217,0.014130041,0.00091956294,0.003776082,0.000031775144,0.00047879643,0.8502271],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73628265,0.07124463,0.00047824354,0.018996216,0.0010607182,0.0005429168,0.00006466647,0.00005498001,0.17127497],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983679,0.00022676888,0.0003378409,0.0002557864,0.00044178782,0.00036989222],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991132,0.000045413923,0.0001010817,0.00026066622,0.00030126426,0.00017834477],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005609564,0.000093053146,0.00031613,0.00000770621,0.0009560228,0.000737839,0.00033907342,0.000085847656,0.026961131],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006586147,0.00011963255,0.00015157915,0.00015755072,0.0003130908,0.00052769016,0.000033448316,0.00013052666,0.0021488122],"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":[1.9565023e-7,0.000046318113,0.00037967946,0.0003674322,0.0000189871,0.000007909603,0.0003004907,3.5273743e-8,0.000003398399,0.49670455,0.4954445,0.0067264885],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009787571,0.000014990961,0.0009985109,0.0011243699,0.000035915265,0.0000042334705,0.0000418784,9.268932e-7,8.695145e-7,0.015884811,0.98162353,0.00017211429],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2629363,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7437476,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7144635,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000597495,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013098236,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99862814},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03243804,0.74558496,0.00009935002,0.09019822,0.0024787248,0.0041571627,0.000049963768,0.0002025891,0.12479099],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42276502,0.57028675,0.00041239185,0.004737844,0.0005102269,0.000043746888,0.000022445874,0.000012199593,0.00120937],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983878,0.00060607755,0.00025628193,0.00016666937,0.00041505985,0.00016811061],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920535,0.00011410198,0.0001541596,0.00019671668,0.00024223515,0.00008741823],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016462229,0.00009551375,0.0002714728,0.0000017898543,0.0010062238,0.000033887183,0.00021219347,0.00009700283,0.00009709622],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022900979,0.00006257933,0.0000711019,0.00030855718,0.00077208347,0.0003574815,0.000029336876,0.00012928307,0.000007775821],"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":[0.00002191719,0.000057102057,0.00024276845,0.0014842998,0.00003944809,0.000001335902,0.040392652,0.0000026958674,0.00002597381,0.9313603,0.025096502,0.0012749796],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004171867,0.000033761353,0.00011469561,0.0012941323,0.00018180753,0.0000042828437,0.0029551955,0.000015792233,0.00002405331,0.0025896681,0.9922388,0.00013061707],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00059683266,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010475024,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9671423,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003200317,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010820405,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77391624},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9529974,0.017390102,0.000011937651,0.008422392,0.000643861,0.0007440111,0.0000135330565,0.000024587522,0.019752167],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9916168,0.0075625265,0.00023244182,0.000220015,0.00018453918,0.000014918016,0.0000069258385,0.0000036674526,0.000158197],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987151,0.00024527084,0.00031084332,0.00016274283,0.00035639788,0.00020966295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989105,0.0002924849,0.00028379407,0.00012469977,0.0003128168,0.00007570058],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00082088995,0.00012730439,0.00036035985,0.0000081150365,0.00074872706,0.000069753616,0.00017659574,0.00009355417,0.000115315575],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009921759,0.00007482456,0.00009053828,0.00015111027,0.002461728,0.0003086405,0.00006757021,0.0002302103,0.0000017728877],"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":[0.00001935112,0.000120736455,0.09365119,0.002681504,0.00027545102,0.0000019469421,0.02462651,0.000001023603,0.04287614,0.822558,0.005743362,0.0074448152],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00083249994,0.00011936856,0.24040812,0.010609177,0.00062342687,0.00003665825,0.004759276,0.000039724193,0.0013464326,0.0011203086,0.7393891,0.0007158688],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02305612,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02630671,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82143766,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004936624,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000104474544,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9914607},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.078819886,0.7055604,0.00007713594,0.05723127,0.003848093,0.008581435,0.000019570329,0.00045023885,0.14541198],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77118766,0.20760234,0.00069702894,0.014408549,0.0017043549,0.00032979663,0.000008505077,0.00007125842,0.0039904914],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944524,0.0021943017,0.0012936096,0.00047005553,0.0009986826,0.00059096294],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98886216,0.009342555,0.0005535801,0.0006470644,0.00032608444,0.00026858572],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.007511568,0.0002705408,0.0009040287,0.000074141026,0.00090233266,0.00043481725,0.00085625745,0.00013094467,0.0009940017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023355588,0.00017317395,0.00027228985,0.00066127564,0.00027721116,0.00051806186,0.000109133085,0.00036328004,0.0011307151],"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":[0.00004098565,0.000092707756,0.000035041583,0.0008523017,0.0000313908,0.00019722464,0.0018729637,0.0000025391098,0.000016991227,0.19992365,0.21721312,0.5797211],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019229755,0.00007629301,0.00015103756,0.0041574184,0.00008927586,0.000019931409,0.00048415927,0.0000015725312,0.000021440292,0.0068875067,0.98768216,0.00023689892],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0037606624,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0066696294,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.77046907,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016693828,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007133106,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99991924},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0032682407,0.0153972395,0.002696573,0.030378787,0.0031111282,0.0021261307,0.00001626423,0.00019574558,0.9428099],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98541886,0.009767449,0.000014702667,0.0024003943,0.0006065407,0.000043659715,0.000020058313,0.000017542958,0.0017108056],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99912554,0.000029064804,0.00036999403,0.00010764065,0.0002463503,0.00012140711],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989272,0.000029083349,0.000375311,0.00037819665,0.00028355306,0.000006701481],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005215077,0.000087027714,0.0001782071,0.00002201544,0.0002842456,0.00004235302,0.00023039279,0.00003206683,0.00013815102],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015232025,0.000043244105,0.00013777462,0.0004153166,0.00010735225,0.00038541437,0.00007224205,0.00007106934,0.000037437654],"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":[0.00001039017,0.00004847975,0.00025342195,0.0020348993,0.000023958428,3.5532562e-8,0.000004029642,0.0000049950127,0.000107393746,0.96705204,0.019483224,0.010977116],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010646838,0.0000068085274,0.0017575538,0.0011290823,0.000081214865,0.0000014159161,0.000016688517,0.00043814682,0.000029778554,0.0008352353,0.9955397,0.000057864312],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00025406753,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00063652155,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9821506,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000040239447,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000019026771,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2186216},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00062119396,0.02241732,0.012676372,0.5856071,0.0018849177,0.0036316686,0.000077652316,0.0000642057,0.37301958],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8801801,0.040609457,0.004116456,0.07046532,0.00096003193,0.00038948352,0.000034109922,0.000012540268,0.0032325042],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99918455,0.000088902765,0.00021080607,0.000094948904,0.00028815542,0.00013265708],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980312,0.0010783963,0.00009558321,0.00015307081,0.0005799467,0.00006182775],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001305138,0.000047741916,0.00011535305,0.00001850942,0.0010784265,0.000047249225,0.00035504135,0.0000209148,0.00057618076],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002957245,0.00003490838,0.000054267563,0.0004254333,0.0005824576,0.00041684727,0.000031625055,0.00012253705,0.000041109903],"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":[0.0000029258083,0.000020689193,0.00006399438,0.00023235579,0.000009445676,1.8344154e-7,0.00076539593,0.0000073246824,0.0000064997016,0.9247241,0.07293388,0.0012331851],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004504902,0.000006850041,0.00013784872,0.00027156118,0.00006313479,0.000002822126,0.0001668666,0.0000057409356,0.0000078617895,0.0009451807,0.9983004,0.00004672404],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017991149,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00076831813,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92536646,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003500062,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001129932,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8294494},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0068339086,0.37393162,0.000072294904,0.023669433,0.00061408465,0.0014294373,5.30438e-7,0.00020395797,0.59324473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.70829964,0.28152752,0.0005142227,0.0010421912,0.0010291309,0.00005793468,0.000006182928,0.000025465253,0.0074977516],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978885,0.00068818644,0.00022721723,0.000259459,0.0005800535,0.00035656957],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989347,0.000289004,0.000055089236,0.00024537725,0.00032597038,0.00014987845],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0047850343,0.00008872759,0.00023349497,0.00003523816,0.00092295563,0.00010065827,0.0002182929,0.00010400797,0.00031046383],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007116222,0.00007154065,0.000040919884,0.00044334005,0.000374335,0.00016831997,0.00006554412,0.00027085908,0.00018490903],"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":[0.000007634984,0.00006920832,0.0016315306,0.0014385079,0.000035962497,0.000005491901,0.0072761737,4.1588785e-7,0.000056820663,0.89197797,0.033198174,0.06430209],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000069827416,0.000041815718,0.00007463492,0.0022217995,0.00001768408,0.000001378832,0.00022332107,0.000013257329,0.000009546535,0.0064215017,0.9908067,0.000098523604],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00090429815,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00041721918,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9576085,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005740414,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007314705,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7098722},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.3944553,0.4206575,0.0000957473,0.10489635,0.0016707745,0.007717597,0.00040009152,0.000047046444,0.07005959],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96958274,0.029886646,0.00019914568,0.00015590127,0.000019209745,0.000035505826,0.0000013984761,0.00000556281,0.000113911876],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99624735,0.0006321005,0.0012036175,0.0002288185,0.0013235518,0.00036455263],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963868,0.0013861731,0.00047236195,0.0005129295,0.0011512301,0.00009047032],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018259921,0.00016323196,0.00096977537,0.000031864274,0.00037659533,0.000010712157,0.00090667204,0.000080800426,0.000697577],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0024639391,0.00008405498,0.00040743558,0.0012108532,0.0014212244,0.00014869981,0.00018468391,0.00016142125,0.0000020334392],"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":[0.000100536454,0.0008913765,0.06089949,0.006189151,0.0034001237,0.0000053375975,0.020897562,0.00016721811,0.0016150009,0.6249683,0.26842308,0.0124427965],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00076940586,0.00017054997,0.1429844,0.014282484,0.004370358,8.0809514e-7,0.010196572,0.00075809733,0.0015612604,0.013617057,0.8103772,0.0009118208],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.80665904,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95574766,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.61135125,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001372558,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000392765,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.76379794},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.059163626,0.7125766,0.0000013972157,0.13388771,0.0004160587,0.0021571051,0.00001811979,0.000023147964,0.0917562],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9006218,0.097224385,0.00002302689,0.0009988119,0.00006729665,0.000036613965,0.000001150264,0.000004046924,0.0010229066],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987045,0.00028967104,0.00027006576,0.000110971145,0.0003500222,0.00027477916],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99934894,0.00031445918,0.00011041567,0.000120480596,0.00007220556,0.00003349128],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011121802,0.000083761064,0.0002629534,0.0000021285095,0.0006650463,0.00003190244,0.0002324114,0.000019196274,0.000037968017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021865353,0.000040464445,0.000048335132,0.00010484634,0.0006202898,0.00006342242,0.00005593691,0.00009746977,0.000002281562],"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":[0.000026345058,0.000026373402,0.049326368,0.00063301285,0.00006157126,0.00000551368,0.0018103531,0.0000131351835,0.000008165117,0.86542803,0.079771236,0.002889869],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020774723,0.000002019893,0.0110344635,0.000308081,0.000012067163,3.0946543e-7,0.00044073845,0.000007291925,0.0000025048384,0.00036668047,0.9875512,0.000066858825],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9752482,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99727243,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90778,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002736835,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024953118,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.51150656},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19668765,0.15197389,0.000067085806,0.08688059,0.0022058908,0.0039143334,0.000037281603,0.00009664888,0.55813664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9228071,0.07358963,0.000018480705,0.0023261448,0.00024432878,0.00004739214,0.0000058473843,0.000009968958,0.0009511061],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99767226,0.00047850452,0.0004999508,0.00022230182,0.00075403793,0.000372965],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999201,0.00015819511,0.00014360555,0.00029340998,0.00013170588,0.000072100745],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027229444,0.00012793945,0.00034217414,0.00004187154,0.00019673737,0.000029131626,0.00040687795,0.00007791004,0.0006951349],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015123622,0.00010393035,0.00007785098,0.00075424043,0.00013890926,0.00022397906,0.000025456584,0.00023605074,0.000007774563],"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":[0.00022162563,0.0014578223,0.14205791,0.005073271,0.0001415841,0.00048712664,0.04207202,0.00024911805,0.00049152505,0.3629446,0.3457219,0.09908151],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014741361,0.000023449615,0.009470686,0.0011236734,0.000019257097,0.000005882002,0.0002776349,0.000015296151,0.000008570723,0.00020663918,0.9885821,0.000119419514],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7909354,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98437035,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.72611946,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003549421,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00091605954,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.761124},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003668063,0.59465927,0.0000015836381,0.18272448,0.001235069,0.0011192263,0.000019610312,0.00006626986,0.21650642],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.41658226,0.5753039,0.000010294517,0.007258224,0.00054500083,0.00010735852,0.000005460289,0.000007735946,0.00017977365],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982493,0.0006271391,0.00026599303,0.0001927584,0.0003616624,0.00030315178],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99908566,0.00035279544,0.0000696185,0.0003232717,0.000079730875,0.00008891544],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012479844,0.0001261447,0.00024158829,0.0000073508427,0.0030245367,0.00009223403,0.00037275974,0.00005091846,0.000115461684],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000316444,0.00006880193,0.000096625816,0.0001903077,0.0009766152,0.00022684815,0.00005240386,0.00034978945,0.000056277382],"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":[0.0000022405106,0.000041087595,0.00013340943,0.0001213796,0.0000042875745,0.0000048671886,0.0022072247,2.3083023e-8,0.0000012697566,0.97688776,0.012895976,0.0077004763],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005864339,0.0000105737045,0.000624374,0.00083878456,0.000038750673,0.000014812914,0.0004719759,6.9050066e-7,0.0000012096867,0.0033511692,0.99448985,0.00009916461],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0061241807,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07108444,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98159385,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000033917993,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000062725936,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9982734},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022606615,0.27447265,0.009981762,0.5299339,0.0029571473,0.03174733,0.00041422847,0.00034458254,0.12754177],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9731946,0.02251359,0.00018977078,0.0010010712,0.00048347993,0.0014174047,0.000014414108,0.000013288595,0.0011723671],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99909,0.00013617506,0.00015723148,0.00015367182,0.00018283755,0.00028007475],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99872476,0.00080566714,0.00005958238,0.00024443588,0.0001024564,0.00006311989],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007388377,0.000098661614,0.00017480146,0.0000046423847,0.0015221534,0.00021969566,0.00017164007,0.000032988934,0.00010296225],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010279768,0.000040446695,0.00008590285,0.00009771832,0.0010576176,0.0003068975,0.000015585874,0.00006395815,0.000003120348],"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":[0.000010694702,0.000057161138,0.00070046395,0.00063221896,0.000027696056,5.520697e-9,0.014648865,2.757161e-7,0.000011523112,0.98006713,0.0012158627,0.0026280882],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000119498545,0.000044734992,0.0015586047,0.00022364673,0.00015942298,0.0000012931134,0.03390036,0.000006231005,0.0000037953341,0.011117392,0.95276535,0.00009969889],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013912851,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01813267,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96894974,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029215693,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000083053405,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997839},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021289235,0.6492308,0.0001020871,0.2844291,0.0017464133,0.0025784166,0.000028803928,0.0001464395,0.040448707],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8525555,0.13992141,0.00009009944,0.006647437,0.0004205014,0.00002962022,0.000003863164,0.000006855931,0.00032468964],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99811906,0.0004487902,0.00043149915,0.00018801456,0.0005387608,0.0002738538],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99898297,0.00023415452,0.0002480246,0.00019823192,0.00027261573,0.00006399586],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018132958,0.00013599709,0.0003750179,0.000007668328,0.0006444417,0.00009433856,0.00037044543,0.00006219943,0.0005321257],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002238343,0.000085131156,0.00020506157,0.00021467637,0.0005877908,0.0007635531,0.0000777606,0.00014589402,0.00010092483],"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":[0.000025708761,0.00021636343,0.0011641135,0.0018257888,0.00043121827,0.0000014206358,0.20752017,0.000010415884,0.00015378393,0.35877788,0.06038164,0.36949152],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000091683534,0.00001536772,0.000269075,0.0027195676,0.0001429375,3.8060006e-7,0.004920061,0.000020758729,0.00009116318,0.0005120937,0.9910744,0.00014253399],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0021644568,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005403787,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93069273,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001455653,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000059179674,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5826403},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5888234,0.29935974,0.000055391018,0.02354094,0.00095884426,0.0019150791,0.00002317739,0.00005192732,0.0852715],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9836479,0.015488724,0.000031374235,0.00060482393,0.00015891712,0.000008458704,5.2956864e-7,0.0000072889507,0.000051995612],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99820024,0.00033781686,0.00034022005,0.00013199182,0.00063659565,0.0003531513],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99864715,0.00034652752,0.00027168222,0.00048863434,0.00015568215,0.00009032116],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026480886,0.00013155876,0.0003216287,0.000012730982,0.00032224372,0.00003699853,0.0006557638,0.000051281688,0.00030337545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000386708,0.00006337707,0.0003282895,0.0003160749,0.0005745134,0.0005026132,0.00007925892,0.00016807552,0.000022267592],"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":[0.000056511395,0.00061593513,0.21870479,0.004544114,0.0002879978,0.00000486575,0.008327088,0.000020373931,0.003115152,0.66748196,0.046995636,0.049845587],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020104513,0.00018670656,0.2048109,0.016314818,0.00042451307,0.000014223476,0.0005722142,0.000008702583,0.0013894038,0.0020320131,0.77360004,0.00044539824],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025768413,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00052563363,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7266044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007879595,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017273054,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38954306},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.22905816,0.5770153,0.000025213276,0.110473745,0.0010267555,0.0027876962,0.000019816714,0.000058786056,0.07953457],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8730403,0.125439,0.000016901784,0.0012049376,0.00007604283,0.000011968528,2.8032008e-7,0.000003401251,0.00020715974],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985932,0.00050731143,0.0002792795,0.00011360328,0.00038249834,0.00012408328],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989692,0.00040388035,0.00017015476,0.00029120364,0.00013273973,0.00003280731],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001568882,0.0000729411,0.0002873497,0.000004937682,0.00047528907,0.000011001297,0.0003253218,0.000035662466,0.00008626903],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018218205,0.000034779965,0.00012526632,0.00010969149,0.0020528655,0.0002126937,0.000066906636,0.000098800345,0.0000070551014],"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":[0.000025318679,0.000022545151,0.0011585082,0.0014235049,0.000014937955,8.6444766e-7,0.0028034858,3.2543304e-7,0.00010125926,0.9889466,0.0038492135,0.0016534452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018407138,0.000041915588,0.0026750444,0.009809326,0.00019234791,0.000020030193,0.00017257541,0.0000052163186,0.00033475674,0.0070735677,0.9793701,0.00012105661],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011500387,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006442497,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98187304,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000015751504,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004769795,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99508214},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0022389428,0.23957919,0.00007779082,0.020821996,0.0061426503,0.0013127628,0.000010850649,0.0004184698,0.72939736],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6011175,0.34078944,0.00035510428,0.022572497,0.009338275,0.00015034537,0.00003816192,0.00005755319,0.025581153],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979618,0.0005042124,0.00026404197,0.00019713442,0.0005648085,0.00050800387],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99917805,0.00006112454,0.00013821121,0.00024212606,0.00014373881,0.00023672983],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019702923,0.00015935533,0.00026904943,0.000005266063,0.0009801,0.00006180123,0.00019737495,0.00019641638,0.0019111068],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014753416,0.0001294607,0.00024421458,0.00038587773,0.0001779842,0.0007213954,0.000023777113,0.00035163722,0.0006510578],"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":[0.000011522101,0.0002431583,0.00024356866,0.0008042104,0.00006301044,0.0000013234113,0.0052147973,0.000001996308,0.00015292244,0.5656969,0.4230898,0.004476813],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009162301,0.000035283487,0.00008707017,0.0009959762,0.000095025265,0.0000073171964,0.0003202723,5.766998e-7,0.00003257117,0.00091810076,0.9972416,0.00017455747],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00053276075,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015528431,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7038162,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00029060987,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007219573,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99900126},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009089527,0.42466593,0.000041520572,0.23397675,0.00078679394,0.0021834096,0.0000478251,0.0001348581,0.32907337],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92324287,0.05396538,0.000029692605,0.02204933,0.0005827217,0.000031028125,0.0000046529044,0.0000037041505,0.00009064037],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984939,0.00024732953,0.00027923245,0.00023006862,0.00045958135,0.00028989097],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99942774,0.00013750671,0.00008099388,0.00015895213,0.00011080993,0.000083999206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015734668,0.00013950162,0.00036565185,0.00000997714,0.00119079,0.00007788491,0.00026333466,0.000048025602,0.00034184157],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015812487,0.00009148769,0.00013435552,0.00016431022,0.0023096094,0.00019631394,0.00006968123,0.00014738152,0.000084851425],"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":[0.000024574145,0.000047562255,0.00046025484,0.000046562887,0.000028352115,0.0000014907615,0.000916255,4.4313815e-8,0.000008523402,0.97939664,0.008975609,0.0100941155],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00046321144,0.00003199268,0.0022205934,0.00048705027,0.00012344701,0.000003541976,0.00048821993,0.0000016782157,0.0000019983124,0.062587194,0.9334255,0.00016557184],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010575494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008141029,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92444986,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000067701905,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010321195,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99601316},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6502973,0.30763903,0.0005854051,0.018112209,0.00051579013,0.0013562475,0.0000071322597,0.000047066966,0.021439832],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9602429,0.039327394,0.00016627648,0.0001651419,0.000037985166,0.000029376655,0.000002483177,0.0000015310269,0.000026867729],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991923,0.00021327543,0.0002291253,0.000068978254,0.00017690158,0.000119434255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992252,0.0003968366,0.00008326604,0.000108235756,0.0001434963,0.00004295286],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017543992,0.000042049498,0.00011859187,0.000023827299,0.0002668705,0.000014624164,0.0000767652,0.000025997742,0.00003930998],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007831817,0.000031282907,0.00005043594,0.00032540565,0.00041741875,0.00019568937,0.000013544061,0.000047273163,0.0000072984003],"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":[0.0000146137245,0.00010341504,0.026516099,0.0006560477,0.000020722146,1.2923299e-7,0.0066511924,0.0000042002666,0.00013959422,0.9082684,0.0007912097,0.05683441],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029879282,0.00008898464,0.033861972,0.003258488,0.00083016226,0.000005455761,0.09341807,0.000096167925,0.000045791618,0.0047657383,0.8629949,0.00033546076],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003278026,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013953489,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90350264,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000507862,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008300147,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77863747},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0011510819,0.24699359,0.0011412072,0.018503487,0.0015147122,0.0015040623,0.000012528257,0.000072002054,0.7291073],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81066555,0.18601827,0.00021347232,0.0016388318,0.00015599518,0.000043169486,0.000004695303,0.0000075288785,0.0012524849],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99873745,0.00030002024,0.0002704655,0.00011258459,0.00039739482,0.00018208557],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992062,0.00020027168,0.000113548616,0.00019255289,0.0002254103,0.00006201285],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015861847,0.000065664484,0.00015479836,0.000006321345,0.0005912288,0.000026304233,0.00020539734,0.00003142209,0.0002937202],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00075166463,0.000045777055,0.00008330527,0.00016220764,0.00066052185,0.00012360224,0.000015922462,0.000051471605,0.000060285034],"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":[8.676113e-7,0.000013114091,0.00014151537,0.00019297044,0.0000046890827,3.9036314e-7,0.00009559899,0.0000013197836,0.000013755839,0.98804593,0.0110344365,0.00045542262],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031688633,0.000008836206,0.000029143235,0.0009548356,0.000035001067,0.0000016010572,0.000058197573,0.0000011964785,0.000072547155,0.0039680796,0.9947809,0.00005796844],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00052897935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002478314,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9840778,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045870067,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023246414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45473135},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17467012,0.04025213,0.000010665154,0.23402995,0.0008841793,0.003232623,0.0003077657,0.000046129655,0.5465664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9911488,0.0014229021,0.0000654999,0.0063866433,0.0000375867,0.000021686958,0.000020647634,0.000012194129,0.0008839808],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989357,0.000058551897,0.00027870148,0.00017446086,0.00034438138,0.00020822881],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994813,0.00010455382,0.00008997746,0.00021187139,0.000022875452,0.00008940398],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00032470733,0.00011816114,0.00015376466,0.000017022448,0.0003323915,0.000036153135,0.00017588168,0.000025716641,0.0006587108],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000029490251,0.00009212169,0.00003306834,0.00011498348,0.00012567537,0.000087948836,0.00006188416,0.000076398435,0.000024232437],"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":[0.000028121589,0.00015818434,0.03907217,0.0018411741,0.000115454815,0.0022558866,0.00018593787,0.0003145458,0.000060948103,0.17984308,0.7607817,0.015342771],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000866287,0.000022002487,0.0050708125,0.0006158721,0.000021305495,0.00011228658,0.000010967927,0.000054460244,0.000086124914,0.00011033316,0.993696,0.000113215836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99439716,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9994869,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8164787,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00049518194,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000041098385,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.72124213},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16347112,0.65017617,0.00028446843,0.13650644,0.0007362243,0.017297748,0.0002659535,0.00008772212,0.031174174],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9772829,0.021448266,0.000037820933,0.00067687174,0.00020519928,0.00025539007,0.000003186602,0.000008207447,0.000082195555],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984211,0.0004133524,0.00044402492,0.00016908166,0.00035106717,0.00020141326],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981955,0.00081013766,0.0001822738,0.0005437861,0.00022446996,0.00004377433],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004794518,0.00010283193,0.0003493714,0.000008134813,0.00068942964,0.000050822175,0.00052113866,0.00005518529,0.000014713708],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00046782082,0.000046290876,0.00017942382,0.00012032105,0.0013016551,0.000108801156,0.00007136018,0.00013678984,0.0000016206296],"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":[0.000033363835,0.000016053622,0.000046473157,0.00036184426,0.00002200548,5.157206e-8,0.005072911,0.000007582784,0.0002454763,0.99317783,0.00021471044,0.00080169673],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004961172,0.000029385998,0.0002853786,0.00091682497,0.00015268911,0.0000022074996,0.001944661,0.000038636867,0.00016015692,0.013807633,0.9820763,0.00008999615],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0059998045,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004025044,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9818616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000030243173,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022623467,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.90699494},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00013756363,0.8259926,0.000016293414,0.05492818,0.0003148069,0.0011769176,0.000011771886,0.000076921,0.11734497],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.076584384,0.9074537,0.00023270486,0.01467851,0.00025243757,0.000121668796,0.000015281405,0.000006480758,0.00065481523],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99780834,0.00060466415,0.00044094317,0.00026943884,0.0005075678,0.0003690553],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99899936,0.00032483903,0.00012573205,0.00019923343,0.00022179082,0.0001290299],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019881711,0.0001678578,0.0005816149,0.000012085197,0.00049401354,0.00002887362,0.00028941245,0.00006118883,0.0014356208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001959715,0.00012773152,0.0001629703,0.00027798372,0.0011952335,0.00023913996,0.000068649526,0.0001690397,0.00064257917],"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":[0.0000012496685,0.00004197042,0.000775597,0.0046740114,0.000019819145,0.0000108655095,0.0001879769,5.4682164e-7,0.0000022238528,0.81882125,0.1701585,0.005305994],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009565638,0.000010880026,0.00022664541,0.016200958,0.000058991845,0.0000049885616,0.000030636882,8.903171e-7,9.243049e-7,0.00037586252,0.9828143,0.00017926322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0077197817,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012446769,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8184454,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017959741,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009998858,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994772},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17241803,0.3200831,0.0000103333,0.36321178,0.0013193941,0.011408714,0.00008307601,0.0003136054,0.13115197],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91811275,0.06733231,0.00002604234,0.014140572,0.000117397074,0.00007876431,0.0000021291698,0.0000074933673,0.00018253415],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985725,0.0003700038,0.00025209322,0.00018462141,0.00040389577,0.00021685539],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99932194,0.00008939758,0.00021969368,0.0001165095,0.00018318473,0.000069301575],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000579169,0.00011830287,0.00036281033,0.000008380642,0.0016981489,0.000014516393,0.00016141095,0.000039090104,0.000033052103],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000056990804,0.0000738802,0.000073706084,0.00026966524,0.00032121013,0.000118795295,0.000048907063,0.00012937516,0.0000040626214],"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":[0.00011226026,0.00087876595,0.022916786,0.023835605,0.0007167527,0.000018137967,0.7104195,0.000019292624,0.00007276015,0.12820916,0.09920864,0.013592359],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00045027878,0.0002129888,0.011302626,0.00945638,0.000064848784,0.000013037723,0.0067586857,0.000013505413,0.000055012188,0.00067536515,0.97074085,0.00025642748],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0073592784,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005646637,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8715322,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021355531,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012837682,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996015},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2206938,0.15785559,0.0029763267,0.6035951,0.002294626,0.0032213156,0.000028110968,0.00023960494,0.009095532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91185564,0.07814866,0.00048020325,0.00775856,0.0006945455,0.000026933141,0.0000055725145,0.000013976536,0.0010158853],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99839485,0.00025259602,0.00027253307,0.00032649242,0.00044775696,0.0003057491],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987562,0.00028485828,0.000106876374,0.00029031513,0.00016726257,0.0003945471],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001987228,0.00014443797,0.0003354015,0.00003827843,0.00078091305,0.0002691618,0.00015589756,0.000092177426,0.00050063187],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004533219,0.000096435055,0.00012821557,0.0005311189,0.00031328067,0.0006125219,0.000043848828,0.00027441906,0.00003884808],"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":[0.00006007717,0.00010828056,0.004205057,0.0008733963,0.00044299805,0.00002197925,0.0026960347,0.0000022115396,0.0011733461,0.8677716,0.116560005,0.0060849665],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000090981644,0.00003706788,0.0037653567,0.00028724398,0.0012861086,0.000027005824,0.00011921701,0.000011484671,0.000021211,0.005761917,0.9884212,0.00017120731],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0091135185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11239263,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8718612,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003199721,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015393057,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99748486},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.121398315,0.14480554,0.0006788382,0.023014305,0.002344331,0.0057308394,0.00027507043,0.00012560988,0.70162714],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9911639,0.007237121,0.000015917563,0.0010100061,0.00021484839,0.000015950945,0.000002638633,0.000009118875,0.00033049347],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99852276,0.0003760032,0.0002944521,0.000107123844,0.0004169303,0.00028275218],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99887,0.00021092722,0.00021005514,0.00045977728,0.00017583006,0.00007339749],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001051457,0.00011135571,0.00028420758,0.0000095772375,0.00040542273,0.000015794056,0.0004904425,0.00005216173,0.0005754351],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009508207,0.000049381342,0.00033848858,0.00024544806,0.0052577006,0.00021957856,0.000040085426,0.000120582095,0.000039138777],"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":[0.0000036025717,0.00007850377,0.0008868156,0.00010352828,0.00003722968,9.1893426e-8,0.0034743391,2.540881e-7,0.00003709673,0.9919059,0.0030343682,0.00043821472],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029291696,0.00012586663,0.0074756043,0.0025814227,0.0005071421,0.0000030347924,0.0004953167,0.0000034958675,0.00088624895,0.017901905,0.9694386,0.0002884084],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016409319,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0009159293,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97400403,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005148728,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000093693496,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9974494},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0135649955,0.2968486,0.0000072330927,0.24243216,0.0011586007,0.002899921,0.000100038436,0.000158443,0.44283003],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08066654,0.552493,0.000249601,0.2193246,0.00045420855,0.00028542982,0.000014253775,0.00005577677,0.14645661],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99808973,0.0003207738,0.00037372942,0.00031037902,0.0004273406,0.00047802879],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99883854,0.00023210156,0.00017434951,0.00042402884,0.00014920018,0.00018174916],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011388111,0.00019196488,0.00033765574,0.00001687065,0.0016314948,0.0001376814,0.00038767216,0.00006493757,0.006904585],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016117074,0.00013159034,0.000092869814,0.00021902908,0.00032626704,0.00017602457,0.00008087822,0.00028516323,0.00004983731],"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":[0.0000035487817,0.000080385915,0.00032728718,0.000078945166,0.000029845514,0.000005158859,0.00087251654,9.158305e-8,0.0000020057723,0.8653736,0.1131184,0.020108227],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028576495,0.00007187211,0.0012267984,0.0005293677,0.000033371154,0.0000014188872,0.00010979493,0.0000012730803,0.0000046387095,0.001797237,0.9957697,0.0001687604],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012076947,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.32700115,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8826513,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018487617,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007412513,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99966824},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008510005,0.14793578,0.00019760472,0.2833307,0.0020340804,0.01657317,0.00003152005,0.0001658513,0.54122126],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98926085,0.008360525,0.000035866207,0.0015900218,0.0000581285,0.00037478874,0.000001951595,0.000006254788,0.00031161556],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99885774,0.00036283807,0.00022721835,0.0001439003,0.00010190171,0.0003064223],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992871,0.00026107524,0.00006505724,0.00016635809,0.00011617011,0.00010421257],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024807726,0.000076612574,0.0001678959,0.000017195192,0.0009197147,0.00005786863,0.000258723,0.000044446475,0.00008498858],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003849364,0.000045116132,0.00006369377,0.0001584458,0.000782338,0.00014938701,0.00002465799,0.00012142684,0.000014177863],"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":[0.000023491802,0.0000050100934,0.000019410803,0.000092133014,0.000006156003,8.202219e-7,0.0030413424,2.7731454e-8,9.2640744e-7,0.9948407,0.0006561218,0.0013139024],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021013127,0.00003553437,0.000052988686,0.000708307,0.00004210164,0.000003334831,0.0013315572,0.000016197428,0.000011158028,0.01863597,0.9788846,0.00006814128],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82049066,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.996136,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98075086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015883935,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022843952,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70737946},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05555749,0.3446807,0.00021247774,0.49286136,0.0026096178,0.004319374,0.000034125278,0.00020929419,0.09951557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9472808,0.0047033657,0.000023204215,0.039073016,0.007101573,0.000066083536,0.000039409795,0.000019683763,0.0016928194],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99914193,0.00006208569,0.00027696154,0.00015952041,0.00023822911,0.00012126505],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919933,0.000073482865,0.0002366446,0.0003569152,0.00012738608,0.0000062274044],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006774763,0.00013020098,0.00024214012,0.000013611818,0.00024991314,0.00020006848,0.00028373802,0.000036348218,0.0003500939],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000055152665,0.000055229066,0.00009730936,0.00024790628,0.00011627494,0.00028368924,0.00008858015,0.00013005467,0.00010149483],"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":[0.000046602214,0.000030084373,0.00047864032,0.000581493,0.000044115543,8.2391375e-7,0.00026446205,0.000009441087,0.00008604774,0.7370821,0.22869423,0.03268192],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022325889,0.0000020744026,0.0060308953,0.00040788716,0.0001150396,5.070718e-7,0.00013350951,0.000038697515,0.000013380301,0.00087487046,0.9920796,0.00008027026],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.15126993,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.055522963,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89172333,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000089006535,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000081153,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9617113},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00010387788,0.15971352,0.000022848142,0.0019135384,0.00056105264,0.00034803542,0.000024317604,0.000018860632,0.837294],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.376132,0.60505813,0.00027207128,0.003915209,0.00027986636,0.00007290581,0.000009777974,0.000011179652,0.014248816],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992701,0.00009921209,0.0001727377,0.000076611446,0.00024277819,0.0001385866],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958056,0.000038517057,0.00007834574,0.00014525655,0.00008065402,0.00007668377],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006039791,0.000038655788,0.00011711512,0.000019012332,0.00079226674,0.000030207508,0.00023055714,0.00002353288,0.0018677054],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008541696,0.000034872734,0.000078814395,0.000100752746,0.0027833597,0.00008999918,0.000015339678,0.00005169152,0.0001914327],"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":[0.0000010918443,0.000011149424,0.00003777014,0.000076219505,0.0000092908695,0.000001333716,0.00026944847,7.3988953e-9,0.0000015067336,0.9638031,0.033889696,0.001899384],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033780245,0.000005390515,0.000060026578,0.00029567102,0.00002616793,6.946156e-7,0.000040155504,5.013544e-8,0.0000022821043,0.0028811588,0.99661255,0.000042056814],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09943949,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.38363263,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9627229,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012877547,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047663954,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999305},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0019558347,0.72554266,0.0000034730622,0.11728215,0.00054677157,0.0020845141,0.000017680683,0.00012987155,0.15243706],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4987948,0.4961781,0.000139136,0.0018211895,0.00028999682,0.00012733006,0.0000023447237,0.000021559355,0.0026255583],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971883,0.0005882373,0.0005294962,0.00027162614,0.00085905445,0.00056325016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979914,0.00073680445,0.00031808318,0.00046791448,0.00037625447,0.00010956004],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025167626,0.00021665488,0.00050837756,0.0000075549165,0.0026555208,0.00010396036,0.00089020916,0.00006808247,0.0007961627],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000800717,0.00011109578,0.00031374616,0.000336562,0.0012662323,0.00023193464,0.00019341058,0.00029422547,0.00018343035],"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":[0.000018799183,0.00020153401,0.0011086569,0.0017889857,0.00029194594,0.000019295976,0.024823755,0.0000054301754,0.00008072041,0.32464772,0.53901875,0.10799438],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013612812,0.000019233372,0.00013810066,0.002219873,0.0001221226,0.0000017749277,0.0027704576,0.000018107112,0.000014424226,0.0003848923,0.9939954,0.00017942888],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025802946,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022793778,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49683896,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011193108,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000030639218,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99864286},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016011943,0.071338594,0.000011266135,0.09910304,0.0018180506,0.0007457357,0.00007763191,0.000023524984,0.82528096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5983244,0.39865175,0.00017100906,0.0019499909,0.00015797393,0.000052542382,0.000033284392,0.0000066839366,0.0006523333],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99799764,0.00021909062,0.00060388114,0.00025036797,0.00064334896,0.00028565968],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989869,0.00019324887,0.00018029619,0.00011323479,0.000394311,0.00013200835],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015035399,0.00013268524,0.00020600305,0.00008645085,0.00031624155,0.00008578187,0.00046149187,0.0000799143,0.0009817558],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030454347,0.00010784994,0.00004777426,0.0001604893,0.0007255873,0.00043772117,0.00007614495,0.00016952427,0.000029548972],"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":[0.000010604862,0.0000396116,0.0016005803,0.00006519726,0.000025297237,0.000011767731,0.0005367877,0.0000025476604,0.0000027104522,0.98808014,0.0002533752,0.0093713645],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031015443,0.000009478883,0.0008629961,0.0019320493,0.000006626413,0.000007985793,0.00015581014,0.00008756064,0.0000130857525,0.005882348,0.9906067,0.00012515279],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09090067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8567549,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9903534,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006045139,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00026286452,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99993145},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00044230255,0.29328266,0.0005644995,0.016042272,0.00031319022,0.004706403,0.000019836405,0.00009923031,0.6845296],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6110195,0.33101898,0.011023127,0.003773337,0.001748638,0.0024554043,0.000052286585,0.00009349758,0.03881525],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99859196,0.00017899905,0.00033952395,0.00020340411,0.0003601365,0.00032598877],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986945,0.0004170905,0.00013231608,0.0003561312,0.00030017956,0.00009977486],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014798439,0.000113161725,0.00030673068,0.000008470075,0.0007159093,0.0000803508,0.0005405817,0.00005007059,0.0007706789],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013695164,0.00006795325,0.00019955561,0.0001097826,0.00039027337,0.00022255347,0.000032549346,0.00007109766,0.00042726778],"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":[0.0000030376,0.000023979528,0.00000852978,0.00041424856,0.0000107612805,1.5163255e-7,0.0001884888,1.1985578e-7,0.000019712938,0.93397063,0.06176855,0.0035918122],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005174284,0.0000264933,0.000015993302,0.00072038226,0.0000449428,9.206229e-7,0.000065372864,0.000012498514,0.000016310067,0.018356927,0.98059165,0.00009674632],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0030687146,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002673107,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9188231,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000039681883,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006192654,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8438394},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.26540515,0.5683716,0.00001582646,0.09328274,0.0030453105,0.004534931,0.00009805069,0.00014902612,0.06509737],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87290967,0.12053899,0.00012332782,0.0047686794,0.00030982975,0.00010695743,0.000019880928,0.000035581845,0.0011871101],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99638414,0.0006805542,0.00062598195,0.0005578661,0.00096321705,0.0007882212],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978242,0.00057951454,0.00020403235,0.00096159393,0.000199674,0.00023099458],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003096706,0.00030295877,0.00057938474,0.000008467619,0.0012673524,0.0003081712,0.0015086948,0.00009610592,0.0033126918],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00037011702,0.00019152065,0.00016491485,0.000244778,0.00035624046,0.0014676078,0.00042535466,0.00030937383,0.00005948906],"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":[0.00045045503,0.00041746808,0.04317772,0.002507415,0.000401536,0.00045535323,0.06966671,0.000012344266,0.00022207348,0.740274,0.123333596,0.019081319],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017004776,0.000024895919,0.0036123856,0.004178813,0.00012017681,0.000004540228,0.0059682783,0.000019282332,0.000039742103,0.0003566705,0.98520213,0.00030306273],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9843956,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99939245,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8618685,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016545564,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007333711,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9975984},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8624303,0.13484173,0.000009569526,0.0009801765,0.000079709615,0.00084727566,0.000056439072,0.000009576429,0.0007452533],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87212974,0.12740721,0.000059199763,0.0002243652,0.00006972078,0.0000061054648,0.000039223887,0.0000069410935,0.00005751002],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984159,0.00013731352,0.00066301925,0.00019963333,0.00041286787,0.00017125337],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987567,0.000072693074,0.0002878719,0.00048288488,0.00025343397,0.00014643508],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00033426486,0.0001464642,0.0008517889,0.000056302786,0.00007576435,0.0000063536404,0.000106744614,0.00007694764,0.00008540757],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007310257,0.000090564456,0.00023016208,0.00028316648,0.00015823061,0.000036359907,0.000024334619,0.000114400966,0.0000012224938],"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":[0.0019296014,0.011279202,0.40392485,0.10503614,0.0064764903,0.000088196444,0.0044422788,0.0000106504,0.0038888245,0.24032646,0.00041966353,0.22217765],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0062319324,0.017304812,0.60900843,0.018764088,0.081592016,0.00006112178,0.0010887543,0.001330404,0.0023014352,0.00082781765,0.2607097,0.0007794661],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00082847854,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005127582,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.26029003,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000613092,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008386145,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36931112},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025291403,0.35251096,0.00010800699,0.091040075,0.00023699267,0.0018716537,0.000006918793,0.00008140253,0.5516149],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.763835,0.22511294,0.000013904344,0.009809271,0.00012271477,0.000053867247,0.0000011541215,0.000008350244,0.0010427971],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99742407,0.0010489101,0.00023226134,0.00022072335,0.0005837015,0.0004903323],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99884784,0.0004191493,0.000058793572,0.00030014865,0.00018366158,0.0001903859],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005041285,0.000118251875,0.0003368722,0.000012899022,0.00070866954,0.000121420395,0.00041113372,0.0000619291,0.001277068],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004159168,0.00006914144,0.00012841202,0.00019644035,0.0015447949,0.00018924157,0.00004899515,0.00020635611,0.0002203705],"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":[0.000020465915,0.000019791416,0.00028366208,0.00018802125,0.000018501458,0.000009404544,0.0006906696,4.168254e-8,0.0000051629568,0.98915637,0.0033805026,0.00622742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005385247,0.000023941935,0.00013065779,0.0008058048,0.00008598352,0.000006404621,0.0005195887,0.0000043639047,0.0000011480479,0.0045962506,0.99318004,0.00010731915],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004821372,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0031457904,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9897995,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003776377,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009035345,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996359},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00021268553,0.08023977,0.000012199422,0.20040448,0.00074843084,0.0004162492,0.00004153357,0.00008658384,0.71783805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9389897,0.04510506,0.000044409448,0.01331144,0.0005829117,0.000047050227,0.0000035270325,0.0000050527638,0.0019108494],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99867445,0.00012391336,0.00021334701,0.00015742026,0.00043151347,0.00039936294],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937665,0.0001035523,0.000035276087,0.00012118275,0.00016096309,0.0002023519],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00023340371,0.000098518736,0.0002380049,0.000009624693,0.0007776554,0.000025466243,0.00017856549,0.000031721935,0.0016757576],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003420199,0.0000631269,0.00007566205,0.00021027667,0.00046920203,0.00008947406,0.000036770125,0.0000991403,0.00012415048],"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":[3.1327968e-7,0.00001656705,0.0003089357,0.000049626255,0.000013646301,0.000007376687,0.0000309508,6.351778e-8,5.380977e-7,0.96301293,0.035762064,0.0007969794],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000042920405,0.000004719938,0.00018463805,0.0004875245,0.00004639204,0.000001394593,0.000090781985,0.0000010308715,0.000001152443,0.011322013,0.9877045,0.000112904265],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9183815,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95607454,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95194244,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022405162,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003398418,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992368},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015644846,0.081596285,0.00010996264,0.07058719,0.0015366911,0.0010681702,0.00002775542,0.000061862724,0.8293672],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9464607,0.02905304,0.000012021013,0.02358844,0.0006042635,0.000028640561,0.0000035382598,0.0000050106178,0.00024429607],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99868566,0.00032431146,0.00017424962,0.00018672863,0.0004108847,0.00021819312],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937296,0.00022368095,0.00006957993,0.00010995757,0.00014859514,0.000075220356],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00079380587,0.00011481092,0.00025572992,0.0000061313244,0.0013022983,0.00003855746,0.00013281367,0.000035546953,0.000054755354],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012357868,0.00007434446,0.00006023794,0.00011507947,0.0009500224,0.00007987726,0.00002633938,0.0001184266,0.000011271444],"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":[0.000011879833,0.0000069432417,0.00004544977,0.00004903181,0.000023408,7.386117e-7,0.00012530341,0.0000017539624,0.0000016064384,0.99329597,0.0054589785,0.0009789321],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001849371,0.000020063213,0.00052200217,0.0004088998,0.00010637967,0.0000014943969,0.00014832009,0.000003181754,0.000010330336,0.015182614,0.9832983,0.00011344989],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.86647916,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97313446,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97811335,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012535989,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002640907,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99999785},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.15088768,0.2973418,0.00014363059,0.4366459,0.0031684851,0.0028379697,0.000026229738,0.00024068734,0.10870762],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.951738,0.038506396,0.000056333458,0.0077151256,0.0002955697,0.000069612564,0.0000017839473,0.000009836604,0.0016073484],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99885666,0.00015526588,0.0001936792,0.0002098064,0.00032185033,0.00026276364],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99932414,0.00010199454,0.00005090406,0.00030691197,0.00010256775,0.000113499824],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013174353,0.000106894484,0.00018497015,0.000008262402,0.0004855454,0.00010711236,0.00023771469,0.00005733314,0.0017676515],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000066686225,0.00006714506,0.00010334741,0.00010114131,0.0005885937,0.00024269195,0.000052068117,0.00021376289,0.00023967886],"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":[0.000010438073,0.00003979792,0.0009831499,0.00071316044,0.000024193921,0.00001022771,0.00090437254,3.0638077e-8,0.00024715046,0.9657496,0.020526016,0.010791828],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000044337194,0.000009360537,0.0024298276,0.00051153125,0.000082946484,0.000007882409,0.00009947928,7.942005e-7,0.00000860525,0.0040366706,0.9926585,0.000110049594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0015886882,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01779602,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9721325,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000114338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000042313117,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99914485},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0104275085,0.08595024,0.0002618516,0.028988656,0.0028973941,0.0021027736,0.0000031159136,0.00018498329,0.8691835],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19409443,0.7744306,0.00033492953,0.0077623366,0.0030112446,0.00003231843,0.000016071403,0.000032711872,0.020285396],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99807215,0.00071093085,0.00034671984,0.00020399468,0.00030145055,0.00036473025],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