{"meta":{"query_hash":"9ce6205388fa","filters":{"venue":"Texas law review"},"cohort_total":9,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":9,"exported":9,"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/9ce6205388fa","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=Texas+law+review"},"results":[{"id":"W254055643","doi":"","title":"Prospects for a Bilateral Immigration Agreement with Mexico: Lessons from the Bracero Program","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"International Labor and Employment Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":17,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Immigration; Government (linguistics); Negotiation; Political science; Immigration law; Free trade agreement; Immigration reform; Economic growth; International trade; Economics; Law; Free trade","score_opus":0.04771760523447066,"score_gpt":0.3754322812899128,"score_spread":0.32771467605544213,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W254055643","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":[0.06732271,0.059877906,0.0012891566,0.47102243,0.0011172496,0.025294036,0.000262193,0.00075575715,0.37305856],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9303903,0.02889682,0.0025615033,0.022493636,0.0009940128,0.0017340604,0.0002724877,0.00003798399,0.012619221],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989617,0.00008866029,0.00018136481,0.00019066411,0.0003540721,0.00022353548],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994573,0.00008553039,0.00009813991,0.00016439566,0.00014520437,0.000049454433],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00046158832,0.000101440935,0.00015570686,0.000006509487,0.0003701687,0.00011931236,0.00023530364,0.000030027302,0.00038372845],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000030737905,0.000057159206,0.000076301105,0.00016531124,0.0001251011,0.00016822477,0.0000174199,0.000057825484,0.00007054583],"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":[0.000021971568,0.00010952139,0.0025854083,0.00005895314,0.00004590115,0.0000021567523,0.0003800393,8.5774195e-7,0.000004407763,0.97699547,0.005447115,0.0143482275],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017446284,0.000101228165,0.0016082589,0.0007385741,0.00006357476,7.94665e-7,0.000022099493,0.000010251196,0.000030862735,0.0027044602,0.9944462,0.00009919183],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009496744,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06155071,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9889991,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007422203,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006328565,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9970991},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W26938422","doi":"10.7748/ns.30.19.61.s45","title":"Unjust Enrichment by Transfer: Some Comparative Remarks","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas 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":"Unjust enrichment; Restitution; Law; Pretext; Common law; Plaintiff; Context (archaeology); German; Civil law (Civil law); Adversarial system; Political science; Sociology; Commercial law; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.05560637465699839,"score_gpt":0.36798483189039044,"score_spread":0.312378457233392,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W26938422","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":[0.0016143394,0.16558787,0.00035279666,0.023644315,0.00008438754,0.0013585808,0.000030402514,0.00012911053,0.8071982],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.65197045,0.3213654,0.00015718964,0.013423987,0.0002791515,0.00014245903,0.00004597306,0.000013851247,0.012601544],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989157,0.00014997952,0.0002440793,0.0001985233,0.0002504063,0.00024135556],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995062,0.000059575177,0.000037953883,0.0002146663,0.000046884805,0.0001347186],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004832777,0.00010091489,0.00026232222,0.0000074365466,0.00035516563,0.000041651667,0.00026995063,0.000041111736,0.0012510574],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000010132937,0.00008434726,0.00009238431,0.000253534,0.00018205629,0.00021298692,0.000017949144,0.0001125253,0.0007177601],"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":[0.0000010546053,0.00006217546,0.00002722536,0.000082510014,0.0000093057215,8.7950735e-7,0.00026194705,2.483062e-7,0.000017012544,0.960019,0.036944546,0.0025741176],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007863876,0.0000130984545,0.00004401889,0.00025163573,0.000036103007,7.138012e-7,0.00004284143,0.0000013836326,0.000024053998,0.0015522364,0.99784064,0.000114650946],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002054489,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00096959004,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9608961,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007712639,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000052637326,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996619},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W278089968","doi":"","title":"A Canadian Perspective","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":88,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Middle class; Privilege (computing); Law; Pleasure; Kindness; Population; Sociology; Bankruptcy; Consumer