{"meta":{"query_hash":"45f0242869ec","filters":{"venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal"},"cohort_total":35,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":35,"exported":35,"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/45f0242869ec","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=The+Cambridge+Law+Journal"},"results":[{"id":"W1828715469","doi":"10.1017/s0008197315000306","title":"THE MODERN FUNCTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC TORTS: REVIEWING THE ENGLISH, CANADIAN, AUSTRALIAN, AND NEW ZEALAND POSITIONS","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Tort; Harm; Liability; Function (biology); Law; Phenomenon; Business; Law and economics; Political science; Economics","score_opus":0.04985250084441758,"score_gpt":0.2863151102956585,"score_spread":0.2364626094512409,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1828715469","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10083203,0.4476709,0.0023040331,0.097061895,0.0019380256,0.00008672186,0.0003509122,0.00003531782,0.34972012],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.65771693,0.30590713,0.00276664,0.0072763157,0.001343146,0.000034567867,0.00012534102,0.00004314251,0.02478675],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99564457,0.00060228445,0.0002281806,0.00025405933,0.0024914017,0.0007795092],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9884248,0.0035014683,0.0011042316,0.00022077978,0.006089696,0.00065912853],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005217249,0.0004684888,0.0004948808,0.0130191855,0.006844666,0.0057751024,0.001489021,0.0016893076,0.0030193788],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011757868,0.0003461059,0.0003486674,0.013159139,0.02269828,0.0035983487,0.0012572453,0.003213303,0.0002449859],"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":[0.000033026023,0.00003952083,0.006611296,0.0015038553,0.000029481413,0.0011297992,0.06401587,0.0006970405,0.00050594116,0.7562993,0.051170934,0.117963985],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000727115,0.000028826575,0.075159594,0.0048911045,0.000086132015,0.00062024983,0.042737637,0.00088023767,0.0002844088,0.027785221,0.84741706,0.00010227766],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9526303,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9750837,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08024416,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08024416,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.061947607,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58221483},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1983153865","doi":"10.1017/s0008197300250101","title":"<scp>FOR LOVE OR MONEY? DEPENDENT CARERS AND FAMILY PROVISION</scp>","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Estate; Settlement (finance); Daughter; Damages; Entitlement (fair division); Law; Business; Quarter (Canadian coin); Estate planning; Inheritance (genetic algorithm); Payment; Political science; Law and economics; Economics; Finance; History","score_opus":0.025309965010872532,"score_gpt":0.2971921425248232,"score_spread":0.27188217751395066,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1983153865","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0027468072,0.0024543835,0.0003272689,0.14098743,0.0075824023,0.00014952943,0.0010824808,0.00036372003,0.8443059],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.011568394,0.0011384329,0.00029024016,0.107642,0.0018166826,0.00012453584,0.00048195015,0.00017429137,0.87676346],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992144,0.000101530386,0.00004111708,0.00008373609,0.00027839406,0.00028086075],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982957,0.00042818513,0.00007435575,0.00013094745,0.000545936,0.0005248769],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000803768,0.00036102327,0.00028935252,0.00046469207,0.0049650664,0.0034362809,0.0012600434,0.008109809,0.17931032],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004199182,0.0003365281,0.00036479277,0.00042564434,0.0010557219,0.0018364087,0.0025536427,0.0044833464,0.057355702],"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":[0.000005637684,0.000010598417,0.00015672957,0.000018087205,6.2588384e-7,0.00018129386,0.00016532594,0.000009844033,0.00006536302,0.0046536806,0.9874259,0.007306906],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000044990334,0.0000076456,0.0010574778,0.00007256614,0.0000010681048,0.00015272167,0.00043462048,0.000022347778,0.000054328437,0.00058557716,0.9976011,0.000005958342],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06935254,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20730765,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17931032,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0024157567,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0037876484,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5998528},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2001130030","doi":"10.1017/s0008197301680619","title":"<scp>HOW OLD DID YOU THINK SHE WAS?</scp>","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Statute; Statutory law; Parliament; Law; Assertion; Element (criminal law); Political science; Quarter (Canadian coin); History; Archaeology; Politics; Computer science","score_opus":0.027043065203731762,"score_gpt":0.2829666507860069,"score_spread":0.2559235855822751,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2001130030","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006421307,0.0063463994,0.0014923351,0.40021074,0.016243765,0.00010828167,0.0030903153,0.00034615767,0.56574076],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.090055674,0.0045360085,0.0011049565,0.22416121,0.0052823126,0.00020740135,0.0013704608,0.00033532007,0.67294663],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99913687,0.00023144337,0.0000310067,0.00011015929,0.0003089093,0.00018162734],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99801385,0.00038243894,0.00015378521,0.000115382965,0.0009813234,0.00035324195],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00094776356,0.0004631498,0.0003557371,0.0006872064,0.004052948,0.0034957728,0.0005559776,0.003577998,0.09703283],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007259829,0.00013766145,0.00026865004,0.000518001,0.001965807,0.0034977216,0.0016729612,0.0037559418,0.061557528],"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":[0.000009540654,0.0000058564306,0.0005911165,0.000031779353,0.0000012092253,0.0001333169,0.0021355385,0.000007411374,0.00006725881,0.0053413473,0.9716688,0.0200069],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000001569429,0.000007539418,0.001013075,0.00013419212,0.0000011863099,0.00032531578,0.0051253773,0.000024391378,0.00007144154,0.0019166433,0.9913685,0.000010810322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.024414366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.042066596,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09703283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0024683576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015627526,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32460713},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2028202664","doi":"10.1017/s0008197303006342","title":"St. German on Reason and