988198,0.0002959133,0.00015554808,0.00037209725,0.00023507689,0.000121538986],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037677696,0.0001034065,0.00022993903,0.000014690952,0.003543507,0.0000656129,0.0002944642,0.00006885223,0.0009546431],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000056869972,0.00006735881,0.00009229851,0.00018417242,0.00021635104,0.00020073968,0.0000017440525,0.00015001936,0.0004819136],"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":[0.0000012075493,0.000026313197,0.00024174633,0.00086186826,0.000015196442,7.034079e-7,0.04873237,9.298079e-7,2.8145004e-7,0.9383633,0.0037066985,0.008049386],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040544717,0.000011175512,0.00009795885,0.0007625937,0.000027406963,0.000003530854,0.00015174806,0.0000031784832,0.000009738776,0.0027959936,0.99599016,0.00010599948],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015008157,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6961617,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9922834,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013085274,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002509877,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995863},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09123498,0.4431798,0.000042973617,0.30398065,0.00038522415,0.0020841565,0.000058394315,0.00007654237,0.1589573],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9689972,0.024807477,0.000108432185,0.005650735,0.000103372,0.0000054256366,0.0000016359868,0.000004898815,0.00032086537],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986589,0.0001899754,0.00035289023,0.00013410643,0.00041761153,0.00024652362],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989856,0.0003446085,0.00018959136,0.0002633175,0.0001529018,0.000063971434],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012450938,0.000100675075,0.00030101702,0.00000678541,0.00048376078,0.000028515176,0.0003892583,0.00003837105,0.000037600887],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002136056,0.00005587858,0.00010151015,0.00014603513,0.00081000855,0.000119633856,0.000050213144,0.00011003987,0.0000024811789],"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":[0.000003836941,0.000032060936,0.0002749265,0.00075770915,0.0000124049575,0.00000170714,0.0028358935,8.4177105e-7,0.00006913738,0.99142027,0.002335072,0.0022561701],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008238128,0.00007946714,0.00046319276,0.00421929,0.00019618988,0.000008667132,0.0015236489,0.000021410617,0.00013696191,0.007949879,0.98519105,0.00012783628],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008083044,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0027576964,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9834704,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000024722183,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000711093,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9985222},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19271968,0.07059255,0.0056496584,0.19397044,0.010863116,0.032953992,0.0020540725,0.0005784398,0.49061805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9977767,0.0005079124,0.00017264149,0.00064421236,0.00029905624,0.00015267883,0.000031710068,0.000013892983,0.00040123388],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99752235,0.00039458973,0.0006595462,0.00031542528,0.0007255331,0.00038256324],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99836755,0.00023109005,0.00028293696,0.0006510153,0.00030817275,0.00015922976],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019304556,0.00017116983,0.00043843157,0.00004668857,0.00041117362,0.00003018857,0.00056750764,0.000101994636,0.0002891312],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016051209,0.00013186895,0.00010860199,0.0005480535,0.0003477541,0.00020404306,0.00008369548,0.0003755914,0.0000142702],"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":[0.00005478186,0.00043847837,0.005129273,0.0036748403,0.00012285967,0.000015085119,0.03230175,0.000028787439,0.0019167467,0.9121248,0.0395593,0.004633303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000102105245,0.000023852066,0.0010608804,0.0006075962,0.000076452794,0.00000221976,0.00041163276,0.00001449515,0.00025779527,0.0013954503,0.9958626,0.00018492309],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6444519,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9448253,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9563033,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002208211,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00038864315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53774595},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11460571,0.26028073,0.000039610244,0.06366384,0.0014945245,0.0018260302,0.000043530574,0.00006756204,0.55797845],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9838352,0.01450641,0.000030076248,0.0008678274,0.0001229305,0.000009069124,7.0571537e-7,0.0000035914707,0.00062415825],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998387,0.00033520302,0.00038807784,0.00013425299,0.00054593955,0.00020952435],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988794,0.00031831124,0.00024932934,0.00030467368,0.0002057505,0.00004256687],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011756456,0.00010055133,0.00029332103,0.000006589679,0.00050999504,0.000030146011,0.00048240012,0.000043733347,0.001169172],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004017739,0.000057082238,0.00022272309,0.00020829448,0.002226877,0.00028858735,0.000079534664,0.0001256986,0.000041557916],"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":[0.0000014801587,0.000055463883,0.004008313,0.001266711,0.000028849041,0.0000025958757,0.0017810293,0.0000053552844,0.00007464246,0.96701247,0.023433357,0.0023297565],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049249185,0.000009382782,0.0005321382,0.00303377,0.0001102954,0.000008229277,0.00049466634,0.000007611556,0.00014194794,0.0002504583,0.9952784,0.00008381031],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016911983,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019190139,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9718451,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029864363,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009247372,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997439},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0022323066,0.31104463,0.00004569811,0.035803147,0.0016386837,0.0009868302,0.000067782974,0.000068658446,0.64811224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.915212,0.08104095,0.000017673894,0.0029400904,0.0005892778,0.000044191,0.000006642468,0.0000035490718,0.00014565699],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984392,0.00046500907,0.00019609598,0.00014846251,0.00042224015,0.00032902323],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99879426,0.0007344667,0.00008146958,0.00013685104,0.0001259906,0.00012697621],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016297146,0.000121944686,0.0002925089,0.0000060319767,0.0015871578,0.000033673252,0.00017202497,0.00004526109,0.00008516448],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00068073464,0.0000724418,0.00009457782,0.00017516669,0.0014470336,0.0001588733,0.00005527611,0.00012710254,0.0001653949],"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":[0.000052477204,0.000026958898,0.00006176562,0.000065444,0.00004472237,5.279636e-7,0.000510553,9.4740024e-8,2.6950522e-7,0.99445605,0.0039514396,0.000829707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004156772,0.000019464385,0.00028495063,0.00045839025,0.00038971854,5.546997e-7,0.0002884867,3.5090895e-7,0.0000037469238,0.011103495,0.9869133,0.0001218124],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004022208,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0023955703,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98335254,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007003794,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000053480748,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99971265},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0046422514,0.48454678,0.000025207984,0.3903849,0.0003759831,0.0010456855,0.0009883461,0.000060591534,0.117930226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6430466,0.28521797,0.0005298185,0.05609458,0.0021703325,0.000055981545,0.000022054346,0.000038191785,0.012824461],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99877614,0.00020818636,0.00024382169,0.00014983033,0.00037428603,0.00024775518],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999133,0.00020349477,0.00014279684,0.00033895005,0.000075983204,0.00010575931],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075016246,0.000091635084,0.00026110228,0.0000065939334,0.0001946694,0.000024551444,0.0003743502,0.000052422605,0.0016669179],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002892582,0.00006860207,0.0001307977,0.00017525618,0.0003286781,0.00012871082,0.000028335753,0.00010823145,0.00023802483],"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":[0.0000020348893,0.000014396229,0.00018780422,0.00007107249,0.000020596975,0.0000014155235,0.0005172475,6.5642047e-7,0.00000643478,0.16882536,0.82553667,0.0048162844],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009244178,0.0000053885874,0.001176504,0.0008745665,0.000048076083,4.0359694e-7,0.000038339243,9.1023605e-7,0.000033299988,0.0009828218,0.9966605,0.0000867697],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11106063,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.25479397,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63840437,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007050272,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021634465,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992457},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0382234,0.43090034,0.0004128813,0.07177058,0.0023978602,0.006978104,0.00012950429,0.000070469134,0.44911686],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94525343,0.052656066,0.000037646263,0.0015411149,0.00011547861,0.000026350755,0.0000047839603,0.0000074223562,0.00035769242],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987198,0.00030523978,0.00032382947,0.00014228608,0.00022271845,0.00028611295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993133,0.0001636753,0.0001139252,0.00023467938,0.000080199345,0.00009419954],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013578039,0.000093490184,0.00035900893,0.000036119767,0.00039527207,0.00002222045,0.00034076427,0.000051799743,0.000115219606],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000120174045,0.000051488176,0.000103853745,0.00025760193,0.00938415,0.0001147598,0.000029443927,0.00013619094,0.000003938929],"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":[0.000010364715,0.000011926627,0.0003401334,0.00012046314,0.000018221024,6.5741284e-7,0.0024213323,0.0000039515758,9.673191e-7,0.99479765,0.00055641384,0.0017179156],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0019317359,0.00011227798,0.002021899,0.0019381822,0.00038043878,0.00001853939,0.0008921745,0.000012617702,0.000107163054,0.13595812,0.856337,0.0002898211],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.83372295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91676223,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90703005,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009006714,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00044784896,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99331176},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0041260943,0.65733176,0.0012076679,0.05426945,0.0025375935,0.0036151593,0.00020725929,0.00019666442,0.27650833],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82259935,0.16384557,0.00056453556,0.012154496,0.00052664784,0.00014345093,0.000034258825,0.000011961577,0.00011974507],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981399,0.00022146953,0.00048987975,0.0002848321,0.00055075315,0.00031312054],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988703,0.0002051608,0.0001325498,0.00026798603,0.00035904135,0.00016492176],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013103645,0.00014764775,0.0005358653,0.000013071846,0.00091477775,0.00005492353,0.0003271227,0.00008084571,0.00017592286],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014067587,0.00011279031,0.00027536575,0.00022642864,0.00083449157,0.0006220483,0.000061001145,0.00008812317,0.000068261994],"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":[0.000004406431,0.0001273169,0.000037961487,0.0001413654,0.000028641301,7.6725576e-7,0.00041815953,4.2165303e-7,0.000002819669,0.99684757,0.00096437114,0.001426189],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015544433,0.000052154537,0.00010911341,0.002386271,0.00007770408,7.3746503e-7,0.00007466743,1.5701137e-7,0.000011086902,0.30070767,0.6963088,0.00011619749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010554377,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.076351546,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8184732,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008769937,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022037346,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99603444},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04811826,0.20754938,0.13031718,0.047186755,0.014761011,0.02772753,0.00046624313,0.00048551822,0.52338815],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45662296,0.5230418,0.014219395,0.0013487256,0.0029850747,0.00018141857,0.00032988453,0.000025828365,0.0012449038],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99871105,0.00013866216,0.00035706582,0.00017207634,0.00033010225,0.0002910207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987384,0.00022773904,0.00021103771,0.00014832565,0.0006020817,0.00007242383],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017378088,0.00009561868,0.00020118024,0.000028916893,0.004863027,0.000033416283,0.00018535716,0.000065521665,0.00027169753],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000018684406,0.0000638107,0.00011223257,0.00021800297,0.00076389883,0.00026974134,7.545445e-7,0.00008371246,0.000056612374],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.0000049880955,0.000050327973,0.000005443372,0.000446512,0.000015998245,1.9874565e-7,0.0034605497,0.0000020150749,0.0000025514,0.9949984,0.00015820081,0.00085484097],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018600709,0.000028962408,0.0000138042005,0.0013139718,0.00008950462,0.0000039095726,0.000055515542,0.000001144249,0.00009378143,0.07406043,0.9240637,0.000089300665],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.045445334,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.25167614,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9239055,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002524309,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0075114784,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.998115},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00084107526,0.31445292,0.000012645846,0.02185743,0.00042532463,0.0004908356,0.000023327699,0.00013732168,0.66175914],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.51276904,0.16905195,0.0012488044,0.123310715,0.003650264,0.0000672931,0.00013842733,0.00006964895,0.18969388],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988251,0.00015326314,0.00020466611,0.00019574139,0.0003214243,0.00029980522],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99935776,0.000024695888,0.00006640496,0.0002708399,0.00006762678,0.00021265613],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005867049,0.00009260561,0.00024239298,0.00006841459,0.00079110824,0.00024200119,0.00030585824,0.000062440544,0.0028677497],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007154169,0.000104398525,0.00014499306,0.00023088994,0.0002604689,0.00041545546,0.000011115554,0.0001413113,0.0007913264],"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":[0.000002113937,0.00004930182,0.0000040602476,0.00024792296,0.000011142775,0.000053124604,0.0021616116,8.442335e-8,0.000046826517,0.4403258,0.5390211,0.018076954],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006593759,0.000011200208,0.0000568201,0.0004898035,0.00004237112,0.0000019484419,0.00007010821,2.923098e-7,0.000004247731,0.0011458764,0.9979727,0.00013866642],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3574183,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7786029,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.51192796,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003413589,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028062,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998665},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.028716294,0.44705492,5.1152625e-7,0.01552192,0.0011329823,0.0013147508,0.00005222182,0.00007013371,0.5061363],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7007937,0.26074913,0.000030899577,0.030293208,0.00030111955,0.00009164193,0.000032447617,0.000041510168,0.0076663364],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975827,0.000357244,0.00047783813,0.0003631608,0.0006159372,0.000603148],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99908835,0.00007089194,0.00011781345,0.00032686663,0.00007381932,0.00032225795],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006977714,0.00017424853,0.0005210067,0.00012224718,0.0006793766,0.00007952146,0.00043880142,0.0001077126,0.0013826248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016226579,0.00021796953,0.00011615539,0.0005942497,0.0007662241,0.00034617016,0.00004144645,0.00029931506,0.000114300834],"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":[0.000018091285,0.00015561726,0.0021992736,0.0013691232,0.000029666244,0.0015137413,0.009453939,0.000002061139,0.000009387517,0.6486655,0.33130267,0.005280969],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023336524,0.000013780428,0.0004037074,0.0017174693,0.000014831722,0.000013593632,0.00029191846,5.331923e-7,0.0000011500714,0.00019486697,0.9968621,0.00025268432],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9992113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999985,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6720774,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002547737,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003060794,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99953026},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018951753,0.20907775,0.00041914714,0.03617977,0.0022959935,0.0020927403,0.000010094812,0.0005973321,0.7303754],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.61995226,0.3314728,0.0010712842,0.011834414,0.0019521993,0.00012630782,0.000011057068,0.000049533057,0.03353015],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99855006,0.00023375759,0.00025664296,0.00023896906,0.00044359374,0.00027699728],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993469,0.000062414474,0.00008545854,0.00024262341,0.00013480615,0.00012777612],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00071486755,0.00012322541,0.00025322475,0.000014966849,0.00072013476,0.000030757576,0.00023330092,0.00007147118,0.0039196885],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010574089,0.00009418472,0.00013739022,0.00027981482,0.00031393688,0.0004126881,0.000024893408,0.00014092553,0.00042508024],"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":[0.00022174827,0.00050758215,0.0052329265,0.006001142,0.00017299071,0.0004707486,0.0055869864,0.0000027043102,0.0002800553,0.43604028,0.5091189,0.03636393],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007190686,0.000046027308,0.00030049912,0.0015377903,0.000057795158,0.000050515573,0.000079016,0.0000010772982,0.00001673635,0.0005066714,0.9971815,0.00015048673],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022549974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006870469,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6968453,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000066305016,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001789783,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99699086},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009233941,0.63522196,0.000015968179,0.34700343,0.00022051296,0.0034030362,0.000007996188,0.00004789959,0.0048452355],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6318084,0.35857838,0.000018811994,0.007693896,0.00021119337,0.0002386699,5.86703e-7,0.000009955415,0.0014400869],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985412,0.00041264395,0.00024905358,0.00021748831,0.00027883225,0.00030078675],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99849945,0.00090876414,0.00011853344,0.00018009963,0.00022221671,0.00007091995],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015808177,0.00016123214,0.00040827243,0.000005482438,0.0012710176,0.0001705667,0.00024603395,0.000055119523,0.00010839184],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006876286,0.0000712722,0.00009209295,0.00014228451,0.0009118504,0.00023934979,0.000076359385,0.000103640166,0.000023002289],"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":[0.00029225065,0.00010214486,0.0074368645,0.0050293584,0.0007193194,0.000005376069,0.14565094,5.1306193e-7,0.00009272476,0.6170236,0.08380986,0.13983707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039022195,0.000021976246,0.0007128737,0.0018316495,0.00013018036,0.0000032623082,0.0023357898,0.000007541386,0.0000016836067,0.0006604577,0.9937779,0.00012651863],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0048958124,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.023718134,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90996796,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003402874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000024494031,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99409646},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010806434,0.0021196248,0.00009540013,0.11578394,0.0010267213,0.0015663654,0.000106504085,0.00006560332,0.8684294],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97456944,0.0017776362,0.0006058644,0.02132864,0.00025195625,0.00003863002,0.00006827389,0.000012243365,0.0013473171],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986354,0.00022698999,0.00032972175,0.00018076287,0.00037947323,0.0002476277],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989351,0.00023497875,0.00020527407,0.00032924456,0.00014909539,0.00014628333],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00063750753,0.00013040056,0.00036648844,0.000017055083,0.0003190471,0.000026319234,0.0003303817,0.00007730865,0.0009642256],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015701754,0.00011753658,0.00009795091,0.00011494312,0.0009280271,0.00012124543,0.000041309795,0.00020307855,0.000082316124],"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":[0.0000074789864,0.00006494866,0.00065468706,0.00017016483,0.000015386486,4.5129923e-7,0.00010718039,6.23763e-7,0.00010503833,0.97939485,0.018634785,0.0008444001],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001513577,0.000048507907,0.00013611582,0.00070505065,0.000052026568,0.0000014697731,0.000019478422,0.000004787759,0.00007020802,0.00047445606,0.9982044,0.00013212016],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016033022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013315403,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9795696,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000054248823,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003727802,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99994904},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009303441,0.39752015,0.000105155515,0.1937034,0.00046804885,0.0030011756,0.000023745975,0.00007677018,0.39579812],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92389643,0.072664626,0.00004150533,0.0029050761,0.00021573005,0.00009331893,0.0000019837628,0.0000025738286,0.00017873435],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988691,0.00021399149,0.00027971092,0.00011952513,0.00037862355,0.00013900202],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99931955,0.00013398925,0.00011377661,0.00009628286,0.00028965058,0.000046721045],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010815213,0.00007341785,0.00028684188,0.0000062189565,0.0005491035,0.000021974549,0.00014654748,0.000028344783,0.00052180036],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034274775,0.000043180768,0.000090473215,0.000120328936,0.0028561687,0.00013353447,0.000062484556,0.00006613876,0.000058594436],"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":[0.0000039101,0.000016045946,0.00070158456,0.00009507772,0.000025068854,2.2795965e-7,0.00016022283,3.3956294e-8,0.0000047430385,0.9903353,0.0048029576,0.003854868],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019493254,0.000012284235,0.0039645797,0.00067554915,0.000086881526,9.984423e-7,0.00016628372,7.5698193e-7,0.000007972982,0.2819564,0.7128396,0.000093756076],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03789688,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003937317,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.914593,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000017158156,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011324464,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998575},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.036545526,0.015612849,0.0019452155,0.25676018,0.005894785,0.006814913,0.00013244683,0.0008772232,0.6754169],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9017666,0.046850435,0.004403242,0.042429984,0.001481582,0.00043326052,0.000120117045,0.00005898506,0.0024557924],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99757266,0.00021473477,0.00059446984,0.00029718617,0.00078068994,0.00054024794],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980357,0.00022626341,0.00020614064,0.0004818798,0.0006682874,0.00038170352],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021228478,0.00023333267,0.00044543215,0.000059489208,0.00075260364,0.00040664317,0.0010763697,0.00013532609,0.004434514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013118259,0.00020261621,0.00015621769,0.0005392428,0.00030152933,0.003072751,0.00018836612,0.00034817928,0.0017099463],"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":[0.00004822049,0.00011906681,0.0012608782,0.0029314144,0.00006013362,0.000012648614,0.00422405,0.0000020426764,0.00071999116,0.4630945,0.46840245,0.05912462],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009313319,0.000030681145,0.0003829727,0.0014325187,0.000068170986,0.0000042090633,0.00008831704,0.0000028141535,0.000454558,0.0019448964,0.995196,0.00030176624],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00463058,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019314442,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8652211,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000081072605,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002418061,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99906737},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0002596066,0.8368072,0.000627238,0.079267785,0.00029144145,0.0010907663,0.000010262734,0.000049384464,0.081596315],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7041464,0.28472522,0.0002530458,0.01025817,0.00017350678,0.0000060478383,0.000019609279,0.000004601992,0.00041340556],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99899477,0.00007022919,0.00036935345,0.00011462407,0.00032063844,0.00013038793],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990008,0.000090520974,0.000104864666,0.0003016737,0.00042480466,0.00007732817],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00077963615,0.000073274496,0.00023876873,0.000009855738,0.00012435474,0.000006274155,0.0000991406,0.000056490615,0.00008779359],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004466452,0.00004575103,0.00007883226,0.00017497443,0.00018989669,0.000039039965,0.0000111811905,0.00020802168,0.000019913134],"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":[0.000009411936,0.000036266436,0.0007197295,0.0026106369,0.0000075267712,0.0000034783297,0.000020553407,5.030671e-7,0.000029239638,0.97674215,0.011603499,0.008217008],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013881885,0.00009413009,0.0011902782,0.0052662455,0.00008152728,0.000025639594,0.000003758042,0.000014705157,0.00006199454,0.0023408695,0.9907269,0.000055139328],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003776815,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000011832228,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9791234,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000026539214,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023706087,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18656728},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016633067,0.42995363,0.00004478782,0.08366074,0.0005010395,0.0017486683,0.000007795457,0.000043862303,0.46740642],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8805069,0.11842829,0.00002269577,0.00075549056,0.00005719615,0.00006591581,5.3129133e-7,0.0000017476087,0.00016123978],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988288,0.00022060855,0.00030023837,0.00010643798,0.00034791086,0.00019595878],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99935627,0.00023146995,0.00008350934,0.00013458535,0.00015046081,0.000043677457],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011696238,0.00006197306,0.00020187446,0.0000055693563,0.00039019642,0.000020031048,0.00025753514,0.000022418153,0.00019615574],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003519102,0.000038914957,0.000072648465,0.00019147433,0.000883077,0.00011319801,0.00006037501,0.00006946795,0.00011564843],"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":[7.9322524e-7,0.000013850192,0.0023036643,0.00007875524,0.000006934516,3.842151e-7,0.00020607484,1.5637735e-7,0.000007287329,0.99112695,0.0021128028,0.004142315],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043189444,0.000008269783,0.010162856,0.0013161239,0.000016436981,2.3440124e-7,0.00032255778,7.2803454e-7,0.000016718988,0.070737965,0.91728604,0.00008886872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05492877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029830666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.920389,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004259792,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000099333374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9878724},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00076391164,0.5944548,0.0000028991053,0.2590567,0.0002914327,0.0009839517,0.00000510064,0.000017229228,0.14442398],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4772265,0.50124884,0.000027137497,0.021066407,0.00024986628,0.00005152049,6.69085e-7,0.000005099562,0.00012397632],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99861187,0.0002924526,0.00033477973,0.00014091893,0.0003489268,0.00027107846],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991838,0.00024056742,0.00010867732,0.0001909624,0.00019360265,0.000082443985],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006061813,0.00010114808,0.00032586488,0.0000034713792,0.00097047293,0.00002400585,0.00025710062,0.000030243282,0.0008503175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008578762,0.000052833057,0.00014065688,0.00018057451,0.0015295312,0.00011698714,0.00013702281,0.00012542882,0.00005671751],"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":[3.3417248e-7,0.000009340268,0.00074787845,0.0014405114,0.000019872325,3.8195404e-7,0.000055573637,9.075004e-9,0.0000035175735,0.98076004,0.0120644905,0.004898082],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004859424,0.000008227759,0.0016272315,0.030183263,0.00018411622,0.0000074123805,0.00034599003,4.2393165e-7,0.000008551596,0.177067,0.7903895,0.00012972724],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008770129,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0034519592,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.803693,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000030725918,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015082871,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99783057},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.017088914,0.4236544,0.000017141585,0.011627699,0.00050559326,0.002711574,0.000038901777,0.00007023355,0.54428554],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8488871,0.14778325,0.0004905527,0.0018032558,0.00011039846,0.000037739635,0.000003272756,0.000012358569,0.000872068],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984258,0.00037847587,0.0003066427,0.00021245054,0.0003905936,0.00028605698],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99898285,0.0002004928,0.00013015019,0.0003025005,0.00014037019,0.0002436502],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013220118,0.000119914715,0.00036017667,0.000028956865,0.0007500288,0.00003357206,0.00025745467,0.000072748735,0.0001231376],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00044207255,0.000084748404,0.00004934563,0.00029444424,0.001280224,0.00023530396,0.00007744904,0.00012843747,0.000015670768],"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":[0.000007978308,0.000010512537,0.00037826132,0.0011039221,0.000019156147,0.0000088542,0.023369199,3.4656495e-7,0.00000549339,0.97075224,0.0036257769,0.0007182815],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022144409,0.000016439079,0.0001768786,0.00086928945,0.00014417019,0.000008759007,0.00023704977,0.000005602912,0.000013165277,0.0004440094,0.99775606,0.000107143474],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29094175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.39270678,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99413025,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000058361624,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002326796,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7137799},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0070532826,0.11972707,0.0001444029,0.32663748,0.001297153,0.0020073983,0.000014645217,0.0006337337,0.5424848],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8740646,0.007246974,0.00003924749,0.11445034,0.00050256675,0.00004817054,0.000021626214,0.000035552817,0.00359088],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989222,0.000021367418,0.00030492814,0.0002231775,0.00027469354,0.00025360554],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99908763,0.0000255487,0.00028899967,0.00040235507,0.00018036536,0.000015126851],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004022634,0.00017262207,0.00023315063,0.000029246341,0.00029843542,0.0002074816,0.00034392413,0.000031069307,0.005546676],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010729061,0.000103673585,0.00011288302,0.0004656963,0.00007004496,0.00046110142,0.00009863328,0.00015783095,0.0012187782],"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":[0.0000030463823,0.0000790924,0.00085633906,0.0017688597,0.00003832918,0.000022554499,0.00004286381,0.00000880883,0.00011053447,0.37731707,0.6034916,0.016260883],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011073953,0.0000024831259,0.00014983269,0.000739847,0.000050613395,0.00000338424,0.000012530137,0.00034537574,0.00000765409,0.0006564816,0.9977483,0.00017275043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00035790337,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00052220176,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86701137,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000020244815,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000071934714,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99955887},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.034912955,0.5833085,0.00003097062,0.08024391,0.00023906071,0.002845961,0.000011145066,0.000039062554,0.29836842],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9484095,0.050172787,0.000044459062,0.0010680672,0.000053879558,0.00008567967,0.0000011103073,0.0000022158615,0.00016232907],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990171,0.00022425619,0.00024481176,0.0001088547,0.00027569477,0.000129288],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958056,0.00007982996,0.00007967237,0.00008595386,0.00014199862,0.000031983298],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013143414,0.00006136754,0.00024192617,0.000008310261,0.00024341124,0.000015559888,0.00010656744,0.000024624911,0.00054207136],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00020339579,0.000037548143,0.00006187073,0.00014809523,0.001314356,0.00012014605,0.00005013817,0.00006728158,0.0000411033],"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":[0.0000023201344,0.000016663715,0.0037347348,0.00016291096,0.000016613176,7.311554e-7,0.00027503632,2.8982257e-7,0.0000025559984,0.99235755,0.0020367182,0.0013938491],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003604976,0.0000074132254,0.007974525,0.0018538699,0.00007545018,0.0000018999076,0.00034424735,0.000010202576,0.0000052164073,0.19617718,0.7930492,0.00014027963],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023465917,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029357537,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9134965,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000023819694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000086878135,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98303694},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.057268385,0.21930131,0.000005227721,0.11997876,0.00028974304,0.0018736306,0.00011926806,0.00003389912,0.6011298],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94689566,0.041966457,0.000024292623,0.008311594,0.000052826,0.00003085464,0.000019051171,0.0000046468217,0.0026946305],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979743,0.0005414706,0.0004438518,0.00020117823,0.0005684582,0.00027075864],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99884766,0.00039194193,0.0001677586,0.00017932651,0.00032644777,0.00008683257],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011137594,0.00016574695,0.0005193859,0.000019430829,0.00059222395,0.000027744683,0.00027015104,0.000026905616,0.0004916219],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007250994,0.000120949444,0.000064978056,0.00015179775,0.0005296929,0.00014179268,0.000078125064,0.00013723981,0.0000044629996],"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":[0.000020376805,0.0000671357,0.00020739938,0.00013414842,0.00007540274,0.000008604097,0.0029954333,0.0000055605083,0.000042281255,0.7952644,0.20083418,0.0003450509],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016760115,0.000051051262,0.0013028183,0.0007791244,0.00003781305,9.974985e-7,0.0013392421,0.000013130034,0.0001342317,0.0009759785,0.9950569,0.00014110177],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22415242,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9113173,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8896273,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021653985,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003142133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.781014},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2181549,0.11016909,0.0004874633,0.21045226,0.0034760346,0.006680512,0.000036325804,0.00062447245,0.44991893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92917895,0.06393853,0.000036617603,0.003593837,0.0010570574,0.00006565356,0.0000046332725,0.000015767167,0.0021089436],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984036,0.0002788262,0.0002512449,0.00023561931,0.00038166455,0.00044903855],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99923223,0.000037421545,0.00011630249,0.00024186897,0.0001247819,0.00024739292],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012789803,0.00015920644,0.00027627847,0.000020753176,0.0004798084,0.00008291716,0.00017461063,0.00009435026,0.0002709121],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000051960087,0.00014031198,0.000094003495,0.00021457644,0.00031983698,0.0008897555,0.000048254566,0.00017698477,0.00031062495],"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":[0.00015218514,0.00084109453,0.018873729,0.0313243,0.00031163235,0.000015110653,0.090070456,0.000006057935,0.0024275887,0.31935486,0.18758848,0.3490345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000065962646,0.000022732007,0.0011129788,0.0018227757,0.00007240186,0.0000067899,0.0012212856,0.0000047119556,0.000043647753,0.00007443459,0.99535275,0.00019955546],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006131529,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013670754,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80776423,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000086474836,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000492917,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92690784},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.86918366,0.060027376,0.0009282068,0.0040213442,0.00052860315,0.0014798009,0.000026726424,0.00016136073,0.063642904],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96522754,0.032669716,0.00005760639,0.0017676204,0.00014070967,0.000048736318,0.000012119966,0.000007292812,0.000068663656],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99727,0.0010130156,0.00044923095,0.00039697456,0.0005366576,0.000334105],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988613,0.00029716085,0.00013578874,0.00039482818,0.00020024383,0.000110676556],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002688729,0.00016761998,0.0005234057,0.0001195948,0.001143563,0.00008133593,0.00029494253,0.000069505295,0.0001958243],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003419942,0.00012415528,0.00029426892,0.0016510023,0.00032139994,0.00023233463,0.000034006163,0.00024904683,0.00004941039],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00014457309,0.0010755459,0.012605227,0.02847602,0.0022104294,0.00041999287,0.8298121,0.000105553554,0.000022629356,0.05527525,0.0025241978,0.067328446],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020830553,0.000075574004,0.0010237236,0.0013699261,0.050160814,0.00006513497,0.92286456,0.00035501333,0.0000023346088,0.000044251366,0.02340251,0.0004278435],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.036265373,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.037760552,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.096043855,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012634853,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010406042,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97979784},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0032851186,0.42965788,0.00035560987,0.047080893,0.00052094634,0.001168846,0.000031491287,0.00011146823,0.51778775],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9651098,0.030562075,0.000028043209,0.003164056,0.00016316549,0.000056144956,0.000010956945,0.00000530202,0.00090044935],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989122,0.00026107967,0.00019973758,0.00017013204,0.00025995975,0.00019687743],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995585,0.000143626,0.00006817168,0.00011165799,0.00008022016,0.00003781209],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00084611645,0.000104975596,0.00018631882,0.000008743189,0.0010494094,0.00006751214,0.00016503487,0.000030297493,0.00034850964],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006207601,0.00006649767,0.000076058495,0.000110432215,0.0011170172,0.00015862923,0.00005052811,0.00008270578,0.00008067396],"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":[0.0000031068716,0.000015028999,0.00040375325,0.000041372714,0.000020390762,0.0000015887059,0.0002265503,9.8786074e-8,0.0000028945465,0.9932931,0.0032755218,0.0027166072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000068556685,0.000010052563,0.0017816502,0.0007957476,0.00008140822,0.00000357462,0.00022014593,0.0000051517122,0.0000011679905,0.12760581,0.8693155,0.000111209985],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031096872,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01504939,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9618247,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006296283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005263855,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83979124},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08072347,0.33920717,0.00027593705,0.044395458,0.00027472473,0.0011200446,0.00016086652,0.000093971634,0.5337484],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87580174,0.12069302,0.0005942245,0.0025282572,0.000055012544,0.0000032613411,0.0000013891013,0.0000022615418,0.00032085212],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991794,0.00011876347,0.00019968188,0.00013636373,0.00019775645,0.00016798853],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994692,0.0001165824,0.00008189941,0.000105240455,0.00010165787,0.00012538307],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00067547284,0.00006355003,0.00019588713,0.000009012207,0.00020809457,0.00001739651,0.000095041774,0.000021784,0.000049580867],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010656051,0.0000556552,0.000029139186,0.000095304495,0.0025828253,0.00015798412,0.000031408657,0.000054059732,0.000005751867],"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":[9.816858e-7,0.000006491811,0.0006357505,0.00015035993,0.0000028188892,4.6322603e-7,0.00011094685,7.132932e-7,0.000016738719,0.99627274,0.0011942885,0.0016077098],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005327922,0.000014210676,0.00026434078,0.00037145143,0.000021941845,0.0000035614923,0.000020164309,0.0000033172837,0.000018200166,0.0016593812,0.99749815,0.00007197462],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005485084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022733158,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9963039,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000020863326,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028938914,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9516527},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035268698,0.37249783,0.000013408924,0.13232945,0.0011060566,0.002530706,0.000021368769,0.00009767755,0.45613483],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8791007,0.10590552,0.00009299185,0.006321204,0.00024855614,0.00007850588,0.000004874981,0.000012868679,0.008234811],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99851847,0.0002427213,0.0002959162,0.00017498565,0.00048315385,0.0002847609],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99897075,0.00029002724,0.00012896911,0.00031890636,0.00018296647,0.000108379005],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00093488867,0.00010548857,0.00025207168,0.000007179299,0.00055003027,0.000041951407,0.0004354745,0.00004289045,0.005322939],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00025546423,0.00006925779,0.00013705004,0.00016635936,0.00057327235,0.00026427925,0.00009237738,0.00009692864,0.001410449],"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":[0.000007854967,0.000087659195,0.00081169617,0.003862536,0.000040088908,0.000004078952,0.0016716438,8.9222397e-7,0.00046748616,0.5448387,0.4347397,0.013467622],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004217354,0.000024222254,0.00036236012,0.0012725837,0.00018974429,0.0000029601076,0.0003920479,0.0000012140429,0.000067471716,0.0005240182,0.997026,0.00009517826],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0066959537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0053605153,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84383196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000080369085,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000070700946,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999185},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01050838,0.74527305,0.0006133488,0.2199071,0.0020080162,0.008839949,0.00022827384,0.00019875029,0.0124231465],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5312934,0.3410009,0.0015260845,0.097891584,0.025936749,0.0006096098,0.00068799854,0.00009712706,0.0009565558],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99908084,0.00007926954,0.00021615224,0.0002567114,0.00016349087,0.00020352978],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992574,0.00007447332,0.000066751665,0.00022712718,0.00021830417,0.00015598272],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00067864184,0.0001336672,0.00038401614,0.000023180044,0.000112115325,0.0000131598745,0.000046211942,0.00014631501,0.0000858469],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008939956,0.00010396677,0.0000938646,0.00008354446,0.00004240423,0.000077620985,0.000021599722,0.0002906915,0.000012098103],"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":[0.0002584637,0.0003521079,0.013361477,0.07222686,0.00043696025,0.000012390517,0.0037467766,3.7658342e-8,0.00010733539,0.31917107,0.16640173,0.42392477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005195622,0.00043001893,0.009570654,0.0027032876,0.0002689438,0.00007850828,0.000006846907,0.0000148727695,0.000013475701,0.0003113672,0.98594654,0.00013590773],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00019929538,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00006983258,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81954485,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025830886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000025193132,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4239642},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4927686,0.4179931,0.000019624204,0.02572573,0.0009903155,0.0037312442,0.00032446682,0.00006342476,0.058383513],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98996115,0.008784794,0.00006951324,0.00076384627,0.00016820565,0.00002974075,0.00001023733,0.000011406241,0.00020109286],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99570525,0.0013075348,0.00074907363,0.00021905503,0.0013706125,0.0006484606],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99763185,0.0010374095,0.0003990516,0.0002910939,0.0005166759,0.00012392331],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041075964,0.00022411233,0.00076573115,0.000017690372,0.00042730325,0.000020071044,0.0005122252,0.00010075407,0.00023900806],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013452718,0.00014631492,0.0001286836,0.00048890326,0.0006457981,0.00037106517,0.00008348702,0.0002597107,0.000005490705],"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":[0.00008002926,0.0012116275,0.14350642,0.011603137,0.0006347753,0.00007262973,0.14719424,0.0000122959555,0.0016679845,0.58423316,0.105599195,0.0041845175],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00036024413,0.00007181477,0.01956976,0.002891568,0.0003202478,0.0000068555705,0.023809211,0.0000024726517,0.000619918,0.00014377377,0.9516778,0.0005263643],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7787537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8976688,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8460786,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004025189,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00041772486,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59665495},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.017078908,0.62866694,0.000046725352,0.020609444,0.0025728035,0.0010032924,0.000013765845,0.000022914135,0.3299852],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94320685,0.05564544,0.000032492404,0.00090611714,0.000112539055,0.000010234646,9.102133e-7,0.0000019294644,0.000083490064],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988217,0.00020860498,0.00025093768,0.000073132986,0.00035104988,0.00029459345],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992877,0.00029603404,0.000081929415,0.00014772148,0.0000962228,0.00009038525],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015841112,0.000059815455,0.00016105612,0.0000054254706,0.00030266476,0.000010534672,0.00022239352,0.000019396879,0.0001248584],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00048257242,0.000042808442,0.00003643701,0.00013347092,0.00032414362,0.0001886431,0.000024050782,0.00008399939,0.000017232887],"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":[0.0000037350665,0.000011582179,0.0010969923,0.0011441496,0.0000029368477,0.0000018191292,0.00038552,6.6655116e-7,0.0000063467483,0.9846969,0.008722823,0.0039265035],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027350014,0.0000042221873,0.00053511077,0.0012088419,0.00014641027,0.0000022317631,0.0011715845,0.0000010774971,0.000018136085,0.00011571031,0.9967086,0.00006076641],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9856599,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98798573,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024514593,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010781244,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23278832},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0019226877,0.09530396,0.0012103529,0.26462016,0.0012351493,0.003373053,0.00007924132,0.00019031348,0.63206506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9405078,0.046858154,0.000030308553,0.009959928,0.0007432046,0.0001794143,0.000010766134,0.000007942277,0.0017024708],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99840355,0.00044311018,0.0002733477,0.00024784036,0.0003637024,0.0002684403],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99928427,0.00021263197,0.00010621264,0.00017029209,0.00012867221,0.00009792022],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012573492,0.00015611664,0.00038114324,0.00001035062,0.0010921856,0.00008259231,0.0001932896,0.00005046956,0.0011434727],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014766441,0.0000813249,0.00011238582,0.00013110308,0.0017778534,0.00020509784,0.000037983074,0.00011925007,0.00018780884],"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":[0.000027433447,0.000019127914,0.000051089602,0.00009820687,0.000034249595,0.000001705928,0.0011169197,6.854319e-9,0.000002331576,0.9902973,0.0027010255,0.0056505892],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032627824,0.000047261205,0.00034898566,0.00083614636,0.000096597265,0.0000040915575,0.00017317425,0.0000051457287,0.0000044390217,0.01590995,0.9821004,0.00014748341],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007767302,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003808786,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97939944,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000026602027,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000073020994,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997696},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14171888,0.18573207,0.00004162286,0.26676193,0.006290907,0.0044916426,0.000031325257,0.00018838563,0.39474326],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8978667,0.09945356,0.000013892877,0.0010066263,0.00023626913,0.000021246045,4.474361e-7,0.000005815122,0.0013954057],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987796,0.00027656974,0.00026373498,0.00011578801,0.00040705758,0.00015727532],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990983,0.00018792163,0.00016141763,0.0003571776,0.00015882132,0.000036347392],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00077372044,0.00006980906,0.00017518798,0.0000091284155,0.00090922427,0.000009102027,0.00035707332,0.00003964328,0.000063008636],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003106591,0.000038740887,0.00016204496,0.00024136908,0.0004947647,0.00013630709,0.000030471858,0.00012413529,0.000022968268],"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":[0.00001980837,0.000109407134,0.00031902207,0.00069174246,0.000034182754,0.0000010068512,0.003233857,0.0000029158189,0.0008851421,0.9544017,0.036829524,0.0034716937],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000336672,0.000048081147,0.000856833,0.0012294636,0.00004179677,0.000003396994,0.000062806146,6.119778e-7,0.00045994422,0.0011548852,0.99605876,0.000049759656],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000925984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019469078,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95922923,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004193075,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011064855,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.699311},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022148004,0.57199264,0.000021620244,0.32950494,0.00072255364,0.0038387552,0.000029597866,0.000040310773,0.071701564],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75625765,0.23824523,0.000091047696,0.00396799,0.0003787845,0.00008578446,0.0000048783345,0.000010508534,0.000958133],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974672,0.00073352363,0.00044297308,0.00021602197,0.00076191087,0.00037837186],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99855506,0.0006430581,0.00020749049,0.0002811701,0.00021891443,0.000094313495],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001608294,0.00017163901,0.00050183275,0.000009055493,0.0006494607,0.00004808944,0.0005402314,0.000057336034,0.0002399394],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000726245,0.000088722445,0.000097796605,0.00031512536,0.00084607856,0.00016487013,0.000088128705,0.00019169053,0.0000042508946],"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":[0.000072036644,0.00008853075,0.0063995486,0.00092875556,0.00017809306,0.000034243512,0.046349857,0.000023226847,0.000026658472,0.20111234,0.74185914,0.002927553],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005686524,0.000012970674,0.0033287457,0.0009354792,0.00009596506,0.0000029304988,0.0032469684,0.000010467907,0.00000584928,0.00038724463,0.9912564,0.00014829192],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.796257,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90990907,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73410964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012191872,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00031374343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49951926},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.026788702,0.5881741,0.00018694812,0.11135205,0.0005676178,0.0024155066,0.00008382485,0.00040120984,0.27003005],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7341433,0.22824869,0.0008961178,0.018273171,0.00055084564,0.00011935019,0.000022752385,0.000050042094,0.017695712],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978819,0.00046176772,0.00027837078,0.0003057303,0.0006599343,0.000412296],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999054,0.00009395256,0.0000816483,0.00027313665,0.00021969713,0.00027752967],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010111547,0.00015282637,0.00032021248,0.000014220584,0.0007943084,0.00004161751,0.00038245175,0.000079212594,0.002133322],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002452426,0.00013398811,0.00015722397,0.0002880378,0.001309295,0.0003789994,0.000052772397,0.00019602092,0.0007639691],"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":[0.000011210262,0.0001433737,0.0015004473,0.001629321,0.00006135446,0.00006817096,0.004837259,6.233792e-7,0.00034995825,0.3263678,0.66109306,0.003937418],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000071176786,0.00003762552,0.00008054598,0.0018486422,0.00004377048,0.000011479813,0.0001442011,0.0000014146365,0.000104190076,0.0010893539,0.9963905,0.00017709738],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0055174106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002365191,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7073546,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008949218,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022762275,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987789},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.20273109,0.15754324,0.00005726191,0.020319888,0.001217279,0.005267189,0.0002324941,0.000030779815,0.6126008],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9906882,0.007839999,0.00028953882,0.0008470055,0.000035184046,0.00003306918,0.0000042271727,0.0000036396657,0.000259102],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983144,0.00044350978,0.00046226868,0.000149523,0.00045229073,0.00017801773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999027,0.00014755745,0.00025084955,0.00025280664,0.00028631723,0.00003547],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011374115,0.00009349544,0.00027030837,0.000004510872,0.00025192302,0.0000076917195,0.00030324285,0.00006780201,0.00029617205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034238145,0.000060249713,0.0002937168,0.00029052133,0.0024346432,0.00015727403,0.000046540274,0.0001286358,0.0000055098785],"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":[0.000003702662,0.000072780225,0.0013121845,0.0006415369,0.0000112353455,6.5920254e-8,0.0007378582,0.0000025799702,0.0005216795,0.9957281,0.00067361066,0.00029466907],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019687192,0.000026106833,0.000596898,0.0062299054,0.00024497774,0.0000072635944,0.000689063,0.000007722314,0.008074333,0.027084798,0.9566825,0.00015958726],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0121156275,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012667675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9686433,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056751338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00036911597,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9944628},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.036558304,0.4003504,0.0004186968,0.20631084,0.00071309885,0.0013883122,0.0005341096,0.00012419566,0.35360208],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9560231,0.039557517,0.00011206186,0.0040385267,0.00020843337,0.000015735537,0.000018052135,0.0000028715012,0.000023700319],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987209,0.00021415653,0.0002268593,0.00024562873,0.00034992903,0.00024256237],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994295,0.00017263752,0.00007558432,0.00015907497,0.00009673931,0.000066430766],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00057651644,0.00012842714,0.00027239046,0.00001085544,0.0007336283,0.00003807339,0.00025511623,0.000060866107,0.00011231412],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018705004,0.00008116664,0.000043214673,0.00018838515,0.002478863,0.00010008328,0.000052965792,0.00024473193,0.000017154276],"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":[0.0000035935961,0.0000067129668,0.0007072223,0.00003322101,0.00001042855,0.0000014057451,0.00018753702,9.830608e-7,0.0000160427,0.9946275,0.00031448514,0.004090871],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011359278,0.0000060783314,0.0043962365,0.0013922735,0.00002602986,0.000002275296,0.000075916985,9.2466945e-7,0.000008205646,0.17089999,0.8229507,0.0001277713],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015253819,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.16160135,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9194648,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008717636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013235628,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9913037},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022329526,0.17036374,0.000010346249,0.073664606,0.00079226936,0.0015168965,0.000024689609,0.000023928073,0.731274],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9796713,0.015422117,0.000006534349,0.0043426435,0.00025003604,0.000039519695,0.0000027737567,0.0000034156621,0.0002616616],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978048,0.00044496,0.0004174054,0.00018319055,0.00075191265,0.0003976819],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99924755,0.0002636906,0.00010408402,0.00021351753,0.00012335177,0.000047784903],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017783212,0.00014014059,0.0003575985,0.00001902606,0.0006592236,0.000028452505,0.0005696719,0.000046269437,0.00017281942],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017751259,0.00007779253,0.00008678805,0.00057504757,0.0005354457,0.00010813349,0.000050218503,0.000238279,0.000008261501],"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":[0.000007706486,0.00005020631,0.0034641263,0.00008548597,0.000024520763,0.000059825677,0.00144171,0.000014443323,0.0000026791654,0.97888565,0.014812503,0.0011511324],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010322818,0.000008103998,0.0031508184,0.0008223337,0.000028400336,0.000005323381,0.0004195675,0.0000019055395,0.0000025517447,0.0067612394,0.98858786,0.00010867273],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91418374,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.994436,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9737753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022174706,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011334103,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50702816},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.090147816,0.14600912,0.047781665,0.11692508,0.0015682632,0.20752575,0.00031765364,0.0012507802,0.38847387],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8555413,0.07230475,0.017444752,0.037880935,0.004649806,0.008963527,0.00007909497,0.00017152203,0.0029643269],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99825406,0.0007010176,0.0002343579,0.00021217177,0.000376289,0.00022207675],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992436,0.000090692934,0.000057113055,0.00024574302,0.00017099666,0.00019180872],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024061995,0.000090941765,0.00024237848,0.000023204595,0.00016128167,0.000056422785,0.00019856021,0.0000406873,0.0003229772],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022623625,0.000074036936,0.000052317704,0.00011870712,0.00033513954,0.00021913023,0.0001226254,0.00013274867,0.00012467538],"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":[0.00023820426,0.0003729916,0.002858284