debt; Political science; Debt; Economics; Psychology","score_opus":0.024641108987269972,"score_gpt":0.24317726817074098,"score_spread":0.218536159183471,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W278089968","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":[0.0020961114,0.0848777,0.000009025055,0.016841533,0.00021637694,0.00035731707,0.0000031714185,0.000082805724,0.895516],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84487915,0.024061095,0.00004652054,0.12573934,0.0013305341,0.000029086861,0.000017704408,0.000036012694,0.0038605768],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993189,0.000004744136,0.00014687798,0.0001837516,0.00011658503,0.00022917251],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995103,0.000007323582,0.000107700165,0.00022146855,0.00013277672,0.00002042492],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00017237004,0.00011129149,0.00018142178,0.000034946555,0.00010789941,0.00007134013,0.00018991441,0.000025451556,0.0018940765],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000058912767,0.00009761595,0.000073711744,0.0004336043,0.0000272482,0.000486865,0.000032861975,0.000085058775,0.0036627513],"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":[0.0000017760029,0.0000130625685,0.0023984748,0.0003260578,0.000006885939,0.00006583498,0.0000027610918,3.5110128e-7,7.4677956e-7,0.9544964,0.039774988,0.0029126927],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006634221,0.000002233065,0.0025877934,0.0008989021,0.000033979464,0.0000071586787,0.000004826258,0.000012451055,4.820643e-7,0.012505675,0.9837428,0.00013741145],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.64135975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.56301486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94396776,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011976216,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000052164334,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990183},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W296842398","doi":"","title":"Constitutionalism, Judicial Review, and Progressive Change: A Rejoinder to McClain and Fleming","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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":"Constitutionalism; Law; Judicial review; Political science; Warren Court; Scrutiny; Social rights; Economic Justice; Constitutional law; Constitutional theory; Sociology; Argument (complex analysis); Law and economics; Democracy; Politics","score_opus":0.059933132087847646,"score_gpt":0.3676803833157433,"score_spread":0.3077472512278957,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W296842398","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":[0.00043856676,0.8505655,0.000007271694,0.06749995,0.00008027806,0.0013706103,0.000016067213,0.00005024472,0.079971515],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14130272,0.7377795,0.00062575395,0.118433975,0.0013069651,0.00030104266,0.000007834579,0.000008898103,0.00023330172],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876505,0.00012566912,0.00027110637,0.00027097407,0.0003020148,0.0002651979],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99941385,0.00007285223,0.00009146232,0.00009013371,0.00015719004,0.0001745298],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008716972,0.00013623842,0.00039896343,0.000020875721,0.00074489054,0.00003722364,0.00010516082,0.00004746542,0.0002733034],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00038001614,0.000114102375,0.000048451835,0.00025095907,0.0011378531,0.00022213745,0.00011036106,0.000099019664,0.00010688641],"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":[0.0000021369437,0.000015379715,0.0005783305,0.0006117042,0.000020858075,0.000005633605,0.00021423829,2.7676757e-8,5.743582e-7,0.962954,0.0065868166,0.029010337],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008572702,0.000015203888,0.0009650296,0.0071412353,0.00013936513,0.000014674288,0.000019563364,1.2984437e-7,0.0000012466897,0.0024845079,0.9889695,0.00016383461],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0015524742,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015415833,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98238266,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006293795,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011551434,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5729171},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W303607783","doi":"","title":"Hiding in the Hulls: Attacking the Practice of High Seas Murder of Stowaways through Expanded Criminal Jurisdiction[dagger]","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"Maritime Security and History","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; Jurisdiction; Dagger; Political science; Criminology; Crew; International