,0.056479648,0.00011364164,0.000026624277,0.006036132,0.000004799772,0.00026117516,0.4984681,0.053273298,0.38186708],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011377721,0.00012463698,0.0005789044,0.0025001653,0.000048866623,0.0000015299744,0.00007475665,0.000037162416,0.000038111044,0.00015840528,0.9962144,0.000109315704],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0006851156,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00022820685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94294107,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000149377565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007672015,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3536374},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.20194042,0.39292026,0.000499057,0.035337783,0.00080582214,0.013350168,0.00014196898,0.000057757145,0.3549468],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9631772,0.036258917,0.00014038423,0.00023853753,0.000028766972,0.00007372958,0.0000033427366,0.000001703482,0.000077439574],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987304,0.00019413853,0.0003718532,0.0001311669,0.0003835857,0.00018884568],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991411,0.0003322945,0.00020627456,0.00009776104,0.00018615004,0.000036443616],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000942743,0.00009652355,0.0002715699,0.000006758846,0.0006071178,0.000021624108,0.00016545622,0.000032485845,0.00012302306],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00043014088,0.000051761428,0.000040024817,0.00018074669,0.003069657,0.00014558449,0.000038631362,0.00009860119,0.0000013464162],"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":[0.000016885799,0.00001645482,0.009397039,0.00034509413,0.000033705168,0.0000011612717,0.0011686006,0.00009419897,0.00009385678,0.9837578,0.00013085356,0.004944379],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028715597,0.000007518055,0.0014247586,0.0018896308,0.00005899355,0.0000072837115,0.0020112314,0.00013539722,0.000091759124,0.00052494946,0.99344605,0.00011526849],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20604767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7622508,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9933152,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001427583,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00067667366,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99964345},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00061558664,0.17325895,0.00013587716,0.074819505,0.0012438502,0.0011100451,0.000004689376,0.00019206572,0.74861944],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.59600055,0.393349,0.00031545613,0.0057629175,0.0010870849,0.0001247652,0.000006164388,0.0000095384985,0.0033445114],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985457,0.0003852182,0.0002070127,0.00015315073,0.00040653496,0.00030235975],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991982,0.00024761367,0.00008659814,0.0001726325,0.00020850662,0.00008646055],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016667836,0.000102382044,0.00020674053,0.0000032199428,0.002269077,0.00008875644,0.00029131348,0.00004186001,0.00015098804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00052048796,0.000058668094,0.00010391127,0.00013474151,0.0010823838,0.00015295805,0.000026113925,0.000120103694,0.00040841807],"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":[9.208622e-7,0.0000056717718,0.00012731417,0.000090277485,0.000012093378,3.2290694e-7,0.0002803015,1.8215714e-7,0.000003843227,0.9715954,0.020754123,0.0071295183],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005916113,0.000008426074,0.00016636688,0.00044260127,0.000040682906,5.587504e-7,0.00010173624,0.0000022819331,0.0000041942444,0.0011537975,0.9979246,0.00009556083],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0039635794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0060675195,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9771705,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011433107,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007146942,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990298},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.054961324,0.41852778,0.00005040932,0.03799443,0.0017448481,0.0011201008,0.000011030177,0.000038326645,0.48555174],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8773091,0.12192637,0.000007367211,0.00046651313,0.00016353602,0.000008715101,2.2063728e-7,0.0000016780925,0.000116504445],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99914217,0.00020655453,0.00019157749,0.00006631421,0.00028225794,0.00011115467],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99943125,0.00014799486,0.00012100655,0.000119295706,0.00016410025,0.000016369853],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009230216,0.00004585321,0.00013887594,0.0000034877737,0.0006836161,0.000006932417,0.00018411584,0.000019568175,0.000046025056],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027640854,0.000024406037,0.000092861315,0.00021429088,0.0007559384,0.000060725495,0.000036181213,0.000056565135,0.000006578579],"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":[0.000009710182,0.000024163686,0.0054785856,0.00012981406,0.0000413194,2.8706165e-7,0.00032881912,6.367511e-7,0.00011978138,0.9811921,0.00200944,0.010665311],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031124233,0.000006276902,0.0040353495,0.001068457,0.00003536669,0.0000015256852,0.00009565705,5.59619e-7,0.000025376026,0.0064862547,0.9881783,0.000035741476],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0064084055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0073655318,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98616886,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002538698,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007092852,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9687635},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00026891634,0.07558315,0.000002376823,0.06231176,0.00017024558,0.00046061957,0.00014482613,0.000015826558,0.86104226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92465633,0.022625737,0.000048478025,0.051475875,0.00053851795,0.000029580013,0.00003898253,0.0000049400483,0.000581531],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990972,0.00016719029,0.00015117704,0.000112271475,0.00023809711,0.00023405276],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995703,0.000047838737,0.00002935649,0.00011143712,0.00004535589,0.00019568476],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007100054,0.000056616995,0.00012055707,0.000064602675,0.0013194786,0.0001936974,0.00015978902,0.000055353437,0.00072159787],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000060294155,0.000058607995,0.000041510393,0.00013416665,0.0020905242,0.00021710632,0.0000046982386,0.00013589436,0.00008891497],"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":[1.8285758e-7,0.0000060183947,0.000010721782,0.00006438269,0.000002155468,0.0000063984053,0.00057907443,3.1628028e-7,1.6998386e-7,0.96752137,0.03143121,0.00037800363],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006564196,0.0000034517452,0.000095461495,0.00033608152,0.000020430687,0.000007832605,0.00006073983,0.0000013424038,1.2365592e-7,0.0035501763,0.9957838,0.00007492766],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9707436,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998441,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9643526,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00082879164,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014639895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999807},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12457736,0.42140287,0.0000967618,0.021380315,0.0011664391,0.0048681917,0.000090736175,0.00019060935,0.4262267],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9479826,0.050031085,0.0008109401,0.00042928595,0.00013640877,0.000071675364,0.000004386735,0.0000101845,0.0005234089],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984596,0.00014254398,0.00046116178,0.00016503727,0.0005070739,0.00026462486],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988437,0.00021408327,0.00026314985,0.0002064421,0.0003922486,0.000080335485],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006759348,0.00013720793,0.00050398277,0.000009722601,0.00033924932,0.00002306288,0.00035355697,0.000056212804,0.0019045932],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045591913,0.000096811375,0.00017953817,0.00017178307,0.001126834,0.00025792216,0.00012987162,0.00008693791,0.00011619775],"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":[0.0000024642043,0.00005253408,0.0032036125,0.0025015448,0.00007410015,3.752671e-7,0.0025327455,5.1490025e-7,0.00019198394,0.98627454,0.0028667126,0.0022988855],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002578669,0.00008129695,0.011860987,0.0037569434,0.00048147514,7.051426e-7,0.005186427,0.0000053211097,0.0003168233,0.011519361,0.9661816,0.00035122436],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014845437,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005978166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97475517,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007015752,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004982428,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990078},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0064777383,0.30840468,0.00016790193,0.15608148,0.00018911736,0.0007721887,0.00001640525,0.000059517148,0.52783096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9154623,0.07678914,0.000012858516,0.007441836,0.00020683213,0.000024762781,0.0000015226557,0.0000027947183,0.000057920257],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988341,0.00016110114,0.00019873369,0.00018831684,0.00031873395,0.00029903796],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99945796,0.00016419015,0.000043094336,0.000114624345,0.000097570664,0.00012254834],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00087493856,0.0001003224,0.0003976899,0.00002040308,0.00087385124,0.000054595832,0.000120185054,0.000038566133,0.00029179975],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018354406,0.00006294492,0.0001394835,0.00036435763,0.0022349171,0.000089185414,0.000072580806,0.00008759747,0.00002604232],"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":[0.000008312542,0.0000098782975,0.0032506315,0.000015333555,0.00015682435,0.0000036815904,0.00020557817,1.4815151e-8,1.7447036e-7,0.99451864,0.0004811319,0.0013497765],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030328258,0.000016879028,0.007429908,0.00023658673,0.00113957,0.0000067882543,0.00031353434,0.000004833539,1.3562509e-7,0.09784008,0.89255947,0.00014895841],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009237306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019603942,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9089846,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000023953255,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005576579,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9982857},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0111104045,0.70828104,0.000017007991,0.0988425,0.0040513645,0.003942161,0.00029698064,0.000057357585,0.17340116],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8852994,0.10145439,0.000010394666,0.0041988855,0.0014391209,0.0001804042,0.000008250387,0.0000407862,0.0073683695],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995608,0.0017460225,0.000676276,0.00025724404,0.0010285876,0.0006839203],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99666864,0.0013167445,0.00062773493,0.00078279304,0.0004618773,0.00014219203],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004045656,0.00035953437,0.0007402506,0.0000150955475,0.0011833603,0.000063282314,0.00089071784,0.00019321681,0.0006958642],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039598017,0.00015970951,0.00038400682,0.0007112358,0.0022309928,0.00036077847,0.00022824873,0.00044061645,0.00017622541],"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":[0.00004177315,0.0003622208,0.0013045146,0.0011721071,0.0005441791,8.673155e-7,0.026394656,0.000018265628,0.000025753798,0.8937424,0.061743174,0.01465008],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002846845,0.000158576,0.0023734935,0.0018567172,0.0003554311,0.0000033863662,0.002108881,0.000053199357,0.000030791733,0.00027674908,0.9922581,0.00023999115],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008431317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0029564465,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93051493,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021218759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020238847,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9981716},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.29092696,0.5469025,0.00026172344,0.008825199,0.0019087192,0.0033952086,0.000051262024,0.0002899414,0.14743853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97442895,0.022197384,0.00003330859,0.002624215,0.00033269505,0.000015908801,0.000025178062,0.000011841885,0.0003305102],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99901605,0.000049603026,0.00042123804,0.00017803046,0.0001853355,0.00014977438],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988552,0.000054393844,0.0004186912,0.00029631887,0.00035755502,0.000017895316],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00042784016,0.00015803055,0.00038773994,0.000026400581,0.00027410607,0.000049257018,0.00019479479,0.00003709486,0.00024218834],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000054549844,0.000093057504,0.00007685398,0.00017516802,0.0003436291,0.0006933987,0.000032005857,0.00008316631,0.000050072955],"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":[0.00003075784,0.00011745125,0.0006340031,0.008015058,0.000056879322,0.000004668843,0.00035025462,5.663523e-7,0.000620399,0.9624468,0.01993362,0.0077895047],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018934497,0.00001780436,0.000605771,0.0013774304,0.00014758561,0.0000061025953,0.000051886684,0.00006947227,0.00011872946,0.00061237643,0.99668545,0.0001180285],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014685382,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005992503,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97675186,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000075902058,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000015076178,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37947747},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016180876,0.48638612,0.000037725753,0.017594928,0.00011602186,0.0020259572,0.00003851068,0.00008517596,0.4920975],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94866186,0.045871563,0.00024056698,0.004320439,0.00012547386,0.000012492363,0.000003581821,0.0000100752895,0.00075396104],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99759203,0.0007696299,0.00045471362,0.00028806392,0.00057349744,0.00032208703],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99861866,0.0002341337,0.00024522122,0.0005103855,0.00026613654,0.0001254699],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003037638,0.00015851096,0.00049500883,0.000010120273,0.0003438222,0.00006139183,0.00048973557,0.000081482984,0.00020579655],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045556636,0.00010764868,0.00012377031,0.00040925335,0.0009155082,0.00025093296,0.00005166118,0.00020412836,0.000064534106],"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":[0.000008314528,0.000035875317,0.00009040173,0.00048836484,0.00001591936,0.0000022459205,0.008920325,6.471913e-8,0.000036725356,0.9862639,0.0024582774,0.001679616],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011835476,0.000039823477,0.00008351348,0.0015327849,0.00010295535,7.864695e-7,0.00022993027,9.018502e-7,0.00007790801,0.006850658,0.99081784,0.0001445409],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009958436,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00049836864,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9883596,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000058995152,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000086014436,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.43897858},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00019748695,0.055898223,0.00004893065,0.06650688,0.0005705814,0.00048555864,0.000036111127,0.000026236436,0.87623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9292358,0.053703804,0.00005289442,0.015931198,0.0005356881,0.000044519038,0.00000996289,0.000005134011,0.0004809744],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986985,0.00024759883,0.00024339756,0.00014112571,0.00040545652,0.00026394668],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991848,0.00013471754,0.00007747225,0.00017319662,0.00029043303,0.00013940563],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013619165,0.00009518512,0.00025358595,0.000036267047,0.0010298173,0.000018861274,0.0003098173,0.00004290193,0.0005860292],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003556908,0.00006417416,0.00012138459,0.00034946235,0.0018612894,0.00008231919,0.000028814246,0.00008746128,0.00016898659],"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":[5.575749e-7,0.0000063951775,0.00015776581,0.000048487014,0.000024570301,5.626751e-7,0.00023137436,6.48069e-7,0.0000013918077,0.9727941,0.025938287,0.0007958224],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049008773,0.000007912207,0.00028492877,0.0006372888,0.00005714876,0.0000012664309,0.0000842636,0.0000010332777,0.0000021009141,0.030932965,0.967858,0.000084038256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.48928282,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.54177827,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94191974,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006871893,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00066134956,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79206264},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.31966323,0.22016625,0.00071598694,0.063320376,0.012359199,0.023951791,0.00013264794,0.0003751203,0.3593154],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99593365,0.0012701013,0.000075005424,0.00073580263,0.000422798,0.00007472819,4.69846e-7,0.000017477063,0.0014699587],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973075,0.00091548316,0.00039884308,0.0001657141,0.00084899424,0.00036350306],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985349,0.00012718086,0.00039158954,0.0005717603,0.00030915183,0.000065394765],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001898072,0.00014273274,0.00025307073,0.000011418253,0.0007787128,0.00003509982,0.0006827206,0.00008420158,0.000287516],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023601891,0.00006233321,0.000208431,0.00043146592,0.00071323384,0.0002232342,0.00008282764,0.00027825835,0.00003305306],"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":[0.00008696451,0.00044405102,0.0059833988,0.0039661056,0.00022505785,0.0000010408218,0.10455663,0.0000049768737,0.005151512,0.86620444,0.0075888913,0.0057869554],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009962414,0.000025398693,0.0006722834,0.0017293331,0.00015741428,0.0000028827976,0.00079973025,0.0000060091456,0.0010694722,0.00082424347,0.99451625,0.000097338336],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0034822216,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022710746,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9869274,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011692509,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022539655,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59893084},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09285881,0.5953724,0.000009944191,0.0889917,0.0024615263,0.0051070196,0.000020976257,0.00018987611,0.21498773],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8020359,0.19485205,0.000025077834,0.0007284017,0.0002592755,0.00004764151,7.061949e-7,0.00000775698,0.0020431313],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99873835,0.00028827135,0.00023271053,0.00013955508,0.00038363368,0.00021747021],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99932784,0.00013292268,0.00014589028,0.00015477776,0.00019060973,0.00004793208],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00071686594,0.00010056076,0.00022508233,0.000003821497,0.0025129318,0.0000255539,0.00025674544,0.000044365792,0.000050411287],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00029629227,0.000047339763,0.000114145194,0.0001705625,0.0005716032,0.0001687662,0.00007020253,0.00012612947,0.000012188034],"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":[0.000020518699,0.00012562211,0.008656068,0.0026163717,0.00039129824,0.00000959477,0.063975655,0.0000015910005,0.0009079038,0.8219302,0.0770465,0.024318635],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008035959,0.000012073643,0.0021270055,0.00056983694,0.00005028919,0.0000044384274,0.00031058423,0.0000028497764,0.000079905345,0.00033361654,0.99634683,0.00008222432],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0012199347,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004273668,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9193003,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000059219343,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000029060724,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987857},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004730051,0.9343708,0.000015977186,0.008336602,0.00014168362,0.00080219266,0.00010006955,0.000074999974,0.05142763],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.13418622,0.85438454,0.0011775141,0.0018614077,0.00051841186,0.00005783817,0.00004996207,0.000030140562,0.0077339597],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985726,0.00015935444,0.0003059357,0.00028359014,0.0004171609,0.000261378],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99934065,0.00006432093,0.00013276453,0.00020595828,0.00013221473,0.00012408668],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00054990296,0.00016632357,0.00041174126,0.000002420524,0.0003700592,0.000046973946,0.0001958794,0.00016800937,0.00021672242],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000044234537,0.00012673803,0.00011163287,0.00010299324,0.0006027629,0.00021489529,0.00008703988,0.00014703735,0.000013280365],"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":[0.000012829812,0.00015825282,0.0011245627,0.0029080377,0.000034041124,0.000004804084,0.0041707754,0.0000015091583,0.0034045912,0.053635333,0.9322378,0.0023074541],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000251356,0.000021622305,0.000059794937,0.0017823128,0.0000706649,0.0000019980434,0.00041770333,0.000009712316,0.000105532556,0.0011294468,0.9959758,0.00017404127],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003870253,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001630375,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12945616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025444004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000033884146,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58506906},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00048403913,0.86264616,0.000035847384,0.023963343,0.0003740824,0.005243477,0.0000051313136,0.00021972263,0.10702817],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.24873663,0.7334274,0.001446889,0.01101513,0.0007300733,0.0013060754,0.000052938492,0.000032687636,0.0032521654],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975758,0.0006045051,0.0004794799,0.00036176198,0.00064274634,0.00033569886],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985906,0.00005391689,0.00023817571,0.00031573823,0.00058687356,0.00021473531],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017730021,0.00017373815,0.00046743974,0.000013611731,0.00040567204,0.00011273227,0.0002373763,0.00008389808,0.0022697328],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00051327393,0.00013787943,0.000113927235,0.00048187745,0.0006195519,0.00062625547,0.00007380993,0.00021635483,0.0005410715],"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":[0.000007041845,0.0004839544,0.004981164,0.039393283,0.00017326497,0.0000154313,0.011202943,1.1222069e-7,0.000034052537,0.424153,0.2966021,0.22295366],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000518376,0.00003781021,0.000144319,0.008491089,0.0000869436,0.0000021539252,0.000075746015,7.9769006e-7,0.0000023960788,0.0021714082,0.9887578,0.00017771148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031801534,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00087254384,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.69215566,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000105483414,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012966547,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9986423},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005110621,0.33450755,0.00042766414,0.36667824,0.0011749535,0.00533793,0.000061009338,0.00026979062,0.28643224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95648825,0.033345908,0.00017750704,0.009347869,0.00021619923,0.0000288427,0.0000057705925,0.00000442196,0.00038522805],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978244,0.00061592803,0.00042267566,0.00018904635,0.0005719875,0.00037598985],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984865,0.00038033034,0.0001652067,0.0002427039,0.00059544714,0.0001298137],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029465526,0.00012741216,0.00037536246,0.0000039609567,0.0013649722,0.00005201716,0.0003711569,0.000058546375,0.00008259998],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0015844294,0.00007871892,0.00015115998,0.00025419836,0.0003957201,0.00016401103,0.000053792024,0.00013011626,0.000091555405],"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":[0.0000075018665,0.000027449123,0.000023108134,0.0001397213,0.00001843974,4.1618543e-7,0.00096772524,7.431887e-7,0.000069889116,0.9879029,0.0064757857,0.004366363],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008951546,0.00004002615,0.0005576517,0.0005815179,0.00015298136,1.9501569e-7,0.00037779234,0.0000011347072,0.000083413855,0.0019190884,0.9960792,0.00011749113],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005592008,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011551338,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9896034,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016947559,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000043609147,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999351},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025798962,0.032975968,0.00015857293,0.26240543,0.004106314,0.003488623,0.00020128505,0.00028202895,0.6938019],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9426046,0.006661619,0.00013548894,0.046935774,0.0009822189,0.00011877561,0.0000043994337,0.000019556754,0.0025375814],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979512,0.00023472804,0.00030619622,0.00029297793,0.00088614685,0.00032876036],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99906826,0.00012243597,0.00012282949,0.00041611472,0.000159819,0.00011054266],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00072319777,0.0001616843,0.00024548074,0.000008657087,0.0010413592,0.0001118257,0.00021805053,0.00009838736,0.0011923711],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005088562,0.00011905627,0.00014443316,0.00020360081,0.00029754543,0.00014814349,0.000041687446,0.0002782296,0.00072518986],"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":[0.00000750647,0.00009971052,0.00004397925,0.00014848287,0.00003289569,0.000008421942,0.016770873,0.00002429508,0.000025247813,0.893783,0.08873798,0.000317644],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001674248,0.000056806308,0.00010922274,0.000640046,0.00006263434,0.0000016591626,0.0001455606,0.0000010711351,0.00006955477,0.008331341,0.9902517,0.00016295891],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033596305,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006967755,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9400247,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005999329,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034156206,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997207},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009977351,0.050668314,0.00079672685,0.011898745,0.0002762925,0.0012221835,0.000037489765,0.000047647856,0.93405485],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95437443,0.03940224,0.00021175867,0.005413233,0.00015903763,0.000043625987,0.000006490733,0.000003010745,0.0003861746],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99882835,0.0002594881,0.00025708557,0.00012886629,0.00035792417,0.00016829629],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99939,0.000104949024,0.00012473359,0.0001247283,0.00018213241,0.000073426374],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00064051925,0.00008589434,0.00024180564,0.000010096842,0.0008391992,0.00001204226,0.00011828704,0.00003938608,0.000088949986],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012808495,0.00006067763,0.00009131761,0.000105719926,0.012596793,0.00013831393,0.000028243161,0.0001078659,0.000015183267],"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":[0.000014050452,0.000015239963,0.000044586395,0.00016919673,0.000011117243,0.0000020878394,0.00009749726,9.467172e-7,0.0000038006922,0.9979309,0.0016300463,0.00008057206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025126737,0.000022215496,0.000016800253,0.00046654433,0.0000853995,0.000052154945,0.000031478947,0.0000026566925,0.000016587761,0.00766021,0.9913125,0.00008218066],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011178024,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005843036,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9902707,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045069115,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005848701,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9954066},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006018861,0.44331026,0.000019766698,0.13556288,0.00033221452,0.0010664675,0.000010097257,0.00008754178,0.41359192],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8691179,0.11221821,0.0001898521,0.0154587105,0.00041728455,0.000045275727,0.0000019180916,0.000017305096,0.0025335252],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983514,0.00029443274,0.00030112494,0.00031074713,0.00035292283,0.00038939083],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989499,0.00020692032,0.000083171864,0.0004133553,0.00017327492,0.00017336628],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017328501,0.0001651015,0.00031476005,0.000009996696,0.0009758424,0.00016794211,0.0006816925,0.000060998842,0.0015055779],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015352586,0.000113560935,0.00011794201,0.0001667912,0.00072799774,0.0005016047,0.00019169188,0.0001731317,0.0005580096],"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":[0.000005101234,0.000047607202,0.000036309,0.00067329215,0.000012259349,0.0000026356888,0.0067823585,5.81046e-8,0.000007536558,0.9106909,0.06185518,0.01988675],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007169074,0.00002435225,0.00010047165,0.0014845844,0.00014061334,0.00001083966,0.00037013632,0.000001826029,0.000027910479,0.0010133004,0.996584,0.00017028235],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002259401,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008505023,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9347288,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006157244,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000115151706,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994072},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0005383137,0.17392865,0.000031810654,0.026432429,0.00042583188,0.0003695768,0.0000040407817,0.00003419239,0.7982352],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66695726,0.3307837,0.000013023975,0.0014994878,0.00035448695,0.000021841888,8.837197e-7,0.00000341613,0.00036588474],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99889314,0.00014078237,0.00022746684,0.00010904561,0.00040804094,0.00022151362],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993798,0.00017385851,0.000097603974,0.00012670948,0.00017216725,0.00004982833],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00084295066,0.00007365975,0.00022892978,0.000006718579,0.0010882983,0.000017219387,0.00024787706,0.00003074513,0.0001782558],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002846233,0.00004847582,0.00011657244,0.00023178179,0.0010323768,0.000088778295,0.00004717367,0.00007733244,0.00008170644],"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":[0.000004680973,0.000017980175,0.00015818553,0.000028500694,0.000025258987,0.0000019253453,0.00014867795,8.8019966e-8,0.0000067800397,0.9736162,0.0077961753,0.018195556],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004321306,0.000011023924,0.00022751586,0.0004583053,0.00004075001,0.0000010668633,0.0001778252,1.8694624e-7,0.0000063203724,0.019450415,0.9795211,0.00006229904],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0043590455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0075076832,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9717249,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000035939884,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001638444,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8370421},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08198732,0.31859112,0.049997862,0.19749962,0.008210367,0.013975932,0.000020929947,0.0036882586,0.32602862],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.73760617,0.071699835,0.026318911,0.1497601,0.0011689407,0.0011774775,0.000037638176,0.00013156323,0.012099386],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99821454,0.0002889648,0.000419193,0.00039848016,0.0003121364,0.00036667747],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99800724,0.00013190988,0.00015094617,0.0011619086,0.00026952638,0.00027846303],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010667508,0.00020774186,0.00030053535,0.00002381778,0.00054202264,0.00032277982,0.0008256543,0.00006943505,0.0010342462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015779793,0.00013085906,0.00016626866,0.0003230012,0.00007650041,0.0008615803,0.00014783688,0.00028829247,0.002100144],"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":[0.0000062152403,0.000206304,0.000016929258,0.0022526104,0.00017666802,0.0027781597,0.00061892153,0.000007785831,0.0012226444,0.2894434,0.1761589,0.5271115],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012262524,0.000062479,0.0000033251697,0.0009735996,0.000037918417,0.0030732616,0.000016673126,0.00076429785,0.0011484539,0.008133924,0.98540634,0.00025709587],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028834667,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000247763,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80924743,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000050195973,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000120527606,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99987894},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007078085,0.0026908994,0.000011140115,0.64246887,0.00056373584,0.0007223473,0.0000027137344,0.000005077561,0.35282743],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97707415,0.0026740863,0.000011330827,0.018737998,0.00053364655,0.00006544544,6.981511e-7,0.000004392934,0.00089825754],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99834365,0.0006502978,0.00025146015,0.000088195906,0.0005062187,0.00016016894],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990101,0.00038870788,0.00016976558,0.00031662264,0.0000898722,0.000024945553],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00204484,0.000061713814,0.00010088845,0.000006830501,0.00045748544,0.00020068785,0.0006413019,0.000027544953,0.004349411],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006923798,0.000028644696,0.00007334338,0.0005023485,0.00027726268,0.00056085666,0.000050123483,0.00026389817,0.00012002084],"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":[3.1751998e-7,0.000030246174,0.00013706602,0.00002210427,0.0000055354785,5.0840026e-8,0.0024766764,3.1013343e-8,0.0000064193073,0.9146862,0.08207081,0.00056456646],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003109635,0.000003822402,0.00021941081,0.00014999328,0.000015301419,8.720677e-7,0.010073605,0.0000011823408,0.0000042946326,0.024028542,0.9654336,0.000038305956],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014029501,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011763037,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97636634,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001987259,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020479066,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99656075},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009364684,0.87184244,0.000017411956,0.106414825,0.0003373827,0.0007253907,0.000031210588,0.000100273486,0.011166388],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.03636347,0.95708793,0.0003178909,0.00072960206,0.0003933024,0.000038839964,0.000006115327,0.000027847964,0.005034971],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971574,0.00038722978,0.00049611356,0.00063847983,0.0007842604,0.000536508],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985294,0.0002616524,0.00027451513,0.00039297168,0.0002042696,0.00033721377],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006772309,0.0003252134,0.00065433036,0.000036248563,0.0010866153,0.0001874001,0.0003374861,0.00016109349,0.0011639827],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007656834,0.00029338058,0.00015291873,0.0003332448,0.0006586982,0.0010323689,0.00007147127,0.00030087552,0.000091322756],"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":[0.00009245874,0.00018273729,0.047614247,0.034904074,0.00013629517,0.0004210181,0.010691182,0.000002189288,0.00016336906,0.10502108,0.77559483,0.025176527],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00026601812,0.000048271035,0.00090127334,0.016715433,0.00016485476,0.00006466975,0.0007976671,0.000009379855,0.000011431069,0.0006079036,0.98005086,0.00036225442],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004361642,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.05395872,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20445602,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000103539474,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018444534,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995184},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.64223605,0.20086688,0.00026752203,0.045526184,0.00089721364,0.016725902,0.00007919341,0.000036212477,0.09336485],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9942979,0.005049296,0.00004530425,0.0001930981,0.000015444422,0.000109300425,0.00000100041,0.000002588344,0.0002860624],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99694896,0.0015927632,0.00060215004,0.00017281063,0.0005262182,0.00015707992],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982172,0.00071865524,0.00031497644,0.0003227138,0.0004043623,0.000022092398],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0055765472,0.00007616486,0.0002537111,0.000013404365,0.00033544935,0.00002387689,0.00033601956,0.000039892442,0.000085468564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00490179,0.00003792596,0.000071940725,0.00070797565,0.00274761,0.00027756588,0.00012964635,0.00013525426,0.0000018224687],"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":[0.000039032915,0.000047568476,0.06093513,0.0003367371,0.000012315822,2.4519056e-7,0.0074328417,0.000023009075,0.000031092633,0.93066126,0.00033563265,0.00014515413],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002646331,0.00007527183,0.3477778,0.010400144,0.00021492843,0.0000038507906,0.014194253,0.0007367684,0.00083641295,0.30782095,0.31460947,0.0006837848],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010165852,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019633623,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6228403,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012527556,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007428074,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999663},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0022670322,0.19034608,0.000008441457,0.081919,0.00013171659,0.00054712204,0.000011857492,0.000017623517,0.7247511],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9913156,0.0066784723,0.000009974428,0.0016785461,0.00020087718,0.000016687642,0.0000010005023,0.0000017454264,0.00009711299],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99912816,0.00019475893,0.00016704631,0.000075894495,0.00028635975,0.00014775989],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99957985,0.00013832665,0.00005452475,0.0000888541,0.00011213249,0.000026329195],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00062401785,0.000051195766,0.0001576585,0.0000031704392,0.0005502857,0.000015176297,0.00013373407,0.000023232027,0.000038280785],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015395097,0.000026135005,0.000078051096,0.00010455199,0.002128532,0.00004783812,0.00004627831,0.000055877503,0.000008109673],"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":[0.0000014253386,0.0000075107264,0.0011928148,0.000027357924,0.000006015037,6.520814e-8,0.000050276572,5.6366463e-8,0.000003209975,0.9975329,0.00072257157,0.0004558002],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006936552,0.000002197086,0.0017522762,0.000300691,0.000046360467,6.200243e-7,0.00012384547,0.0000012241388,0.000017634238,0.40814167,0.5895132,0.00003092305],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016344067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0036378822,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98904854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000022864491,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008142709,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9902062},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.41580966,0.05994589,0.00002070026,0.033654407,0.0016172176,0.0023151077,0.000013785703,0.00004612904,0.4865771],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9750811,0.020289574,0.0000037738996,0.00033709512,0.000121689605,0.0000068530608,5.1295086e-7,0.0000049604873,0.0041544815],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988698,0.00021913504,0.00024285322,0.00010991355,0.00037450422,0.00018382586],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991723,0.00014748219,0.0001674674,0.00033061983,0.00013827907,0.00004390503],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011250025,0.00008266213,0.0001987583,0.0000061345895,0.0003033971,0.000018909777,0.0003424722,0.00004099148,0.00067885424],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013542191,0.000040709732,0.0002637756,0.00017820121,0.00027093987,0.000106691994,0.000029449118,0.00013946406,0.000032274795],"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":[0.00036167493,0.0006595741,0.05043192,0.0020842317,0.0003537855,0.0000084251205,0.020360745,0.00006853907,0.0011042276,0.5158877,0.3539546,0.05472459],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051056744,0.00008840654,0.010205752,0.0016711248,0.000050853097,0.0000027933393,0.000069140544,0.0000012775371,0.00004705356,0.0005405281,0.98721004,0.00006197596],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13635285,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3224812,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6332554,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017257305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021472888,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86939824},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00045916828,0.39863577,0.00001281846,0.13480608,0.0030557339,0.0009492718,0.000011803483,0.00007176176,0.4619976],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7401221,0.23243418,0.000033291464,0.01630957,0.0018090529,0.00012232793,0.0000025109728,0.00002335317,0.009143627],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979772,0.00037099834,0.00021216414,0.0001344507,0.00078741123,0.00051778724],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99878526,0.0005157535,0.00008861256,0.00043155267,0.00005668515,0.00012212739],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002750188,0.00011604444,0.00016125228,0.0000018035889,0.0014388122,0.0001082286,0.0006153839,0.000036615136,0.0008535301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035483032,0.000060416995,0.00014901039,0.00010889696,0.0004352667,0.00032273203,0.00008691536,0.00014637885,0.00092618953],"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":[0.00001544386,0.000023084976,0.000069960435,0.00014410818,0.000026831096,0.0000010799442,0.0012143948,1.838547e-8,0.000009487717,0.6810262,0.30371848,0.013750926],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005719999,0.000014573779,0.0001993918,0.0002886812,0.00010767941,0.0000011636822,0.00036113916,3.28166e-7,0.000013512128,0.00016029135,0.99870133,0.00009469138],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001114736,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0016058594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73966295,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011724903,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004979471,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998612},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5494104,0.082415864,0.00003112177,0.17156996,0.015131942,0.003471205,0.000039012946,0.00018606376,0.17774442],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97206557,0.024663704,0.000063489904,0.0016065141,0.0006648468,0.000014284471,0.0000018856892,0.000008835629,0.0009108735],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99873513,0.00019241062,0.00024998785,0.00019580162,0.00041967945,0.000206994],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992336,0.0001169916,0.00012499935,0.0002911758,0.00013841495,0.00009478727],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001220507,0.00010261705,0.00023837003,0.0000112731805,0.00035793643,0.00003536756,0.00027642728,0.00009117856,0.00059413956],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021253047,0.00007104983,0.00011038711,0.00014811875,0.000552542,0.00015385267,0.00006332549,0.00022117258,0.000023063212],"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":[0.000033686072,0.00009423711,0.0040379367,0.0020170526,0.000047679634,0.000003945719,0.0034894168,2.8237466e-7,0.009802733,0.9060445,0.06449533,0.009933214],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009543351,0.000022737424,0.0010300687,0.00080410263,0.000089082314,0.0000084359335,0.00012850136,0.0000016203046,0.00018787755,0.0018473379,0.99568176,0.00010304866],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0024160324,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036796674,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93118644,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000017508237,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009180692,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9807793},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.034566365,0.6931505,0.00005192516,0.17480282,0.0003620486,0.0022362575,0.000034056706,0.00017483786,0.094621174],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.74405366,0.24647518,0.0005015774,0.00563243,0.0004393164,0.00003832972,0.000007134946,0.000015541385,0.0028368102],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983511,0.00030797502,0.00027194613,0.0002663169,0.00039528892,0.00040735854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993283,0.00018154505,0.000032166743,0.0002026796,0.00008249327,0.00017277071],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018031431,0.000120211,0.0003108322,0.000025320636,0.0002537842,0.00006290321,0.00026461843,0.00007598647,0.001287188],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002655364,0.000095024014,0.000056580524,0.00027629893,0.0003093238,0.00035580833,0.000064348984,0.0001926446,0.00024619472],"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":[0.00007860437,0.00024260518,0.0050736554,0.005267963,0.000032970383,0.00019247907,0.0070246146,0.0000128411675,0.00006231239,0.6049944,0.09466838,0.28234917],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010212153,0.000024858478,0.00030709855,0.0019684425,0.000026666214,0.000008268656,0.0001340184,0.000006794826,0.000012058989,0.0002867127,0.99698174,0.000141227],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009742494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12520573,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90231335,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000096903204,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020007076,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99962574},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06745325,0.2843013,0.000010637185,0.03647283,0.0012125139,0.0030550228,0.000012181805,0.000047766618,0.6074345],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23849626,0.7403236,0.00019368342,0.0020048514,0.0012598602,0.00001267869,0.0000022185197,0.000010764608,0.017696088],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984143,0.00062071177,0.00027498172,0.00013133857,0.00031127702,0.0002474418],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991911,0.00014427549,0.0001552948,0.00027194901,0.00016616349,0.00007118784],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021475106,0.00008640901,0.00023017268,0.000009301556,0.004298859,0.000027313177,0.00035455762,0.000049015835,0.0002606877],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000060546386,0.000037232494,0.00009433448,0.00014128648,0.00090976537,0.0001243038,0.0000014121871,0.00014434048,0.000041446252],"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":[0.0000038661287,0.000026349653,0.00002540084,0.00022465416,0.000008308643,1.1928724e-7,0.04152623,1.3429388e-7,1.7585273e-7,0.9563872,0.0014115167,0.00038601307],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013846018,0.0000054824427,0.00010761177,0.0005445317,0.000050137238,0.000003126395,0.00007154354,8.648179e-7,0.000019427702,0.004001907,0.9949977,0.000059228718],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.071471825,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6371078,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9935862,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056145716,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002246244,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9969974},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000027332811,0.031241864,0.00009633557,0.008972378,0.00015742659,0.00016726619,0.000011625551,0.000015184339,0.9593106],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7744707,0.18731917,0.0016112961,0.0038270287,0.00078165915,0.00010182897,0.000025381432,0.000013145313,0.031849787],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99965084,0.00003064557,0.00007662527,0.00003936655,0.00014272754,0.000059821752],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99969393,0.00003630659,0.00002738746,0.00009396069,0.00010319995,0.00004523807],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003629789,0.000021402262,0.000050868868,0.0000020899681,0.00017112076,0.0000081522785,0.0001001582,0.000011257672,0.00022259705],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000046452442,0.000012237857,0.000026760508,0.00006557143,0.0004326222,0.000025578436,0.00001009401,0.000031895222,0.00047232385],"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":[1.4349406e-7,0.0000042282118,0.000010798148,0.000008491173,0.0000017405442,7.59128e-8,0.000016701415,1.6794107e-7,0.0000014180991,0.9279412,0.07162446,0.0003906009],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016715641,0.0000018610169,0.0000039238903,0.0000693845,0.000008868637,3.320647e-7,0.000012932771,0.0000013098262,0.0000030214667,0.0044686394,0.9953944,0.000018599649],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00024893534,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00018325908,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9274608,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000016861695,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002795302,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6070925},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019931788,0.20673855,0.00016120181,0.32920825,0.0014270865,0.0045773797,0.0001033406,0.000110597575,0.43774182],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97426665,0.023344481,0.000010150015,0.0019324226,0.00020721977,0.000070260925,0.0000018984572,0.0000034881882,0.00016342061],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99806243,0.0006009295,0.0002935425,0.00017001292,0.0005678211,0.00030524365],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986802,0.0004857773,0.00017833892,0.00029355378,0.00030331998,0.00005886056],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014656056,0.00013210668,0.00022433129,0.000005883568,0.0024699504,0.000059382914,0.00047014697,0.000049959133,0.000063129715],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00037140728,0.000046967907,0.00009376835,0.00021724199,0.0057140714,0.00012737342,0.000098392884,0.00016741267,0.000012836164],"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":[0.000011515674,0.000014387861,0.002180091,0.000035135712,0.000041717336,3.300075e-7,0.0005848682,1.4208803e-7,0.0000016115074,0.9934429,0.0026184793,0.0010688406],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010942852,0.000034995734,0.006465897,0.0008689638,0.00025188396,0.0000035907958,0.002675156,0.0000011965848,0.000019326264,0.028436389,0.96101916,0.00011400922],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.073214605,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2682994,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9650065,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000059957863,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004947318,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988287},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.043839447,0.21459231,0.0042421436,0.31017327,0.0012307063,0.00478145,0.0011356135,0.00035376957,0.4196513],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98654574,0.008058926,0.00053910713,0.004614117,0.000074218675,0.00003799534,0.00000924247,0.000008694076,0.000111935944],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978999,0.0003267039,0.00043737466,0.00027781192,0.00076833204,0.00028990186],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982677,0.00042092832,0.00008135827,0.00023694609,0.00078975095,0.00020328852],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020676197,0.00013730784,0.0004654176,0.000062266816,0.000372364,0.000038544476,0.00040926557,0.00005894786,0.0019040949],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010075936,0.00010124191,0.00020590854,0.0006010085,0.00061910937,0.00018058241,0.000039231418,0.00011518439,0.00003431882],"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":[0.000029696323,0.00008645191,0.00046517307,0.00064430776,0.00016559575,0.0000061929536,0.005109291,0.0000010091421,0.000039943377,0.98869497,0.003279249,0.0014781256],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015156517,0.00023171604,0.012658608,0.0017943438,0.0063008117,0.000008715064,0.0013163016,0.000038364033,0.00005181895,0.002220254,0.97481287,0.00041464847],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008326696,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029836638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9864747,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003226573,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018833576,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990083},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.037911527,0.38000503,0.00024976413,0.08705637,0.00574715,0.005820578,0.0009867576,0.0003672104,0.4818556],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93497044,0.051908143,0.00095619046,0.010268289,0.00048421847,0.00010872972,0.00003261159,0.000018479761,0.0012528823],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9970297,0.0002637267,0.0005963456,0.0003520551,0.001157731,0.0006003951],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977882,0.00059675355,0.00022093333,0.00023947064,0.0008136249,0.00034105324],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007913865,0.00024460757,0.0006781429,0.000020835707,0.00173235,0.000042285883,0.0006255859,0.00007589522,0.0011830666],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002588338,0.00020826228,0.0001462036,0.0004110464,0.0013259853,0.0003795202,0.00019404024,0.00018235354,0.00006880262],"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":[0.000017255748,0.00006867049,0.0047861333,0.0015651543,0.00013109957,0.00013054577,0.0013718458,0.00006989651,0.000016852851,0.25372955,0.7377819,0.00033111745],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016074568,0.000021854743,0.0016367218,0.0015296477,0.00019699956,0.00002813259,0.00042246084,0.0000022258582,0.000027661856,0.00004373146,0.9956272,0.00030261627],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6190864,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.69444096,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8970589,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005458338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018163825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99973},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.014680203,0.24296345,0.00071972824,0.19848843,0.0018158634,0.0023251432,0.0000061277983,0.0001353194,0.53886575],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80124706,0.18593617,0.000024904064,0.011499017,0.00031519774,0.00010585053,0.0000035780922,0.000007329475,0.00086091424],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981922,0.00074720656,0.00023131023,0.00014270918,0.0004350706,0.00025148375],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990146,0.0004188287,0.00007118827,0.00036865883,0.00008704295,0.000039640647],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0039356602,0.000080945974,0.00016503698,0.000013789182,0.000992003,0.00013483159,0.000506733,0.000027853486,0.0001908638],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00029547725,0.000043583786,0.00013506069,0.00033230262,0.00019432392,0.000077954275,0.000029421979,0.00013934512,0.0001342287],"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":[0.000003750233,0.000089442656,0.00016709701,0.00029078536,0.000033777047,0.0000059635377,0.0064398646,0.000006468415,0.0000029045864,0.6173433,0.07141612,0.30420053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029617784,0.0000124268345,0.000055932578,0.00026397826,0.00018060252,0.0000013447756,0.008809172,0.000022526123,8.601628e-7,0.00072800246,0.9898314,0.00006414172],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00844066,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.083666846,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9184153,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000053006865,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005543708,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9981622},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01305671,0.36360267,0.0000037948264,0.16110618,0.0005229742,0.006871611,0.00007278058,0.00007133345,0.45469195],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7665686,0.22556771,0.00030416466,0.005038386,0.00009363193,0.00014665815,0.0000046002274,0.0000137634215,0.0022624983],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982189,0.0005238503,0.00033458095,0.00022441619,0.00032752575,0.00037071476],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990217,0.00013481593,0.00014805023,0.00025491152,0.00021231918,0.00022821283],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021186578,0.00015213172,0.0005661745,0.000010632225,0.0011262902,0.00011134917,0.0007058289,0.00008241532,0.0007213435],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000385947,0.000089409536,0.00011390287,0.00016804688,0.00092387426,0.00026772544,0.00025723135,0.00016320945,0.00003266489],"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":[0.000015687025,0.000023169516,0.0028098302,0.00048721154,0.000098695215,0.0000046056325,0.012190454,2.6902976e-8,0.0000023988057,0.97489506,0.0073532895,0.002119601],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003884438,0.00001195313,0.0013332266,0.0007050446,0.00010925883,0.0000010412227,0.0005426641,7.696835e-7,0.000017067388,0.0029638824,0.99377817,0.00014846008],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.843593,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.886089,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9864249,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000141786,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018218295,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86626273},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02014539,0.092178516,0.000003232778,0.13235652,0.0005347013,0.0013701305,0.0001102871,0.000024586434,0.75327665],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98594487,0.010095492,0.000017550945,0.003002559,0.00012296032,0.0000037907678,0.000007159769,0.0000024804042,0.00080312265],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992731,0.000083718085,0.0001624093,0.00009577779,0.0001867063,0.00019827703],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99945736,0.00004344887,0.000054625867,0.0000857742,0.00014559718,0.00021317643],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00067571114,0.00005923099,0.00012795726,0.000023470728,0.00079369504,0.00006237687,0.00012116319,0.000044515487,0.000115644674],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000059713362,0.000041981002,0.000027314307,0.00006516474,0.00020091992,0.00009581224,0.0000038850394,0.00005112931,0.000011412458],"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":[4.957977e-7,0.0000020270368,0.0000975873,0.000016217104,0.000005424587,0.0000011215628,0.00021584448,3.9120966e-8,0.0000028935983,0.9915048,0.0046778847,0.0034756693],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003757191,0.000013069641,0.002965793,0.0002842175,0.000015429852,0.0000010006663,0.000009742588,0.0000027238139,0.0000060281336,0.017220577,0.97938603,0.000057811823],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.979779,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9994694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97470814,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000092728165,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034829834,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6104541},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06447208,0.113748536,0.006847407,0.7563719,0.005361301,0.0072932695,0.0002884295,0.00042418117,0.0451929],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94917953,0.04097585,0.000063353866,0.0064981687,0.0010110451,0.00017048362,0.000005789267,0.000019729345,0.0020760538],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99730587,0.00063337485,0.00046285646,0.00035766725,0.0008297774,0.00041048304],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99796385,0.0001433476,0.00024983348,0.0008734639,0.00062011456,0.00014940683],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021386093,0.00020442755,0.0005268257,0.00003830242,0.0014381575,0.00007150107,0.0007520435,0.000072652496,0.00016099436],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00025751104,0.000116587056,0.00039679735,0.0006441656,0.00023458514,0.00016734912,0.000087235574,0.0002311929,0.00022423186],"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":[0.000108087894,0.00044929382,0.0001250297,0.032377496,0.00060042855,0.00009192899,0.1529768,0.000026514139,0.00017462648,0.10481327,0.67196906,0.03628748],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008438078,0.00005376286,0.00010742353,0.0019877886,0.0062645664,0.000052018106,0.18607347,0.000087157016,0.00003593447,0.000010048915,0.8050117,0.00023174645],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008015924,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005401351,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88470745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000106839114,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018147808,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99986184},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14398511,0.35972425,0.00034632426,0.46328348,0.008117716,0.008268296,0.0009135573,0.0007616558,0.014599607],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.973481,0.013940313,0.00072266004,0.007832071,0.0033028813,0.00014887535,0.000043557564,0.000021880238,0.00050676754],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99706566,0.0003173746,0.00047600703,0.0004571825,0.00082172715,0.000862058],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983407,0.000057305908,0.00013283166,0.0003308269,0.0003892047,0.00074909395],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011233793,0.00034320005,0.0006602988,0.000031121086,0.0011927186,0.00015651404,0.0003788818,0.00013315857,0.00043628117],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018118639,0.00026360492,0.00018189328,0.0002515335,0.0004244291,0.0014168326,0.00016483353,0.00022295224,0.0004331803],"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":[0.000056620058,0.0006754089,0.085996754,0.0019834188,0.0005363856,0.00002436158,0.04565107,0.0000013930211,0.0002628801,0.55140126,0.28092265,0.03248779],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023568147,0.00003799196,0.010664198,0.0006048705,0.00011380911,0.000007776278,0.0058492585,6.3836455e-7,0.000007225165,0.0001293421,0.9819251,0.0004241204],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005889562,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0017896737,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8294959,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00023592408,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006676045,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998164},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025098922,0.47230017,0.0005286963,0.28055486,0.0013758765,0.0024444605,0.000022793944,0.00029261323,0.2173816],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9494014,0.03712082,0.00031312893,0.010455585,0.0009873285,0.000043256252,0.000007028192,0.000019985102,0.0016515123],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981634,0.00031398784,0.0003242529,0.0002849221,0.0005054781,0.0004079395],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99893445,0.0004070674,0.00010448849,0.0002898088,0.00015410109,0.000110074936],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018273321,0.0001587938,0.0002834616,0.000013849397,0.0014180227,0.0002587997,0.00039653128,0.00006191585,0.00038282355],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027127613,0.00011134993,0.000110737026,0.00014550042,0.000648665,0.00036059885,0.00009114239,0.00018875196,0.00012626748],"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":[0.000013157527,0.000047524547,0.00029641492,0.003029886,0.00002017119,0.000033608987,0.0034253986,0.0000020620928,0.000048948765,0.86260194,0.11688255,0.01359835],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006749636,0.000018982913,0.00046920325,0.0015972254,0.0006213288,0.000019619129,0.0006247938,0.000008568077,0.00000900073,0.003631627,0.99275845,0.00017370273],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016348116,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01203944,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92430246,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056460438,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010330115,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999882},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.82909966,0.045720834,0.00007974602,0.034872577,0.00022664809,0.00555928,0.000023409406,0.00006195628,0.08435591],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9813616,0.00808293,0.0007990245,0.0049535953,0.0003559806,0.00007997393,0.0000050474396,0.000017139653,0.0043446673],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984683,0.00036917432,0.00033215256,0.00019634426,0.00038423538,0.00024982897],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937093,0.00013919301,0.00013783264,0.00016614933,0.0001176987,0.00006820633],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018613093,0.000115960545,0.0002704755,0.00002223944,0.00095856754,0.000048826947,0.00026080225,0.00005901975,0.00005710211],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006606548,0.000058667676,0.000040457486,0.00024243414,0.00085572194,0.00012406148,0.00003917654,0.00013193661,0.00000967758],"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":[0.000039686176,0.000049891813,0.00092553324,0.00030076844,0.000019736348,0.0000011938246,0.07346844,0.0000025313475,0.000007977516,0.9072506,0.0018169106,0.016116777],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003628747,0.000007857193,0.0005985685,0.00052621635,0.000027508842,0.0000022710901,0.00013715154,0.000003682223,0.00006750084,0.00046825994,0.9976967,0.00010138657],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014492376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.23850054,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9958798,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009134103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003163905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9920702},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.002457903,0.5507953,0.00002872207,0.059521552,0.0009756374,0.00084833096,0.000014050365,0.000104012535,0.3852545],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71668535,0.25435394,0.00010917729,0.026071839,0.0007745219,0.00003547331,0.0000042961346,0.000016992943,0.0019483794],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99843013,0.0002300787,0.00023061458,0.00015901995,0.00034920612,0.00060094084],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990309,0.00021999826,0.000070974755,0.00029854014,0.00014405955,0.0002355144],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013853706,0.00012978632,0.00022746547,0.0000049149075,0.0011483593,0.00010876932,0.00027944538,0.00005455953,0.00011313577],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018386473,0.00008754282,0.00006526084,0.00012350526,0.0007015158,0.0003575928,0.00006256801,0.00013262327,0.00019307973],"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":[0.0000011283976,0.000014986618,0.00039282092,0.00028876425,0.000007859779,0.0000012597797,0.0005207211,2.8226122e-8,0.0000061162496,0.98547804,0.010836961,0.002451331],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004275164,0.000009130571,0.00010413145,0.00075814873,0.00004619412,0.0000037960438,0.000118092044,0.0000017771844,0.000005293256,0.0012686762,0.9975111,0.00013094599],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020839314,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003144457,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98667413,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004606006,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000051532646,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.88323677},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0056158663,0.12228824,0.0000020601044,0.18225552,0.00021648295,0.000612829,0.0000127201165,0.0000102112945,0.68898606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93097013,0.058809523,0.00005170089,0.008950041,0.00010653645,0.0000110097035,4.660329e-7,0.000003002243,0.0010975634],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99918544,0.00029237932,0.00019706503,0.00007124898,0.00017117418,0.00008267007],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993089,0.00018589702,0.00015195557,0.00017194242,0.00014992569,0.000031397754],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00078601995,0.000044983764,0.00013425009,0.0000074649834,0.00025617343,0.000023501105,0.0001583769,0.00002341142,0.00048464906],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005508257,0.000025686468,0.000036533387,0.00025892397,0.0009465694,0.00017605524,0.00003431431,0.00008948177,0.0000059204426],"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":[8.366185e-7,0.0000112135995,0.0002370123,0.00007278673,0.000006690783,1.2739263e-8,0.0018418998,5.246412e-8,0.000023830346,0.9952305,0.0014602789,0.0011148973],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000790936,0.000003566509,0.00016324957,0.00013283586,0.00002977895,0.0000010436959,0.00012491572,0.000010766232,0.000050877316,0.005970196,0.9934026,0.000031062587],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016395789,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015097549,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99194235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000010759963,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009910407,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9901541},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4351586,0.1954073,0.0000027575675,0.16935731,0.00032086176,0.0028486827,0.000049105638,0.000033988792,0.19682138],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93886226,0.059760243,0.0000023565458,0.00087934243,0.000055110373,0.000008035646,2.502131e-7,0.00000452527,0.00042785992],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985871,0.00045764906,0.00019728215,0.00010780948,0.0004514645,0.00019873636],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989039,0.00044911937,0.000075074204,0.00038660064,0.0001379274,0.000047379068],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016220233,0.00008174983,0.00019724747,0.0000036628724,0.0008552505,0.000019278008,0.00046949016,0.000031951928,0.0001591215],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001554835,0.00003106295,0.00018175335,0.00015279326,0.0014562423,0.00007508354,0.000065617176,0.00014530469,0.000014832617],"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":[0.000015303993,0.00003634736,0.00082134607,0.00035626232,0.000038439517,0.0000017317248,0.003284447,0.000001552544,0.0000954715,0.9713075,0.022350954,0.0016906214],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000089397785,0.0001417414,0.005053622,0.003012531,0.00007249901,0.000013575376,0.0004626864,0.000007930032,0.00027790407,0.0018864872,0.9888562,0.00012539944],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00831078,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002519479,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.969421,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000023852985,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011506377,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.998293},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00036144734,0.041935835,0.0000054393563,0.034421775,0.00065146456,0.00043275533,0.0000035486694,0.000033701243,0.922154],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79756397,0.15182701,0.00022412448,0.010665955,0.0015641575,0.000040162802,0.000001982254,0.00002415272,0.0380885],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99920654,0.00015474646,0.00011465135,0.0000822484,0.00030803395,0.00013374937],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995098,0.00014730323,0.000066941655,0.00017643765,0.00006214208,0.000037366866],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005019294,0.00005971587,0.00012882287,0.0000013530353,0.00047515397,0.000022723689,0.0003284914,0.000025162768,0.00025407667],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013471502,0.000027076492,0.00008112633,0.00008073438,0.00030345,0.000035317767,0.000027068156,0.00008621258,0.00037369048],"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":[7.701668e-7,0.000004936377,0.00012478104,0.0000563874,0.0000078003195,6.781763e-8,0.00019721777,1.7867639e-7,0.00000240083,0.924418,0.071924165,0.003263298],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028733493,0.000007647747,0.0002695789,0.00039352072,0.000018706922,9.227943e-8,0.000013763706,5.719627e-7,0.000016860231,0.0011714464,0.99803793,0.000041158386],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0058683874,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0052044527,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9261137,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003230652,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000051135445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.88712853},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010940807,0.2302983,0.0000660403,0.048830725,0.00032428547,0.003956291,0.000011736329,0.000055477463,0.70551634],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98434305,0.012493583,0.00012455479,0.002199867,0.000094683244,0.000026860871,3.754561e-7,0.000008814627,0.0007081996],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99832886,0.00056071463,0.0003610966,0.00013246908,0.00045183295,0.00016504645],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989682,0.00026713902,0.00018826227,0.00031905712,0.00021942069,0.000037951362],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001529289,0.00009396456,0.00032770002,0.0000057235575,0.00037144733,0.000016376323,0.00053238677,0.000049373903,0.00036159504],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000581442,0.000041816544,0.00010803528,0.0001823368,0.001987419,0.00015022498,0.00009082699,0.00012428225,0.000011046996],"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":[0.000030833133,0.00006321364,0.000036475023,0.0022280014,0.000026121314,1.817133e-7,0.0077335234,0.000008297482,0.00057119475,0.97763836,0.009248886,0.002414934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00062988786,0.000040378003,0.000011266199,0.00887555,0.0001933436,0.000003338241,0.00046884897,0.0001337461,0.008416826,0.015233081,0.965798,0.00019573608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011311257,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0030084017,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97340226,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000018353892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008682228,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73227286},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016203133,0.009545575,0.000004113188,0.048955113,0.00026004782,0.00090389984,0.000014865731,0.000031459465,0.9386646],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9747778,0.01712474,0.000036067348,0.0043351077,0.00010597595,0.00006603996,0.000009727861,0.0000072422017,0.0035373054],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983817,0.000361058,0.00036647316,0.00013298105,0.00041990486,0.00033788267],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988094,0.00010072966,0.000106723615,0.00030827886,0.0002980387,0.0003768116],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019325105,0.00008579283,0.0002215738,0.000028253588,0.00073926646,0.000098323355,0.00042839916,0.00005478298,0.0029118806],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010824827,0.00005710731,0.00011111873,0.00033077865,0.00041417434,0.00025431116,0.000018546516,0.000082420054,0.00046980794],"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":[7.45799e-7,0.000011282731,0.000029023298,0.00018356781,0.000010219334,1.6184192e-7,0.00061731524,3.6798383e-8,0.0000011372462,0.9700529,0.02791786,0.0011757365],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008343624,0.0000065134473,0.00029379173,0.0002552682,0.00002367836,7.404888e-8,0.00013723719,5.586825e-7,0.000009982916,0.01461523,0.9844906,0.0000836467],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8951174,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9428953,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97315747,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000058825597,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003115848,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9979996},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009358119,0.042888094,0.0085216025,0.013565568,0.005215963,0.0055249245,0.00045406868,0.0006121816,0.9222818],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94095975,0.0046581794,0.0014983771,0.044522755,0.004516349,0.0005140456,0.0005332653,0.000090493886,0.0027068064],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987128,0.00001613304,0.00047575665,0.0003008716,0.00022459599,0.0002698854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99904734,0.00006235094,0.0002636883,0.00025698426,0.00034535362,0.000024310364],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00045286622,0.00020842803,0.00040315677,0.00003822845,0.00013066604,0.00008878212,0.000359977,0.000058711958,0.0016664413],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001934153,0.00017885942,0.00021790196,0.00007730373,0.00018938331,0.00060691754,0.000055116445,0.000087770786,0.0003471876],"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":[0.000029849527,0.00011277566,0.0002616073,0.0022556589,0.00007385687,0.000006667286,0.00001886652,9.620863e-8,0.00002413903,0.90420854,0.09203156,0.0009763993],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00041515095,0.000039576218,0.00020569007,0.0011517414,0.00016767668,0.000002859221,0.000016635782,0.00009161873,0.00010334986,0.021167817,0.9763903,0.00024755305],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00015031606,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00011024863,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9400239,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000027804226,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000034593668,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992462},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.21302576,0.17193274,0.000015097105,0.16129255,0.0032912397,0.0042444314,0.0005986692,0.00015077807,0.44544873],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9345179,0.044700526,0.00013397285,0.0072189867,0.00051283726,0.00007246835,0.000050072795,0.000018187233,0.012775044],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99766046,0.0004025163,0.000529698,0.00026621195,0.00067143707,0.0004696672],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981531,0.00055346725,0.00025771832,0.0005804006,0.0003222353,0.00013307235],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016874229,0.00019503846,0.0003973939,0.000014254143,0.0009735158,0.000049934068,0.0006824421,0.00012182694,0.0012902451],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00060028624,0.00010689339,0.00022863316,0.00028659336,0.004221558,0.0001635038,0.00019323539,0.0003677239,0.00023852703],"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":[0.000008731084,0.00003524761,0.0010219105,0.00012858574,0.000018243389,0.0000037218902,0.0006858013,0.000009582589,0.00045083393,0.8957098,0.101740405,0.00018713351],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015374945,0.000012645741,0.0004181135,0.00041842967,0.00006410777,0.000011569119,0.00009414006,0.000005217812,0.000090693495,0.00033748575,0.99823534,0.0001585081],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.036727104,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.14811017,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8964949,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016666786,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004169544,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996227},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10461949,0.61455345,0.000030978546,0.06029251,0.00085345877,0.0029056412,0.000023183893,0.00013386877,0.21658744],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89193285,0.10613568,0.000020859228,0.0016076479,0.00007765033,0.000087584405,0.0000020434413,0.000002481071,0.00013322463],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990477,0.000103171864,0.00020083548,0.00017722118,0.00023924507,0.00023180715],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99962527,0.00008123326,0.000046659985,0.0000729775,0.00009173017,0.000082122424],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003426066,0.00009174879,0.0002338671,0.000012496467,0.00028481786,0.000045902205,0.00015304936,0.000032926546,0.00050511444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000112685826,0.00007211632,0.000036674806,0.00015453891,0.0006014698,0.00028252174,0.00005196342,0.00007440495,0.00024876036],"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":[0.0000022840593,0.000082899765,0.04209313,0.0005347942,0.000036611294,0.000009136789,0.0026809599,1.5353972e-7,0.000026564816,0.9092953,0.0133376485,0.031900473],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013818621,0.000019497098,0.022752687,0.003942681,0.000032791206,0.0000020124417,0.0005472062,0.000003876706,0.000004711897,0.031134088,0.9411582,0.00026411033],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014883095,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007927787,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9278205,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000027216689,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000062614665,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99167687},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4285278,0.32492825,0.000039401075,0.1443889,0.0036856113,0.003207149,0.00026162164,0.00025455176,0.094706714],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9701327,0.017028991,0.000073652714,0.010322205,0.0016044446,0.0000593941,0.000008174607,0.000017170096,0.00075328175],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976229,0.00042507166,0.0003224667,0.00029572874,0.0006770662,0.0006567462],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985238,0.00037773058,0.000114208786,0.00048005956,0.00009742986,0.00040679914],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017964682,0.00022575077,0.0003855329,0.000019907138,0.00054530735,0.00010344799,0.0006857123,0.00006525034,0.0018560397],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021093311,0.00013384709,0.00023859575,0.0002096069,0.00029751257,0.00040820628,0.00008280843,0.00017976102,0.0017100163],"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":[0.00012156066,0.00029224288,0.007767806,0.0006553269,0.00013728504,0.000016904392,0.015623583,9.295246e-7,0.000171064,0.047092635,0.90612686,0.021993803],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005796362,0.00008676512,0.00349896,0.002081028,0.00011058369,0.000002434137,0.00090305787,0.0000012400061,0.00003431603,0.00017012653,0.99284273,0.00021077151],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007480341,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0011873147,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5416049,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001156239,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013929272,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99912894},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.023692476,0.22514425,0.0000026931555,0.5061662,0.0005879495,0.0023251926,0.000035658213,0.00009618068,0.2419494],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9733443,0.022343477,0.000023260527,0.00274284,0.00041222753,0.000025867683,5.9559653e-7,0.0000064950527,0.0011009005],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99841714,0.00034007098,0.0002602255,0.0001154308,0.00043944997,0.00042770282],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99916923,0.00021118611,0.000091677335,0.0002576819,0.00017220798,0.00009803499],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007029207,0.00010671268,0.00023906658,0.000002505082,0.0009518408,0.00003720799,0.00047136878,0.000042502812,0.00036270672],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00044699232,0.00004304273,0.00037573176,0.00013864962,0.0008750699,0.00011204858,0.000089059155,0.00013635517,0.000115328075],"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":[0.000002504035,0.000035875648,0.002009094,0.00013612895,0.00009193739,2.4750946e-7,0.0015096468,4.4117e-7,0.00002827882,0.9455313,0.043826856,0.006827712],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055823257,0.000011453676,0.00497532,0.00038618632,0.00005002287,6.1259243e-7,0.00023000414,0.000001815464,0.000018398054,0.00059704593,0.99359727,0.0000760675],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0054323557,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005176066,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9497704,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002300596,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007958428,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.82121325},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2017817,0.5483108,0.000032467797,0.20226754,0.0010458318,0.0036314968,0.000040056664,0.00022743805,0.042662635],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8942016,0.10346552,0.00006455026,0.0019443511,0.00015038966,0.00006279236,0.0000036093477,0.0000073438355,0.00009987637],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99826133,0.00034143328,0.00035117514,0.0003078315,0.00039469032,0.0003435364],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99940395,0.0001078605,0.00013039586,0.0000988483,0.00015183573,0.00010713536],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008742097,0.00017851812,0.00044600668,0.000018995965,0.00048590617,0.000065894834,0.00020052888,0.000094230454,0.0002464332],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00041430414,0.00014318556,0.00008859863,0.00022837217,0.00055151334,0.00047059119,0.000083374114,0.00019045518,0.00010117373],"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":[0.00011471623,0.00047453435,0.0071697803,0.008097218,0.00030747202,0.0001732973,0.1546984,0.000020420428,0.0011252557,0.7613267,0.0048661684,0.061626043],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0019037372,0.00023296179,0.008346013,0.025635917,0.00031745018,0.000015350048,0.009104217,0.000024737392,0.00044147708,0.024466572,0.92800176,0.0015097948],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008492311,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.052124005,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9231356,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002692058,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009818965,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99811023},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0017105128,0.08861605,0.007784028,0.018058814,0.0006195056,0.004487022,0.000106592226,0.00018038806,0.8784371],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9376668,0.038467508,0.020016626,0.00095637585,0.00017365997,0.0005612767,0.00004216901,0.000022168098,0.0020934392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990871,0.00010794575,0.00028490453,0.00013045796,0.00020285122,0.00018673946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99895513,0.00020163863,0.00014602096,0.00021147178,0.0004123216,0.00007342133],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00060489366,0.00007227779,0.00021275626,0.000016327882,0.00040025247,0.000015569363,0.0002668228,0.000029781295,0.0008739877],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006267882,0.0000666133,0.00012405084,0.0001852525,0.00023327791,0.00043451274,0.000026654689,0.000041907555,0.000080762016],"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":[0.0000047442077,0.000050395316,0.00006476564,0.00072444644,0.0000139388685,2.5278467e-7,0.0089605795,6.140485e-8,0.000010257121,0.9775665,0.010607416,0.0019966373],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006626661,0.000040342267,0.000075920456,0.0013239039,0.000111045425,7.020588e-7,0.0015362586,0.0000028766342,0.000106075364,0.01501954,0.9816179,0.00009916954],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002287597,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0020452137,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9710105,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000039867475,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015449635,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9569552},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19364698,0.4069416,0.00017350506,0.19631404,0.0010824158,0.0027460412,0.000030411265,0.00010741906,0.1989576],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87795913,0.1191733,0.000026711657,0.001753669,0.000050737563,0.00001027198,5.672421e-7,0.0000032623802,0.0010223775],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99932086,0.000108806336,0.00013551509,0.00011223681,0.00020471036,0.00011788493],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999646,0.000052659707,0.00004803949,0.00014049209,0.000054987362,0.000057822876],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00034390387,0.00005801544,0.00014432354,0.000005446259,0.00046793235,0.000013154758,0.00010053025,0.000027481918,0.00011264118],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004036536,0.000038570986,0.000045947938,0.00007421728,0.0005107669,0.000115029514,0.000044950262,0.00006360278,0.0000059334966],"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":[0.00000963993,0.000140359,0.009378908,0.0030228454,0.00007479489,0.0000068773816,0.010669328,0.0000022081379,0.0003575739,0.9239451,0.046416067,0.005976298],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004878757,0.000015764423,0.0033052983,0.00086956413,0.000055439996,0.000015510004,0.00020796551,0.0000012776045,0.000024080908,0.0009855927,0.99440575,0.000064992455],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016436689,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0035984835,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94798964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000016681148,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004326577,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35990044},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007825604,0.68393165,0.00030802438,0.2771716,0.00028719087,0.0017369878,0.000031474163,0.00015052634,0.028556917],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66727716,0.32826903,0.00037812206,0.0033160062,0.0001126436,0.000023042674,0.00000411348,0.0000060423195,0.0006138262],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983828,0.00017158983,0.00045716087,0.0003081622,0.00037024647,0.00031002137],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987747,0.00023090134,0.0001769431,0.0004019938,0.00023608502,0.00017938693],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014362436,0.00014746726,0.00041376735,0.000029118311,0.00051165256,0.000044995086,0.00051206653,0.000068709356,0.00064667896],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004548234,0.00013143095,0.00011885109,0.00021818973,0.00042725063,0.0007195644,0.00008680148,0.00012777386,0.000035338493],"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":[0.000004038341,0.000039405062,0.00051805313,0.00076933374,0.00000910002,0.0000011022242,0.001471712,1.875318e-7,0.00012167369,0.95405406,0.011818966,0.031192398],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046700356,0.00020136566,0.0036393262,0.010841465,0.00019489169,0.000011119362,0.00025096905,0.000003872319,0.00019186441,0.12921835,0.8550594,0.000340716],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0014950832,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014091639,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8432404,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000049720053,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012947887,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70806813},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01564473,0.11804848,0.00004312729,0.01924831,0.00055811164,0.0015677105,0.000013452309,0.00007152347,0.8448045],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9610465,0.033806983,0.00011930927,0.0043875054,0.00022104764,0.00020857058,0.000006948555,0.0000051466977,0.00019796265],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99859893,0.00030323624,0.00030576345,0.00022337858,0.00030840532,0.0002602544],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99938196,0.00009032883,0.000095948235,0.00012314472,0.00025040557,0.000058240585],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005781639,0.00012424994,0.0002954676,0.000009016928,0.00044284124,0.00005273154,0.00016778352,0.00004780236,0.0006958388],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009773127,0.000106323554,0.00008253265,0.00021003048,0.0006605653,0.000555081,0.000033855704,0.00010979767,0.0003286804],"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":[0.0000016001795,0.00006538662,0.0005092942,0.000097048534,0.000015023503,5.5006404e-7,0.0034968788,4.81264e-8,0.000010217713,0.99225545,0.0010663847,0.0024821272],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009351961,0.000026742113,0.0025755374,0.002361153,0.000035184166,7.1108474e-7,0.0044150036,4.5992812e-7,0.000038199672,0.22503304,0.76517004,0.00025038872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.051406156,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02854123,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9454018,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012462371,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002950448,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98918533},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0026407647,0.09374616,0.00030742818,0.38042304,0.0015380228,0.0014411518,0.00002461893,0.0003462543,0.51953256],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.770538,0.101668514,0.00028878293,0.12090702,0.0005555258,0.000045030447,0.000008177325,0.00002757681,0.0059613716],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99799794,0.00031237726,0.0002700831,0.0003360378,0.00062913465,0.00045439927],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989301,0.0001929815,0.00010754599,0.00044485542,0.000104078295,0.00022046149],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00188636,0.00016506948,0.00037634638,0.000014385982,0.00024195758,0.00009763091,0.0005754592,0.00007473825,0.0013650231],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022939792,0.00014138846,0.00021284039,0.00013255031,0.0003001899,0.0003238513,0.0000730973,0.00014538555,0.0012100562],"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":[0.000009605043,0.00003867177,0.0003122169,0.0017911335,0.0000311328,0.0000074050777,0.0016017758,1.9745669e-7,0.0000746361,0.48729077,0.478798,0.030044451],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006220681,0.000022945316,0.000059614715,0.0018253726,0.00009951614,0.000002085668,0.000060759005,0.000002640337,0.000097121745,0.0010565287,0.99651617,0.0001950573],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005750397,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0032035252,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.76789725,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006937956,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000052759726,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995676},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0073722703,0.11799351,0.00013690082,0.43929884,0.0006009576,0.0017368855,0.00009688968,0.000047092155,0.43271664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96630186,0.018065115,0.000014968469,0.015336244,0.000042845597,0.000036567217,0.0000012688904,0.0000026704472,0.00019845694],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99923277,0.00020948789,0.000149867,0.000099220306,0.0002029625,0.00010570002],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99956733,0.000120697994,0.000059654394,0.00009452349,0.00011946423,0.000038321003],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003344856,0.000063374435,0.00014562212,0.000008230725,0.0009013847,0.000011910806,0.0000766308,0.000021832551,0.000107361346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001146857,0.000043254633,0.000072335846,0.0001780726,0.0005800633,0.00004508869,0.00002004594,0.00006919266,0.000018860133],"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":[6.3114607e-7,0.000035699122,0.00040307318,0.000023071596,0.00002566282,9.9422046e-8,0.00037788652,0.0000010798291,0.0000039173788,0.99315345,0.005767926,0.0002074746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007295443,0.000021358848,0.0019763308,0.0009074851,0.00007295701,0.0000011241845,0.0004238268,2.7191996e-7,0.000036522957,0.020056998,0.9763616,0.00006857742],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04562181,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11082051,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9730965,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007083712,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021161059,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9607335},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05732245,0.27940387,0.000007568793,0.5243372,0.0004304028,0.0014448348,0.000073386,0.000020625403,0.13695973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9425153,0.04110653,0.000015921578,0.016069308,0.00009626341,0.000019226241,0.0000032418948,0.0000026065925,0.00017160337],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982526,0.00042237257,0.00036182516,0.00018261666,0.0004744762,0.00030612404],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99866545,0.0008204258,0.00009716083,0.00020696505,0.00015007464,0.00005991901],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014936745,0.000118809985,0.0003498414,0.000012381854,0.0008248815,0.000013468674,0.000307559,0.000046833564,0.00016044025],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00054865004,0.000066648805,0.00006767476,0.00022469182,0.0010819688,0.000033820466,0.000057800797,0.00015361611,0.000009676136],"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":[0.000014498562,0.00004180342,0.0023158274,0.000032458312,0.000031967546,0.000024347399,0.00097154477,0.0000014631437,0.000020561152,0.8821431,0.10975983,0.004642615],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015011842,0.000028439428,0.013711496,0.0004718727,0.000060539696,0.000015205131,0.0004695648,0.0000018702899,0.0000045534402,0.017893638,0.9670788,0.00011388495],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.32292762,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9385792,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8851929,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000923681,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00052494806,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.681581},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000995392,0.3723706,0.0000061195406,0.21979168,0.00010962121,0.00088279054,0.0000020156701,0.000026775933,0.40581504],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.74593645,0.25176543,0.00006351989,0.0019435699,0.00003807926,0.000047531477,0.0000014205408,0.0000033266647,0.00020066222],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983645,0.0008555068,0.00026804305,0.000085051506,0.00023515493,0.00019174603],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99858415,0.0006860179,0.00008339151,0.00050074916,0.000115579445,0.000030136902],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020644167,0.00006122307,0.00017864672,0.000015071384,0.0007793476,0.00002869278,0.0006295789,0.000060328784,0.000048583934],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00053372275,0.0000269575,0.00005221175,0.00027017514,0.0027037458,0.00007829921,0.0000932871,0.00018078875,0.000017009592],"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":[0.0000032320443,0.000017479022,0.00011720549,0.000038703358,0.0000027031665,2.347184e-7,0.0008410568,2.4259673e-8,0.0000012532588,0.9918177,0.005170372,0.0019900089],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021112672,0.0000072224657,0.00016758707,0.00044297852,0.000012037205,0.0000061661995,0.0019736378,0.000004170788,0.0000049325517,0.017745102,0.9793864,0.000038658523],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010061272,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019555888,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.974216,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000019281386,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006159196,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9962064},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.002782215,0.16496891,0.0001306648,0.01829969,0.0011121312,0.0018383864,0.00006906398,0.00016415404,0.8106348],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98595417,0.010922914,0.0009247057,0.0013811529,0.00020956449,0.000028434315,0.000006945125,0.000014012004,0.0005580775],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99790484,0.0002720437,0.0004944649,0.00024339001,0.0007363988,0.00034889212],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987789,0.00013074164,0.00021974665,0.00035409164,0.00032589727,0.00019061616],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013645436,0.00014420775,0.0004927929,0.000020478863,0.00018611515,0.000025976296,0.00047835748,0.00009892282,0.001580206],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010709516,0.00012618884,0.00019653067,0.00040823375,0.00072592223,0.00022207106,0.00005194854,0.00016604649,0.00027943144],"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":[0.000015107057,0.00013156107,0.00012215023,0.00038880762,0.00004272356,0.00002138573,0.019817377,6.652748e-7,0.000054349828,0.9742021,0.00463772,0.0005660784],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023626558,0.00009588533,0.000023703224,0.0015476925,0.000059578484,9.408058e-7,0.00030841102,2.8920564e-8,0.00038603286,0.006498746,0.9906893,0.00015346143],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00077285216,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014095594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98605156,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001210761,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00050443487,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993325},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025160728,0.43902284,0.00011436457,0.008853449,0.00032636864,0.00089098467,0.000004981726,0.00014802846,0.52547824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8764032,0.12070507,0.000375473,0.001968385,0.0004293868,0.000030399251,7.270088e-7,0.000009837346,0.00007752777],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99834275,0.000118640324,0.00021769418,0.00036572493,0.000626304,0.00032890018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919045,0.00030928207,0.0000949809,0.00014308855,0.00015871906,0.000103497725],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004144441,0.00017843966,0.00039929556,0.000030933843,0.0018823844,0.000045407844,0.00018485928,0.000057047062,0.00014145022],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00025761302,0.00013391182,0.00009113184,0.0003317607,0.0011343976,0.00016851703,0.00007738247,0.0001679729,0.000049017905],"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":[0.0000722317,0.00009841885,0.00575166,0.000042432643,0.00008594499,0.000066884255,0.006680635,0.0000022924035,0.0000015405633,0.94014496,0.0031313258,0.04392165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022368177,0.00011476259,0.0025517824,0.008277402,0.000102092235,0.000032845135,0.0018807227,0.0000024624078,0.0000010985725,0.020708274,0.9657601,0.00034475754],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001895371,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007853845,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9626288,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000094851035,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019110959,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999417},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.1232407,0.38016042,0.00025744826,0.094710596,0.0011646817,0.0028313198,0.00065610657,0.000105239094,0.39687347],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9878199,0.009676333,0.00015396225,0.0021514928,0.00009592881,0.000035935882,0.000008939122,0.000002456044,0.000055035052],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986767,0.0001379388,0.0003362581,0.000198046,0.00043024463,0.0002208191],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992206,0.0001714608,0.00010344769,0.00011279879,0.0002776396,0.00011406071],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007516592,0.00010885606,0.0003016397,0.000015014787,0.000639278,0.000024902065,0.0001061024,0.000039072387,0.00020704645],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00065622857,0.0000990611,0.00006161334,0.00017556788,0.002504337,0.00017102971,0.000039700906,0.00009377631,0.0000061110222],"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":[0.000009191982,0.000020551866,0.0035452489,0.00016164871,0.000035973735,0.000015451846,0.0002729694,0.0000020904463,0.0000044640346,0.9945502,0.00085781113,0.00052439136],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024389118,0.000013067981,0.0034719491,0.0018467421,0.00007043351,0.0000055779874,0.00035623345,1.3645196e-7,0.00002656093,0.016291378,0.97750723,0.00016676665],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6789183,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9380582,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97825885,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016403706,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026025963,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9227334},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.26721758,0.18830937,0.00009782938,0.19279385,0.0013404678,0.0034265802,0.00011644172,0.00008583091,0.34661207],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9536905,0.041031778,0.000012141968,0.005184151,0.00004262023,0.000022223667,0.000004389856,0.0000015340358,0.00001062239],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99889135,0.00046087845,0.00016784754,0.0001152702,0.00021006075,0.00015457033],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99927014,0.00045575967,0.00004571045,0.000078246216,0.00010467327,0.000045492598],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011141634,0.00006428007,0.00022621467,0.0000070461297,0.00036921864,0.000013237708,0.00010491985,0.000013007679,0.000073719086],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00041827443,0.00004036663,0.00002339831,0.00020439847,0.0016052035,0.000042586664,0.000039028004,0.000080205056,0.0000031066236],"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":[0.0000047939147,0.0000030972471,0.007477447,0.00004839746,0.000009711725,4.7461748e-7,0.00027110172,0.000001517165,3.801592e-8,0.989653,0.00057367573,0.00195676],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002135316,0.0000036700944,0.0026493089,0.00035365886,0.000023746485,6.0659886e-7,0.000743172,0.000015631198,3.6286852e-7,0.086859636,0.90906173,0.00007494049],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99579555,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99756855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90848804,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017169441,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046146018,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5914439},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.053158373,0.034313325,0.0016218278,0.025806446,0.0074273134,0.0020579472,0.000070874135,0.00071769324,0.8748262],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9833325,0.002360798,0.0004719909,0.010693494,0.0023666082,0.000031055617,0.00007510238,0.00003684244,0.00063160964],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984662,0.0000146582115,0.00059963734,0.00027331134,0.00039104087,0.00025516842],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988769,0.00009436763,0.00034196244,0.00033971734,0.0003242324,0.000022773194],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00047078793,0.00019861838,0.00038992552,0.000064709115,0.00022031192,0.00016395986,0.00034330858,0.00009025765,0.0015350282],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003524582,0.00018661971,0.0001921307,0.00016208443,0.00014685094,0.00073041406,0.0001376016,0.00028537508,0.00007372516],"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":[0.0000066674743,0.00004881525,0.00053571037,0.0038240834,0.00003984092,0.0000041754583,0.000028294111,0.000003841914,0.00036657686,0.9748537,0.019268585,0.0010196888],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029317828,0.0000117356285,0.00028315818,0.0031122866,0.00012706901,0.000007687065,0.000016019436,0.0007314074,0.00035733348,0.017487917,0.9772873,0.00028490872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011366704,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00063269597,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9580187,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001605037,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000026090893,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993777},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05636303,0.019710245,0.00010398105,0.011311967,0.00021561416,0.0013636209,0.00005950214,0.00009652994,0.9107755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9933399,0.0032691834,0.0002902974,0.0027376376,0.00013640744,0.000037692498,0.000028013277,0.0000027821657,0.00015806923],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99850225,0.00021552345,0.0003586114,0.00021165938,0.00044465475,0.00026728556],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993494,0.0001211276,0.000076115946,0.00012274469,0.00020573585,0.00012484896],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008144648,0.000113630216,0.0003908353,0.00003660881,0.00045265554,0.000021938433,0.0002690569,0.000048076254,0.0015962943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000196543,0.00009843933,0.000077919314,0.00042559806,0.0012988977,0.0001747932,0.00005857987,0.000091525224,0.0002403665],"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":[0.00000845025,0.000072465424,0.001710697,0.000043268814,0.000011650602,0.000020719493,0.000400808,0.0000033921835,0.000072738476,0.9965924,0.0005252219,0.00053816073],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014742345,0.000028382698,0.0010373768,0.0015780721,0.00002819207,0.0000023097493,0.00006801497,0.0000018977375,0.0000060140574,0.008255168,0.9886906,0.00015655893],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0062750657,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025826413,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9883373,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007907614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024199294,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993164},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.041147254,0.53247327,0.0000014326783,0.033753164,0.0007438419,0.0016940616,0.000057764664,0.000025744257,0.3901035],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8872019,0.10331346,0.000027523487,0.0035844645,0.00019299216,0.000026253752,0.000004037473,0.00001028208,0.0056390944],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990689,0.00018269516,0.0001945342,0.00014366415,0.00019641423,0.00021375112],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99946433,0.00006500356,0.00005964045,0.00015452964,0.000057025103,0.00019947668],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00066076656,0.00007217631,0.00026687593,0.00008337855,0.0010050448,0.00005108268,0.00014284984,0.00006191858,0.0005624201],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000059483453,0.000058082675,0.00004467841,0.00016868718,0.0021432228,0.00015432796,0.000013119782,0.000117350435,0.00002229549],"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":[0.00001008737,0.000024411818,0.0007249024,0.0010268268,0.00002970345,0.00006840955,0.01519379,1.6441037e-7,0.0000014846391,0.8944088,0.086948596,0.001562814],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023975533,0.0000060800767,0.0010325514,0.0004784667,0.00006539362,0.000006988834,0.000033958007,0.0000017169558,2.9026725e-7,0.0015928901,0.9964609,0.00008098417],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99030894,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998082,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90951234,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019027512,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00041189993,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7896794},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06534989,0.5478614,0.00008503317,0.1260509,0.0006615834,0.0046640835,0.000018285451,0.00009198628,0.25521687],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9819273,0.016279183,0.00015901614,0.0013771207,0.00013366443,0.00007470348,0.0000010886242,0.0000050910185,0.000042866708],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981113,0.0009190785,0.00027257067,0.00011982086,0.00032027383,0.00025697207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987073,0.00076219,0.00016946786,0.00021574975,0.00009275403,0.000052557898],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004030257,0.00009008013,0.00024967876,0.000013966854,0.00044101794,0.000028364864,0.00028135054,0.00004250339,0.00007152849],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018374411,0.000050270355,0.00006368997,0.00018074605,0.0008341127,0.00029765957,0.000055411754,0.00017929873,0.000011721196],"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":[0.000021610198,0.000021587604,0.00064859184,0.00030214348,0.000009866538,2.0570994e-7,0.02060204,1.4441376e-7,0.0000070537562,0.97399294,0.0006233614,0.0037704722],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00070576556,0.000033843677,0.0092590675,0.012894969,0.00029443429,0.0000060933066,0.006909446,0.000004569094,0.000010250321,0.0045142835,0.96513146,0.00023581329],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0065066125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0048833857,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96947867,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000034160737,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007629123,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9836095},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6189856,0.2907156,0.000014678074,0.04123309,0.0003132539,0.0011694159,0.00007053991,0.000045456607,0.047452353],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98271126,0.012119527,0.00004023731,0.00453767,0.00014442175,0.000009679568,0.0000025134266,0.000017164546,0.00041751692],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99789274,0.0005061746,0.0003411472,0.000264521,0.0006094409,0.00038596446],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989471,0.0002765605,0.00017242196,0.00036100528,0.00011719431,0.00012575547],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012426596,0.00018352715,0.00042374447,0.000008600984,0.0004730649,0.00006622565,0.0003938749,0.000073195835,0.00075609237],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013618177,0.00012305717,0.00010670175,0.0002197018,0.00031883395,0.0002082541,0.000046132143,0.00022914415,0.000008289177],"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":[0.000022393544,0.00008786719,0.52823526,0.0052799094,0.0003756836,0.000042724765,0.003946225,0.0000011402398,0.00018785882,0.26173925,0.17691901,0.023162637],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000078408986,0.00002414863,0.009199486,0.0014302525,0.00015393514,0.0000022680715,0.00029595662,6.408465e-7,0.0000868774,0.0007940971,0.98774165,0.00019228092],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.66679794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.79759336,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8108226,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008970876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047021985,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.82786816},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.42828423,0.15988198,0.00014274065,0.1531569,0.0018275147,0.006765288,0.00009161369,0.00027034344,0.24957938],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17839153,0.80877054,0.00088360626,0.009668652,0.0008740369,0.000017202226,0.000101568294,0.0000117183035,0.0012811556],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99886,0.00027034018,0.00024149334,0.00019198681,0.00024899674,0.00018718002],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993153,0.00015284165,0.0001296206,0.0000914056,0.00020389353,0.00010691384],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010621535,0.00009325256,0.0001615754,0.000032985805,0.0020359673,0.000041793035,0.00006002228,0.00006149888,0.000095793046],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000134746815,0.00008095549,0.000021361137,0.00011729158,0.00017195616,0.00037095873,6.663353e-7,0.00009132107,0.000039728933],"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":[0.00001357928,0.00009337463,0.0004967912,0.0006997019,0.000015834432,5.827919e-7,0.066941895,7.217729e-7,0.0000026122543,0.90241075,0.0063722646,0.022951918],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021521248,0.000042954736,0.00026582085,0.0005465213,0.0000337395,0.000001508462,0.00019348178,0.000014319067,0.000015149136,0.0007889505,0.997781,0.00010135222],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03805662,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.36774468,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9914087,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021879593,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011045813,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992632},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010828497,0.18354496,0.000045556288,0.5144919,0.0011368233,0.0025059795,0.000022965041,0.000118375414,0.28730494],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5692713,0.38400057,0.00008395483,0.038282778,0.002708004,0.00018522517,0.0000029421844,0.000015914069,0.005449286],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981376,0.0005578321,0.00026014497,0.00025021815,0.00048537808,0.0003088307],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991451,0.00030285754,0.0000749729,0.00019427294,0.00014262795,0.00014014881],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018200936,0.00013916158,0.00036443805,0.000019695879,0.0015960014,0.000034326356,0.0002547771,0.000040634553,0.00031044625],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000469856,0.00007973728,0.00011296823,0.00030462374,0.0018444128,0.00011184985,0.000115728035,0.00010551038,0.00034549623],"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":[0.00027857546,0.00003224475,0.00016340573,0.000039462764,0.000052505406,0.0000157391,0.0019791347,7.2605235e-7,0.000006602185,0.88708496,0.10809906,0.002247609],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00030194965,0.000022604325,0.0013232382,0.00041468698,0.000050196693,0.0000078707835,0.0002229815,2.2207759e-7,0.0000019022546,0.010400225,0.9871156,0.00013849663],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005178981,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0028013664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8790166,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000082423765,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002280866,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99970376},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0028497118,0.2823924,0.0000069694743,0.08214552,0.00034416278,0.0014784334,0.000047109665,0.000023814215,0.63071185],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83765537,0.16126628,0.0000062303075,0.0008167298,0.00012178371,0.000029174962,0.0000012733071,0.0000044370854,0.00009871338],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978239,0.00064008264,0.00038741878,0.00018929131,0.00071603514,0.00024329686],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99755543,0.0013302814,0.0002617364,0.00034859433,0.0004312472,0.0000727036],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044245077,0.00014385549,0.00043308528,0.000007871643,0.0008741308,0.000034140794,0.00053630996,0.00005081548,0.00011077111],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013088259,0.000063469284,0.0001277208,0.00016828308,0.0030698872,0.0000939535,0.00015347578,0.00019120218,0.000039239152],"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":[0.000036030437,0.000025844367,0.00021638068,0.00011123511,0.000056386176,0.0000011789675,0.00066540384,5.7370994e-7,9.3134736e-7,0.99254763,0.0040834663,0.0022549422],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028966687,0.00007219888,0.00036609275,0.0018456528,0.00012177473,0.000002587991,0.0009882963,0.0000039037664,0.0000075325247,0.05155206,0.9446256,0.00012459808],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013724479,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019364676,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9409956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004534664,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024834223,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996432},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.047291156,0.5501456,0.00005993692,0.017346691,0.0006292027,0.0025024405,0.00013387988,0.00010118727,0.38178986],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93767273,0.060835082,0.00018445571,0.0006096793,0.00014142034,0.000016001817,0.000007479016,0.000013725675,0.00051941845],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99828935,0.0002477598,0.00053907506,0.00017231968,0.0005368512,0.00021462743],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989805,0.00005241854,0.00027405113,0.00016365312,0.00036072597,0.00016860542],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00171211,0.00010891982,0.0005010903,0.00001837671,0.000119840406,0.000030758205,0.00018471513,0.00005585735,0.00011289597],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017762002,0.00008961508,0.00007036216,0.00013625433,0.0002921808,0.00022762112,0.00005845286,0.000066087996,0.000014358618],"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":[0.00008606187,0.00021930544,0.0018305511,0.013334815,0.00016139225,0.000012137522,0.010079861,0.0000015856308,0.00005758322,0.85682493,0.08648626,0.03090554],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00027806615,0.00012424128,0.00019712803,0.0021720608,0.000067197536,9.067943e-7,0.0004043056,0.0000026287405,0.000037471087,0.005113079,0.99147505,0.00012784103],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07404669,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011426731,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9049888,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000043661646,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021668809,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9321193},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022198273,0.3597843,0.00093171466,0.12638505,0.0044984925,0.009780355,0.00033425697,0.00079159526,0.47529596],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92025083,0.021697039,0.002712489,0.03440334,0.0032107327,0.00008798721,0.00032923283,0.000044756358,0.01726357],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975265,0.0005086317,0.0005761383,0.0002582754,0.0007851201,0.00034528255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981464,0.0000834159,0.00027139747,0.00027533062,0.0009771329,0.00024631305],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016416103,0.0001689897,0.00041691778,0.000018930272,0.00025808273,0.000057692323,0.00029037584,0.00008970031,0.0004853823],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009453339,0.00013560473,0.0001691471,0.00012814082,0.0016800213,0.00036358307,0.000032543594,0.000121588004,0.00013747401],"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":[0.0000037009268,0.000041380383,0.0005959675,0.0011022226,0.000043933553,0.0000037859982,0.0072277673,0.0000031866655,0.000058825903,0.95379615,0.036215253,0.0009078057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021564067,0.000012062117,0.00011909482,0.002211026,0.00008482689,0.000004674782,0.0015335879,0.000008396273,0.00012937645,0.0004073566,0.9950878,0.0001861397],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01081226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005856734,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95887256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00052341627,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013758616,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9957748},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.118649095,0.16148457,0.000908321,0.058196306,0.002623983,0.0045702583,0.00052026607,0.000121847566,0.6529254],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.980499,0.014290579,0.00025360042,0.0035345147,0.00044097487,0.000016721357,0.000008286505,0.000007523004,0.00094879395],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99821943,0.00050650124,0.00039574655,0.00016570385,0.00050361664,0.00020900993],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987322,0.00021120976,0.00022298309,0.0003194846,0.0003143765,0.00019974224],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016528056,0.00011972862,0.0004915626,0.000014010238,0.00013411335,0.00001840842,0.0002704089,0.00006049847,0.00006662196],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047477035,0.00007973559,0.0001254085,0.00013201048,0.0038364502,0.00008868768,0.000050698316,0.00012149466,0.000028563398],"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":[0.000019339408,0.000023639483,0.00042029683,0.00016152003,0.000024171399,8.4931037e-7,0.00016834002,0.000004162265,0.0000042660854,0.9818122,0.01722155,0.00013970792],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006395205,0.000061733655,0.00033332346,0.00087141024,0.00013238812,0.000001977833,0.000055302706,0.000008198884,0.00002379254,0.005677653,0.9920555,0.00013919963],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11552452,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003525701,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9761345,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007457735,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011312866,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99887455},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.20715915,0.24084741,0.000089049696,0.06108677,0.0016063873,0.002418405,0.00069440727,0.000035881392,0.48606256],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98777086,0.010317173,0.000040334413,0.0016793235,0.000051034815,0.000024343923,0.0000043975156,0.0000030923227,0.000109422006],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983295,0.00017702997,0.0005050547,0.00015832135,0.00057471124,0.00025537625],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99930364,0.00014928538,0.00014535995,0.00009251757,0.00024827025,0.0000609305],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000642262,0.00010451377,0.00040186034,0.00001328284,0.0002457387,0.000006185779,0.00013870785,0.00003377264,0.00015929538],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017723373,0.00008071561,0.00005088524,0.00015995406,0.00065829523,0.0001360166,0.000036492183,0.00005970174,0.0000011219262],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","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":[0.0000042172787,0.000014776417,0.008124161,0.00018816935,0.000015838583,0.0000053496533,0.000092318456,0.000010027698,0.00006533449,0.98478144,0.006517972,0.00018040536],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00036418356,0.000011278404,0.0030740655,0.0045309355,0.00002592323,0.0000010631353,0.0003686,0.0000019155423,0.00026677817,0.012919021,0.9781958,0.00024044437],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99956185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999821,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97186244,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010507095,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008838713,