waters; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.046938932541502935,"score_gpt":0.35717039337520784,"score_spread":0.3102314608337049,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W303607783","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":[0.008629368,0.14341812,0.000017764383,0.010703368,0.00016925954,0.0009303141,0.000007828578,0.000036367277,0.8360876],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87316054,0.11984323,0.00031259606,0.005819647,0.00020050239,0.000027621394,0.000004237933,0.0000116872,0.0006199253],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973434,0.0012689539,0.0004398447,0.00017323327,0.00055549585,0.00021902559],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984911,0.0007663492,0.00026221486,0.0003387966,0.00011405582,0.000027472492],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032030474,0.00010645039,0.0003289984,0.000017247703,0.00042322514,0.000025998192,0.0004697602,0.000068270456,0.0029757882],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033082705,0.000070727525,0.00012635635,0.00039081374,0.0005716059,0.0003973927,0.000027062848,0.00026586276,0.000044398752],"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":[0.000022452206,0.0002110055,0.00004278625,0.0012874414,0.000027618613,0.000007054616,0.040396847,0.000004428199,0.0000032103537,0.92649275,0.005330964,0.026173452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012256342,0.000030291058,0.00017079104,0.0013070621,0.00017692751,0.0000060911752,0.0018765945,0.000001572268,0.000012225558,0.0017459616,0.9944635,0.00008641742],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023321768,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0030071868,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9891325,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000064365704,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013900279,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99793565},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W316779082","doi":"","title":"Luddites No Longer: Adopting the Technology Tutorial at the Supreme Court*","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas 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; Law; Court of record; Law of the case; Court of equity; Concurring opinion; Majority opinion; Original jurisdiction; Economic Justice; Precedent; Damages; Sociology; Political science","score_opus":0.03193479066182143,"score_gpt":0.31783938553340246,"score_spread":0.28590459487158104,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W316779082","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":[0.0032806655,0.5870777,0.0000060945604,0.030900467,0.0038145387,0.0014646718,0.00000843107,0.0002527397,0.37319472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92992353,0.048524473,0.000054394022,0.004912363,0.010609917,0.00010756539,0.000004350924,0.00002921289,0.0058341953],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99830353,0.00030341742,0.00031580296,0.00015843722,0.0004184599,0.00050035765],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99887425,0.00032512675,0.0002070739,0.00034210164,0.00017241584,0.00007902918],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028485125,0.00013113105,0.00029451982,0.000011437173,0.0012832226,0.000076601675,0.0005832042,0.00011604911,0.00110678],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010162172,0.00006582046,0.000106047715,0.00045346422,0.0006620676,0.0002409201,0.00015977821,0.00021839164,0.0018093751],"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":[0.000004644063,0.00004174735,0.0035768712,0.0006919415,0.000042793847,0.0000016352036,0.0012263312,1.6174988e-7,0.00002413448,0.8673019,0.11218558,0.014902253],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000446859,0.000011985747,0.000054494798,0.00059249904,0.000059143127,0.0000036459317,0.00009588668,1.8486578e-7,0.00002396337,0.0004370977,0.9985719,0.000104548184],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0045697433,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002929925,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92664284,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000891181,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008806506,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99980634},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W327449872","doi":"","title":"The Cross-Border Trucking Dispute: Finding a Way out of the Conflict between NAFTA and U.S. Environmental Law*","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas 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":"Law; Political science; State (computer science); Common law","score_opus":0.030156011178217645,"score_gpt":0.38099778339837054,"score_spread":0.3508417722201529,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W327449872","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":[0.57230943,0.078426346,0.00012948563,0.022622209,0.0012875368,0.0027582424,0.00022504842,0.00008206831,0.32215962],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9887376,0.009184011,0.000019041296,0.000751503,0.00012810875,0.000006155126,0.00000763888,0.000005606543,0.0011603427],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991526,0.000090370064,0.000212146,0.000107796,0.00030138058,0.00013567744],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99956065,0.00012710053,0.0001448753,0.00012190453,0.000016768352,0.000028714729],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006421956,0.00006805243,0.00013078393,0.0000037016737,0.00069682754,0.00006990476,0.00020381626,0.00003487499,0.000082017265],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005370596,0.000039236216,0.00007336267,0.000045688597,0.00053008355,0.00012439907,0.00006134192,0.00008239074,0.000017952878],"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":[7.231394e-7,0.000006736431,0.0052348925,0.000046757854,0.000013522478,1.855853e-7,0.00042475548,6.7533267e-7,0.000013750868,0.989566,0.000015557776,0.004676425],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013722292,0.000008775718,0.019506404,0.00062112237,0.000033614724,5.9518266e-7,0.000023667972,5.9173647e-7,0.00015097346,0.0037560475,0.9756894,0.00007155268],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017908518,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0018934201,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98581,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000067792396,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000022491879,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5359505},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W861021641","doi":"","title":"Dismantling