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9967803},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007051088,0.03778363,0.0000029461157,0.046634816,0.00043598854,0.0014476862,0.000043172855,0.000021975096,0.9065787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.987861,0.0040095374,0.000014647058,0.0074741743,0.00021445485,0.000036474765,0.00001938131,0.0000037236578,0.00036663236],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99827904,0.00059502583,0.00019800091,0.00015425407,0.00043049594,0.00034318079],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99940616,0.00007118377,0.000051406605,0.00027533082,0.0000050215062,0.00019087276],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020679182,0.00010891724,0.00015249767,0.000015824715,0.00097075704,0.00006424192,0.0004341262,0.00006231653,0.00036559397],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000042775944,0.00006341028,0.00007291357,0.00012888592,0.0007394217,0.00017025316,0.000028051134,0.00018320538,0.00056415086],"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":[9.185274e-7,0.000016033002,0.0011725986,0.000020633393,0.000005597899,0.000016790871,0.0016434279,0.0000026303032,0.0000016575805,0.98843235,0.008339156,0.00034822657],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008887244,0.000008457648,0.0006577522,0.00019211238,0.000025874464,0.000011574125,0.00021590215,9.4211657e-7,0.0000040527384,0.0024715185,0.9962276,0.00009533058],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63985217,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9223103,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98788846,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005542397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022375085,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.74663764},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8563891,0.123795375,0.000019367906,0.012470052,0.001110909,0.0015759869,0.00017119694,0.000027687556,0.004440306],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9927239,0.0062214723,0.000042329826,0.0005311481,0.00016918761,0.00005948781,0.000014179482,0.000026665257,0.00021162056],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99758196,0.0006080749,0.0007888038,0.0003640025,0.0003446244,0.00031255436],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974792,0.00048930815,0.00045662155,0.00093658833,0.00043351346,0.00020475771],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018161897,0.00023445809,0.000582218,0.00002288248,0.00015262111,0.000019084648,0.00036572185,0.0001651178,0.00046188832],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004327351,0.00012811145,0.0001756907,0.00021213197,0.00077020284,0.000073048264,0.00011833707,0.00028560974,0.00013417975],"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":[0.00045339204,0.0036309976,0.0063178763,0.008178394,0.0016759951,0.009759066,0.030985944,0.000006908436,0.00015649773,0.13541965,0.32650438,0.4769109],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0020332818,0.0038065198,0.0016436117,0.0066872602,0.00069668645,0.0035644448,0.008451402,0.000020205645,0.00008627762,0.00187462,0.9704572,0.0006785155],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00092150894,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00035196406,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6439528,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000050625535,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017247343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5224233},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.014490009,0.29370856,0.000101799254,0.48757073,0.00095801346,0.0032698677,0.000045480738,0.0002064754,0.19964905],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85874724,0.1345588,0.000086028056,0.0034366,0.00022078876,0.00006111702,0.0000010803732,0.00000988935,0.0028784408],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99838036,0.00046297943,0.00028789308,0.00017513386,0.00041540162,0.00027823172],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998837,0.00038936822,0.00013924847,0.00018402888,0.00038494158,0.00006543949],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009955931,0.00012531101,0.00034499637,0.000005171319,0.0009444552,0.000035398807,0.00034335788,0.000045078876,0.00047355707],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007938492,0.000054029504,0.00013857297,0.00016568304,0.00074705057,0.00021731212,0.00006649025,0.00008063889,0.00011941009],"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":[0.0000055446126,0.00004459477,0.00064415316,0.00051061646,0.00015026235,0.0000026994628,0.009675103,4.137375e-7,0.00085528876,0.9129862,0.051388983,0.02373615],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011649813,0.000015388745,0.00034982275,0.0021946332,0.00005316877,4.4367897e-7,0.00043034245,2.9177997e-7,0.00023070621,0.0003609483,0.9961265,0.000121305246],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002604673,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003709694,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9447375,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009680626,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000056383695,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7264081},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013245247,0.47864333,0.0016966836,0.23304437,0.0015703508,0.007729316,0.000018772791,0.00041126515,0.26364064],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.60024184,0.3051456,0.012724441,0.030902576,0.0027333328,0.00019737176,0.000020130936,0.00009074567,0.047943972],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980765,0.00021063232,0.00027163862,0.00048463736,0.0005837806,0.00037279888],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984757,0.00013087722,0.00007722358,0.00031135272,0.00013508147,0.0008698192],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020153413,0.00017392465,0.00033914094,0.000028472248,0.0002595165,0.00017907862,0.00026539873,0.00007894899,0.0000593631],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0014986102,0.00015021574,0.000045688677,0.00030376113,0.00020193074,0.00040575946,0.00009479018,0.00014491414,0.00020830735],"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":[0.00009417351,0.00007340245,0.0003606203,0.0018570162,0.000016735754,0.000010074288,0.0041217646,0.000005189473,0.00007421211,0.30667794,0.61129427,0.07541457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014628354,0.0001337629,0.00015958,0.0073137716,0.0000737924,0.000010820472,0.00018459558,0.0000071071836,0.000018246143,0.0033050766,0.9884352,0.0002117693],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013266856,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0022629106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5869966,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010318107,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00056226767,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9933039},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012361643,0.06648814,0.0026566936,0.22012258,0.001436128,0.0076468824,0.00013267118,0.00091973104,0.6882355],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93868965,0.04359239,0.005334855,0.006400448,0.0008512108,0.00062537263,0.00007102267,0.000050188126,0.004384881],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978401,0.000325087,0.00034603913,0.0004102226,0.0006809897,0.0003975702],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989424,0.0001226109,0.00012115868,0.00025789803,0.0003178782,0.00023807462],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010639215,0.00019369605,0.00033880112,0.000023812412,0.0009453025,0.00008238105,0.00038875375,0.000082520404,0.00020549065],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005868916,0.00012169747,0.00012434719,0.00028908264,0.00027832438,0.0008269079,0.000074209944,0.00008864616,0.00025409035],"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":[0.00000977615,0.00024552556,0.00026289764,0.0011302317,0.000050713526,0.000002650975,0.010252608,8.8874646e-7,0.00013264437,0.9268989,0.027058352,0.033954788],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015085434,0.00003663583,0.0015543444,0.0013112846,0.000065160566,9.815335e-7,0.0005201919,0.0000034817404,0.000024519697,0.0015208218,0.9945227,0.00028902636],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00427782,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008339884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9674643,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003491397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000049413702,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7270598},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00032341064,0.3289817,0.000039884268,0.19198796,0.00065289036,0.00078753656,0.00003121018,0.0000818795,0.47711354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8875992,0.10801629,0.00023831459,0.0031748249,0.0006852672,0.00002847034,0.000020750396,0.000017372055,0.00021955489],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974256,0.0005715443,0.0004212975,0.0003198306,0.0008834994,0.00037821752],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99777627,0.00018091165,0.00020337816,0.0012372,0.00038812394,0.00021413722],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0069995,0.00013567886,0.0003841138,0.000012123579,0.00036742803,0.0000954108,0.0021455728,0.00006164671,0.00010788156],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0018819432,0.0000907765,0.00009557013,0.00029023923,0.0006555191,0.00052705756,0.0006532505,0.0001597242,0.000084631094],"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":[0.0000034895709,0.000050864877,0.000037722548,0.00090491254,0.000022910546,0.0000036463464,0.0018983885,1.09678126e-7,0.0000030595652,0.9317695,0.029466726,0.035838682],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067768866,0.000028054868,0.0000073040706,0.0017793512,0.00008778858,0.0000021398453,0.00045236739,0.0000051036723,0.0000052755863,0.0041870284,0.99326175,0.00011609283],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02060426,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036312092,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.963795,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005612763,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005151483,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9859176},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010768219,0.07954967,0.000027938551,0.032520264,0.00011223722,0.00063132733,0.000004228278,0.000023885472,0.8860536],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93647003,0.053071454,0.00023543333,0.0028980917,0.0003170742,0.00019962079,0.0000034918426,0.0000069598955,0.0067978147],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99965554,0.000055761437,0.00006496222,0.000056241515,0.00011025192,0.000057252953],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99983865,0.000016471235,0.00001909995,0.00006349199,0.000034899218,0.00002738817],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005929893,0.000025189554,0.000058130016,0.0000039116285,0.000050352966,0.000024690067,0.000068254485,0.000012938849,0.00014444381],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000023340614,0.000015555472,0.000013918793,0.00006719157,0.00011993245,0.00006052278,0.0000069739667,0.000036733414,0.0001795004],"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":[0.0000012611442,0.0000047705157,0.000101472,0.000038960796,0.0000010179153,2.6881742e-7,0.0003297372,5.990159e-8,1.703193e-7,0.9911212,0.0059917667,0.0024093676],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006382196,0.0000015924078,0.00007812949,0.000087375185,0.0000064001524,2.071997e-7,0.000023254208,0.0000075899015,4.3045839e-7,0.003952953,0.9957546,0.00002364871],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0013908827,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0034223255,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98976284,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002228975,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000073551484,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23071744},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0065455884,0.6480243,0.000049637325,0.14869912,0.0017619678,0.002694865,0.00022331346,0.00012731196,0.1918739],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8520991,0.14238052,0.00025286063,0.0033114583,0.001342565,0.000047193887,0.000011062974,0.000009374277,0.000545851],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984036,0.00039828074,0.00028824832,0.00017972161,0.00048340802,0.0002467115],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988222,0.00038282815,0.00015391957,0.00008173395,0.00044932144,0.000109996],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013636296,0.0001335462,0.0003548444,0.0000043573777,0.001563442,0.00006670912,0.00015240035,0.00007540535,0.00004252419],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00028362413,0.00007496805,0.00005618811,0.00012956276,0.0048215464,0.0001819743,0.00008911289,0.00013003059,0.0000083637915],"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":[0.00001649302,0.000012493864,0.00017409491,0.000612348,0.000039357357,0.0000018421271,0.0033908484,2.7904312e-8,0.000001944709,0.98902917,0.005812756,0.0009086121],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023552602,0.000023822406,0.0003925734,0.00028971554,0.00024171348,0.0000029504636,0.0062032593,6.22234e-7,0.0000010422206,0.0019412205,0.9905454,0.00012219131],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0011319113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0051122783,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98708797,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007833223,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013865714,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99973637},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010815297,0.04011294,0.0000057056004,0.001713321,0.00042498816,0.0003903474,0.0000015961208,0.000031794803,0.9562378],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.006566985,0.8697401,0.0007447061,0.001164776,0.0009655172,0.0000068805953,0.0000099131985,0.000015037009,0.12078603],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994739,0.00008333585,0.00008506275,0.00008167617,0.00014050225,0.000135516],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99967086,0.000008244085,0.000027515765,0.00008903095,0.00009108652,0.00011325748],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00060129474,0.000040363684,0.00009068178,0.0000065776844,0.0005374856,0.000017170296,0.00007419832,0.000027460936,0.00037815652],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000029752298,0.000023080003,0.0000142567715,0.00006311306,0.00009378237,0.000069712056,4.2451308e-7,0.00004404272,0.00067767076],"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":[6.6302033e-7,0.000017519818,0.00006176357,0.00032679623,0.0000029645491,8.0184117e-7,0.009126474,6.9076584e-9,1.3240349e-7,0.96624005,0.02326304,0.00095980684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025381703,0.000008951469,0.000008648451,0.00020810268,0.000008875574,0.0000011833938,0.000023427765,2.5916205e-7,0.0000018310374,0.0011308044,0.9985375,0.00004503995],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012728182,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.059472237,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97527444,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045050332,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022974284,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9938461},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.21057165,0.13921094,0.00015764292,0.5409196,0.00097315124,0.005776117,0.00028086206,0.000045473083,0.10206457],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9813344,0.016951308,0.00000864776,0.0010353508,0.00007800078,0.000057581707,0.0000021287997,0.0000071362742,0.0005254345],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973996,0.00083697797,0.00053164654,0.0002308989,0.00070069084,0.00030014507],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977813,0.0012086513,0.0002972641,0.00045195755,0.00019832396,0.000062539475],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035876385,0.00015934752,0.0004130275,0.000010343852,0.00043638088,0.000026886477,0.0006186241,0.000044545362,0.000303224],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006629353,0.00006586264,0.000106324485,0.00018988406,0.001625513,0.00014325598,0.00009701067,0.00011984485,0.0000041538383],"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":[0.00037781158,0.00012451506,0.0036518932,0.0032712445,0.0000879513,0.000023539902,0.014297944,0.0000014062181,0.0005333599,0.897667,0.06789675,0.012066591],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007004919,0.00014467411,0.006374696,0.0052093416,0.00039456013,0.000029312112,0.0045567555,0.0000061276746,0.00039160685,0.0032960237,0.9786183,0.0002780695],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.36129025,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89899945,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9107216,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012730283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00039152338,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.642963},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012811631,0.4312128,0.00073813513,0.01205013,0.0015591605,0.0009709026,0.000013724778,0.00035826446,0.5402852],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7924508,0.1824953,0.0006330131,0.009348033,0.0012139059,0.00010946862,0.000023345196,0.000032386244,0.013693794],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987837,0.00020895113,0.00020479255,0.00017354738,0.00040532547,0.00022365856],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990933,0.000078893165,0.00006619466,0.00023977303,0.00030850043,0.000213323],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00092061755,0.00008901418,0.0002428987,0.000024609591,0.0002945372,0.000055563814,0.00019580677,0.00004059491,0.0007889943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00054867886,0.00007622159,0.000144509,0.0004027139,0.00013704381,0.00018057192,0.000032413387,0.00008444595,0.00067566306],"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":[0.000024236422,0.0003916903,0.0014090606,0.0018223773,0.00018898495,0.00018908239,0.008269536,0.000015229523,0.00001282824,0.34114859,0.4009307,0.24559769],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043374188,0.000022036493,0.000005222796,0.00043218292,0.00043098308,0.000008653022,0.0069833403,0.0000058670635,0.0000029892262,0.00013903821,0.9918151,0.00011122503],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022578731,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03317946,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7796391,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000885822,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019192089,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9844625},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008003643,0.30081612,0.00086652004,0.4364905,0.00095970917,0.00876348,0.00040365593,0.00011971048,0.24357665],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.979212,0.014348903,0.000025952575,0.004042856,0.0002037718,0.0004256705,6.7237653e-7,0.0000029570583,0.0017372562],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989566,0.0001337569,0.00018963208,0.00015136761,0.0002825238,0.00028607412],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994158,0.00016618744,0.000079033256,0.00016571955,0.00010136874,0.00007185438],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012401338,0.00008201908,0.00018568175,0.0000017943536,0.0003772218,0.00004310067,0.00017710692,0.000030527593,0.00008937775],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00020069774,0.000029279068,0.00006484501,0.000048429494,0.0017725028,0.00011091111,0.000035685734,0.000053216056,0.0000306102],"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":[0.000018666931,0.0000046287805,0.00005978647,0.00011713062,0.000008149532,3.6408983e-7,0.00003566822,1.8785082e-9,0.000007940979,0.9978953,0.0010410562,0.0008113006],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031579475,0.000011622234,0.00016974358,0.0013308078,0.00002435855,0.0000027596866,0.000005934233,3.9446087e-7,0.000017636095,0.014417627,0.9836362,0.00006713549],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0035455758,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0052386667,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98347765,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016173789,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000105078754,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.653086},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.044530176,0.7210228,0.001485299,0.037374333,0.0030419694,0.005547035,0.00002927975,0.00049022975,0.18647888],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94004565,0.058980912,0.00014834273,0.00035082988,0.00015991725,0.000056683697,0.0000021143317,0.000008576379,0.00024699996],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99814165,0.00022162002,0.00048556045,0.00028609615,0.0005742545,0.00029079668],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991512,0.000066155975,0.0001864475,0.0001925497,0.00026847192,0.00013519923],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00238485,0.00013607994,0.00048311954,0.00003946189,0.0001254349,0.000031942756,0.00025404987,0.00013601266,0.00006123345],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006358607,0.000113526105,0.00005188391,0.0003540383,0.0004523476,0.00034505094,0.00008374957,0.00017432489,0.000022326863],"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":[0.000084199826,0.00062356977,0.02194339,0.008740944,0.00007819958,0.000052028907,0.0056050434,0.0000135739465,0.00080976426,0.89368796,0.019622386,0.04873892],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021415373,0.00009782712,0.00016310897,0.0029486849,0.000029294302,0.0000023035182,0.0004467424,0.000004728568,0.0000890862,0.0036824541,0.9921543,0.00016732948],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0049641635,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010958764,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9725319,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013886401,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018415826,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.75043637},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.15564108,0.14469215,0.00027726468,0.11779591,0.005116136,0.025359679,0.0036267457,0.00024472983,0.5472463],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99423057,0.0041047437,0.00006133691,0.0009772355,0.000118818396,0.000047786176,0.00001749405,0.0000119061615,0.00043009053],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977042,0.00044825653,0.00045255295,0.00019196201,0.0009108165,0.00029221125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986321,0.0001756034,0.00023855914,0.0006442488,0.00020935672,0.000100145735],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001994211,0.00013167618,0.000393944,0.000018663304,0.00015251762,0.00005432754,0.0011509724,0.00006609232,0.000067011286],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0024097804,0.00007547596,0.000111677924,0.0004725321,0.00032546755,0.0002790295,0.00023356502,0.00019355325,0.000006916159],"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":[0.0002656652,0.0005877031,0.0056886617,0.006055325,0.00018610127,0.000087807646,0.024679115,0.000009241758,0.00002484945,0.17671576,0.77299446,0.012705317],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003776846,0.000065764674,0.0004902384,0.0014255389,0.00006691692,0.0000043911787,0.003511632,0.0000065933546,0.000018435825,0.0020260187,0.99186534,0.00014143717],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.40471408,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8617632,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8385895,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001783252,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014253242,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59924996},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0048658666,0.6012292,0.003317216,0.1642682,0.0023653214,0.0057681384,0.00024272896,0.00028350673,0.21765982],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92822427,0.060998496,0.0002978212,0.007352329,0.000445285,0.00019863847,0.000013180972,0.000018022058,0.002451974],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99736667,0.000864346,0.00038283944,0.00036230584,0.0005969384,0.00042688157],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981137,0.0002618061,0.00012318378,0.0005326055,0.00059358426,0.00037511374],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004423921,0.00021741299,0.00044139722,0.00002423027,0.0012023634,0.00019552866,0.000579517,0.00008897679,0.00024382789],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00069945893,0.00010453774,0.000114242466,0.00060967123,0.0136354165,0.0002802816,0.00013771866,0.00024732234,0.000178858],"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":[0.0000062020417,0.000018893656,0.000020378031,0.00008000251,0.000055539098,0.000035753448,0.002022797,0.0000010950014,0.0000047774033,0.97015095,0.025999347,0.0016042548],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018052646,0.000028392707,0.0000024432113,0.000377538,0.00029066775,0.00014847897,0.0017195988,0.000010326422,0.000013481494,0.005485041,0.99154943,0.00019409497],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0029384836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019486228,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96555007,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000089659574,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00043538294,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9984056},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0029946088,0.04164075,0.00014790664,0.009490743,0.0006875272,0.0012763771,0.000033375843,0.00004470698,0.943684],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9928006,0.0022372557,0.00035705024,0.0037258787,0.00029762366,0.00007413557,0.000006063732,0.000008923363,0.00049246754],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974793,0.0004187942,0.0004946879,0.00030131344,0.0008122271,0.00049365725],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99880314,0.00022012804,0.00015356037,0.0002629694,0.00038853125,0.00017165497],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00189411,0.0001941519,0.0005199089,0.000017174421,0.0018376402,0.00003372838,0.00043908722,0.000050507977,0.00030079644],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023530588,0.00012654657,0.00014293089,0.00034075134,0.0005209636,0.00009640209,0.00005153861,0.00016705485,0.00003311222],"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":[0.0000023026203,0.000034845754,0.00017274171,0.0001317708,0.00005528803,0.0000020242262,0.00067314506,0.000006612659,0.000006933305,0.9861589,0.012601562,0.00015386588],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000083287465,0.000010265425,0.0000853244,0.0007746335,0.00006986181,0.0000032222215,0.00029651102,0.0000037743923,0.000048164176,0.0069721155,0.9914608,0.00019206897],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.50971484,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.757548,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.989806,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018558162,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00070125173,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994618},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00010164058,0.08464579,0.000004421474,0.049588423,0.00019309574,0.00050751376,0.000006527124,0.000016891518,0.8649357],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.13437326,0.6646876,0.0011449164,0.108823776,0.002459723,0.00024451726,0.00001442976,0.000046728157,0.088205084],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992908,0.00016436799,0.00009842705,0.000097308955,0.00021226941,0.00013679052],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958664,0.00011406896,0.000026814725,0.00015569456,0.00006351741,0.00005324462],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010315378,0.00005928265,0.00013129236,5.0459425e-7,0.00019759775,0.00004785711,0.00022890278,0.00003826433,0.0005999294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014755302,0.000028342001,0.000048198137,0.00016860466,0.0003693668,0.00007847137,0.000027089463,0.00011722517,0.0009172296],"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":[0.0000018830608,0.000012480281,0.00010713311,0.000060234877,0.000004452206,5.817628e-7,0.005588106,1.7118624e-7,3.8991732e-7,0.48740855,0.5062489,0.0005671128],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011228162,0.000005589241,0.000019140873,0.00019242674,0.000013785557,7.75462e-7,0.00053303444,4.4463076e-7,9.766418e-7,0.007509822,0.9915626,0.00004913544],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010080516,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019044313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7767306,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000031237814,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007770805,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99986064},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.051015534,0.18500496,0.00025069795,0.54787767,0.0013541825,0.0059850044,0.000113834794,0.00011469478,0.20828344],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9770659,0.014069176,0.00002411453,0.008438304,0.00024607818,0.00009991006,0.0000020959633,0.000006761842,0.00004761444],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977969,0.00010523804,0.00037248674,0.00025043316,0.0010834881,0.00039144995],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99907744,0.00008915204,0.00014235402,0.00022434331,0.0003414274,0.00012527347],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015771046,0.00016127632,0.00034741295,0.000013281738,0.001542235,0.000037945785,0.00053726765,0.00004327805,0.00006128463],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034110752,0.000086462984,0.000067688896,0.00037461103,0.0007244524,0.00013463513,0.00014078386,0.00018717434,0.000010918722],"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":[0.00001709643,0.000050482562,0.001101595,0.00040903414,0.00010398111,0.000008888762,0.0040396904,0.00007664067,0.000009000454,0.9826092,0.0066474373,0.004926954],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00027915213,0.00007492571,0.0022420841,0.003080014,0.00017987692,0.000011137828,0.004329766,0.000001778652,0.00008817435,0.04621302,0.94314635,0.0003536976],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.57631505,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9010285,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93649894,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00029185886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017216997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99975765},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08702484,0.3424586,0.0000068161453,0.12931287,0.0014907175,0.002216141,0.00003864374,0.00008394483,0.4373674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95112944,0.045782782,0.000019673627,0.0012567688,0.00011445847,0.000009642923,0.0000016249074,0.000004885301,0.0016806984],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99910086,0.00011232139,0.00016915143,0.00011971106,0.00023745658,0.0002604844],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99944735,0.000067742694,0.00004866181,0.0001887358,0.000079772566,0.0001677712],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00085970067,0.000065140885,0.00015718912,0.0000105936115,0.00053499656,0.000055241813,0.00022071092,0.00004015537,0.00040104412],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004224626,0.000043227727,0.000053876454,0.0000958476,0.0004885194,0.00012383654,0.000020014879,0.00007149071,0.000078515994],"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":[0.000010568087,0.000025289468,0.0039840913,0.00045624212,0.000046761605,0.000053494452,0.0030153708,1.542016e-7,0.000013872048,0.8581985,0.110453315,0.023742342],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033079814,0.000010064836,0.0011790375,0.00052766065,0.000030846535,0.0000031806492,0.000024467825,7.5635387e-7,0.000003108889,0.0032493407,0.99487627,0.000062173196],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.52231175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9426516,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88442296,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004203142,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000094223375,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48086923},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009114372,0.05996563,0.000012599588,0.04445495,0.0014023883,0.0013448828,0.00001443237,0.00009148466,0.8835993],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98295045,0.010497661,0.000037350146,0.005468016,0.00020170143,0.000058167956,0.0000068421264,0.000010392274,0.0007694448],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99843335,0.00046404486,0.00019405418,0.00017964847,0.00045312487,0.0002757528],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991869,0.0002644272,0.000049351143,0.00016311285,0.00014965521,0.00018660794],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016346071,0.00009821754,0.00024402628,0.000019297646,0.00023547813,0.00003264222,0.00018939134,0.000038159982,0.00012013601],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00080715667,0.00008664363,0.00003991354,0.00030821725,0.00009291088,0.00016076028,0.000022807126,0.00017143853,0.0000816004],"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":[0.0000451173,0.0000861945,0.00081562094,0.0013639104,0.00002447001,0.00015942348,0.0031789714,0.000030956602,0.00001837472,0.83041567,0.15154825,0.012313068],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007714182,0.00005356729,0.00003796687,0.0028034425,0.000025814621,0.0000018792598,0.00035677795,0.0000012221041,0.000019482994,0.00049931207,0.99601513,0.00010828522],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9040624,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98927087,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97383606,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00051093876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007715044,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35332248},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.45438454,0.2183778,0.000012885018,0.09448033,0.0003597719,0.002499041,0.000011174917,0.0003133006,0.22956115],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9830701,0.0041825334,0.000037762224,0.011458566,0.00042729385,0.000045763536,0.0000059608933,0.00002559876,0.0007464533],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99900305,0.00003176836,0.00030882665,0.00024839633,0.00018578782,0.00022214673],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989387,0.000047847752,0.00038227308,0.0005050897,0.00011257774,0.000013528633],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00050705305,0.00019239124,0.00036638696,0.00003724054,0.0006388697,0.0007008043,0.00041454763,0.000046269986,0.0005139857],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022410169,0.00012909003,0.000074099094,0.00009622474,0.0004338572,0.0010326196,0.0001955631,0.000117550386,0.0001840202],"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":[0.00008179337,0.0003962215,0.11092242,0.013119483,0.00017504804,0.000044705757,0.0009342566,0.0000018804913,0.0005791146,0.8065687,0.028083133,0.039093267],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003230366,0.0000064346827,0.029343503,0.0025712557,0.00007485333,0.0000017358188,0.000040250612,0.000056065495,0.000026773761,0.00043964802,0.96693003,0.00018643575],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21004415,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.38091847,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9388469,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000016156788,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002211736,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79521626},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0349373,0.27910557,0.06778128,0.13385987,0.005878525,0.02526253,0.0008767752,0.0018397127,0.45045844],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9031384,0.062190395,0.0035224108,0.007624631,0.0012035816,0.0008250967,0.000025765266,0.000063648215,0.021406094],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981355,0.00019464876,0.00034440114,0.00043729282,0.00041110368,0.00047704918],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987542,0.00023253291,0.00010613368,0.000287881,0.0003851035,0.00023414708],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016244025,0.000117648444,0.0003871253,0.0000126299365,0.00058357307,0.00031075682,0.0003827776,0.0000883552,0.00040824205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00073815434,0.00013071146,0.00014903105,0.00023825845,0.00023789959,0.00044854285,0.0000693328,0.00007540092,0.00009847373],"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":[0.000026386588,0.000243738,0.002157907,0.007144843,0.00007487657,0.000013747668,0.0015040598,0.0000010861731,0.0003746563,0.094402604,0.73841614,0.15563999],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015519669,0.000048726444,0.00038184514,0.0050557293,0.00011550558,0.000009119792,0.00021476211,0.0000030170731,0.0000038705653,0.00048233542,0.99330676,0.00022314911],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.036836356,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13735671,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8682011,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015184756,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013130496,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.96957743},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9584099,0.02125609,0.000109305656,0.008300253,0.00042549422,0.0013741684,0.0004146718,0.000041163537,0.009668929],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9840932,0.0113259405,0.00053303165,0.0005623074,0.00008989402,0.000023968487,0.000028305125,0.000009575316,0.0033337602],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984798,0.00026987583,0.00042593817,0.00013948668,0.000527631,0.00015726761],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99813986,0.00008951611,0.0005592329,0.000121818244,0.000996282,0.0000932871],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016887576,0.0000945669,0.00036212953,0.000034004788,0.00011398505,0.000034422923,0.00007312095,0.0001108419,0.00011411361],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033526064,0.00008804429,0.00004610024,0.00022218986,0.00008526245,0.00031876774,0.000030459925,0.00008638865,5.3790615e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000078105375,0.00069910276,0.45362875,0.0019010301,0.0007245751,0.0000011060063,0.09392159,0.000008423576,0.0008792103,0.42937097,0.014242724,0.0045444057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011496412,0.00019854304,0.18035562,0.0023430479,0.00053875905,4.1966402e-7,0.0029422576,0.000015828813,0.00013775282,0.0020028017,0.8100395,0.0002758097],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46205142,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.83993334,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7957968,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006013504,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00058797415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5415308},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008905887,0.63652885,0.000029110714,0.1485819,0.0014534707,0.0013347291,0.000017671482,0.00012360851,0.20302474],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82421815,0.16588384,0.00004941332,0.002511109,0.0003985538,0.00009433162,0.0000014619418,0.000016929129,0.0068262024],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99822396,0.00023107608,0.00023828736,0.00026530726,0.000539006,0.0005023472],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99825037,0.00016508703,0.00022888093,0.00094340544,0.0002147713,0.00019749241],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020369166,0.00014985738,0.00028059745,0.0000061659202,0.0032580926,0.0005554277,0.0011631426,0.00006312617,0.00047999303],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007931164,0.000100283745,0.00018689563,0.00006286896,0.00082475564,0.0005125763,0.0001501555,0.00016970323,0.00048133585],"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":[0.000069279435,0.000109404384,0.02869456,0.0020034579,0.00011003989,0.00033000647,0.0009966226,7.8740356e-7,0.000002785322,0.64675766,0.25653604,0.06438934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047587564,0.000011954643,0.0038024415,0.0032862306,0.00011103928,0.000005097455,0.00010037227,6.9117095e-7,0.0000045181837,0.0014964576,0.99097574,0.00015789056],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0052040066,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.048877057,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81531227,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006298453,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001321554,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99803954},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18036495,0.041497838,0.0000036568526,0.11539853,0.0011739437,0.004829116,0.000056803347,0.00008629245,0.65658885],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98140985,0.0112372115,0.000021688706,0.0065985317,0.00006675699,0.000014765903,0.0000029698238,0.0000064708283,0.0006417498],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99896455,0.00021515643,0.00019189225,0.00015902716,0.00032807174,0.00014132386],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99934125,0.00020466857,0.000139196,0.00020354404,0.00006266421,0.00004865915],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00046381183,0.0000959559,0.00023346583,0.000009958719,0.00041802193,0.00003599038,0.00019275947,0.000039841998,0.00035357304],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000036486734,0.000060601295,0.00008380754,0.00006967253,0.00044410862,0.0001225564,0.00003994181,0.00009598196,0.000049795224],"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":[0.0000027511655,0.00004846746,0.0006645777,0.00036300614,0.000013537856,4.271753e-7,0.003003617,1.7852372e-7,0.0000015779528,0.99189025,0.0035761795,0.00043545512],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015725366,0.000073679505,0.0014195726,0.003409373,0.00004079345,3.7896234e-7,0.00013537603,0.0000020918376,0.00012317144,0.008831322,0.98570794,0.00009904955],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001378873,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011260247,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9830589,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004990849,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000047001737,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62834823},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16843335,0.77393365,0.0000023473383,0.0019854235,0.0013687816,0.0023141373,0.000026051794,0.00021771155,0.051718548],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.45280328,0.5273242,0.00027736244,0.0036178173,0.00046029867,0.00011579034,0.000031174295,0.000038765935,0.0153313065],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980489,0.00029776042,0.0003854847,0.0003807415,0.00048401178,0.00040307187],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99902076,0.00014439989,0.00021080929,0.00018766904,0.00030084178,0.0001355529],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010800598,0.00013813454,0.0005110565,0.00001114807,0.00070827967,0.00021802398,0.00024371658,0.0001380873,0.00093415444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00038264907,0.00017376964,0.0001258561,0.000124095,0.00037302027,0.00034834258,0.000086170905,0.00020798447,0.00020100562],"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":[0.00001668824,0.00018997806,0.10235524,0.0057279505,0.00035784845,0.000070018905,0.050166257,0.0000015276274,0.00008309759,0.0070961374,0.75803775,0.07589753],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025472578,0.000033297074,0.0028261766,0.0017167334,0.00006346168,0.000008201947,0.000530669,0.0000012211578,3.2961646e-7,0.00014226453,0.9941643,0.00025865546],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4907131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6353246,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.28436992,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00074612035,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012080057,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99997914},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016397451,0.68691444,0.000009872648,0.035683665,0.0011665241,0.0014084498,0.00008947213,0.00019048766,0.27289733],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40306628,0.5893793,0.00041088066,0.0040340754,0.0008255845,0.00008909402,0.00002315113,0.000009575976,0.0021620528],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982889,0.00026439133,0.0002759268,0.00028750283,0.0005209964,0.00036226024],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99867845,0.000110167915,0.00021632717,0.00048465625,0.00030300918,0.00020740883],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009828638,0.00017019571,0.00041684642,0.000004545183,0.0041038715,0.00023206415,0.0006651563,0.000074118776,0.0016585077],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012012655,0.0001284083,0.00017327393,0.000048311707,0.002852781,0.00086505973,0.00014206435,0.00013054935,0.00052986],"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":[0.0000018590902,0.00004114356,0.00065275107,0.00044779966,0.00003599036,0.000022427503,0.00033126824,1.3016061e-7,0.000004468679,0.9674338,0.024410376,0.0066179894],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010820045,0.000016656426,0.0011580347,0.0019859227,0.00007998905,0.0000057771254,0.00010642769,5.645955e-7,0.0000036637239,0.0007307103,0.9956021,0.00020197984],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01704835,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013171685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9711917,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013917261,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015512946,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998609},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01866794,0.27789095,0.00063415075,0.13127208,0.00073103793,0.003795201,0.00022817032,0.00008213251,0.5666983],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91119134,0.07942025,0.00008709948,0.0017497904,0.0001631302,0.00007536501,6.3796165e-7,0.0000046550826,0.0073077334],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989929,0.00019698864,0.00021372552,0.00012255805,0.00027794472,0.00019589282],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991578,0.00034779694,0.000091895185,0.000119785895,0.00017692737,0.00010581119],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007457658,0.0000659324,0.00018729655,0.0000024399,0.0004526585,0.00003041225,0.00013470603,0.0000324346,0.00010787164],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010685425,0.000031686297,0.00004397625,0.000052265146,0.001622001,0.00011397731,0.000029136461,0.00003723643,0.000041966076],"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":[0.0000025041654,0.000008372217,0.00010556591,0.0001037428,0.000009144539,8.390685e-7,0.00006489109,9.848938e-9,0.000041492836,0.99744946,0.0011891099,0.0010248487],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011509469,0.000017941336,0.0001450371,0.0023352874,0.000011011492,0.0000029463974,0.000008361155,2.9025352e-7,0.00006768591,0.006953827,0.9902849,0.00005759894],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017966738,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0013775427,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9904956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000044404984,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002888674,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.597633},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0024017761,0.13549004,0.000325018,0.20521654,0.0010062165,0.0012081412,0.0001661912,0.00003016038,0.6541559],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94272715,0.053002328,0.00001270996,0.0022851909,0.00008366141,0.00001136336,0.0000023166972,0.000005598897,0.001869676],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99936485,0.00007154505,0.00013739262,0.00009699815,0.00020235531,0.00012685226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99931043,0.000047402675,0.00014487836,0.0003508349,0.000061732855,0.00008474578],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005635837,0.00004219382,0.00013880701,0.000014061891,0.0040270416,0.00037262728,0.0004037451,0.0000219705,0.00021259372],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001793187,0.000040751733,0.00003966641,0.00004925374,0.00077579834,0.00031047736,0.000048416405,0.00006225563,0.0000028522988],"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":[1.8610208e-7,0.0000021935364,0.00027674987,0.00016352403,0.000008484659,7.279396e-7,0.0002574337,3.1381695e-8,0.0000033721185,0.93734485,0.06158071,0.00036173052],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029689962,0.0000016391267,0.0027183152,0.000280008,0.000040520063,0.0000010166415,0.00020996452,1.8585968e-7,4.0787992e-7,0.011181177,0.9854848,0.00005231385],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9955213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99993896,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9403254,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005217895,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0009235129,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9972696},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06652187,0.16187401,0.000055812012,0.15649082,0.0012313084,0.0026223923,0.000117488155,0.00021724208,0.61086905],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95511055,0.016781809,0.000048430495,0.0129436385,0.00044306467,0.00007414334,0.0000024437852,0.000012984661,0.014582924],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989308,0.00015438042,0.00017979911,0.00021184848,0.0003101426,0.00021299795],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994418,0.0001221834,0.00005530308,0.0001927596,0.00010348682,0.000084488776],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00076030474,0.000110037356,0.00017941627,0.000008313177,0.0005042854,0.000091417634,0.00019804179,0.000051841165,0.0014274056],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000023815324,0.000051731913,0.000050284045,0.000025885214,0.0007044573,0.0002749447,0.000057077134,0.000079271784,0.00015153959],"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":[0.000003618241,0.0000065053528,0.00003071345,0.00008993078,0.000013068171,0.0000030858287,0.00020553877,7.566182e-10,0.0000063679686,0.9964276,0.0022610624,0.00095250085],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009288348,0.000011826461,0.00019399906,0.0009060833,0.000030870717,0.0000043148575,0.000003349352,2.0933894e-7,0.0000071199806,0.09781339,0.90084136,0.000094587886],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00054087443,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0058071027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8986142,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025617666,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000029092205,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99948543},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00008184135,0.011212432,0.00008894541,0.06312058,0.00073100236,0.0020234273,0.00005421354,0.0001122156,0.92257535],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9356458,0.04419612,0.0010533722,0.010347401,0.00089435483,0.0009518103,0.000017695977,0.0000166321,0.006876795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986096,0.00014749501,0.00021443087,0.00022783584,0.0005070772,0.00029355413],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99902946,0.000088088265,0.00015883958,0.0003513492,0.00024473344,0.00012751354],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005936965,0.00013466034,0.0002786304,0.0000069595626,0.0047733076,0.00009350218,0.00046589412,0.00006664132,0.0004200504],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009434767,0.000106490406,0.000095568445,0.00006354494,0.0014349994,0.0002030956,0.000079121804,0.00019929813,0.00006554304],"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":[0.0000013023966,0.000018437433,0.00012365707,0.00011369444,0.000025906387,0.000007005028,0.00010492577,3.9731728e-7,0.00003446877,0.9291252,0.0699073,0.00053772057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005542832,0.000010537187,0.000448787,0.001254634,0.000030348285,0.0000020517027,0.000059605674,1.195766e-7,0.000051986543,0.00064200273,0.997298,0.00014652585],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7134693,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90994775,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.935564,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00060329615,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00068436976,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99652237},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.036957,0.61730653,0.000013266064,0.33043084,0.0016036299,0.0025795407,0.00043122921,0.000073937525,0.010604035],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7082431,0.26313707,0.000029235342,0.01690955,0.0006278757,0.0001762249,0.000009579953,0.000040065228,0.010827345],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973944,0.00038993527,0.0004101975,0.00035140157,0.00087294175,0.00058112026],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981926,0.00045955798,0.00024400809,0.0006099776,0.0002849382,0.00020891384],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020098044,0.0002330125,0.00048117657,0.0000074534382,0.00084595336,0.000020253761,0.0006557189,0.00008264659,0.00065309205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017342585,0.00011859362,0.00020723301,0.0001072789,0.0014679311,0.00025493905,0.0001830239,0.0001519979,0.000006575777],"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":[0.000014765861,0.000025581518,0.001664711,0.0012723804,0.00009842427,0.0000085945585,0.009342634,9.363596e-8,0.0002979352,0.047792625,0.93005615,0.009426074],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011260676,0.000031644835,0.00058224535,0.0012099233,0.00017930113,0.000006952506,0.0006973373,0.0000010075119,0.000041704123,0.0001794074,0.9967674,0.00019045256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.77225196,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96961236,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.67128605,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0012659683,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010369571,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71509},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009822559,0.11894028,0.00022390156,0.14489838,0.0016251311,0.0017453292,0.00016833049,0.00024472066,0.72233135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9525026,0.022605464,0.000059000417,0.0087268315,0.00061592815,0.000036923946,0.0000017881562,0.000012661732,0.015438785],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986017,0.00025861186,0.00022908972,0.00019023786,0.00035037668,0.00037003003],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993131,0.00011253178,0.000072117145,0.00017951113,0.00014241022,0.00018028404],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00046554618,0.00010382483,0.00027101015,0.0000041088692,0.00038147907,0.00004818396,0.0002261437,0.000050543844,0.0019113406],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035151307,0.000058405254,0.00008923529,0.00008554271,0.0003047533,0.00025781328,0.000031557305,0.000053854183,0.00041950803],"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":[7.638705e-7,0.0000027694703,0.00008939408,0.00008848476,0.000006763241,0.000002332422,0.000081715974,1.2492277e-8,0.000029090279,0.98266715,0.013770911,0.0032606062],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011189338,0.000011039442,0.0003075733,0.0018231756,0.000010766531,0.0000016452583,0.0000070764854,3.4452168e-7,0.000023456465,0.0030385677,0.99454266,0.00012177517],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013356114,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0060529877,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9807718,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011761917,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010456075,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999001},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10648911,0.09605793,0.0003114258,0.3915315,0.0012192866,0.0046440675,0.00009434501,0.00014583157,0.3995065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.914657,0.08344512,0.00012756298,0.0014039596,0.00011458585,0.000055578657,5.718166e-7,0.00000787623,0.00018773042],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990244,0.00018685375,0.00021890755,0.00018052713,0.00023072178,0.00015861621],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989795,0.000107567364,0.00026083481,0.00046995873,0.000120377794,0.00006177801],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011821297,0.00008631877,0.0001884056,0.0000069540683,0.0012751172,0.0001008471,0.00041285777,0.000037597703,0.00019728423],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033268178,0.00006140674,0.00005207019,0.00007598166,0.0008720931,0.00030511298,0.000099037396,0.00010102982,0.000007746983],"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":[0.0000251542,0.00007677733,0.01852538,0.0013766554,0.00008036078,9.691787e-7,0.005516144,5.1490406e-7,0.00059142784,0.850079,0.0049088146,0.1188188],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061127546,0.000020849837,0.0063554575,0.0017545816,0.00007617026,0.0000033748663,0.00039115982,0.0000012393806,0.00012754885,0.0044817403,0.98663485,0.00009187816],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011949305,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016088959,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98172605,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000054497392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006935035,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9946302},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007594189,0.72401553,0.00010541254,0.06457222,0.00033786113,0.0012239317,0.000008736569,0.0000359439,0.20894097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6733408,0.31674722,0.000014070202,0.008989389,0.00046656543,0.000035772686,3.0794757e-7,0.00001257929,0.00039326385],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981567,0.00047710733,0.00042161302,0.00020413368,0.000463536,0.00027689838],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99887305,0.00029055437,0.00022102491,0.00030821477,0.00023367847,0.00007345296],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028452158,0.00013153059,0.00040567786,0.0000075731264,0.00072866114,0.000067546636,0.0004269822,0.000049777685,0.00023673223],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019071813,0.000053391308,0.00011149493,0.00018172675,0.001023805,0.00027538455,0.00007668713,0.00009877023,0.000050528222],"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":[0.0000030946949,0.000011478696,0.000032898428,0.0014432011,0.000025577196,8.746105e-7,0.0005965421,2.0021485e-8,0.00008627434,0.97805566,0.0045473385,0.015197023],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008298133,0.000026089596,0.00011430843,0.010372499,0.00015796663,0.0000028015052,0.00017629834,7.1951355e-8,0.000057373032,0.004599152,0.9843047,0.00010570329],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0076980623,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0068363785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9797574,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029751247,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018020596,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989098},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024622934,0.41008878,0.00006739003,0.30258164,0.0014587226,0.0027062246,0.00015248971,0.0002862379,0.25803557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47458926,0.47225684,0.00007877234,0.015642542,0.00055258156,0.00014255541,0.0000073187816,0.0000323129,0.03669782],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988458,0.00024057593,0.00020297547,0.00022192641,0.00024378012,0.00024489823],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99935627,0.000055913548,0.00007391299,0.00019917967,0.0000934103,0.00022131216],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007218072,0.000087953136,0.00023459172,0.000038761795,0.0008266966,0.00008816297,0.00015940616,0.000051405288,0.0019688],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010032594,0.00007590735,0.00008033619,0.000117035954,0.0007432291,0.00025180136,0.00002859837,0.000063275365,0.00013164445],"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":[0.000005105129,0.000036098747,0.00029061697,0.000827459,0.000046588724,0.000014963147,0.013989252,2.5510984e-8,0.000116503856,0.71700615,0.23703799,0.030629272],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009397256,0.0000133256335,0.00027851027,0.0009182155,0.000030222092,8.7129933e-7,0.00031469227,3.117088e-8,0.0000054245015,0.0012421155,0.99698085,0.00012175407],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75879204,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9877181,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7599429,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00049595424,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047408673,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989435},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07453012,0.09333163,0.0008276541,0.056059398,0.0029462571,0.0033812667,0.00012400543,0.00019141154,0.7686083],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98911965,0.007164024,0.000044808385,0.0029415076,0.00051110977,0.000021623682,0.000024947372,0.000010228633,0.00016210052],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990838,0.00002369421,0.00033936175,0.000178582,0.00024848385,0.00012605231],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987967,0.000082733844,0.00036812696,0.0004973451,0.00024435166,0.000010718776],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011501568,0.000106692045,0.00029185257,0.000013590432,0.00029731597,0.00017545074,0.00038856582,0.00003226544,0.00033782166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006871626,0.00007133667,0.00008693829,0.000030202538,0.0009123799,0.00074033573,0.00017363222,0.00007738719,0.00003175822],"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":[0.000023205823,0.000035145928,0.0062697036,0.0036441393,0.00003400713,8.42921e-7,0.000013317051,2.714895e-7,0.000029665065,0.9808438,0.008158992,0.0009469229],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011166717,0.000009515443,0.008156532,0.0021481114,0.00025674127,0.0000015921555,0.000022087423,0.00070363365,0.0001010684,0.041694153,0.9456068,0.0001830718],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0007182327,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00013923434,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9391496,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000013378935,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000016548454,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36989102},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04020672,0.0839955,0.00035626968,0.81568205,0.000721163,0.005955201,0.00023857807,0.000042113166,0.05280243],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98196554,0.011852345,0.00007875858,0.005227937,0.00008850881,0.00007736852,9.989327e-7,0.0000066299863,0.0007019031],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99836266,0.0004045957,0.00029790538,0.00017161659,0.0004835397,0.00027966595],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990834,0.00033456337,0.000104249106,0.0002550312,0.00014867302,0.00007405926],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014062831,0.00009080194,0.00021606631,0.000008864798,0.0002422767,0.000014496871,0.0004753533,0.00002510142,0.0001541609],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012826279,0.000042598145,0.000060301772,0.00018490251,0.00020823444,0.00012398612,0.00006727856,0.00007544608,0.000039890867],"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":[0.00011564247,0.000093179005,0.0015806054,0.0017675002,0.00006664516,0.000025755342,0.0054989294,0.000003014462,0.0014639767,0.4747462,0.27147734,0.24316123],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006696827,0.000026202211,0.0012853058,0.0040967464,0.000039332583,0.0000015332303,0.00040469057,0.0000010271458,0.00016044546,0.00017213037,0.99365264,0.00009300314],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90835637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99141866,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9417588,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00036964475,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00092438236,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18634209},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00029129878,0.6682197,0.00017337482,0.046732415,0.0007747751,0.000653884,0.00013275142,0.00017318502,0.28284863],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.48686907,0.5043788,0.00010678945,0.0073769507,0.00067231857,0.00006272668,0.000009736037,0.0000048315123,0.00051880773],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998491,0.00022221029,0.00025977593,0.00024173768,0.00048563545,0.0002996578],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991313,0.00018382247,0.00007446634,0.00017554055,0.0002635244,0.00017131964],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007455974,0.00012882303,0.00029518246,0.00000998554,0.00087486376,0.000026345708,0.00024089932,0.000049126353,0.0026882119],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00040886557,0.000082967825,0.00012353291,0.00015799842,0.0028100887,0.00041239872,0.00005416975,0.00005211868,0.0007752027],"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":[0.0000024085075,0.000032465374,0.0003274751,0.00006526555,0.000018494471,0.000013813053,0.000023305467,2.8997649e-8,0.000008259849,0.9770721,0.013867879,0.0085685],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009935657,0.000021529942,0.00016440173,0.0021879168,0.000052654912,0.000012806258,0.000023229988,3.9196085e-8,0.0000042846073,0.020983098,0.9762955,0.00015519853],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0038979317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0074315392,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9624276,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010476879,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00036082798,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999037},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024534153,0.19512871,0.0000019635754,0.060671337,0.00097641535,0.004574745,0.000040579085,0.00031777367,0.7137543],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9037064,0.0760401,0.00028253175,0.015086582,0.00024134754,0.00009554298,0.000029115108,0.000026324458,0.004492065],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975448,0.00044710294,0.00044717197,0.0003762603,0.0005987071,0.00058595015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990975,0.00015878327,0.00012733876,0.00027156796,0.00019399803,0.00015080134],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012234175,0.00021878541,0.0006322341,0.000013289229,0.00031991277,0.00006332529,0.00048178824,0.00010984784,0.0026684175],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018720287,0.00017288767,0.00018301733,0.00023462946,0.00027506283,0.0003375921,0.00014236881,0.00024381452,0.0027260575],"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":[0.000007361498,0.00012217906,0.0041315258,0.0021111576,0.00007699525,0.000013061991,0.0039161667,0.000003072046,0.00017634904,0.9597717,0.027971221,0.0016991902],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022711296,0.000017651635,0.0023952723,0.0011222133,0.00003648625,6.9190645e-7,0.00022564552,0.000007396736,0.0000071100117,0.00042378006,0.99528337,0.00025327443],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01663441,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036251158,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96731216,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030715571,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000048935304,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9982433},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.24832375,0.0038533055,0.000012507084,0.719349,0.0016987628,0.0029078638,0.00047899273,0.000085624204,0.023290135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9656867,0.00072996476,0.0000148936015,0.03231781,0.00046945765,0.0001237231,0.000011187184,0.000011591834,0.00063466554],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99569434,0.0013188707,0.00046329907,0.00055906794,0.001334832,0.00062960247],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99788433,0.0007641767,0.00017971382,0.0006700807,0.00026106832,0.00024060287],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016321378,0.00032265869,0.00047909346,0.0000051429724,0.0024884855,0.00009088428,0.0006774141,0.000064951164,0.00035379597],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00081430515,0.00014720153,0.00012866978,0.0001592849,0.0012274832,0.00012549027,0.000064845546,0.00023617833,0.00003998923],"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":[0.00009615755,0.0003257604,0.0029677593,0.00045195152,0.00025302384,0.00002367958,0.0038356679,0.000022996166,0.00035386,0.6611653,0.30227038,0.028233489],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014981223,0.00004765224,0.011614259,0.001499629,0.00003953964,0.0000010932549,0.00023200801,0.0000044377143,0.000073035975,0.000081747596,0.9859432,0.00031358542],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9627125,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99693364,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.71736294,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0026808486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013969563,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988101},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19800064,0.040612042,0.0005594635,0.16075306,0.004886064,0.0049896454,0.00001686661,0.00008854046,0.5900937],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9808539,0.016301109,0.00003526576,0.0009422257,0.00017841249,0.00008917746,8.71025e-7,0.0000048836346,0.0015941547],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990442,0.0001884074,0.00020712793,0.00013086521,0.00027743215,0.00015200958],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991013,0.000040113504,0.00013623976,0.00057754235,0.00010759549,0.00003721041],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013114846,0.000060832237,0.0001624079,0.000013540101,0.0012076867,0.000089037334,0.0005320844,0.000028805322,0.000035278736],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000243758,0.000034109205,0.00012939755,0.00019354846,0.0001586789,0.000094372066,0.00007465562,0.00008474093,0.000012114221],"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":[0.000043036845,0.0006700207,0.0090092495,0.002463593,0.00017175476,0.0000023809253,0.01999477,0.00004782239,0.00024675234,0.512827,0.05548275,0.3990409],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004506688,0.0000104206965,0.0022188853,0.00056560145,0.00016429868,5.6887507e-7,0.0044668107,0.000019570718,0.000015759224,0.00010056022,0.99232954,0.000062927415],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019519316,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13524108,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9368468,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006404253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000050765164,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98700976},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11770569,0.057054155,0.00008902111,0.41882998,0.012178355,0.010167988,0.00016307928,0.0007311495,0.38308057],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6479334,0.19603541,0.0008229903,0.14440016,0.0020830284,0.00045241183,0.000096279546,0.00008679363,0.008089468],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9965445,0.0008462235,0.00084505667,0.000555161,0.000449073,0.00076002325],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963501,0.0005308536,0.00036731694,0.0016786172,0.0004886021,0.00058451726],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022690883,0.000291012,0.0007641701,0.000049553222,0.010718097,0.000026720747,0.0003293783,0.0004495686,0.0010756241],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0022208062,0.00022670199,0.0001854526,0.00011333837,0.00034991666,0.00033465255,0.0002809093,0.0019866712,0.0005628909],"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":[0.000033489938,0.00021209642,0.0028639645,0.0023896222,0.00007470354,0.00004591698,0.0039289007,1.0253929e-7,0.0005781164,0.12995978,0.85534275,0.004570547],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006659805,0.00020134878,0.010822809,0.009439793,0.00017236407,0.000016016667,0.00052528933,0.0000047113467,0.0000026994617,0.0007852291,0.97713494,0.00022879965],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001146972,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0067492626,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5302278,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001464469,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005703441,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998375},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18918218,0.49246064,0.00003391534,0.016267259,0.0010153909,0.0014964032,0.000008264991,0.00015318564,0.29938278],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.72769386,0.26614276,0.000030631723,0.0025128408,0.000102303755,0.000018874764,0.0000032389228,0.0000064096607,0.003489074],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991335,0.00010631054,0.0001530639,0.00017823439,0.00025058503,0.00017825505],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99952316,0.000058044094,0.00004951345,0.00015444595,0.000119863165,0.00009499167],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005273833,0.00007537802,0.00021064053,0.000019637686,0.00022467475,0.0000483425,0.00012638218,0.000034151868,0.0014872889],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006646845,0.00006646717,0.00008356702,0.0002249838,0.000042418273,0.00015379288,0.000026959258,0.00007306619,0.0006461561],"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":[0.000010740462,0.00018537056,0.0014578258,0.005297421,0.00017218116,0.000013821101,0.0050015314,0.000004068505,0.00025801145,0.75703096,0.016851554,0.2137165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004607656,0.00002273271,0.000039232113,0.000813562,0.0003156356,0.0000018055554,0.0027963992,0.000016950542,0.00001615751,0.00007976171,0.99574643,0.00010527785],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016340106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0043713264,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9788948,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000036931277,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000048703434,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994255},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.32350567,0.10931498,0.00018355386,0.1344632,0.0016408731,0.010616299,0.000114560105,0.0000900574,0.42007083],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9780378,0.01909117,0.000010954373,0.0023776537,0.000065618064,0.000045694862,0.000003001416,0.0000045704837,0.00036354933],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989496,0.00029731006,0.00030242922,0.00010594747,0.00022965907,0.000115094124],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999094,0.0002783253,0.00016532722,0.00032072488,0.0001219596,0.000019678928],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016573613,0.000060683884,0.00018785406,0.000007817693,0.00010713926,0.000017602273,0.00042257714,0.000032754266,0.0002010905],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006893137,0.000032785447,0.00008188644,0.00022794332,0.00016724542,0.000083064784,0.000031463824,0.00012537577,0.00004074055],"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":[0.0000038895064,0.0000844661,0.0003627344,0.00065815,0.000013336226,1.4672051e-7,0.003745011,0.0000016282548,0.00011364375,0.9846403,0.0078403605,0.0025363518],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007536,0.000024260571,0.00045330258,0.00067545875,0.00006470062,4.8575356e-7,0.0014955415,0.000006715567,0.00003610754,0.00057523674,0.9965492,0.000043651886],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0057663927,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.016723275,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9887088,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000035291705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006989153,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93319803},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.45680386,0.25592792,0.000078155645,0.02039991,0.0018241032,0.0055327965,0.001084374,0.00012862164,0.25822026],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9885038,0.009444161,0.0000828296,0.0014397843,0.00021641976,0.00002241982,0.000052336036,0.000011330902,0.00022691618],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99806404,0.00051032734,0.00042264335,0.0002767595,0.00047822803,0.00024798128],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990125,0.0002527393,0.0002005362,0.00034032177,0.00012080208,0.000073113384],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001397539,0.00013172474,0.00032111458,0.000015795857,0.000386562,0.000043651762,0.00040990463,0.00004661894,0.0006037878],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001244319,0.000097040574,0.000041837782,0.00020515732,0.00023519305,0.00034666815,0.00004191089,0.00019152882,0.000021822429],"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":[0.000052589898,0.00018005575,0.037708104,0.00566908,0.00013344034,0.00005986814,0.004069807,0.000007281555,0.0008665594,0.7303603,0.21703641,0.003856469],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017427924,0.000033891018,0.025963992,0.003459768,0.00007673408,0.0000014658866,0.00040417086,0.000002920221,0.000059563776,0.0017570055,0.96789414,0.00017209999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6801429,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8607934,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7508577,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008730311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020018884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6611053},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00026388268,0.018479751,0.0000010294448,0.09000709,0.0015972428,0.00044079003,0.000038642993,0.000006734613,0.88916487],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.789105,0.15277517,0.0000140889515,0.016005926,0.0048652394,0.00007241755,0.000007789028,0.000020506912,0.03713389],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988864,0.00018976907,0.00020154253,0.00009712113,0.00042570278,0.0001994523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989363,0.00011933744,0.00020313347,0.0005437898,0.00011240086,0.00008504894],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013634908,0.00006095284,0.0001744372,0.000012528337,0.006152958,0.0002329664,0.00059939356,0.000030070747,0.00067549874],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007394393,0.000043523596,0.00009284304,0.00004409557,0.0022382098,0.00008202563,0.000036708178,0.00013605038,0.000054104254],"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":[8.2639707e-7,0.000002936048,0.000006891311,0.00003597372,0.0000053276744,0.0000016779422,0.00009277098,5.5351936e-8,6.07503e-7,0.5994515,0.39885068,0.001550739],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000359575,0.000005607941,0.00038266016,0.0005214546,0.000024079867,5.0251066e-7,0.000079778976,2.607596e-7,0.0000034476557,0.0011845352,0.9977053,0.000056437802],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97929084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99978703,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.85203093,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004918431,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022779861,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9951409},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0012340373,0.2091555,0.0000910975,0.14463845,0.0008730773,0.0010605572,0.000015962069,0.000017170063,0.6429141],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9223776,0.07517231,0.000011748329,0.0015593484,0.000107610605,0.000026930891,3.9034003e-7,0.0000011198463,0.0007429782],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99922794,0.00016325199,0.000170786,0.00009098156,0.00024227981,0.00010476575],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993837,0.00007579636,0.00014909878,0.00022114457,0.00014721617,0.000023082184],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012122999,0.00005595636,0.00019800788,0.0000027233023,0.0028029203,0.00008594865,0.00029865064,0.000025529058,0.000050697403],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005035242,0.00002893598,0.00009301794,0.000048488804,0.003407106,0.00030208024,0.00004468953,0.000063368476,0.000005545887],"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":[0.0000044655235,0.00000469365,0.0005638366,0.00006357707,0.000016395345,1.2258872e-7,0.00022102312,9.7886804e-8,0.0000035036853,0.9968228,0.00093939493,0.0013601215],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024097615,0.0000035184469,0.0009173902,0.00086856016,0.00009690831,0.0000012212552,0.00008722326,7.926453e-7,0.000009351246,0.037797213,0.95992994,0.00004688336],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019653479,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.019737842,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95902556,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000036590565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017642867,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99930507},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.7305519,0.061402563,0.0017806788,0.018847289,0.0020117776,0.007441217,0.00037657126,0.00026362055,0.17732441],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9568144,0.0357937,0.0002440962,0.0045479406,0.0003652874,0.000043542164,0.000088217894,0.0000148193985,0.0020880091],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99841785,0.0002712119,0.0003960692,0.00019419042,0.00045643674,0.00026425708],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99911356,0.00010946754,0.0001905104,0.0003064528,0.00014038927,0.00013959917],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00095785654,0.00010061506,0.0002852031,0.000010982816,0.00035527427,0.00029714272,0.0001953465,0.00012040484,0.00024317166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007623486,0.00008866176,0.00005998076,0.0000646508,0.0020406058,0.00072343263,0.000045987155,0.00013510727,0.00003082204],"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":[0.0000054271627,0.00003062175,0.0018832847,0.0005664335,0.000012686507,6.489851e-7,0.0003320575,2.102713e-7,0.000043807515,0.96022964,0.035264403,0.0016307633],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004699141,0.00009043806,0.0066843373,0.002217801,0.00005940712,0.000007539285,0.00016087136,0.000023819945,0.000027815542,0.011512284,0.97854114,0.000204645],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0052226367,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0060098153,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94871736,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000044674773,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000095323754,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78950995},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008729127,0.3740868,0.000006366402,0.0061537186,0.00059301255,0.0005731067,0.000007591413,0.000059151844,0.6097911],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78039145,0.21277462,0.000088621724,0.004347985,0.00041274418,0.000023768052,0.0000046014716,0.000007993752,0.0019482247],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991419,0.00008289271,0.0001557021,0.00017413362,0.00023138552,0.00021402433],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996201,0.000050508326,0.0000495899,0.000093662944,0.000111756264,0.000074378026],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00055780844,0.000086268185,0.00023925774,0.0000095216155,0.00045661465,0.00003582362,0.000114064875,0.0000329556,0.0005060551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000112241614,0.0000714534,0.00005218812,0.00011869479,0.00028078607,0.0001329658,0.00006878762,0.00007453214,0.00066413527],"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":[0.0000029179512,0.000023200164,0.024290148,0.000521269,0.000041432842,0.0000034240816,0.00041129286,1.6363293e-7,0.000023327666,0.9551632,0.01138145,0.008138178],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008903233,0.000011356728,0.0005292005,0.0014596327,0.000036628444,0.0000011029792,0.000078231256,7.451784e-7,0.0000024580338,0.0032359613,0.9944517,0.00010394929],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0037061435,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004926474,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98307025,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003767118,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007716815,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8536337},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.060886603,0.62184787,0.000017828708,0.066295244,0.0011047911,0.0038351198,0.000017001477,0.00009947995,0.24589609],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83668524,0.16015096,0.00009434685,0.0017940965,0.000073110714,0.000015448304,0.0000018760337,0.0000068243003,0.0011780732],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99856293,0.00037521028,0.00025912572,0.00017287034,0.00042163598,0.00020822547],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990592,0.0004113822,0.0001365267,0.00018722782,0.0001466774,0.000058981248],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015916604,0.0001084586,0.0004027763,0.000005750134,0.00041489836,0.000027364375,0.00025085703,0.00004757928,0.000333514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00054846134,0.00005873395,0.00012063407,0.00014515087,0.00075593125,0.00013781323,0.000113562885,0.0001179955,0.00010332683],"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":[0.000026262232,0.000046560042,0.0019020666,0.004210614,0.000109466055,9.63306e-7,0.011027543,0.0000018964623,0.000065110224,0.9653104,0.009759981,0.007539171],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005179742,0.000024889621,0.0017122489,0.0019062938,0.00024431673,3.9131763e-7,0.001466684,0.000008688551,0.000009024021,0.00058528286,0.9933822,0.00014200916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033629148,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0007086941,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9836222,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000037831574,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000024023722,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50837433},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03787409,0.076922454,0.000010060208,0.20217068,0.0026127538,0.0038860661,0.000105848114,0.00012559912,0.6762924],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8873972,0.06277537,0.000052620846,0.027996982,0.0003998322,0.00007055457,0.000042951433,0.000032813034,0.021231623],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976435,0.00038342833,0.0003778306,0.00027972687,0.0009546141,0.00036092644],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985442,0.0003254802,0.00022420904,0.00044797835,0.0003405398,0.00011755981],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014056952,0.00016991564,0.0003628582,0.0000024893907,0.000474267,0.000044000688,0.00049194274,0.00009930084,0.002756334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004125309,0.00011134314,0.00019111876,0.0002740424,0.000226798,0.00016619955,0.000043350352,0.00023772965,0.00015477551],"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":[0.000015106499,0.000063541534,0.00015270247,0.0014633044,0.00007196645,0.000005172951,0.0028216953,0.000012523292,0.00006680195,0.60245717,0.39250666,0.00036333987],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012134985,0.00004071709,0.0000701966,0.0026923502,0.00016520602,0.0000021352894,0.0025238506,0.000007839474,0.00008283467,0.0015056301,0.99262166,0.00016620827],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09472661,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2505346,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8495231,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017171868,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00055419607,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9981553},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9529093,0.00324921,0.000025111118,0.00033164077,0.000017282182,0.00076728273,0.000007515314,0.000007983909,0.042684674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.994272,0.0040553967,0.0011379151,0.00019033787,0.000021816672,0.000025611576,0.000004410257,0.000004768917,0.00028772236],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988968,0.0001433876,0.0002493883,0.00021433945,0.00023816276,0.00025796087],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996285,0.000052904445,0.00005418017,0.00013114531,0.000022848073,0.000110459194],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00080315495,0.000088250476,0.00024510355,0.000026610958,0.00012962335,0.000034646426,0.00013113554,0.00003171651,0.000088274115],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001317432,0.00007656844,0.000020773565,0.00013883054,0.00011090939,0.00010417447,0.000080960934,0.00007709198,0.000009170674],"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":[0.000007329956,0.000046072175,0.11281816,0.0018266018,0.000008509207,6.232196e-7,0.0036363485,6.7048575e-7,0.0004123533,0.87841415,0.000013673666,0.0028154745],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006032297,0.00013871177,0.096908234,0.003375433,0.000045316006,0.0000055609203,0.00042229865,0.000042108644,0.00029642443,0.0021868218,0.8955622,0.0004136681],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005265096,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0031978684,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8955485,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003950832,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000054395274,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79592854},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.053556032,0.453598,0.00007192483,0.07371212,0.0015616061,0.0015479161,0.000043659384,0.000034958546,0.4158738],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9405506,0.058336418,0.000021809476,0.0008309091,0.00017471373,0.000010195976,1.6006521e-7,0.0000025836614,0.00007255495],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988451,0.00015200551,0.00024076822,0.00013492002,0.000470842,0.0001563408],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99885654,0.00021152054,0.0003620172,0.00029646535,0.00023904101,0.000034438384],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010650997,0.00008047175,0.0002782384,0.0000050517383,0.002238045,0.000031353928,0.000672654,0.000038649905,0.000043044456],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011456147,0.000046570225,0.00008465599,0.000078492485,0.0029380887,0.0001485534,0.00023299525,0.00011888681,0.0000043177297],"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":[0.000016568822,0.000047945377,0.018589422,0.0016771915,0.00008079577,0.0000012390016,0.0031017296,0.0000026712557,0.0001828771,0.9605842,0.0020580587,0.013657251],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00043833055,0.00005607126,0.12928775,0.013398901,0.0020885346,0.0000055846476,0.0038481145,0.000015574915,0.00026651507,0.013517717,0.8366515,0.0004254256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13953595,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2150383,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94706655,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002362659,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034302784,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99977535},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02945902,0.103920184,0.005802721,0.16739877,0.0017753161,0.02822357,0.000054994212,0.00067019893,0.6626952],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9783122,0.005317883,0.00003748888,0.013155673,0.00020286835,0.0007787734,0.000018274812,0.000028859366,0.0021479714],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985824,0.000075361,0.00037664387,0.00036646702,0.00029405268,0.00030506338],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99928176,0.000041167645,0.00018295353,0.00030363828,0.00016595818,0.000024545803],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005952533,0.00023515859,0.00036258742,0.00008259335,0.00031124975,0.00021607339,0.00021182529,0.00008828714,0.0033311865],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005186562,0.0001542982,0.00013379088,0.0004635185,0.00025809451,0.0006807749,0.00011941383,0.00026711874,0.001873549],"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":[0.000080661994,0.00011946152,0.0031958802,0.0012448493,0.00007588474,0.0000015533049,0.000027269647,0.000008352062,0.00008944963,0.96940637,0.019750407,0.0059998757],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009919126,0.000013258774,0.0008680477,0.0014042828,0.00008187021,0.00001146666,0.00005514316,0.00047967443,0.00001843593,0.0024313992,0.9934286,0.00021590566],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009505462,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014321245,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9736782,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008122054,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006182724,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99890363},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0047655124,0.033072934,0.0016235186,0.4470877,0.0027218275,0.0057404274,0.0010980628,0.00022482447,0.50366515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9860629,0.0011809433,0.00008689975,0.0122956205,0.00022575133,0.000076743694,0.0000036698455,0.00000459134,0.00006288955],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975782,0.00012298535,0.0005239725,0.00033772245,0.00087646546,0.0005606299],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991337,0.000102824415,0.000116595256,0.00019198988,0.00016373234,0.0002911693],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075286144,0.00018915524,0.00042730104,0.00002375933,0.00046889097,0.000024511006,0.00035359853,0.00003696782,0.00091761147],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017700555,0.00013179987,0.00008950095,0.00025940704,0.0005703818,0.00009812352,0.00010451701,0.00008898134,0.00008817905],"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":[0.000007896893,0.00001295356,0.0016783172,0.000082708415,0.000030302033,0.000014407141,0.000052574687,3.3370458e-7,0.000005605433,0.9637797,0.026026176,0.008309017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00041084673,0.00003973073,0.00059656746,0.0059419055,0.000033700242,0.0000042596266,0.00033956236,3.822992e-7,0.000033596472,0.0012767257,0.99106216,0.00026058542],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92005384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9839014,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9812974,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0055775517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0043053906,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999957},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03092155,0.07952311,0.00002915287,0.031100595,0.00039777148,0.0013555433,0.0000782084,0.00016382408,0.85643023],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8846703,0.07565785,0.000035474648,0.0070132855,0.00020596023,0.000091177084,0.000033513432,0.00002534225,0.03226705],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987009,0.00019783281,0.00024665066,0.00025981767,0.00030794818,0.00028682742],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989907,0.00019311284,0.00010654373,0.00050107995,0.00008574348,0.0001228242],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004624488,0.00014999617,0.0002941498,0.000021250173,0.00041941646,0.00010479612,0.00030183952,0.00006472457,0.0008483181],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000039591538,0.000128157,0.00008902382,0.000111700174,0.000271006,0.00026240209,0.00009639035,0.00013030863,0.00030168632],"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":[0.0000023523626,0.000029587793,0.00024898484,0.00025342937,0.000019514151,5.3377033e-7,0.0006700578,4.164102e-7,0.000043402786,0.98328704,0.010873424,0.004571281],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010165102,0.000027402712,0.00043641144,0.00086314726,0.000031157837,8.5833204e-7,0.000129304,0.000003984646,0.000019869194,0.0016310415,0.99658287,0.00017228266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012203122,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008758291,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9857095,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055837998,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000089785055,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9943747},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00066511595,0.17104591,0.00041156737,0.25272012,0.0009536975,0.0014953794,0.000023583156,0.00006345244,0.57262117],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69908607,0.2918453,0.00007758471,0.0074924235,0.00038398395,0.00011791831,5.492319e-7,0.000006788125,0.0009893962],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989456,0.00015351598,0.00023109652,0.00010843477,0.00036504987,0.00019628833],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99891055,0.0005261038,0.00008511447,0.00014804043,0.00025870817,0.000071513634],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009583752,0.00006587888,0.00019126595,0.0000071828695,0.0007034309,0.000029063933,0.0004541233,0.000019826439,0.00012608364],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0014530321,0.0000319775,0.00006698938,0.00021722252,0.00049842766,0.0001508111,0.00008421778,0.000029771121,0.00018719722],"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":[0.000002495627,0.000010520101,0.000091303875,0.00017844238,0.000017132614,4.656253e-7,0.00009587228,7.4117146e-8,0.00001877691,0.95904785,0.019488946,0.021048129],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000038398117,0.000011370169,0.00029277825,0.0023961125,0.00009137548,2.79273e-7,0.00005175607,4.248217e-8,0.000018567205,0.012906744,0.9841318,0.000060752725],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010724642,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005749742,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9646429,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000036929716,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013777468,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5410293},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.001447397,0.26480314,0.00011879036,0.6345976,0.0001427213,0.0011776366,0.00001823532,0.000038650564,0.097655855],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8111565,0.16643132,0.000014423614,0.022101885,0.00022052944,0.00005496741,0.0000024989142,0.0000024792585,0.000015381554],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987821,0.0003133746,0.00023241088,0.00018908308,0.00030069362,0.00018233],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995219,0.00019071448,0.000053264168,0.00008129224,0.0000770753,0.00007574173],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011239244,0.000111264046,0.00029716615,0.00000688908,0.0009889577,0.000057063506,0.00014136455,0.00004069065,0.00009565971],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018722778,0.00006113136,0.00006331963,0.00022001579,0.0034557185,0.0001343713,0.000044536897,0.00016470745,0.000019349409],"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":[0.000020153828,0.00000986284,0.00013766266,0.00009894396,0.000020167414,0.0000041688377,0.0022161433,0.0000010570392,0.000002129826,0.9924616,0.0035626092,0.0014654531],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00054051034,0.000017306327,0.00038771806,0.0006446449,0.000116599265,0.000007549761,0.0007781486,0.00002378784,0.0000010388576,0.011261825,0.9861057,0.00011518655],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0034286939,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0046650353,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98254305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000022928603,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012133545,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992563},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006117333,0.46630368,0.0050615245,0.3343795,0.0010240605,0.0022791128,0.000018186936,0.00018909096,0.18462753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8101434,0.16771922,0.0050699287,0.01589834,0.0007671693,0.000031197094,0.000002422663,0.000016320915,0.00035198758],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986955,0.0006051742,0.00020055695,0.0001493842,0.00021851272,0.00013086808],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99940944,0.00022125289,0.00008059422,0.00012696291,0.00007335951,0.0000883833],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019570333,0.00006953422,0.00023170935,0.000003957703,0.00024382194,0.000027447502,0.00018143153,0.000030411695,0.00026414444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003879995,0.000048305432,0.000077614284,0.00014912449,0.00028388365,0.0001623225,0.000042188054,0.00011682317,0.000009234387],"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":[0.000031642598,0.000044830456,0.00069880794,0.0056676064,0.00006361973,0.000005689384,0.011886204,0.0000014716709,0.0010426913,0.5773934,0.032228492,0.3709355],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004053789,0.000024427993,0.00011651468,0.0004960399,0.00010166519,0.0000023374178,0.00023353532,0.000012196628,0.00009842809,0.0012908571,0.99751955,0.00006388629],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00248235,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0019517929,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9652911,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001368209,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000047552414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3752587},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05466947,0.09539434,0.0059763007,0.5777196,0.0031521118,0.030328255,0.00041694997,0.0009447486,0.2313982],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9652947,0.009545476,0.00039100228,0.023445137,0.00032130643,0.00047042672,0.000032802247,0.00004893004,0.0004501802],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969473,0.0008003487,0.0004929257,0.0004759091,0.0008832728,0.0004002634],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99865013,0.00027172224,0.00018216454,0.00033385176,0.00018631919,0.00037578307],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013404991,0.00023984928,0.00041641266,0.000031948166,0.00035144767,0.00013132836,0.0005320581,0.00008885723,0.0001494617],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010387684,0.0001763296,0.00005278532,0.0004000181,0.00018017483,0.0002509832,0.00015936799,0.000390292,0.00003741476],"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":[0.0005027964,0.00049471814,0.00048673007,0.006552069,0.00013617883,0.00003119573,0.05153817,0.0012484586,0.0008349658,0.06496807,0.8183434,0.054863237],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025290519,0.00005539152,0.00029853516,0.0017955727,0.000023949606,0.000001507444,0.00069906533,0.0011686039,0.000066438624,0.00013894419,0.99523,0.00026907353],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3547609,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.70487183,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9106253,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018593395,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028578786,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71905124},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006801262,0.032887798,0.0021563407,0.08834046,0.0017047647,0.0036868278,0.000038458093,0.0011597397,0.8632243],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.18000057,0.0013845589,0.0010595002,0.8126063,0.0025206201,0.00030492232,0.00013130179,0.00009571026,0.0018965172],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99822944,0.000027711569,0.00057538,0.00044577647,0.0003646524,0.0003570441],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99903506,0.000030482295,0.00017193083,0.00023971616,0.0004410173,0.000081800805],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002555523,0.00029022555,0.00037762965,0.000054775293,0.00022771886,0.00027911732,0.00038621444,0.000029058278,0.0017549548],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009663638,0.00023733349,0.00012613702,0.00044118642,0.000051613537,0.0010977834,0.00017838652,0.00014079636,0.0067777177],"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":[0.000044556073,0.00020594252,0.00013356059,0.0028356062,0.000098778786,0.00004158754,0.000580788,0.000014472846,0.0030555646,0.4137256,0.5690518,0.010211735],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025735408,0.000024722804,0.0000440544,0.0013425391,0.000023241993,0.0000016285022,0.0000051854345,0.0018651338,0.00034496296,0.0017154564,0.99403876,0.00033694494],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00029964803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00012964051,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8613278,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000051207575,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000027036838,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99915755},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.001631784,0.2454179,0.0000049330893,0.011044824,0.00012994811,0.0008447826,0.000016371312,0.000020316063,0.74088913],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96201396,0.034309305,0.00004991043,0.0016301243,0.000057411857,0.000018476634,0.000014827722,0.000003901626,0.0019021041],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987812,0.0005037041,0.00026562635,0.00015363391,0.00019736035,0.00009848553],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994199,0.00009990641,0.000107955406,0.000177005,0.00015128893,0.00004391709],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00085227547,0.0000718371,0.0002775031,0.0000060871484,0.00019866365,0.000034826568,0.00013420606,0.0000475502,0.00021111754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000074568445,0.000044930337,0.00006192236,0.00012915865,0.00083798135,0.00013100095,0.000021768403,0.000108251574,0.000012755192],"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":[0.000005731391,0.000025303307,0.000026324095,0.0003508221,0.0000076402985,0.0000042847923,0.0066688247,1.3522209e-8,0.00001129078,0.9903256,0.0023965854,0.00017757886],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039979792,0.00001485966,0.00013576192,0.0015291481,0.00004361959,0.0000016715437,0.002010273,9.200041e-7,0.00012691147,0.031630922,0.96401644,0.00008969633],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008292811,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012034027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96161985,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000017576076,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017174368,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67152697},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007343643,0.03375009,0.000008257977,0.90244734,0.00022626374,0.0012734612,0.00063634274,0.000025236612,0.060898658],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7891976,0.05083994,0.00002393093,0.15184201,0.00079713634,0.00010553738,0.000030435447,0.000022970948,0.007140419],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979332,0.0005290083,0.00041616565,0.00023530304,0.00046790086,0.00041841774],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99870646,0.00016768422,0.00013811403,0.00033651464,0.00028832292,0.00036291918],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009787056,0.00014824847,0.00029185083,0.000012765273,0.0021022717,0.00024877678,0.0005844781,0.00007754748,0.00022998962],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007351729,0.00009807362,0.00009729083,0.00047291687,0.00050211285,0.00018881829,0.00004407946,0.0001891854,0.00011173409],"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":[0.0000037474947,0.0000019929496,0.0000032498153,0.00007749622,0.00001092671,0.0000011415322,0.0046417485,0.0000025206255,0.0000043146247,0.53471756,0.45970464,0.0008306813],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007142955,0.00002743708,0.00031925974,0.00054499484,0.000022245766,9.4828965e-7,0.00045712956,0.0000074003096,0.000020927564,0.001347976,0.99704367,0.00013659852],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8552599,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9839596,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.78846323,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001736848,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00082678976,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991968},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.053850733,0.07248709,0.0025122869,0.32567716,0.0017114916,0.010383701,0.0016310158,0.00027967332,0.53146684],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98366153,0.009920546,0.000054230786,0.004920761,0.00012747337,0.00003836815,0.0000650815,0.000022566248,0.0011894652],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99526817,0.0013804495,0.0008632233,0.00044192394,0.0015291091,0.00051714375],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99788296,0.00037222446,0.00046520375,0.0003990404,0.0005295514,0.0003510061],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036252192,0.00024203044,0.00072359596,0.000016859127,0.00062861294,0.00009740982,0.00059511303,0.00007757959,0.00077705114],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00052407075,0.00017528477,0.00015443086,0.0003708658,0.0006146749,0.00035404155,0.00036508884,0.00019971999,0.00004005316],"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":[0.000036211415,0.00006732012,0.0007315792,0.0069262427,0.00010963055,0.0000029535547,0.0067917854,0.000002438688,0.00018292166,0.96324456,0.015989061,0.005915303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0013637192,0.00015592675,0.0015234771,0.0065472103,0.00087538693,0.0000053308795,0.0072139716,0.00012515634,0.00047154477,0.0038706576,0.9769301,0.00091753167],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26755413,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84449446,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.960941,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00044635602,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006505976,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8508165},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.99351364,0.0054365164,0.000029370492,0.0002633731,0.00013862083,0.00037258,0.00001844661,0.000002343632,0.00022511792],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97343147,0.026340226,0.00013358603,0.000009366412,0.000036272144,0.000029133826,0.000011545287,0.000002442483,0.0000059446397],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986696,0.00027726745,0.0005017574,0.00011334716,0.00034774622,0.000090261936],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99905986,0.00014856811,0.00033320443,0.00013017695,0.00028902118,0.000039185168],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010941188,0.000054971864,0.00028123282,0.00004995462,0.000053898748,0.000008833502,0.00010370824,0.00003323752,0.000020001537],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017287258,0.000044785866,0.000055907392,0.0005484075,0.00020970654,0.00020452192,0.0000151804825,0.00006661528,3.242302e-7],"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":[0.0005492882,0.002671874,0.6267581,0.006602626,0.00020294783,0.000002921593,0.13713546,0.0001050738,0.0059130243,0.024843909,0.0014794688,0.19373529],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0042911572,0.0023311854,0.13535154,0.017107455,0.0037330065,0.000005215511,0.7810903,0.0017082695,0.008778355,0.008855949,0.035781026,0.00096649316],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02899404,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10825266,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6439549,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000041071802,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020667174,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97747195},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0015179646,0.23529622,0.00095571805,0.18294448,0.003930524,0.008816904,0.000039051236,0.00050968886,0.56598943],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8443415,0.0859958,0.0011707365,0.05286167,0.0038211758,0.0008331543,0.000025862366,0.00008282317,0.010867255],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978391,0.0006246849,0.00032948417,0.00029563112,0.00047662217,0.00043446536],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99890727,0.0004371069,0.00016438084,0.00025018922,0.00011906453,0.00012198898],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020556583,0.00018600312,0.0003747272,0.0000066172684,0.0017285292,0.000121040306,0.00026939085,0.00008826727,0.00026249012],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006743294,0.00011602571,0.0002609584,0.00022359374,0.0002685042,0.00020397897,0.000027024074,0.00017996388,0.000081878025],"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":[0.0000042997735,0.000021729153,0.000026101634,0.00027280356,0.000044442007,4.0079962e-7,0.0020297058,0.000001941398,0.000004766176,0.9651103,0.029461874,0.0030216568],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017184163,0.000035405807,0.0000542977,0.00079436105,0.00010385034,0.0000012056964,0.00035009976,0.0000012806441,0.000016995584,0.007029419,0.9912659,0.00017532251],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016182685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02263073,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96180403,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00023262072,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000082550956,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995711},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.21543518,0.3959264,0.00018332867,0.06754162,0.0017369189,0.0061103986,0.00003604942,0.00039390876,0.31263623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94663316,0.050860275,0.00013085731,0.0010853169,0.00016025476,0.00006460934,0.0000021646667,0.0000062829035,0.0010570709],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986571,0.00023751089,0.00031024468,0.00015145978,0.00042143202,0.00022226971],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992381,0.0001428705,0.0001436285,0.00020153083,0.00021965255,0.000054246124],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006714153,0.00010509414,0.0002916293,0.0000065478944,0.0006928848,0.000015749736,0.0003534463,0.000035673074,0.00032423533],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030228533,0.00006320723,0.00015286436,0.000169016,0.0005391979,0.0001946578,0.000084290696,0.000110629226,0.000103674894],"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":[0.000026657615,0.00025653362,0.02151189,0.004283044,0.0005977659,0.000022374534,0.14760606,0.000013538821,0.00035275685,0.7535494,0.048752483,0.02302752],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000070911556,0.000013144702,0.0026757838,0.0009226462,0.000049468632,0.0000017253257,0.00038769603,0.00000615707,0.000040003513,0.00013036127,0.995595,0.00010713938],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0018406368,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0011907167,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9468425,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007996559,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004245923,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.532918},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009198165,0.38430965,0.027727444,0.2941075,0.005369443,0.04308666,0.00033804856,0.0007190184,0.23514406],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5844959,0.2657003,0.09688737,0.03960056,0.0022255024,0.0039542145,0.00012443685,0.000060660754,0.0069510327],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99813086,0.00072686304,0.00028168148,0.00025772082,0.000351596,0.00025125564],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986803,0.00030658089,0.00012092911,0.00018205678,0.00058266445,0.00012748226],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030644746,0.00013248387,0.00021580412,0.000007128175,0.0018853351,0.000092529786,0.0002732468,0.00007107249,0.00006507489],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011252448,0.000069629736,0.00006613025,0.00013264258,0.00074466865,0.00028935669,0.00005060674,0.00011077772,0.000034268225],"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":[0.000019586256,0.000028079556,0.000100839505,0.00011676383,0.000023738534,2.1293978e-7,0.0027299009,2.9799207e-7,0.00002731453,0.9588702,0.006266731,0.031816363],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009272639,0.00008242025,0.0005356189,0.0004101948,0.00009484585,0.0000016430499,0.00070611085,0.00000635726,0.00002320033,0.005965738,0.99194634,0.00013479995],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0088565685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.011827681,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9856796,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000104807004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001995931,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994141},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.062114738,0.65730363,0.00012579992,0.26121497,0.00056616886,0.004807681,0.00080245757,0.00028429733,0.012780252],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62867033,0.36405593,0.00018979503,0.0050910646,0.0013538457,0.00007721477,0.00004448866,0.00002304441,0.00049425993],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985949,0.0001566069,0.00029900632,0.00038083128,0.00018949859,0.0003791551],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988024,0.000410571,0.00013090225,0.00025126373,0.000133047,0.00027180818],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008855505,0.00018561383,0.00049471884,0.00004395852,0.0011108455,0.00006827535,0.00016914721,0.00020164457,0.000009082415],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00040504267,0.00014577313,0.00007845291,0.000103183855,0.0011188469,0.00033575893,0.00006474247,0.00019562412,0.0000023411815],"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":[0.0000031787874,0.000030658925,0.011643882,0.0009869991,0.000061007493,0.0000022680717,0.003963281,3.533595e-8,0.000041480587,0.9600317,0.014907799,0.008327696],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000210742,0.000033837525,0.028554486,0.0003602671,0.00009336846,0.000010462187,0.000025099745,3.949583e-7,0.0000051269067,0.032575704,0.9379157,0.00021482116],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002795309,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0013034113,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.927456,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029990637,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019081657,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.85438377},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0008482229,0.50828606,0.000007106363,0.2898182,0.00030379026,0.0012522242,0.0000027028223,0.000024268951,0.19945742],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5877755,0.40077087,0.000010962829,0.009678828,0.00031348094,0.00027291683,0.0000010442964,0.00000469209,0.0011716577],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988919,0.00028217907,0.00020594102,0.0001170121,0.00026051098,0.000242448],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993574,0.0003220236,0.000049651,0.0001250428,0.00009825754,0.000047596874],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015792138,0.000080999365,0.0002050138,0.0000055150495,0.0010275114,0.000075367316,0.0002180715,0.000029315383,0.00031519568],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017323167,0.000038588172,0.000060681396,0.00011989591,0.0017309869,0.00017396486,0.00006221816,0.00011365929,0.0003172275],"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":[0.0000023085813,0.0000070188735,0.00033238326,0.000023178087,0.0000117490035,4.064881e-7,0.00030809216,2.3196154e-8,5.648739e-7,0.96432686,0.02874916,0.0062382394],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014656543,0.0000035794435,0.0014635068,0.00031491905,0.00002058414,7.3353857e-7,0.00021605182,0.0000024150559,2.4262238e-7,0.04169262,0.9560767,0.00006209144],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.012756334,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0191538,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9273275,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025687874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005740759,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987441},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0017423744,0.48512617,0.0016676626,0.044947397,0.0008728546,0.0022511627,0.0002049398,0.00019747451,0.46298996],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9034039,0.073074326,0.00045779935,0.013070322,0.00090123585,0.0006881487,0.00008213939,0.00007268282,0.008249458],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99797827,0.000047182304,0.0008705052,0.00050142006,0.00015301224,0.00044961149],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99872285,0.00007633729,0.00039293652,0.0005637461,0.0001386346,0.00010546733],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013932218,0.00029748763,0.000753594,0.000038306607,0.0005419142,0.000074487194,0.0005047939,0.0000708997,0.0017242483],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023496768,0.00021250165,0.0002556059,0.00020760366,0.0002645038,0.00029159334,0.00013461975,0.00021946584,0.0046290164],"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":[0.000009879781,0.00008576936,0.0012152047,0.0014812066,0.0001571704,0.0000024213869,0.00006533151,0.000015404417,0.0000018990847,0.89449024,0.10055529,0.0019201874],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028799608,0.0000634058,0.00022766794,0.000812796,0.00006086117,0.000012180194,0.00001508831,0.0001328554,0.000011634006,0.044455826,0.9536089,0.00031082032],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002318349,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0001399639,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9016615,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015902118,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000068178255,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991883},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007287365,0.0020625696,0.000005242634,0.21951507,0.0047784857,0.00092052127,0.000058824044,0.00007826951,0.76529366],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8296132,0.0013037624,0.0001743909,0.14445399,0.0010052779,0.000053160416,0.00004701301,0.00002417323,0.023325041],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985106,0.00011588391,0.0002494434,0.00020015096,0.0006515898,0.00027236113],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99917144,0.00011064481,0.00009169276,0.00029750404,0.00016941711,0.00015930965],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00061089493,0.00012370573,0.00022112425,0.00001241473,0.000519532,0.000054651064,0.00044831238,0.000053248066,0.0063646254],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000056409077,0.000099478406,0.00008444429,0.00003430263,0.00016576899,0.000080366284,0.000031194984,0.00023439007,0.00032767604],"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":[0.0000014662281,0.000023826671,0.000009493475,0.00004926139,0.000008918354,0.00000624447,0.000038163143,1.5897054e-8,0.000005053637,0.8137619,0.18592747,0.00016818594],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007522204,0.00001728124,0.00006282379,0.00040479592,0.000019262288,0.0000012352883,0.0000037348436,6.390006e-7,0.00005630464,0.008855632,0.990368,0.00013507492],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4764132,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93167156,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8223258,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001403429,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004914704,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9945437},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.059397772,0.54245555,0.000025245301,0.08381083,0.0007037423,0.00066470134,0.00019044703,0.00010548988,0.3126462],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94717795,0.042986106,0.000092388625,0.009252805,0.00039908884,0.000011685706,0.000013208987,0.0000040775863,0.00006269088],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991237,0.000071346476,0.00013966698,0.00016055773,0.00029282912,0.0002119357],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958354,0.00004619695,0.000033965018,0.00009884313,0.00009197787,0.00014545559],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00020348928,0.00008234356,0.00020375353,0.000004731195,0.0006672079,0.00002759014,0.00012990345,0.000026898922,0.00018221523],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000098725424,0.00007068713,0.000027498825,0.00007145616,0.00042480236,0.00012400317,0.000033973578,0.00005862956,0.000016135857],"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":[4.005076e-7,0.0000107991245,0.0008641446,0.00003406111,0.000015289219,0.0000061139517,0.00021567414,2.9950925e-7,0.000001573602,0.99675345,0.0011245748,0.0009736112],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007667953,0.000007916263,0.0014356759,0.0004733318,0.000045034878,6.5485983e-7,0.0002130183,5.8619317e-8,0.000005487483,0.094526425,0.9031033,0.00011242485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9836786,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98669523,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90222704,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020130776,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011257478,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5131691},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.35983273,0.2882259,0.000118701115,0.048333675,0.0042253123,0.0072031324,0.00017160119,0.00012433047,0.29176462],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98571813,0.013015474,0.00004099611,0.00093425467,0.00017192819,0.000028469314,0.0000022417719,0.0000075263883,0.00008100167],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99763227,0.00068900693,0.00048219974,0.00017047409,0.0006320371,0.00039399302],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984914,0.00060037285,0.00021082496,0.00031616696,0.00027271893,0.00010853823],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035320937,0.00010807073,0.00033189522,0.000035446687,0.0007997613,0.00003270583,0.00072203565,0.00006347055,0.000037401715],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00068076054,0.00007509729,0.000110802175,0.00035359722,0.0006932311,0.00015762696,0.000036602712,0.00019282223,0.000025586633],"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":[0.00003817123,0.000039375343,0.00041308807,0.005971566,0.000026308257,0.00012266284,0.0630922,0.000010650614,0.000010275592,0.92192507,0.0038361002,0.004514506],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002392361,0.000113408874,0.0039548352,0.01052807,0.001451,0.000061683866,0.076755,0.000034650715,0.00001035426,0.00024274514,0.90628725,0.0003217575],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2916815,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6265938,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92168236,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017013028,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00064962264,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7130352},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007831066,0.10181062,0.00013989188,0.02600921,0.00037489284,0.00040709003,0.000009015131,0.00006699897,0.8703992],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8992973,0.0904607,0.00013484107,0.008779405,0.00061255804,0.000032264612,0.0000029681012,0.000004489804,0.0006754848],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991571,0.00016671976,0.00013713997,0.00014989039,0.00022436012,0.00016483899],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995572,0.00012901473,0.00004456538,0.00007546831,0.00011170851,0.00008205308],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00063856697,0.00007967502,0.0002040121,0.000006018592,0.00069350435,0.000029789137,0.00009551945,0.000028329696,0.00018938493],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00028009654,0.00006398971,0.00004395481,0.00007728231,0.00068184535,0.00010984244,0.000031084328,0.000058574413,0.000118443815],"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":[0.0000012539997,0.000010057568,0.00008279019,0.00016059839,0.000012295541,7.90701e-7,0.0003839087,1.2817616e-8,0.0000023634364,0.9894039,0.006100584,0.0038414684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049622926,0.000026443131,0.00031748405,0.0006624154,0.00012581135,0.0000011431914,0.00021345897,9.886458e-7,0.0000031473944,0.035653334,0.9628499,0.00009625411],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00072745304,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0010452033,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9567493,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001623739,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005975159,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5333945},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05768222,0.17491701,0.0011073045,0.02537589,0.00059905084,0.0067668012,0.00013792043,0.00021957408,0.73319423],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96630764,0.027666815,0.00008775248,0.0048077065,0.00010525053,0.000068962894,0.000003359531,0.000012672022,0.0009398669],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976395,0.00092720176,0.0003963432,0.0002064515,0.00049700384,0.00033351802],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869233,0.00039547938,0.0002462417,0.0003047217,0.00030185087,0.00005937043],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021694177,0.00013022752,0.00031963454,0.000011691417,0.0017597863,0.000030313575,0.00044053548,0.000043527314,0.00039896742],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008729143,0.000