the Carceral State: The Future of Penal Policy Reform","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Population; Prison; State (computer science); Mass incarceration; Political science; Realm; Quarter (Canadian coin); Law; Sanctions; Criminology; Sociology; Geography; Demography","score_opus":0.01637936038462246,"score_gpt":0.32617068071953986,"score_spread":0.3097913203349174,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W861021641","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":[0.106994584,0.45017543,0.00010690899,0.058880754,0.00055228337,0.0010454278,0.000026565694,0.00009717609,0.38212088],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8626339,0.13142216,0.000019111128,0.0020179786,0.0015170063,0.000013328924,0.000005274398,0.000007709792,0.0023635179],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990159,0.00016511281,0.0002321451,0.000095840114,0.00028015097,0.00021079555],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994493,0.00006256319,0.00012196201,0.00024447712,0.000091040565,0.000030623665],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006652023,0.000071880815,0.00017440128,0.000017591265,0.0006017913,0.000041590858,0.00031348123,0.00002179231,0.00017098647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000026361206,0.000033650653,0.00018189772,0.00059484283,0.0002545927,0.000071949566,0.00003408699,0.00011915811,0.00003299811],"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":[0.000003777714,0.00003439039,0.00017740137,0.00037316748,0.000029281306,0.0000017935455,0.002135925,0.000027562539,0.000003182165,0.8373518,0.0027406001,0.1571211],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029351026,0.000011038493,0.00044358367,0.0002726274,0.00034924102,0.0000029114829,0.009728874,0.000014955008,0.0000062217246,0.0013964616,0.9876717,0.0000730634],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.33425868,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.14674959,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98493105,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010321415,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011987703,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86882},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W96210955","doi":"","title":"New Constitutional Ideas: Can New Parliamentary Models Resist Judicial Dominance When Interpreting Rights?","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Texas law review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":33,"is_retracted":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; Judicial review; Legitimacy; Fundamental rights; Law and economics; Constitutionalism; Law; Human rights; Constitutional theory; Legislature; International human rights law; Politics; Parliamentary sovereignty; Legislation; Sociology; Democracy; Parliament","score_opus":0.03310356322175908,"score_gpt":0.30227748066509436,"score_spread":0.2691739174433353,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W96210955","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":[0.0005416307,0.2547981,0.008721633,0.059037484,0.0010659676,0.0012268407,0.000051430623,0.00021937453,0.6743375],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9079146,0.05058314,0.007894212,0.029078918,0.0028640975,0.000049669696,0.000035143355,0.000017921637,0.001562306],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99807316,0.00011455155,0.00046757623,0.00035753284,0.00057135447,0.00041584257],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991962,0.00008515305,0.0001703707,0.00016917469,0.00010324201,0.00027588685],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004954318,0.00020914906,0.0004653773,0.000024550627,0.0011864515,0.00006422211,0.00037272394,0.000071838775,0.0005506761],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001310701,0.00018300426,0.00018272224,0.00023167329,0.0017211181,0.00033720367,0.00010414554,0.00017825657,0.0002272006],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011586799,0.000019631254,0.000053341682,0.000041405405,0.000038162496,0.000014148018,0.00037608366,0.000025173005,9.0068824e-7,0.971908,0.023692958,0.003818658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002197974,0.000012565359,0.000023203678,0.0031438791,0.00006865953,0.0000037314267,0.000034793113,3.830879e-7,0.000008059468,0.5356722,0.4606453,0.00016745458],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3741628,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.12877841,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90737295,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00041434486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017737133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9125346},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}