072363306,0.00014065565,0.0005124062,0.0009784773,0.00018004816,0.00007777381,0.00018564792,0.00000517284],"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":[0.0000022325894,0.000026745402,0.00025877255,0.00004616898,0.00006240271,9.646286e-7,0.01663492,0.0000018432239,0.0000424121,0.9813102,0.0013307047,0.0002826266],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00037955435,0.000052187374,0.005235218,0.0020204664,0.00015617376,0.0000031682027,0.014362711,0.00000560053,0.0003088562,0.010767028,0.9664203,0.0002887373],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033398108,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0036436128,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9705432,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011913146,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00033875383,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995398},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0042675994,0.27201596,0.00065117923,0.2906185,0.0031400677,0.0032607808,0.00010211662,0.00005810342,0.4258857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9679582,0.027101357,0.00006497014,0.004193298,0.00035599803,0.000051864157,0.0000017498976,0.0000064717283,0.00026609437],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99803174,0.00028161326,0.00042194859,0.00015521879,0.00079794077,0.00031154446],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99842,0.0005479774,0.00017410467,0.00027083233,0.00049118383,0.00009591508],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023559812,0.00011505372,0.00033669197,0.0000074258114,0.0012264681,0.00001725682,0.0005376047,0.000025834668,0.00006232149],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010836584,0.000065588676,0.00010027003,0.00023518763,0.00051215355,0.000041709594,0.000107808184,0.00009297119,0.000012686527],"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":[0.0000062710697,0.000017196155,0.00009259682,0.00027836807,0.00005541234,5.033568e-7,0.00041625957,0.000022427568,0.000011039483,0.9561301,0.03903652,0.0039333007],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051290583,0.00002520533,0.00016033971,0.00086131366,0.00016032987,4.7754486e-7,0.0006224191,0.0000060882358,0.000032715554,0.0027264138,0.9952667,0.000086712935],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.50467277,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86971664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9636906,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012716187,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007332177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94331247},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12752609,0.06312582,0.0075413445,0.09633084,0.017633274,0.011389311,0.00015585245,0.00092620973,0.6753713],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9579715,0.034368053,0.0010711441,0.0032293817,0.0013087357,0.00013475779,0.000022816435,0.000028755789,0.0018648423],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99744797,0.00073483936,0.0006158258,0.0002533681,0.00070826913,0.00023975449],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99815166,0.00037733605,0.00051457545,0.00044028045,0.00036144804,0.00015472625],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028442866,0.00016926353,0.00042760343,0.000030637355,0.00077015796,0.00013924087,0.00035380866,0.00015639905,0.0005401611],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000750549,0.00008396136,0.0001475621,0.0001791935,0.0011579343,0.00030122598,0.000084496314,0.0003566503,0.000009923973],"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":[0.00005742326,0.000074066986,0.00033380874,0.000730644,0.000021530012,8.7915026e-7,0.002385972,0.0000021108585,0.0058682193,0.97592175,0.010279965,0.004323657],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00070263457,0.000022491731,0.00033510968,0.002881152,0.00008729139,0.000006179817,0.00025770388,0.00005876452,0.00045033265,0.0126380455,0.9823819,0.00017841005],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0033038417,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01780897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9721019,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000021387537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000072990326,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99378234},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004971145,0.38103327,0.000012459376,0.055889435,0.00036488444,0.0005648574,0.000018172605,0.000039939707,0.55710584],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89617324,0.10224231,0.000027518472,0.0009838744,0.0003768334,0.000016121008,0.0000022423012,0.000003161388,0.00017471067],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99898493,0.00012670118,0.0002487499,0.000117906675,0.000330218,0.00019148682],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995256,0.00014504221,0.00008555262,0.00008701305,0.000119540055,0.000037231737],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007729081,0.000075246084,0.0002071799,0.0000060110656,0.001253864,0.000034149503,0.00013541317,0.000031744432,0.000058245212],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012526195,0.000050558596,0.000070513335,0.000106738415,0.0019131824,0.000060369057,0.00004437994,0.00006339104,0.000010637054],"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":[0.0000019489455,0.000009603549,0.0001844266,0.000042095886,0.0000106076095,0.0000013895564,0.0000625051,9.055232e-8,0.00000958919,0.98880243,0.0059790676,0.004896255],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000507958,0.000009331481,0.0016424239,0.00040022863,0.000034582463,0.0000010539633,0.00006509107,1.8936045e-7,0.0000072112643,0.10170257,0.89602363,0.000062890984],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.041140392,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.045841165,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8912021,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025659987,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011968719,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9715697},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0024098514,0.23618162,0.0000054590287,0.009001378,0.0006230618,0.0019147572,0.000011394016,0.00013757133,0.7497149],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6226425,0.32007793,0.0054917224,0.021909403,0.0003600993,0.0005616594,0.000026523903,0.00008315447,0.028846968],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971604,0.00061233935,0.0005494759,0.00037739598,0.00066561764,0.00063476944],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99914473,0.00011286255,0.00012798353,0.00021884452,0.00021775097,0.00017784756],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017579301,0.00024100038,0.00055459444,0.000017311373,0.00072648184,0.000068125315,0.00038783214,0.00011312242,0.002029237],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008074913,0.00019795954,0.00014690268,0.0003807289,0.00046504644,0.0003377426,0.00006928572,0.00021350851,0.0008791283],"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":[0.0000036677222,0.00015683737,0.003588793,0.001006307,0.00010229235,0.00003147468,0.0074811536,0.0000011776503,0.000037840164,0.9013221,0.08243206,0.003836271],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020927562,0.000007824711,0.0006682069,0.0014680488,0.000032694486,0.0000014643176,0.00038094184,2.384654e-7,0.00002511811,0.00049951347,0.9964232,0.0002835177],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0075809746,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02186101,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9139911,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043379836,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014001595,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998988},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003968073,0.09713564,0.00024642932,0.0040110457,0.0009804367,0.0016089332,0.00017910019,0.0001568058,0.89171356],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9907928,0.0067741815,0.000067649096,0.0016472253,0.00039169227,0.00012326788,0.00001328103,0.0000043633095,0.00018553021],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99830127,0.00022325694,0.00035485235,0.00027547326,0.00059489097,0.00025027347],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991155,0.00003447131,0.00011882828,0.00012290974,0.00044623244,0.00016204224],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013932809,0.00013023797,0.00026930874,0.00001679616,0.0006056908,0.00007250223,0.00016942313,0.000098526165,0.001527903],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002208615,0.00011736644,0.00009368266,0.00017692818,0.0014482079,0.00050837244,0.000056625933,0.00015661764,0.000096758275],"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":[0.0000050680287,0.000054145996,0.0010169273,0.00050823996,0.000021735721,0.0000031921456,0.0015168535,8.7955945e-9,0.0000026384569,0.9943121,0.0024171162,0.00014199274],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012430736,0.000013822446,0.001092455,0.0009891682,0.000057478428,0.000008704051,0.00011938403,7.522329e-7,0.0000116549245,0.056892466,0.94049996,0.00018984189],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013472558,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.010206113,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98682475,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000068628215,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004000039,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993848},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.46392983,0.21748753,0.000031958232,0.011476349,0.00019950731,0.0013012772,0.00006119408,0.00009680174,0.30541557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96866447,0.027371166,0.0017012374,0.0018934453,0.0000560107,0.00001296259,0.000008711009,0.0000073418437,0.000284632],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99879694,0.0001538507,0.00044162772,0.00017373472,0.0003248938,0.00010896764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988795,0.00007014083,0.0005462089,0.00007701362,0.00029616774,0.00013095123],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016164489,0.00008188603,0.00024494895,0.000022558519,0.00020909603,0.000029187724,0.00006450992,0.00005193762,0.00022307203],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0016691582,0.000066514294,0.000027282887,0.00008817002,0.00092115084,0.00024943962,0.00005471506,0.000056019384,0.0000018971923],"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":[0.000017028005,0.000044933837,0.018883297,0.0019506441,0.0000416791,0.0000044219737,0.011733372,6.0335196e-8,0.0010004522,0.9506003,0.010931527,0.004792277],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007532848,0.00019534912,0.04144886,0.008169558,0.0001811916,0.000041578725,0.0029482362,0.000026847096,0.0012164041,0.08980132,0.8546597,0.0005576936],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002065638,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0011027638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.860799,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000012174925,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009697085,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33940187},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04465578,0.6200181,0.000017865046,0.17878672,0.0009221451,0.0025827275,0.000029741517,0.00018227936,0.1528046],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89990956,0.08789722,0.00039422215,0.008710337,0.00048519287,0.000083431405,0.000007711997,0.000025639605,0.0024866655],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99770796,0.00052560115,0.00036844902,0.00028699462,0.00057841284,0.0005325993],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989115,0.0002812897,0.00011528442,0.00024420014,0.00021676988,0.00023095691],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023654178,0.00019285044,0.00044234504,0.000010811088,0.0009065989,0.00013472066,0.00034003222,0.00008979086,0.00013710542],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00061353226,0.00012415546,0.000094638766,0.00017177896,0.0010021816,0.00037741766,0.00025370895,0.00022008976,0.00014946685],"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":[0.000003871031,0.000033702876,0.0023543837,0.00039635302,0.000035566514,0.000008580354,0.005360132,0.000002042099,0.000016861379,0.9049053,0.08604157,0.0008416477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021232049,0.000014710575,0.00031255497,0.0006919812,0.000057084664,0.0000028693767,0.0011282676,0.0000054373304,0.000012234889,0.0025424447,0.9948317,0.00018839815],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.039450295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04825537,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9087901,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004785029,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000830763,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9691115},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0012165407,0.06543259,0.00077895063,0.090166256,0.0011810405,0.0011325021,0.000025914871,0.00010310456,0.8399631],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9098192,0.05008774,0.000059521863,0.037555825,0.0010446167,0.00012855687,0.000005829138,0.0000131388215,0.0012856032],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99801034,0.00031300716,0.00025857086,0.00021770825,0.0008773538,0.00032301748],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993954,0.00012341856,0.000090323585,0.00019769637,0.00010110461,0.00009211338],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011724909,0.00014063623,0.0002722945,0.000003955424,0.0013755767,0.00006133185,0.00031849847,0.00004021037,0.00051499874],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013106506,0.000089169,0.00014263044,0.00014065413,0.0007135521,0.000119498356,0.00010576962,0.00011373617,0.00046785097],"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":[0.0000032215291,0.000028487622,0.00010661461,0.000032597884,0.00004464344,6.176289e-7,0.0001057928,0.0000014120566,0.0000032887403,0.97270936,0.021421129,0.0055428403],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010203132,0.000016137843,0.0004040558,0.00044715407,0.000096752425,6.2434395e-7,0.0001339043,0.0000023955558,0.000004847695,0.031447306,0.96721613,0.00012864932],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031535418,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0057497947,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.945795,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015088696,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000089447305,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999245},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.054509785,0.6758438,0.0005559938,0.12316502,0.00095418957,0.00095495227,0.0000047712874,0.00011381729,0.14389773],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95313925,0.043997377,0.0003670454,0.001761906,0.00016750037,0.000031601976,0.0000017814066,0.00000720977,0.0005263133],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99725705,0.0015298054,0.00031347145,0.00022855877,0.00042608645,0.00024502692],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99811345,0.0010964104,0.00014039701,0.00037284003,0.00021992375,0.000056962217],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0054541393,0.00009342336,0.00024674108,0.0000077846325,0.0017404461,0.0000659258,0.00047103697,0.00004932646,0.0002920494],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0015613176,0.000057469708,0.00015475751,0.00031143308,0.00056115363,0.00017026275,0.00010101405,0.00032246704,0.000025707137],"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":[0.000004119083,0.00009106844,0.00079826376,0.0007933079,0.000039005306,0.000020614,0.0065451977,0.0000036256533,0.0019346027,0.91994846,0.009479172,0.060342558],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000054218704,0.000022365788,0.00081823533,0.002555989,0.000106506275,0.00001131299,0.0074793827,0.0000024980384,0.000077523524,0.0012966811,0.9874677,0.00010758065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000709409,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0027414272,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97798854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000038055456,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012878816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99955916},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005763824,0.107308894,5.851896e-7,0.059916012,0.0006395261,0.000628114,0.0001061729,0.000033515746,0.82560337],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5070193,0.4660081,0.000047466896,0.025488324,0.00030095733,0.00009620749,0.000030356667,0.000013730569,0.0009956037],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99891484,0.00020710418,0.00017270968,0.0001491993,0.00023714658,0.00031899824],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99960786,0.000044590764,0.00003973104,0.00017901024,0.000016479935,0.00011230972],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00027041242,0.0000750311,0.00018842224,0.0000067545775,0.00021028408,0.000015136954,0.00012348326,0.000030746764,0.0017942868],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000033115928,0.00007620385,0.00005068725,0.0001991256,0.00006567317,0.00013227593,0.000045730107,0.00010592116,0.00012244254],"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":[9.2679477e-7,0.000040230203,0.0051612346,0.0005876593,0.0000078306,0.000060857725,0.0003319904,4.163676e-7,0.000018758545,0.96997035,0.010068249,0.013751508],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046257595,0.0000022308436,0.0015261323,0.0007477072,0.000014185716,0.0000018502482,0.00012075745,6.0371235e-7,0.00001904748,0.00013360608,0.9972984,0.00008922155],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93811226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99838597,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9872301,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005026339,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00044840868,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991182},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00905389,0.20833738,0.001972072,0.5451952,0.003910382,0.018176278,0.00048667958,0.00051301793,0.21235509],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97707826,0.009022972,0.00041952726,0.0069554066,0.0006156909,0.00095012004,0.00003483831,0.000029075742,0.00489409],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981003,0.00023809091,0.0002663384,0.00036500263,0.0006340635,0.0003962009],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990484,0.00010171434,0.00016644117,0.00027138443,0.00024510306,0.00016692567],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013369287,0.00014666707,0.00036988262,0.00003316502,0.0011522681,0.00011713941,0.00048213295,0.000043683118,0.00035828014],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00040892116,0.00013880346,0.000114017625,0.00036782387,0.00007035091,0.00020880552,0.00012976331,0.00014459256,0.00003622093],"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":[0.00003778083,0.00013505695,0.00013143205,0.0072209644,0.000046848618,0.000013649844,0.005412621,0.000028721897,0.00030118434,0.73145616,0.21330473,0.041910872],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010717907,0.00010422097,0.00008433528,0.00064006326,0.000055936256,0.0000011554721,0.0006481699,0.000008012793,0.000026033513,0.0032883186,0.9948337,0.00020287796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008185478,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01133136,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9680244,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022997725,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028348024,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9984191},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030851046,0.19022024,0.00019394702,0.18346898,0.00142322,0.0059850975,0.00032376577,0.0005500533,0.5869836],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9585264,0.03140241,0.0002026178,0.007451726,0.00032571174,0.00030474676,0.000028974815,0.000014804146,0.0017426212],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984514,0.00029565144,0.00025718563,0.00025102528,0.0004804108,0.00026429276],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937665,0.00008431887,0.000105211475,0.00020294928,0.00009837751,0.00013248877],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015261502,0.0000925603,0.00021284104,0.000011023551,0.0015049124,0.00004882997,0.00028731616,0.000025803292,0.0011135445],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001607747,0.00008826765,0.000065722896,0.00029899197,0.00025116603,0.00015506048,0.00016962252,0.00020704059,0.000034134777],"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":[0.0000036249428,0.00003760827,0.00017934167,0.00047905638,0.000008508332,0.0000015095745,0.00082472793,3.9015075e-7,0.00003301969,0.982021,0.015182385,0.0012288687],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009320888,0.000015517902,0.00020987839,0.00011068656,0.00010472495,0.000002325061,0.00045791816,0.0000051144425,0.0000046050327,0.0021833726,0.9966882,0.00012444581],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001231624,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0030291327,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9815058,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009695348,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020225869,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99979955},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[4.1819192e-7,0.9305422,0.0000023286211,0.013435174,0.0008723729,0.0032244339,0.0015176104,0.000014264451,0.050391227],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.00005645067,0.9971306,0.000011961663,0.0015203746,0.000215601,0.0003252114,0.00009678996,0.000018289269,0.0006247213],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99309427,0.001771057,0.001825316,0.0005553235,0.0022410536,0.00051300327],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.994268,0.0028800508,0.0013745135,0.00078930205,0.0004874177,0.00020074355],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.003899398,0.00051992136,0.0030650566,0.000027882696,0.0025918593,0.000022278879,0.0013162992,0.00013759872,0.0029390564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0043558534,0.00029074927,0.0010895504,0.0010519234,0.0054971045,0.00007464005,0.0009162323,0.0005926391,0.0000114582235],"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":[0.00000607779,0.000056146837,0.000010690644,0.045095358,0.0005030905,0.00001684718,0.000038494905,2.635093e-7,6.791321e-8,0.6445753,0.26028004,0.04941762],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009095406,0.0000134223665,0.000007682317,0.15266901,0.002343109,0.000046998408,0.00006245288,8.406871e-8,7.464197e-8,0.00058754504,0.84391844,0.00026023266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.092078686,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.373992,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6439878,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00072833267,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009220075,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995446},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020245424,0.08502603,0.000006572361,0.5244471,0.0045874277,0.0042446475,0.00047318224,0.00032828888,0.36064133],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90593415,0.014142764,0.000055294964,0.06283828,0.0012103122,0.0009331834,0.000060617742,0.000031246054,0.014794165],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969879,0.0010265388,0.0003079143,0.0002879122,0.0009791291,0.00041062752],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99915624,0.00010410284,0.00013287111,0.00034590115,0.0001393736,0.00012152485],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013446697,0.00016458999,0.00030929077,0.000006905002,0.004893999,0.00004575057,0.0005223745,0.000030796,0.0023111],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019487408,0.00010768965,0.00015982291,0.0003504585,0.00022897567,0.00009130535,0.0001670614,0.00037648427,0.00004240948],"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":[0.000005076218,0.000076104945,0.0006386648,0.0002490947,0.00012946138,0.0000074808954,0.0065078004,0.000019572755,0.000008196426,0.49243543,0.4966231,0.0033000105],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006766631,0.000029283536,0.00054808584,0.00010137241,0.000050838342,5.5634507e-7,0.0014680817,0.0000016263766,0.0000029635828,0.00028065383,0.9973175,0.00013136448],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.867503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97696495,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8856887,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011013255,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00030745793,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9986009},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.877759,0.005519663,0.000054906228,0.033610284,0.0031857642,0.001433995,0.00054066384,0.00003374513,0.077862024],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9937247,0.004746471,0.000026727756,0.0009784963,0.000119306336,0.000044967815,0.00010623258,0.000008653368,0.00024443894],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979264,0.00035172506,0.00048282658,0.0002164371,0.0008572219,0.00016540219],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99899274,0.00029500676,0.00037127064,0.00012786606,0.00017523159,0.000037883143],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014298104,0.000109171255,0.00024571118,0.000047811463,0.000366326,0.000031252952,0.00031452198,0.00003284165,0.00053014955],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015437738,0.00009449393,0.00006116295,0.00019526508,0.00011064029,0.00021997264,0.0000780176,0.00017471025,0.0000021896137],"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":[0.00029789342,0.00034043193,0.034927722,0.00053108286,0.000342244,0.000014838937,0.014148204,0.00035817525,0.0031305498,0.91914064,0.010304684,0.016463537],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006618742,0.00012438225,0.005240716,0.0039961394,0.00009574779,0.0000036608803,0.0023258573,0.0008418694,0.0015860893,0.0031728123,0.9815974,0.00035341032],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.35014388,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5295653,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97129273,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00048977695,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019401728,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.65418357},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12895332,0.3066823,0.00000890542,0.15076117,0.0025259233,0.0042716977,0.00021594032,0.000066807996,0.40651393],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9878614,0.0049533946,0.000015826954,0.0049525406,0.000043625652,0.00005033968,0.0000025879922,0.000009029291,0.002111289],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99719536,0.0008408546,0.00040455433,0.0001934427,0.001098423,0.00026738716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988245,0.00020983416,0.00020757907,0.0005692932,0.00012988399,0.000058919202],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021700796,0.00010889748,0.000316094,0.0000066372236,0.0010791555,0.000014582691,0.00086016953,0.000022844439,0.005593265],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015239183,0.00006490238,0.00028551128,0.0002665149,0.0008623305,0.000108061366,0.0005104437,0.00015955877,0.00003211195],"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":[0.000026696382,0.00015784705,0.0016952327,0.0014849278,0.000042874773,0.0000022240597,0.0035491495,0.000005273365,0.00039754494,0.8973578,0.094230525,0.0010498563],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005494857,0.00005676136,0.0004285996,0.0007333882,0.00015663198,0.0000040769096,0.000791447,3.8739404e-7,0.00018442786,0.0006412261,0.9968668,0.00008129678],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007672169,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008178816,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9026363,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011285805,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011308458,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989358},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05346387,0.44693685,0.000030836454,0.4461743,0.0027378937,0.012287032,0.0019911106,0.00015045823,0.03622766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.959186,0.015856223,0.000035827397,0.02417779,0.00023412477,0.0002808367,0.000022716169,0.000008681969,0.00019776633],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974129,0.000853493,0.0002855525,0.00027998316,0.00068143744,0.00048662216],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987948,0.00044105586,0.00008741282,0.0002272486,0.00017967884,0.00026982298],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001556074,0.00018267769,0.0003444859,0.000019980454,0.016369889,0.00037939232,0.0007312582,0.00004703914,0.0013255548],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030444178,0.00010273432,0.000113502836,0.00044812393,0.002715154,0.00020572131,0.00021408832,0.0004179245,0.000014986331],"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":[0.000024055076,0.000019700718,0.0004662777,0.0007354132,0.00016286853,0.00025656028,0.068988435,0.00004677207,0.000001302258,0.88455707,0.040640883,0.004100636],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002421426,0.000012228921,0.00040467005,0.0001020229,0.00038350903,0.00022902357,0.0044201114,0.0000018316115,3.4799848e-7,0.00087550934,0.9931464,0.00018219982],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5750226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9658936,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9525055,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006033858,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012986453,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99999887},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03720672,0.46316534,0.00007448423,0.3596136,0.0005233541,0.0013806385,0.000038163354,0.000032439904,0.13796528],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98310775,0.013671723,0.000012242971,0.002962431,0.00011582676,0.00003411747,7.514564e-7,0.0000021550884,0.00009302488],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99909306,0.00017401208,0.00016875687,0.00011633844,0.0002544813,0.00019336226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99936414,0.00029689996,0.000028898012,0.000100875295,0.00015269242,0.00005651641],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004567605,0.000058387286,0.00016087721,0.0000049060955,0.000536783,0.000024912473,0.00012806758,0.000022385588,0.000029896997],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027922934,0.000029271927,0.00003798518,0.00016473177,0.00065595564,0.000053254873,0.00006640254,0.00006488169,0.000005071236],"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":[0.0000024904907,0.000016083757,0.00034558744,0.000074989395,0.000006555813,0.0000057801226,0.00023204248,2.9750706e-7,0.000024588307,0.9978785,0.0010088385,0.00040428064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009886059,0.000017957334,0.002207088,0.0028678635,0.000044316937,0.000008523334,0.0018925751,9.2888877e-7,0.00028115744,0.06179931,0.9306634,0.0001180109],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002216445,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.029996116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94590104,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000021329757,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013788861,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9877039},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0030641635,0.07199178,0.0000109401335,0.8677859,0.00044339985,0.0010654955,0.0029384473,0.00003834066,0.052661557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75609833,0.017359499,0.000023703276,0.21968165,0.0008679442,0.0000515593,0.00006403785,0.000019278508,0.005833988],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984376,0.00032513647,0.00026152056,0.0001691821,0.00059053313,0.00021607375],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99899685,0.00028075167,0.00020837357,0.00024769315,0.00019796118,0.000068385176],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006517649,0.00010046588,0.00021246022,0.000006210315,0.000634184,0.000096876014,0.00029564422,0.000039954662,0.0019517124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00024777587,0.000064456486,0.00008405657,0.00014593563,0.00034888336,0.00009812352,0.00003959472,0.00012615508,0.000067557456],"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":[0.0000049587793,0.000021390164,0.0010110702,0.0004183697,0.00005364719,0.000016212049,0.003008373,0.000010490186,0.000020678026,0.27566016,0.7190592,0.000715419],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007329284,0.000004129404,0.0022104748,0.0006859051,0.000032656713,0.000010837952,0.00022945675,0.0000027978756,0.000038752918,0.00060632196,0.99601257,0.00009281752],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.073181964,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.68157786,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7530342,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011863673,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005858286,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989606},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.071919404,0.28552827,0.000020092506,0.62709534,0.0026821767,0.0020870515,0.000121461526,0.00007264652,0.010473547],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.51838297,0.3848106,0.00037623604,0.055567123,0.0051751095,0.0006065843,0.0008460091,0.000057686255,0.034177665],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963796,0.0016700795,0.00061823317,0.0004717537,0.0004413303,0.0004189748],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969358,0.0017830557,0.000188374,0.0005779871,0.00034526023,0.00016951788],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026081365,0.00019298392,0.00051795004,0.000023919762,0.00064884254,0.000017153005,0.00013465206,0.00015513152,0.016875118],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0047502536,0.00013293629,0.00008845559,0.00023521161,0.00066596287,0.00024821595,0.00016030358,0.0008101395,0.0010547912],"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":[0.0000817831,0.00013254856,0.0073180525,0.006283329,0.000046854573,0.00008868747,0.00064899615,8.6565836e-7,0.0001835531,0.1494936,0.83417255,0.0015491843],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00042405823,0.000029111172,0.0013082759,0.0028283412,0.00013332228,0.00013211466,0.0007993557,0.0000076649085,0.000029558783,0.00027379606,0.99388653,0.00014786072],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00059762405,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0025696214,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.57152826,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019415567,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005188687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999723},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.062600784,0.83043593,0.00002701836,0.029064883,0.00027222247,0.0007285001,0.000025082934,0.00006348699,0.07678207],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7900981,0.20918092,0.000043471257,0.00020579877,0.000060122642,0.000011096303,0.0000020350908,0.000004670202,0.00039383306],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985209,0.00053342903,0.00024309561,0.00018736474,0.00028906064,0.00022615593],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986585,0.0004685094,0.00008244873,0.00034754025,0.0003378172,0.00010518751],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023617987,0.00008534895,0.00027131135,0.000003364132,0.0005137117,0.00005621486,0.00020489239,0.000037223766,0.00028590753],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010323267,0.00005352886,0.00015286148,0.0001948053,0.0005221285,0.00015540166,0.00006768648,0.00009305173,0.000010450898],"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":[0.000025034087,0.000116221185,0.007401207,0.002947702,0.00007311159,0.000017609082,0.00083684555,0.0000022598465,0.00023473913,0.9112032,0.027591236,0.04955085],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000621508,0.00003237277,0.0035614937,0.0019563655,0.00008081136,0.000008243021,0.00017763383,0.0000044983453,0.000082921055,0.006632946,0.98727953,0.00012101267],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008719406,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0052525657,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9596883,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055545126,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00033646566,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9978816},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007761757,0.092810184,0.0002028416,0.11611952,0.0022361919,0.0010223069,0.00005562896,0.00027463262,0.78650254],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6444324,0.09659392,0.00035923248,0.24254061,0.0050524687,0.00013729901,0.00049094483,0.00015668619,0.010236392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99809307,0.000051623265,0.00049670006,0.0004423166,0.0005260296,0.00039028158],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99867296,0.00020276094,0.00017625053,0.00048115195,0.00043195303,0.000034902834],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00066215056,0.0002798555,0.0004179318,0.000023496024,0.0006604498,0.0008396603,0.0003947395,0.00007532875,0.00095284457],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00028905165,0.00020906367,0.00015506982,0.00015733507,0.0003589253,0.00057268783,0.00023881096,0.00023628317,0.000532988],"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":[0.000008948828,0.00005462481,0.00010736234,0.0009781339,0.000054691925,0.000034387092,0.0000037729667,0.0000017327819,0.000020147732,0.92285466,0.07474908,0.0011324437],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003018208,0.000013545174,0.0002867097,0.001492521,0.00012888035,0.000017250162,0.000011941883,0.00014419574,0.000028471264,0.026515152,0.970785,0.0002745033],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00059919315,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0012342288,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89633954,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000042582433,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000033003384,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999604},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0154195335,0.39625776,0.000027421464,0.12377214,0.00057434395,0.0007808203,0.000003541542,0.00009304394,0.4630714],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.43238306,0.527814,0.0004505077,0.03180958,0.0005741542,0.000043177988,0.0000112279695,0.000023662953,0.0068906792],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99846166,0.0002680518,0.0002891437,0.00025352792,0.00039001735,0.0003375937],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990251,0.00027142203,0.00008172314,0.0002965119,0.00020025525,0.00012499883],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017676678,0.000130409,0.00037197035,0.000010304356,0.0006376295,0.00011683149,0.00023260704,0.000045734683,0.00081523514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045389764,0.00009294881,0.0001137571,0.00026180418,0.00045160778,0.00024085962,0.00012004139,0.00021964111,0.000027552833],"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":[0.000018290897,0.00002090706,0.0014328522,0.00092827476,0.000039479342,0.00007137829,0.004827031,5.6710866e-7,0.000036361493,0.97453785,0.0074121626,0.010674862],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019166038,0.000006188616,0.00033054018,0.0018064455,0.00012122358,0.000031710475,0.00030029425,9.732759e-7,0.000022439359,0.0021613436,0.9948952,0.00013196765],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.19971055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5207121,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.987483,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013127216,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004965161,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.89262533},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004725415,0.07498983,0.000046519366,0.73148274,0.002013086,0.0010855708,0.000024295177,0.000046993442,0.18558556],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7171331,0.03302685,0.00095563335,0.22102731,0.0008668739,0.0004753131,0.00005918912,0.000038698927,0.02641703],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99787045,0.0006823361,0.0004683246,0.00022690458,0.00049755943,0.00025440924],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987087,0.0002150064,0.00015034435,0.00044235843,0.00041679223,0.00006677304],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012326475,0.00012641071,0.0002781607,0.000028752436,0.00015524102,0.000124117,0.00031889716,0.000061832594,0.009235564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006446162,0.00009528801,0.00012314721,0.0005062598,0.00018154756,0.00067081145,0.000040149043,0.00022210284,0.0003289122],"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":[0.00003071115,0.0007012303,0.0008779739,0.001054745,0.000071969655,0.00010008571,0.072743654,7.2939747e-7,0.00046632346,0.09312368,0.8197133,0.011115579],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009650851,0.000009817097,0.00025120474,0.00077480456,0.000034511522,0.000004954069,0.00188702,8.9300136e-7,0.00003695618,0.00008891667,0.9966887,0.00012571494],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031462165,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008325659,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7124077,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008030902,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004217681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99167013},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4836454,0.21121413,0.0031897395,0.19198836,0.006429298,0.008992351,0.00071834156,0.00018767896,0.093634695],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9852754,0.0052027805,0.00011796534,0.009051952,0.00018183282,0.00002543544,0.00006937073,0.000014777223,0.000060505103],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987011,0.00003443489,0.0006015775,0.00019327374,0.00031638957,0.0001532579],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992584,0.00007824691,0.00025169484,0.00017130867,0.00023020708,0.0000101715295],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00059479673,0.00013072856,0.00043909953,0.00003265273,0.00006141317,0.00002317001,0.00019231913,0.00003415465,0.00016817803],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010527435,0.000100652396,0.00006758348,0.00017115251,0.00022867465,0.000561037,0.00006117165,0.00010810515,0.0000019539957],"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":[0.00015580948,0.00015934678,0.019339763,0.01905455,0.00012998813,0.00009696002,0.000075276475,0.00003884011,0.0004758309,0.9420838,0.012236397,0.0061534676],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0027701708,0.000016520828,0.028587628,0.008067848,0.00053265714,0.000022576167,0.00016608878,0.0010354423,0.0007936083,0.0050202515,0.9524739,0.00051330344],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.23367396,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3735131,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9402375,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000050720082,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014982515,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77142906},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05312113,0.436161,0.00004903551,0.44081587,0.002075672,0.0024142864,0.000033168642,0.00007014804,0.0652597],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9016839,0.09054385,0.000023638651,0.006718717,0.00020061998,0.00006014253,0.000005931313,0.000014017455,0.00074916915],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973471,0.00070181367,0.0005148077,0.00036792702,0.0005452449,0.0005230967],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869126,0.00032479284,0.0001323357,0.00047510568,0.00019013477,0.00018634116],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002304386,0.00016571478,0.00035065223,0.000011413305,0.0011910717,0.00010339588,0.0005338723,0.00003535667,0.0005509596],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00092243036,0.00010590114,0.00007794616,0.0005866162,0.00014188614,0.00024080154,0.00019169615,0.00020806486,0.000017103028],"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":[0.000033301643,0.00010957908,0.017965851,0.0041144458,0.00012700834,0.00039807428,0.028843597,0.000023550521,0.00013490755,0.7942528,0.07336844,0.08062841],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000052485804,0.000006901037,0.0013235235,0.0017950775,0.000040712475,0.00001361166,0.0015566715,0.000017043487,0.000007371584,0.0004198075,0.9945992,0.0001675783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.73635525,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99276274,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9212308,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038127607,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015232941,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9160881},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00058651436,0.5350015,0.00005248513,0.30687594,0.0007999488,0.00084127364,0.000027133307,0.00001718038,0.15579797],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.711095,0.2830193,0.000002727085,0.0047555603,0.00027080928,0.000057180332,0.0000010311986,0.0000039479182,0.00079449074],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980552,0.0009037604,0.00025748165,0.00014326282,0.00045315604,0.0001871018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981755,0.0010869879,0.00012904008,0.000373145,0.00020569593,0.000029618821],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033753954,0.00009440093,0.00023963497,0.0000019589163,0.0026769384,0.000051026098,0.00046842702,0.000028615625,0.00006150234],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00082102785,0.000032618394,0.00019329588,0.0002671049,0.00383263,0.00004960219,0.00018838607,0.00014974765,0.000007406874],"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":[0.0000057421444,0.000013893858,0.000102948325,0.000043557346,0.000051115534,2.400529e-7,0.0007021038,6.879299e-8,0.000004562146,0.99336445,0.0026106862,0.0031006157],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011664725,0.0000026701684,0.0024716363,0.000407592,0.00012864817,0.0000023488005,0.00084132014,6.60121e-7,0.000006823677,0.08862433,0.9073442,0.000053116033],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020792186,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006937337,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90474015,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002260006,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016670571,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99887836},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03602719,0.20648308,0.00006897374,0.48568118,0.0022693386,0.0022729016,0.000049438357,0.00034435134,0.26680356],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9410625,0.038479716,0.00003505786,0.019669121,0.00029326847,0.000023175,0.000004622189,0.0000124554535,0.00042009552],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99880946,0.0001258113,0.00019323126,0.00023192295,0.00037305133,0.00026651914],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99933964,0.00012930315,0.0000616594,0.00012575806,0.000077864344,0.0002657603],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00036726816,0.00010634311,0.0002678861,0.0000074101135,0.00074069435,0.00005436493,0.00019290819,0.00003691438,0.00032906176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000372534,0.00009684289,0.000047463738,0.00022793817,0.000062064115,0.00012910677,0.00003797134,0.00015654556,0.000053600397],"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":[0.000041493913,0.00011084576,0.009500499,0.0045747804,0.000095627074,0.00012985193,0.055213004,0.000006827472,0.000066783025,0.35962942,0.52664465,0.043986227],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000334356,0.00004472122,0.0003665902,0.00088971824,0.00005042559,0.0000022448412,0.000562114,0.000002868591,0.000010051907,0.000047559908,0.99786353,0.00012674493],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6566545,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9548192,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9050353,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010946545,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005645811,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5696897},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.26606518,0.068979315,0.00019220902,0.64399874,0.00046381936,0.00525636,0.0001807966,0.00006607086,0.0147975255],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9900047,0.004025863,0.000064572814,0.005450791,0.00017324518,0.000033276167,3.5779217e-7,0.000011027877,0.00023617504],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99563086,0.0029190166,0.00037783483,0.0002392171,0.0006018322,0.00023126563],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993578,0.005201984,0.0005023175,0.00035386847,0.00029701466,0.000066821995],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033769533,0.00015828968,0.00036291644,0.0000030582594,0.0014864489,0.000066155684,0.000783956,0.0000347809,0.00005318204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014773877,0.00005780119,0.00017987295,0.00041970017,0.0009923544,0.00020105332,0.00051853777,0.00032483682,0.000004315146],"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":[0.00051367044,0.000092736744,0.006209235,0.0009540669,0.0008322885,0.0000024979847,0.79419804,0.000023336292,0.00063798804,0.16206583,0.009919864,0.024550432],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017390536,0.00003706398,0.00763838,0.0017658299,0.0005007546,7.5830576e-7,0.050036717,0.000009485229,0.000210123,0.0014454467,0.9380038,0.00017773476],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.43049455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6044788,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92808396,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019828965,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022621748,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998135},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010541182,0.5279947,0.0004147907,0.0401964,0.000941579,0.002209894,0.00005574459,0.00053698133,0.4171087],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.70908284,0.279226,0.000249795,0.010233708,0.00030094193,0.0001263159,0.000008180397,0.00008552534,0.0006866539],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993542,0.000048259422,0.00019497705,0.00011456969,0.00015582937,0.00013217714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99953705,0.00005019187,0.000035816858,0.00030549252,0.000021376773,0.000050075258],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001846688,0.00010682126,0.00016987945,0.000009214779,0.00017011148,0.000022173333,0.00020774508,0.00002412848,0.00004430357],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000031734286,0.000056742952,0.000116333,0.00021100522,0.00009615891,0.000015956044,0.00005843343,0.00014308313,0.00001357476],"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":[0.00006291482,0.0001683653,0.0035629005,0.036481578,0.0019004128,0.000016705042,0.0017336679,0.0076088104,0.00074080453,0.16460381,0.6312563,0.15186377],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006258894,0.000029531055,0.0006063904,0.0010585714,0.00007420319,0.000001125989,0.000013395107,0.00017765448,0.000039961964,0.000028480332,0.9978377,0.000070399576],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000006364366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00004750654,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6985417,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000048178936,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000034217733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23139104},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0006126309,0.29839313,0.000025174124,0.12580942,0.0002152491,0.00063249446,0.000011782285,0.00021688794,0.5740832],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.09718829,0.8062175,0.0007548437,0.09268323,0.00063713425,0.000011207266,0.0000105043255,0.000018960178,0.002478327],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991334,0.00013860986,0.00012087493,0.00017990712,0.0002479961,0.00017921638],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99957556,0.000036764206,0.00004779999,0.00009012941,0.000073802745,0.00017594683],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00036672343,0.00008259451,0.00019326214,6.9456866e-7,0.0004640998,0.00004705678,0.00018342098,0.00007182167,0.0006989647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009178166,0.00007113073,0.000083060186,0.00023699358,0.00021961791,0.00026385504,0.0000723517,0.00014424436,0.00010703921],"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":[0.0000022155273,0.0000106272155,0.00008974739,0.0011372077,0.000028762763,0.000009234077,0.012118183,3.2714075e-7,0.00002693859,0.8513115,0.13173923,0.0035260424],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000071703085,0.000008436543,0.000009450972,0.00044117964,0.000047902202,7.851178e-7,0.0013023015,0.0000021130309,0.000003398227,0.00071335287,0.9972968,0.00010256825],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001830114,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00033022987,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86555755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000026762922,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005855235,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7653173},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00047419543,0.2707736,0.0053843427,0.16708545,0.0003982689,0.000802751,0.000037018293,0.00015903961,0.5548853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93691576,0.044166096,0.00010719766,0.018579448,0.00018944393,0.000015440126,0.0000065695067,0.0000014438339,0.000018602235],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992724,0.00008332297,0.00015328248,0.0001377373,0.00023476359,0.00011849336],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996447,0.00006190016,0.000040644023,0.00003671291,0.000107750006,0.00010832423],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00024312755,0.00006670294,0.00017664913,0.000005546943,0.0004694652,0.000025569803,0.00008595158,0.000024512408,0.00026663198],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027442988,0.00005926234,0.000046274265,0.00012029817,0.002859979,0.00014096024,0.000041326988,0.00006563691,0.00011739801],"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":[0.000003105176,0.0000052304563,0.00030595798,0.000097823504,0.00001395982,0.0000017680092,0.0003067624,3.1270133e-7,0.0000041731646,0.9921359,0.0039354432,0.0031895922],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006748998,0.000012579148,0.00007724033,0.00052504573,0.000038342405,0.00000131053,0.00009176299,0.000008515896,0.0000016027822,0.009573665,0.9895208,0.00008167388],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004079781,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002791023,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98558533,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000025782498,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001272297,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998537},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.059859324,0.4130607,0.00011092979,0.44859314,0.0002083034,0.0026968815,0.00008044327,0.0000682542,0.07532201],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9067358,0.071332365,0.00003581142,0.021653317,0.00010093048,0.00008855231,0.00000912409,0.0000031412194,0.000040988176],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990009,0.00021676446,0.00023333426,0.00016053219,0.00023902116,0.00014946594],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994321,0.00023143523,0.00004926944,0.000062888364,0.00015354513,0.00007075279],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00057767914,0.00009768628,0.0002253385,0.000008537467,0.00073605886,0.00005893961,0.00009415185,0.000034930363,0.0000790586],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039528465,0.000067797555,0.000028670604,0.00018084228,0.0007822365,0.00015051455,0.00005721514,0.000096557334,0.000017470513],"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":[0.000027216103,0.000042299387,0.0053183446,0.00038071277,0.00002851118,0.000013113917,0.011863934,4.3022888e-7,0.0000068657164,0.9555508,0.024421213,0.0023465469],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00027546607,0.000038139213,0.0044244975,0.00059047085,0.000066651824,0.0000042099873,0.00079671876,0.0000049050063,7.9462086e-7,0.0023801574,0.9912951,0.00012287697],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0021770105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.026031623,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9668739,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000019109588,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010554308,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99174076},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.084005535,0.19188792,0.0017771864,0.38702622,0.0014686289,0.017206114,0.0016500283,0.0017330986,0.31324527],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9596898,0.028496057,0.000052092422,0.01067807,0.00022682246,0.00000879458,0.000014287899,0.0000136133485,0.000820454],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998638,0.00031163433,0.00026499716,0.00021436304,0.00034439753,0.00022663298],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991018,0.00010123196,0.00014096359,0.00014401643,0.00031429087,0.00019770079],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00082923874,0.00006790612,0.00032897224,0.0000017265945,0.0007503716,0.00015029848,0.00039140883,0.000059335332,0.00006339588],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000096604046,0.000083787214,0.00014861682,0.0004711478,0.00034289903,0.00018332247,0.00007817497,0.000110638706,0.000028288825],"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":[0.000042692427,0.00016645298,0.008679032,0.006565551,0.00023240942,0.000017406383,0.005302765,0.0000048972975,0.00015611471,0.13655539,0.8166904,0.02558691],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011068149,0.000043909185,0.000395033,0.0008289812,0.00004444797,6.3205016e-7,0.00050282787,0.000002536586,0.0000027695403,0.00028067135,0.9976847,0.00010280999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47533593,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.60668087,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87568426,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006638304,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014092738,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.57713276},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010354505,0.10645164,0.000018423423,0.7370768,0.00012322729,0.00093909475,0.0000034315294,0.00006646853,0.15428546],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79472464,0.084881514,0.00008492838,0.11975615,0.00023740933,0.000049216185,0.0000035546202,0.00000982131,0.00025276042],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99840635,0.0004382913,0.00024750075,0.00018929731,0.00045757898,0.00026097472],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99937767,0.00019702075,0.00005474066,0.00020544542,0.000058912927,0.00010621081],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014640889,0.00009177056,0.00024263444,0.0000060017405,0.00023327267,0.00006628133,0.00063797465,0.000037509824,0.000742743],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00043487028,0.00006124897,0.00010434404,0.00035854374,0.00019450627,0.0001928171,0.000041497762,0.00018133913,0.0005855273],"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":[0.000008722958,0.00005189157,0.00071025727,0.0016686172,0.000008058095,0.00005148823,0.00913316,6.5087016e-7,0.000012227182,0.79637957,0.18520546,0.0067698914],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000479844,0.000022209484,0.00015837139,0.00086851226,0.000028977913,0.0000013840438,0.0003264828,0.000004696734,0.0000012997289,0.000929652,0.99752176,0.00008866867],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004062893,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007729675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8123163,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000032188498,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007997428,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.81325155},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.063938364,0.17013176,0.000020554024,0.60331774,0.00065194786,0.008215347,0.00016665304,0.00024073945,0.15331687],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.972403,0.008377652,0.00011258388,0.01861536,0.000222807,0.000092877344,0.000009002591,0.000008678837,0.00015803208],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9970504,0.00067573454,0.00065632735,0.000399092,0.0007633392,0.00045510486],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985962,0.00042593858,0.00030382597,0.00029535565,0.0002256666,0.00015299272],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010543704,0.0002473931,0.0006844683,0.0000144710875,0.0008579997,0.000054083022,0.0007691781,0.00010216716,0.00097394997],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035896167,0.00014299032,0.0002647806,0.00045333654,0.0006824469,0.0003248587,0.00008622881,0.000298666,0.00024358174],"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":[0.00003470583,0.000359859,0.00339286,0.0030957994,0.00033502746,0.000054609718,0.36908415,7.85819e-7,0.00029138202,0.22861189,0.3906994,0.004039533],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003687567,0.000033181153,0.000381212,0.0014650557,0.000078414276,5.482419e-7,0.0024848897,0.000017498927,0.00016951143,0.00037616558,0.9943977,0.0002270596],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.021031788,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.027059954,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90846467,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008668799,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003966063,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999393},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0006293272,0.29044008,0.000020868401,0.6791695,0.000046582445,0.001512407,0.00007512979,0.00014197394,0.02796414],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7387228,0.09994739,0.00025516172,0.16021709,0.0005512424,0.00006590688,0.00008850039,0.000030152652,0.00012172009],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983351,0.00028067856,0.00023675573,0.00041533948,0.00042895443,0.0003031361],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991559,0.00008295599,0.0001389632,0.00029510964,0.00010908131,0.00021800674],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075220753,0.0001516074,0.00040383212,0.000008473476,0.00036978128,0.00013418728,0.00054101925,0.000041919462,0.00013674927],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003083055,0.00010994655,0.000022708302,0.00029274414,0.00034170167,0.000493678,0.0001296408,0.00017062946,0.000049290815],"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":[0.00004062091,0.00006504232,0.00080859545,0.0052415333,0.00015688485,0.000013905324,0.008309871,3.7078158e-7,0.00001780215,0.7303933,0.25207633,0.002875788],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012104402,0.00019481975,0.00003315691,0.003482205,0.000068710935,5.513421e-7,0.00039619245,0.000006663152,0.000013687628,0.0010699516,0.9944527,0.00016031488],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00888123,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012523942,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7423764,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000043491364,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00025692512,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9977187},"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":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007032319,0.09906833,0.000011435834,0.16203904,0.0005935731,0.0008722081,0.000011411141,0.0001499064,0.73655087],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17205654,0.7654938,0.000022657816,0.03924834,0.0027504016,0.00012771832,0.000010493058,0.000023038814,0.020266986],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99826825,0.00041057065,0.00027884496,0.0001720836,0.00045892503,0.00041130872],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992048,0.00016830243,0.00009942372,0.0002576957,0.0001754569,0.00009433149],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013575727,0.00013159397,0.0003078805,0.000008274593,0.0018332896,0.000053832642,0.00040568184,0.00007125095,0.0003713549],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003684216,0.00006878293,0.00014717183,0.00055128493,0.0007261353,0.0001298256,0.00007561234,0.00015699658,0.00027918993],"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":[0.0000018144341,0.00003466992,0.00017612777,0.00015980146,0.00004798153,0.0000041172657,0.002284301,9.020445e-8,0.0000020627976,0.93899614,0.050634604,0.0076582725],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006358114,0.000007655506,0.00025294063,0.00038879344,0.00006128965,0.0000016596562,0.00043589508,3.348484e-7,0.0000024267215,0.009850092,0.98881215,0.0001232014],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0072685718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013200033,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9381775,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000057521378,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008532193,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994662},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0019478257,0.23628996,0.00006139282,0.04585323,0.002079574,0.002236182,0.0001247583,0.00014874157,0.71125835],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9820002,0.0149760805,0.000088426066,0.0013712067,0.00020883488,0.000032085474,0.0000014117899,0.000008418312,0.0013133421],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979858,0.00026243745,0.0003562805,0.00018833633,0.00087934494,0.00032781647],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986439,0.00030566443,0.00020890437,0.00053148525,0.00021804663,0.00009203894],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011458268,0.00011247651,0.00027056632,0.000009420197,0.0014755779,0.00002918284,0.0009725111,0.000060840026,0.00026995374],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008023885,0.00006954028,0.00021998274,0.00042205025,0.0061538233,0.00009888338,0.00013615054,0.00019928392,0.00018423102],"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":[0.0000046552086,0.00003142963,0.002075595,0.00012919215,0.000037057915,0.0000065629824,0.012607466,0.0000033395322,0.0000010409176,0.94826096,0.036380026,0.00046269072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007772508,0.000007693183,0.000486604,0.00043954834,0.000043597927,0.000003304641,0.00021639194,0.0000011397552,0.000003830798,0.0005885768,0.9980373,0.0000943016],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00058719685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00072824536,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98005235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009172032,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004758909,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99982435},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.052433845,0.14974687,0.00005717755,0.19818507,0.002838351,0.0041744052,0.004555815,0.000074628806,0.58793384],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97932094,0.007379381,0.000064858876,0.0053157513,0.00030387152,0.000015254931,0.0000057935035,0.000017458988,0.0075766896],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981462,0.000181844,0.00045236375,0.00017325385,0.00069748604,0.00034887088],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99867505,0.00021522955,0.00029207158,0.0004722179,0.0002174594,0.00012797677],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00062470697,0.000120093326,0.00037555015,0.00001392519,0.00023319638,0.000013148516,0.00058374694,0.000059026734,0.000544595],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004262023,0.00009028441,0.0001755578,0.0004156127,0.00039899294,0.000078218625,0.000054881664,0.0001231955,0.000009573619],"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":[0.0000025886582,0.00002005872,0.0010622613,0.00014827753,0.0000116431065,0.0000021724534,0.00009360083,0.000004570524,0.00001907623,0.22459304,0.7737298,0.00031292206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010748797,0.00000722958,0.005604989,0.0014336024,0.000044043147,0.0000015131108,0.00002980186,0.0000013654362,0.000058272806,0.0015422291,0.99106276,0.000106724474],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95816153,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9928633,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9268871,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018536867,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016602747,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59629333},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.001673623,0.07917695,0.000073183954,0.0091212075,0.00073276786,0.00074788387,0.000086977336,0.000103860824,0.90828353],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96893495,0.018851794,0.00015769024,0.0068932194,0.0024700267,0.000026348449,0.00004485309,0.000007319198,0.002613824],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99836224,0.00023505458,0.00034201745,0.0002328017,0.00043962043,0.00038828325],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992338,0.00030279421,0.00008907791,0.00017566845,0.00008975891,0.00010890202],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005144282,0.00014670931,0.0003052092,0.000035202313,0.00038905442,0.0000309666,0.0001949858,0.00006168608,0.0002207019],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001497869,0.00013290918,0.00011377905,0.00022138048,0.0024121352,0.0001850836,0.000023593037,0.00014742457,0.00036407943],"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":[0.0000033448073,0.00005813969,0.00026064302,0.00009473536,0.00000433146,0.00005716643,0.00001258022,0.000020439107,0.000001839828,0.98938054,0.009928203,0.00017805054],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012365969,0.000017144295,0.000084064966,0.0011371918,0.000021041269,0.00001446886,0.000016058475,8.860372e-7,0.000010238525,0.012593207,0.98581135,0.00017070324],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0072054234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0026325134,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9767873,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017279784,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014771769,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994057},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0034064753,0.06856667,0.00003202314,0.0042217337,0.00025535046,0.00064657733,0.000002672546,0.00008855685,0.9227799],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44495803,0.43470186,0.0026103097,0.01723162,0.0011313788,0.00017935892,0.00004925977,0.000046042227,0.099092156],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99872506,0.00015174595,0.00024971968,0.00019460834,0.00037972283,0.0002991244],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996088,0.000023282877,0.00005990936,0.00014500062,0.00005949254,0.00010347157],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075631996,0.000102401325,0.00024318014,0.000015610127,0.0003671794,0.000046877823,0.00022107999,0.000058315465,0.0028301338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000035507364,0.000069644295,0.000066037326,0.00022879116,0.00009799207,0.00017494123,0.00002704414,0.00012742764,0.00063699926],"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":[0.00000286144,0.000057727608,0.0007533153,0.00024911418,0.00001178525,0.00007288753,0.0051025464,3.8153897e-7,0.000003846986,0.94341314,0.047049742,0.0032826548],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000093176226,0.00000644498,0.00020279485,0.0015384645,0.00000865808,0.000002236383,0.000045630415,6.0011035e-7,0.0000012671242,0.0059348685,0.9920383,0.00012755673],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028340379,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.037176754,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94498855,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014181023,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000917805,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9980814},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011841314,0.19828103,0.0001867598,0.42881304,0.0011139829,0.0044815964,0.00012477797,0.00008471796,0.35507277],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97004056,0.019399358,0.00029356836,0.008209603,0.00016733853,0.000021889267,0.000004792395,0.000011129944,0.0018517758],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99759567,0.00026766045,0.00055179576,0.00023932371,0.00094362255,0.00040193394],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985848,0.0001705157,0.00020117973,0.00052424415,0.00032290278,0.00019634457],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018747502,0.00015826283,0.0004989332,0.000015240823,0.0002820535,0.000020438343,0.0007416738,0.000043897035,0.00046650725],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003027995,0.000111951886,0.00015396476,0.00031871872,0.00019816954,0.000108056374,0.000056893394,0.00010989544,0.000023686129],"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":[0.000028987375,0.00012961937,0.0001387616,0.0013817078,0.00004201231,0.000012594749,0.0016217004,0.000021877102,0.00029083504,0.43239304,0.5545965,0.009342376],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000585804,0.00009746981,0.00033646915,0.0019491584,0.000092685375,0.0000019415836,0.00021960495,0.0000018223398,0.0004178295,0.00081032387,0.9958801,0.00013400817],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.37163615,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.71256477,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9581992,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015311746,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008215389,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.63254815},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000076074706,0.35413364,0.0000915997,0.13020526,0.0023302268,0.0007287479,0.000003588895,0.00019088558,0.51224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.027034126,0.8788178,0.00020162534,0.03628417,0.003114633,0.000036289046,0.000008992548,0.000043846932,0.054458536],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99794,0.00037020288,0.00033200558,0.00026117312,0.00061103544,0.0004855679],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984751,0.000533025,0.00011566463,0.00047121325,0.00014014552,0.00026486182],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020106344,0.00015659843,0.00029445882,0.000008989201,0.00096875516,0.00014810418,0.0006258124,0.00014059329,0.0016723138],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00067832746,0.00010545903,0.00020611616,0.0002682553,0.00048752787,0.00031926873,0.000050582083,0.0003320148,0.00059423695],"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":[0.0000035497546,0.000014132251,0.000049655442,0.000077209734,0.00001874874,0.000005912083,0.0007669363,1.6169736e-7,0.0000010827104,0.8602411,0.11634244,0.022479046],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000921514,0.000013599271,0.00005717342,0.0005246494,0.00005484657,0.0000031867937,0.00009327186,7.653174e-7,0.0000021140208,0.014834571,0.9841708,0.00015285672],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028925491,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013476558,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86782837,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007160728,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00035753121,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992403},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.082147494,0.45758498,0.000019498211,0.22489864,0.0006227525,0.0050951373,0.00002794849,0.0008383201,0.22876522],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9566183,0.031988483,0.0015431766,0.0044531478,0.0014469092,0.00016144762,0.000024160228,0.000018538607,0.0037458304],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99825734,0.00022329,0.0003190384,0.0002886387,0.00050468784,0.00040699498],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99939716,0.00005767669,0.00011500811,0.00011956324,0.00018995258,0.00012063503],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010080334,0.00017128645,0.00041992957,0.0000063277125,0.0018405443,0.000096497606,0.00022352465,0.00009710731,0.00029015314],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005090261,0.00012604844,0.00014384912,0.00014056894,0.00065771875,0.00031128217,0.00009318327,0.00014411671,0.00014882791],"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":[0.000004218887,0.00011457454,0.00065532484,0.001132223,0.000084236584,0.0000017968026,0.015359456,8.412285e-8,0.000008922353,0.85954446,0.008761896,0.11433281],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000120022996,0.0000126053665,0.00042688003,0.0003595619,0.00007032442,3.9768761e-7,0.00018211362,9.303878e-7,0.000004811459,0.0030590224,0.9955676,0.00019570309],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01347537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.042066224,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98680574,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017336359,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000024334024,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994589},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008033671,0.08854521,0.00012940099,0.4471961,0.0010178611,0.0022899834,0.000008757876,0.00014573618,0.4526333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9365375,0.016355636,0.0006313714,0.04506265,0.00051944517,0.000093622555,0.0000019391719,0.000020477853,0.0007773377],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99801904,0.0002426446,0.00038084257,0.0003026652,0.0005498642,0.00050495693],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99911374,0.00017432877,0.000078591234,0.0003444127,0.00012099148,0.00016792485],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020796994,0.00015652913,0.00031238364,0.000018437526,0.0006361017,0.000116897885,0.00060304103,0.00005609498,0.00029780008],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00041354366,0.00011574063,0.00012447409,0.0003734757,0.00029962076,0.00046052694,0.000077822624,0.00023485799,0.0005323302],"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":[0.0000045035163,0.000028085678,0.000017206945,0.00037951636,0.0000039082843,0.0000232296,0.0038567386,0.000009960502,0.00004143586,0.9859431,0.006944741,0.002747587],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000087853085,0.000035031764,0.00005919223,0.0036710978,0.000057088553,0.0000063371467,0.0004771301,6.839538e-7,0.00006772607,0.0045737163,0.9907932,0.00017092522],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.032947756,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08188371,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98384845,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017353262,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001512468,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9734919},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.040986154,0.4179575,0.0003214489,0.112300634,0.0009435575,0.0026193827,0.00017277777,0.000050629526,0.4246479],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97252184,0.026899545,0.000006449417,0.0004827803,0.000032977783,0.000022160704,5.597782e-7,0.0000011710728,0.0000325418],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99906635,0.00007420918,0.00024814106,0.00010274158,0.00031261056,0.00019595791],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994856,0.00016923106,0.00007532621,0.000057246067,0.00016042436,0.000052189374],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00051616726,0.000066186025,0.00019435864,0.000006715342,0.00040452273,0.0000063592192,0.00012654904,0.000018059345,0.00006221275],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027918283,0.00003438153,0.000024385496,0.00012462358,0.0073545724,0.00008380609,0.000021432492,0.0000452947,0.0000027370768],"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":[0.0000026550715,0.000004744576,0.007326817,0.00006796599,0.0000111781355,0.0000018797703,0.000021273261,3.34966e-8,0.0000051515185,0.98645246,0.0003145784,0.0057912413],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009347153,0.000054854543,0.01573487,0.013094133,0.00012979755,0.00002579823,0.0013314995,0.0000020451657,0.00010135239,0.21793301,0.7500788,0.00057913153],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.53857046,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9663934,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93153566,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038353025,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0032262437,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99534684},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011974538,0.7600324,0.0000063250714,0.09985017,0.0033070357,0.0023527942,0.0002524977,0.000026183,0.12219804],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9112765,0.085011914,0.000011885353,0.0029704848,0.00022563242,0.000024053774,0.0000031140398,0.000008678926,0.00046770673],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980098,0.0005474088,0.00039712273,0.00011137323,0.00045716215,0.00047715125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988257,0.00033262762,0.00015800942,0.00047627618,0.000065278604,0.00014210363],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010207853,0.000105827785,0.0002845922,0.000003824742,0.00041194016,0.000034455305,0.00067862176,0.000041285915,0.00021487633],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009654737,0.000061615996,0.000090872665,0.00013262617,0.00025432534,0.00009610799,0.0000857851,0.00018314441,0.0000064455458],"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":[0.0000011542096,0.000022519514,0.0033195638,0.00025362376,0.000018770954,4.5462318e-7,0.00054923905,0.000001764581,0.0000013660333,0.95654273,0.037071183,0.0022176397],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061188955,0.0000020180642,0.005053718,0.0008335952,0.00003135702,2.7010907e-7,0.00017485656,0.0000015908994,0.000006846356,0.003561058,0.99019045,0.000083083905],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9927237,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99679554,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9531192,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00028061986,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00084632786,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31683522},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.87248725,0.018829614,0.00000428619,0.034869872,0.00031032338,0.0018179741,0.00002409972,0.000010250601,0.07164634],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99538666,0.002727193,0.0000054275165,0.0015538591,0.000060393304,0.000026244727,0.0000017670227,0.0000036241397,0.00023481443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99810034,0.0008364623,0.00027913554,0.0000963613,0.00056882435,0.00011886401],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989653,0.0004318546,0.00021246175,0.00022998055,0.00015019828,0.000010155996],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029669541,0.00007428701,0.0001363353,0.0000069059565,0.00055700843,0.000038807342,0.0004188397,0.000032447282,0.00014499082],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027464787,0.000029984329,0.000075263415,0.00010478375,0.00066092,0.00015924613,0.000030147781,0.00019893727,0.0000029679982],"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":[0.0000029842845,0.00002710352,0.000679953,0.0001086674,0.000008690584,7.451315e-8,0.0032751018,0.0000012497766,0.000007427419,0.99460715,0.0012576798,0.000023927121],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016917699,0.000042970703,0.00801316,0.0028204871,0.000067368535,0.0000017908225,0.00065181433,0.000045912082,0.0001043745,0.25573155,0.73224837,0.00010304513],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0026584575,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008610159,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73887557,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004361195,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006521014,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4804671},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0001591672,0.008350839,0.00018173033,0.12794462,0.00047703675,0.0006000248,0.000008060463,0.000053751155,0.86222476],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9831877,0.0040517114,0.000029617699,0.011297768,0.0001502241,0.000027548247,0.000008512556,0.000004296483,0.0012426612],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99805874,0.00058155146,0.00028293033,0.00016591826,0.00052866584,0.00038221828],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990619,0.00012955253,0.0000893692,0.0003193063,0.00019544823,0.0002044591],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035702186,0.000102194346,0.00015432193,0.000011027878,0.0047780587,0.0002513647,0.00044521963,0.000063665684,0.00030018817],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014565387,0.000057653604,0.000113581125,0.0001924522,0.0012652671,0.0001738947,0.000025912303,0.0001627073,0.00030326255],"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":[6.4121554e-7,0.000006018882,0.000007779911,0.000038136837,0.000010190649,0.0000010676943,0.000639162,0.000003781289,2.2474752e-7,0.99648154,0.002190261,0.0006211702],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007501539,0.0000044957355,0.00009366355,0.00037013838,0.00003703016,0.0000012414332,0.00029392008,5.302001e-7,0.0000031419163,0.09156555,0.90746254,0.00009275899],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6397493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98876053,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9830285,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000399055,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007909783,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9965176},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.017630583,0.03733015,0.000053510434,0.058066852,0.002612647,0.0018633081,0.000097142765,0.0018317598,0.880514],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.60580647,0.23919971,0.00047556596,0.03188469,0.0014588995,0.00012943552,0.00057053764,0.00011010532,0.12036458],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987497,0.00018423553,0.00020398342,0.00017711235,0.00036302168,0.00032197946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99941164,0.0000697283,0.000060927418,0.0002126257,0.000102389145,0.00014269422],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013855882,0.00008945713,0.00020735085,0.000022348713,0.00048129767,0.000057895286,0.00026348766,0.000057366484,0.0011654679],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023859231,0.0000862339,0.0001417131,0.0006489929,0.00016548905,0.00014423653,0.000040388404,0.000104442835,0.0052737324],"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":[0.0000017982218,0.00007999967,0.00094425783,0.0013310441,0.00006296143,0.0000073824444,0.04650052,0.000005389679,0.00002237082,0.7631333,0.17374527,0.014165704],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050366503,0.000004758943,0.0001404843,0.0007465329,0.000048359096,2.6360172e-7,0.001833585,0.00006479756,6.928425e-7,0.0009678106,0.9959868,0.00015553896],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00051268644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00020109487,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82224154,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000065733664,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015536703,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997476},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5027645,0.2124977,0.0000352985,0.06714738,0.00077803916,0.0036910695,0.00014749066,0.000082803046,0.21285568],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91321576,0.086167715,0.00003745472,0.00045736248,0.00003511367,0.000023782002,0.000023545508,0.0000075230128,0.00003177312],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99585634,0.0025235144,0.00057272665,0.000111828354,0.0007043402,0.0002312179],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99709857,0.0019359606,0.00030857182,0.0004022039,0.00022191898,0.00003275764],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006423319,0.000111851965,0.0003626397,0.000040726,0.0005217899,0.000042271633,0.00054220634,0.00007205583,0.000025519825],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005134245,0.000058418154,0.00010330755,0.0006192784,0.0019795243,0.0001535417,0.00010236966,0.00024415823,2.4821466e-7],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011338782,0.00001275888,0.002085418,0.0011959468,0.000023186489,0.0000013013145,0.01980753,0.000012028292,0.0000312773,0.9669096,0.0035628888,0.0063467287],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0034410323,0.00029523566,0.040051837,0.024862679,0.0007910666,0.00007918376,0.20113581,0.0012114062,0.0003077241,0.18091825,0.5458023,0.0011034617],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7658362,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7246913,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7859914,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000042072985,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000460001,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.729364},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.48980457,0.020684958,0.000009748236,0.28922248,0.0047538793,0.010648415,0.0016418651,0.0012097028,0.1820244],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9843633,0.0015560488,0.00011686825,0.0020702374,0.0005445183,0.00026464593,0.00024505783,0.000044703072,0.010794595],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9960961,0.0007245293,0.0008304665,0.00061760755,0.0010748992,0.0006564072],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981248,0.00021132255,0.00023646413,0.0007456902,0.00019294926,0.0004887939],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019134125,0.00024959605,0.00073929474,0.00009468182,0.003237397,0.00020200151,0.0007209992,0.0001581107,0.0046745264],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031564906,0.00024333126,0.00037477576,0.0010741304,0.0027715308,0.0007834293,0.00026068668,0.00036526978,0.00035664387],"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":[0.00004070086,0.0012749435,0.00878759,0.0052430257,0.00011356946,0.000029047693,0.016825562,7.433194e-7,0.00009527848,0.40013948,0.56571436,0.0017356989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024517675,0.000046665795,0.005470589,0.003310584,0.000070432565,0.000001585991,0.00031816593,6.476865e-7,0.000009564704,0.0016085359,0.98862857,0.00028948727],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.79732,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98792493,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49455875,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0021856378,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046850924,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99994236},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.24546026,0.25641662,0.00012615098,0.14770447,0.0034402162,0.0031699634,0.003724082,0.001553681,0.33840454],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6011812,0.3849067,0.00008440404,0.011589799,0.00040712123,0.00007983542,0.00034169914,0.00007888519,0.0013303591],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997846,0.00003192783,0.0009041313,0.0005320303,0.00005153483,0.0006343527],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987304,0.00006465792,0.00042462582,0.00059702573,0.000049477574,0.00013379107],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012241516,0.00025625294,0.0007471143,0.00017998667,0.00023194922,0.00009031456,0.0003863307,0.0001240067,0.0015967215],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021854606,0.0002788796,0.0002459058,0.0004981521,0.00007153897,0.00041138075,0.00015485928,0.00021263733,0.008327946],"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":[0.00002152588,0.00009205949,0.0041955477,0.003495758,0.00012910858,0.000014898744,0.00057921995,0.000023023216,0.000020346539,0.9290314,0.056507874,0.005889265],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002504466,0.00007796488,0.0016862775,0.00092092034,0.000029819332,0.00001032413,0.000058835623,0.00022735848,0.000012504702,0.020247689,0.9760357,0.0004421242],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0018395094,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001655601,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9195279,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017536152,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000027755139,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999663},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0048658275,0.43150178,0.00015322503,0.07865445,0.0010466538,0.0024444186,0.000083838124,0.00007927379,0.48117054],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9241477,0.07533688,0.000009429198,0.0002595135,0.000089657326,0.00006957233,0.0000027765163,0.0000012875493,0.000083147475],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99854517,0.0002953556,0.00032609128,0.00010050674,0.00055587216,0.00017701556],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988822,0.00063212996,0.00012382134,0.00012910146,0.00021518879,0.000017561257],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025754923,0.00006271931,0.00019997687,0.000017689585,0.00059356756,0.0000077406785,0.00032499403,0.000026559755,0.000025304515],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007979146,0.000035757865,0.000088210356,0.00069584296,0.004427268,0.000069473965,0.00003941453,0.00007885572,0.000027991966],"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":[0.0000031887203,0.000012570082,0.0012109263,0.00010057723,0.000012208402,7.907378e-7,0.00030646686,0.0000032707617,0.000019965502,0.99200547,0.005729883,0.00059465965],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007024107,0.000014282295,0.0049856342,0.0011183115,0.000032958134,5.6914615e-7,0.0020943254,0.0000022970353,0.000010710007,0.07625576,0.9153494,0.0000654762],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0065681343,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.013915573,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9192819,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000070268055,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00041687867,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99828213},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.028607504,0.23986465,0.000092363836,0.3170794,0.0031235202,0.010693444,0.00083667587,0.00030021198,0.39940223],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.984652,0.009105368,0.000008509136,0.0022173116,0.00035924194,0.00007308639,0.000012737156,0.000019984956,0.003551766],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962946,0.0005879037,0.00075883203,0.0002656296,0.001725298,0.00036772786],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974556,0.00041668516,0.00056558975,0.000297514,0.0011714792,0.00009314064],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002809236,0.00018456922,0.00055546005,0.000029680143,0.0006331958,0.000042751843,0.00072592107,0.00007772368,0.0005790319],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013859739,0.000114358125,0.00020601254,0.0010439637,0.00025968088,0.00019528468,0.0001017815,0.0001830524,0.000028812414],"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":[0.000033067612,0.000087593864,0.0021238036,0.0060018566,0.0002962418,0.000008518015,0.00791491,0.00011468676,0.0009750607,0.47504795,0.50584733,0.001548984],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020697006,0.000022897504,0.0010997356,0.0024146105,0.00010526149,0.000002616011,0.00045727726,0.000051245843,0.00013473995,0.0017627998,0.9935748,0.00016704563],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5747144,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.68770045,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9560445,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022676963,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0029187296,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6339993},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07996866,0.17457266,0.00015337986,0.60607237,0.0029941238,0.0044140588,0.00035065107,0.0015064498,0.12996766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71308106,0.23394427,0.0018226076,0.033330124,0.0020736647,0.0004062406,0.00019529166,0.00011492445,0.015031844],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99746704,0.00035339603,0.00050069334,0.00046854134,0.0006331734,0.000577158],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987629,0.00027228633,0.00008406255,0.0004402521,0.00017443046,0.00026605494],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002055151,0.00020714408,0.0005123513,0.000073683645,0.00033551536,0.000119037846,0.00058012747,0.00008824281,0.0014659992],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000917769,0.00019077252,0.00014068956,0.0012201014,0.00018367013,0.00038618018,0.00014105055,0.0001681376,0.0021642076],"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":[0.00006742642,0.00015204078,0.054711778,0.0032394163,0.00005566442,0.00025825674,0.015021071,0.00006705811,0.00020087087,0.11203221,0.7659986,0.048195634],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007413556,0.000023613638,0.00540817,0.004149329,0.00004369312,6.286515e-7,0.00035060899,0.0000091367465,0.000014306742,0.0012618114,0.988403,0.00026157356],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009743523,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.082035445,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6331124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000079442165,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015458668,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994468},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03466103,0.14718653,0.000019344,0.40618443,0.0015519671,0.015123044,0.0012876684,0.00017450258,0.3938115],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75982904,0.21936457,0.0001737935,0.0076305424,0.0003164895,0.00036165008,0.00012659261,0.000055581393,0.012141768],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961337,0.00055621145,0.0008014183,0.000599914,0.0011757432,0.0007330418],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977684,0.0004553761,0.00034097064,0.0007806437,0.00039176713,0.00026285267],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0057657603,0.00029223616,0.0008809207,0.000007112089,0.00094654225,0.0007106289,0.0035648083,0.00016330813,0.00070109224],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008358877,0.00021325126,0.0001428137,0.0008326101,0.0007769844,0.0012488513,0.001921259,0.00045655027,0.000033816563],"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":[0.000025627303,0.0001389713,0.003488834,0.0011365729,0.000120406134,0.000035766032,0.0070432164,0.0000049654404,0.00002136212,0.2792737,0.70457375,0.0041368306],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00037282574,0.000024458448,0.0017459011,0.0021706184,0.000060471433,0.0000037241962,0.0019606797,0.000011320367,0.000014115769,0.0052467277,0.98807496,0.00031419692],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.37662423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6983269,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.725168,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00027526356,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0028485905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8696134},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.52245635,0.020091916,0.000019886733,0.39763665,0.0031526694,0.008302434,0.00060675695,0.000302832,0.04743051],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98462415,0.011841515,0.000008484224,0.0014466641,0.00023446465,0.000121167934,0.000029783872,0.000016700398,0.0016770947],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962879,0.0010046838,0.00057204074,0.0003841332,0.0012841914,0.00046706994],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99781597,0.0007554634,0.00019395551,0.00084036647,0.0002573132,0.00013690557],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003129386,0.00019359132,0.00041357393,0.000011991628,0.0012213701,0.000079709,0.0008648197,0.000080353624,0.0008094329],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005638794,0.000081313054,0.00024166037,0.00059544464,0.0019037189,0.00023324,0.000571739,0.00022292903,0.000036918766],"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":[0.00021703381,0.0011234948,0.11396026,0.009403671,0.0006547337,0.00006484706,0.07890044,0.000059651305,0.00015220534,0.39617345,0.34148112,0.05780911],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001321159,0.00001680287,0.053194035,0.00076457026,0.00011636267,5.356858e-7,0.0011720663,0.000018067902,0.000018514542,0.010722753,0.9336537,0.00019048918],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5858117,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8962895,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.59217256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000257984,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005625711,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9393915},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.56171155,0.31778815,0.000043161468,0.08488307,0.0007818001,0.0043490734,0.00022707605,0.00020221151,0.030013895],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88829726,0.09825607,0.00003272157,0.010808962,0.00010598388,0.00007272106,0.000025287472,0.000021839875,0.002379155],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99894655,0.00009921488,0.0002009702,0.00019269812,0.0003409977,0.00021957308],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99946636,0.00007814739,0.00010015331,0.00029385387,9.934506e-7,0.000060463306],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003184907,0.00013150122,0.00018161004,0.000006551905,0.00037004033,0.0000047525923,0.00026348277,0.000023606655,0.00056367315],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000067808533,0.0000692903,0.00008800192,0.000109184446,0.0027125876,0.000079198544,0.00034655508,0.0001146997,0.00031624894],"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":[0.000053790372,0.0010061981,0.037128884,0.0047918237,0.00050390133,0.00017635255,0.025354497,0.00024989547,0.017921103,0.055857643,0.5207802,0.33617568],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007143626,0.000038319442,0.011924487,0.00022780163,0.000054814434,0.000028358572,0.00033094207,0.00009651265,0.000053537882,0.00033350085,0.98670727,0.00013304691],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0003867548,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000026398133,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.465927,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007766568,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000026754324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994642},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16311836,0.52899563,0.000054900607,0.09093412,0.0067975945,0.0090948315,0.0011656545,0.005386672,0.19445223],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40936753,0.5678348,0.0016060286,0.0021428538,0.0027569253,0.000820499,0.0003842117,0.000094172305,0.014992965],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9972143,0.00046529353,0.00042250857,0.0005661205,0.0006513347,0.00068044063],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985378,0.00015600053,0.00014806357,0.00046306883,0.0003535711,0.0003414982],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007151046,0.0003273151,0.0006387305,0.00003292083,0.0031560636,0.00017085097,0.00058721885,0.00016005927,0.0013847182],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000044525466,0.00022170511,0.00025167072,0.0008549048,0.00052393717,0.00053701486,0.000066845554,0.0003059362,0.00071608473],"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":[0.000045430475,0.00059993955,0.0020698616,0.0021250837,0.0007883508,0.00016732184,0.084651224,0.00001320902,0.0004908792,0.46163216,0.43153456,0.015881984],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000147018,0.000020787602,0.0009056326,0.0019749368,0.00016381849,7.206001e-7,0.00060245383,0.0000046939863,0.00005001184,0.0081197005,0.9876563,0.00035395558],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16310135,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.45834452,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5561217,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00023922215,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00012153404,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99952817},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.774615,0.08643889,0.000018515575,0.058887966,0.0014929818,0.0054283612,0.0011980301,0.0002544689,0.07166581],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9889711,0.0062278737,0.00042381507,0.0018423926,0.00076956255,0.00033684375,0.000011375574,0.000026598409,0.0013903956],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99665034,0.0003963418,0.0004864121,0.00075800676,0.0011712098,0.00053768966],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99786085,0.00071860437,0.000060665683,0.00038494874,0.0005990026,0.0003759383],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010794863,0.00026659804,0.00070156786,0.000019035653,0.0005301588,0.00029148825,0.0006061955,0.000086269916,0.00070130057],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0018722556,0.00021739949,0.000132885,0.0007364852,0.0008715722,0.00045662178,0.00011799091,0.0002363364,0.00007551833],"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":[0.00013846664,0.0007042097,0.007245783,0.015988909,0.00043279812,0.000088865134,0.49136603,0.00019484987,0.000041846866,0.30213916,0.17677915,0.0048799273],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019565297,0.00015325166,0.009975764,0.010547514,0.00065642985,9.0386806e-7,0.03505347,0.000009753256,0.000011771117,0.0010247953,0.941749,0.00062174606],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82218635,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9440821,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7649698,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0043192194,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00065569265,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999503},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6225439,0.37016344,0.0000032170665,0.0056822253,0.000115126684,0.00059528917,0.00023095329,0.000071555034,0.00059430907],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9662703,0.032812506,0.000016664508,0.00065669615,0.00010733314,0.000015440537,0.00006473038,9.740331e-7,0.000055340268],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989404,0.00010427836,0.00022899096,0.00023894255,0.00028360102,0.00020375695],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995194,0.00024522547,0.000057182082,0.00006524397,0.000032171214,0.0000807787],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00042834296,0.00015897937,0.00024881333,0.0000033172862,0.0001542143,0.00007314527,0.00029540696,0.000046514706,0.00036203326],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000024118412,0.000033621374,0.00018363332,0.000304381,0.00017247681,0.00014188801,0.00007063874,0.00015536895,0.000016687314],"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":[0.00007568432,0.00046544813,0.049153645,0.00888631,0.00043169546,0.00009887431,0.00039674283,0.000026813952,0.14313747,0.04230307,0.09235522,0.662669],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012678026,0.0004514876,0.26084992,0.0047107567,0.00030363942,0.000054763415,0.00007916561,0.00009863128,0.00050323165,0.0004203808,0.73197836,0.00042290974],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00028147176,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00029105804,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6622461,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000010960989,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00000885113,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39640105},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04051562,0.41125804,0.00021035896,0.48311484,0.0018327421,0.0023107072,0.000049522172,0.00040264602,0.060305495],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88496464,0.106646456,0.00010889805,0.004886158,0.0006617811,0.00009868564,0.0000024169535,0.000013843164,0.0026171023],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989322,0.00014972812,0.0001993695,0.00026369144,0.00026017212,0.00019485512],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993841,0.00021290184,0.000026117372,0.00016933943,0.00008636404,0.00012115798],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00082776527,0.00010676726,0.00016883534,0.000025082474,0.0008849972,0.00018830877,0.00014327091,0.00003972047,0.00015068361],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022692955,0.0000724269,0.00005046799,0.00028971137,0.000258987,0.00020229103,0.000030134668,0.0001827182,0.00011833204],"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":[0.000042055854,0.00005717261,0.0000628699,0.0032892483,0.00006104429,0.00004450221,0.011286468,0.0000059295803,0.0005516956,0.8900047,0.08167868,0.012915625],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000037024663,0.000031691525,0.00008103328,0.0040451805,0.00006422579,0.000014042594,0.00013655928,0.000007698577,0.000027756334,0.0008404333,0.9946162,0.00009815289],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0010287041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.015132765,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9129375,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000051894196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000058753445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8444438},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0026744548,0.4796286,0.00009094595,0.08391242,0.00094658823,0.001139504,0.000036988535,0.00023164827,0.43133885],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6808528,0.26990712,0.0015005502,0.017383246,0.0012425039,0.00016549251,0.00005769387,0.000032204054,0.028858446],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986063,0.00017959042,0.00023887558,0.0002692936,0.00042263523,0.0002832851],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99944586,0.00014872951,0.000047400026,0.00016993657,0.00008434757,0.000103750055],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013225134,0.00014136394,0.00021530649,0.00000254716,0.0012200202,0.00024407216,0.00026695972,0.00009767248,0.0015002962],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008193946,0.0000904964,0.00016079034,0.00019465611,0.0017226909,0.00029115117,0.00007669183,0.00034209862,0.00005791614],"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":[7.9810286e-7,0.000007673917,0.00042006996,0.0002800397,0.000057018224,0.000008513572,0.0025886078,5.288009e-7,0.0000048374845,0.983674,0.011851127,0.0011068063],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048801117,0.000006827176,0.0001675356,0.0016904823,0.000117511314,0.0000140882075,0.00069786893,0.0000033461977,0.0000033184658,0.0053699613,0.9917472,0.00013303259],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0031758796,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.026530249,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9798961,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017569776,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00048699183,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994125},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012488888,0.24748433,0.000017659308,0.29146165,0.00072885735,0.0043333652,0.00030665626,0.00022959517,0.442949],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91345507,0.03218931,0.00038920616,0.025419783,0.0005830408,0.00049437693,0.0000059296826,0.00007397624,0.027389301],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998058,0.00021567443,0.00023899034,0.00026920708,0.0008925606,0.00032556715],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983151,0.0009062941,0.000043147844,0.00027660342,0.00035139307,0.000107442036],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011541974,0.00016290952,0.00033196216,0.000008108456,0.00043874487,0.000064488646,0.00027866612,0.000045601402,0.0010166384],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0014326615,0.00008409303,0.0001100288,0.00035412534,0.0006676913,0.00009781187,0.000031769443,0.0001369224,0.00011525115],"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":[0.000024744146,0.000056210385,0.00025904793,0.0027566138,0.00028070688,0.000039087277,0.09579762,0.000003845416,0.000024997016,0.47012722,0.42747125,0.0031586287],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028653916,0.00006420115,0.000043198535,0.004458027,0.0000720587,0.0000017966773,0.0047323043,6.564758e-7,0.000013459091,0.00014230025,0.99030477,0.0001385967],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17359918,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.46199024,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90096617,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00091973017,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006445497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998966},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07450355,0.012205976,0.010383844,0.86242056,0.0039810757,0.0056965426,0.00015072396,0.00016981373,0.030487893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98414856,0.005080633,0.00002731136,0.010082259,0.0002732145,0.00016487204,0.0000015788969,0.000011461336,0.00021013527],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986852,0.00020056595,0.00023690934,0.0002159291,0.00044338696,0.00021804305],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920017,0.00021670008,0.00003151266,0.00030397382,0.00011753775,0.00013012406],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009999317,0.00009578185,0.00015845502,0.000029550476,0.0004869721,0.00009206728,0.0003892844,0.00002109785,0.00013088116],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000052231255,0.000054133274,0.00009891181,0.00036442504,0.0010167175,0.00010940263,0.00014891048,0.0001510767,0.0000580404],"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":[0.0000055330606,0.000027079393,0.00009069478,0.00016913589,0.000024853007,3.3448913e-7,0.016394634,0.000009208978,0.000027726383,0.9690723,0.010887911,0.0032905957],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034905792,0.000054478864,0.00053973583,0.0015790844,0.000030725387,0.0000011503713,0.0008401407,0.000004437995,0.00007097894,0.0014283719,0.9953325,0.000083524916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014971366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.014690022,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98444456,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014642205,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001119687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.991588},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02720907,0.22075017,0.00018583651,0.7280562,0.0024331918,0.004033811,0.000050862905,0.00016312915,0.017117737],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92043245,0.057970267,0.000026792644,0.017854039,0.00077470427,0.00031447955,0.000011058951,0.000016175456,0.002600031],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979134,0.0005287314,0.00028555197,0.00028975194,0.00054880837,0.00043372146],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990815,0.00026536037,0.000053355536,0.0004066355,0.000095898424,0.00009725895],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002869499,0.00015410794,0.00027477954,0.000032618987,0.0008061179,0.000601775,0.00065543625,0.00006031666,0.00048213455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012532037,0.00007074232,0.0003260769,0.001438747,0.00026434998,0.00016612891,0.00011613171,0.0002925485,0.00014325333],"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":[0.0000058326486,0.00009995867,0.0015340372,0.0010520016,0.0013736632,0.000020531388,0.3341364,0.000012392019,0.000026568792,0.20371455,0.4481171,0.009906969],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031563,0.000006653832,0.003219186,0.00037820745,0.00034138086,0.0000012201425,0.0067917616,0.000021922464,0.0000085626325,0.0006214806,0.9884543,0.00012378437],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005709753,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02506641,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8932234,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00023233039,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015734715,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9927236},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009862736,0.57425714,0.000089422654,0.0064202347,0.0014206128,0.0006524809,0.0000168808,0.00011389813,0.40716657],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90003985,0.09791128,0.00005737965,0.00083656993,0.000997778,0.0000181593,0.0000018319965,0.0000058175037,0.00013130758],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990416,0.00013382714,0.00018903973,0.00020284139,0.00024244457,0.00019020624],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997314,0.00008800556,0.000031893294,0.000044593344,0.00006005484,0.00004400222],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006982576,0.00008853813,0.00021368377,0.000033631026,0.00046093226,0.00006824685,0.00006561103,0.000045102704,0.00009623676],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011071527,0.000077545,0.000052307358,0.0003870236,0.00048304806,0.00029736198,0.00004016068,0.00012660687,0.000022092761],"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":[0.0000027362466,0.000017470766,0.001154536,0.00032711364,0.000031610372,0.000012662933,0.0011996127,0.0000016247828,0.000025277357,0.9882534,0.00088146393,0.008092499],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047037698,0.000010261284,0.00067237054,0.0038644618,0.00005630956,0.0000025544975,0.00014226702,0.00002829564,0.0000026447208,0.014353951,0.9807047,0.00011510172],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.033948883,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03748187,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9798233,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010483995,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001711421,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98008156},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008874167,0.31442678,0.0057241223,0.023286976,0.0010416862,0.0027166856,0.000030453039,0.0006094927,0.6432896],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97899055,0.018299995,0.0012547907,0.0009381753,0.00011796278,0.00008385694,0.000022424805,0.000008108568,0.0002841188],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985379,0.00022951384,0.00031838717,0.00027303633,0.00040294885,0.00023821669],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995195,0.0001327125,0.000045553308,0.00013071464,0.00008463865,0.00008684977],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002203654,0.000099687604,0.0002069177,0.000036013556,0.00031503782,0.0001043898,0.00014941054,0.00004149575,0.0013197354],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000074632735,0.0000718542,0.000045540084,0.00033918183,0.0005487658,0.00029543327,0.00001869031,0.00014942141,0.00013660561],"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":[0.000001945002,0.000016992619,0.00036297063,0.00062157476,0.0000094271845,0.000013722448,0.0009080749,0.0000018580471,0.0000059314893,0.9934142,0.0011595766,0.003483703],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008133002,0.000008915844,0.00025620227,0.007159713,0.000024493198,0.0000031993575,0.00008950343,0.000016852688,0.000010394036,0.005667462,0.98652935,0.0001525799],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005018261,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0027939405,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9877468,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00025912691,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00076002284,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995932},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8103944,0.11689693,0.005659558,0.022103418,0.0033922668,0.0057951766,0.00028707265,0.00017365445,0.035297506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.995417,0.0019407676,0.00068090385,0.0017016963,0.00014684348,0.000013538452,0.0000030590418,0.000035216697,0.000060953018],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99628687,0.00045070238,0.0010936132,0.00050766824,0.0010742014,0.0005869359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984963,0.00039915458,0.00020849734,0.00043925224,0.00027022872,0.00018658159],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028877496,0.00025062956,0.0006592255,0.000072270304,0.0002408915,0.000099662255,0.0006749641,0.000121977755,0.00044046217],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00074278365,0.0002099538,0.00013921263,0.0012110549,0.0005795173,0.00025284188,0.00025853715,0.00035076425,0.000009492134],"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":[0.000093313465,0.00044314584,0.0071555073,0.009022961,0.00030143085,0.00022367315,0.037094228,0.00057514274,0.02907622,0.82271326,0.019793766,0.073507346],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009193957,0.00017516989,0.00094759074,0.027566353,0.00072011066,0.00004750806,0.01457822,0.0027072746,0.05613082,0.04141734,0.8534128,0.0022048403],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.59060013,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8112663,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83361906,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00040119595,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013508872,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8561667},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0042086225,0.76006323,0.006878052,0.1380836,0.0026272186,0.0038524286,0.017344816,0.00021865063,0.066723384],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7379389,0.23620996,0.011630168,0.009266245,0.0012056758,0.000037130518,0.0020056383,0.00011525645,0.0015910595],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99668884,0.00052434544,0.0007558957,0.00073717925,0.0008228903,0.00047084337],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958574,0.0017710034,0.00013344834,0.001775925,0.00020354096,0.00025864434],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0040222243,0.00022766861,0.00050178776,0.000024665569,0.00047795335,0.00048897724,0.0017103311,0.000075222735,0.00074764737],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009984644,0.00016820162,0.00003348794,0.00041906565,0.001388302,0.0012022163,0.0010111541,0.0003145295,0.000015958796],"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":[0.000007370825,0.000029168508,0.0003641927,0.0018047399,0.00010775321,0.00006570295,0.0018750434,5.8995835e-7,0.0000055208475,0.80321264,0.1683084,0.024218852],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028786508,0.000016390031,0.000032230782,0.0017491394,0.00023137311,0.000014737705,0.0003243864,0.00183933,0.000003977313,0.022885084,0.9726724,0.00020217794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.28245014,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6106222,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80436397,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009301219,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011030554,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.81862146},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00018806651,0.68576777,0.00026413798,0.08746674,0.0010224668,0.00094575086,0.000007503853,0.00014621158,0.22419137],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8520702,0.14172362,0.0000072539656,0.0035732922,0.0011812964,0.000061726685,0.0000026933387,0.000011181333,0.001368721],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998882,0.00024289043,0.00020679587,0.00017728741,0.00030871865,0.00018234143],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996169,0.00011628731,0.00003579582,0.000109607194,0.00005928742,0.000062100335],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017646678,0.000084795494,0.00023118689,0.000010455572,0.0004671771,0.00022112041,0.00013937739,0.000045966684,0.00041343138],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000104832405,0.000048635615,0.000086869695,0.00020562876,0.00053784135,0.0002616045,0.000023302642,0.00012208737,0.00015635436],"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":[0.000003621273,0.000003566812,0.0000054109187,0.0009614132,0.00001548875,0.0000028075394,0.0011796812,1.7164124e-8,0.0000026753653,0.97237486,0.011568427,0.013882012],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007768006,0.000007556062,0.000009243928,0.0026413475,0.0000712213,0.0000022678103,0.00007367567,0.000009293055,0.0000020182504,0.013452196,0.98357785,0.00007567697],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008057244,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003360723,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9720094,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000024510384,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000086601736,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9985482},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.34063205,0.5454454,0.0002837854,0.04285668,0.009407472,0.0029607252,0.00028341732,0.00078560715,0.05734487],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9649924,0.029297063,0.00015429984,0.0044719013,0.00029791764,0.000056080466,0.000014432401,0.000020058063,0.0006958565],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981392,0.0006048298,0.0004803755,0.00035376812,0.00017478483,0.0002470148],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990265,0.0002686707,0.0001325769,0.00033895383,0.00012263271,0.000110671186],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011328537,0.00020723385,0.00040119985,0.000052664986,0.00026809124,0.000018705918,0.00024921613,0.00027277262,0.0011111491],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000083869425,0.00014714494,0.00022830817,0.0004186213,0.00032859916,0.00012997087,0.00010087343,0.00070153107,0.000075275006],"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":[0.00023280641,0.0009983679,0.0028360202,0.03596234,0.003618049,0.00009116132,0.0029907902,0.000046025176,0.07149716,0.6164476,0.1394343,0.12584537],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00026622612,0.00008210618,0.0004879178,0.00083446095,0.0025611552,0.00012884237,0.000033667657,0.0015572028,0.008905954,0.0010083906,0.9839286,0.00020545308],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000031747204,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00024510268,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84449434,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000059394057,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000119033866,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999802},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025783528,0.25165716,0.0288963,0.24697849,0.0019800519,0.0103416685,0.007366594,0.00015972918,0.4268365],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951399,0.0033250207,0.0001734512,0.00075198355,0.000047877336,0.00010848435,0.0000666892,0.0000033709719,0.00038320702],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986168,0.00015346722,0.00039239592,0.00015999908,0.000544784,0.00013251668],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99879843,0.0005324974,0.00009369017,0.00013818529,0.00039082527,0.000046353187],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009402496,0.0000734272,0.00027190844,0.00008321304,0.00013557494,0.000018443528,0.00022858374,0.000025170308,0.00033817365],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027232213,0.000056358094,0.0001226168,0.0011764559,0.00031560072,0.00009354684,0.000023000344,0.000072176015,0.000010677853],"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":[0.000003033767,0.000018585764,0.0002751066,0.00017883058,0.00015601948,0.0000026717014,0.0002783221,0.00024323183,0.000015721325,0.9939768,0.0046279393,0.00022377234],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000327502,0.000016567166,0.00059074943,0.0009774886,0.0003744533,0.0000010890957,0.00024267423,0.0003368185,0.000036555124,0.0015090498,0.99579287,0.000088942754],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.43095943,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93926406,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9924677,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002044226,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012265756,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.57282984},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0077227047,0.014741462,0.00001869763,0.10618155,0.00042758585,0.0017559783,0.00019809071,0.000036024583,0.8689179],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9867895,0.0064988877,0.000037860147,0.0061046607,0.00008044929,0.0000049392875,0.0000030349236,0.000002856427,0.00047775777],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983776,0.00035427962,0.00037910944,0.00014426479,0.0005111353,0.0002335606],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99877226,0.00024263898,0.00021251528,0.00039818513,0.00027466542,0.00009970611],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008779127,0.00011182254,0.00028574318,0.000009588292,0.00047286815,0.00003569756,0.000489289,0.00006158309,0.0007197847],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00037701047,0.00006501479,0.00016451224,0.0001381198,0.0014317854,0.00007946084,0.000036296948,0.00019029768,0.000025751795],"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":[0.0000030266078,0.00004593627,0.00005452175,0.00012536177,0.0000064670003,0.0000023092437,0.00007833169,5.785262e-7,0.00003669641,0.99434793,0.004953528,0.00034531072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017063625,0.00010121306,0.0007057748,0.0047426214,0.000080126956,0.000016336866,0.000114890696,0.000003345372,0.0005869792,0.14446078,0.84884274,0.00017452694],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.014541773,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0107884975,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97906685,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005023743,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004078556,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9920205},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}