Parliamentary Sovereignty","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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":"Queen's University","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Sovereignty; Parliamentary sovereignty; Law; Statute; German; Popular sovereignty; Political science; History","score_opus":0.01873888407128695,"score_gpt":0.29382570137676084,"score_spread":0.2750868173054739,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2028202664","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025405604,0.038794283,0.002063558,0.088725194,0.0012443856,0.000018561619,0.00014460497,0.00002169603,0.84358215],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76621264,0.0154652335,0.000990592,0.044692248,0.0013408537,0.000057411624,0.000081093116,0.000044948345,0.17111489],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99906296,0.00031108322,0.00002558536,0.0001583829,0.00019317698,0.0002488393],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99966955,0.00020013923,0.000026478043,0.000024123527,0.000051179748,0.000028672543],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00099097,0.00032865006,0.0002861237,0.0007851865,0.004437751,0.0032003804,0.00035555637,0.0036925422,0.0048632203],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0015051012,0.00017260316,0.00024299805,0.00082293904,0.014003634,0.0032192355,0.00212234,0.0037024533,0.00071185996],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000049395185,0.0000019136935,0.000064525695,0.0000060698276,9.937215e-7,0.000031810207,0.00070843863,0.00003356298,0.000027102376,0.99059933,0.007275591,0.0012458035],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015681682,0.0000128756055,0.0009426555,0.00016548985,0.0000055485657,0.000074658165,0.00077396695,0.000116608455,0.00019077944,0.5812933,0.41639543,0.000013023018],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.020897193,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036472585,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.020897193,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0062320675,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0025397227,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.045217037},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2029375586","doi":"10.1017/s0008197306007240","title":"PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Right to privacy; Internet privacy; The Right to Privacy; Information privacy; Privacy law; Political science; Event (particle physics); Privacy policy; Law; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Human rights","score_opus":0.02230662484784799,"score_gpt":0.2728034082497127,"score_spread":0.2504967834018647,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2029375586","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08410722,0.0054329187,0.021634784,0.11165845,0.0005659676,0.000044862267,0.00023931939,0.00006138843,0.77625513],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96191174,0.0010886957,0.0009631356,0.005380899,0.00031056302,0.000027649576,0.000036205474,0.000014278189,0.030266955],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9929103,0.0031238256,0.0002455499,0.0008744557,0.001492139,0.001353668],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9950889,0.0022529932,0.0006621861,0.0011244171,0.00048128868,0.00039029022],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037093193,0.00021484695,0.0004127822,0.0004960662,0.0070289746,0.010545334,0.0009154634,0.006404932,0.009639095],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0081854705,0.00032281238,0.00054655067,0.0008709647,0.018064298,0.012896577,0.0060699484,0.0049702707,0.0012460253],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010091974,0.000011101024,0.00041796677,0.000016389016,0.0000031821564,0.0001981881,0.0044748564,0.00010706894,0.00008915905,0.98441654,0.005028101,0.005227314],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013048543,0.000046417626,0.0015753377,0.00025668243,0.000013268267,0.0006974238,0.012508134,0.00054413825,0.00060750614,0.73299825,0.25070226,0.00003757953],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008184061,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0065464093,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010545334,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0034964571,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0037226689,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.032245934},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2036468157","doi":"10.1017/s0008197302251600","title":"NEGLIGENCE: CANADA REMAKES THE <i>ANNS</i> TEST","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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; Corporation; Government (linguistics); Statute; Payment; Business; Test (biology); Law; Finance; Political science","score_opus":0.024391925509829285,"score_gpt":0.19521051443840814,"score_spread":0.17081858892857887,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2036468157","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.029673563,0.0034497005,0.0009696738,0.34388044,0.0023816545,0.00011406207,0.0006780591,0.00012925839,0.6187236],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.36345512,0.0034439776,0.0010534071,0.29104516,0.0006020624,0.00008473235,0.00038812522,0.00013390792,0.3397935],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99174047,0.00043794874,0.00022524068,0.0008187072,0.004057073,0.0027205397],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9901186,0.0023017903,0.00029876837,0.00040530018,0.0040776264,0.0027979158],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0047030617,0.0004299179,0.00056425505,0.0012995203,0.026051078,0.008163125,0.0032103166,0.017231436,0.018142091],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018206539,0.0005280345,0.0006971904,0.0012150748,0.008025839,0.0026850763,0.0035065813,0.011565413,0.0017347372],"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":[0.000050424493,0.000053683558,0.0094816955,0.00007806175,0.000030592284,0.0017710776,0.0030274366,0.0003075182,0.00039671015,0.25909367,0.69279695,0.03291221],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006898459,0.00007355609,0.021286095,0.00066096394,0.00009753711,0.0006257105,0.0060238903,0.0008296103,0.00075503316,0.0225383,0.946869,0.00017129089],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97448754,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98962575,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04736983,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04736983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15971193,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3436938},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2037372397","doi":"10.1017/s000819730327639x","title":"<i>Corporate Governance in Australia and New Zealand.</i> By J<scp>ohn</scp> F<scp>arrar</scp>. [Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. xxvi, 472 and (Appendices and Index) 52 pp. Paperback £33.99. ISBN 0–19–551314–2.]","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Nothing; Corporate governance; Exaggeration; Jurisdiction; Index (typography); Position (finance); Political science; China; Scope (computer science); Law; Management; Economics; Psychology; Computer science","score_opus":0.032420022928021944,"score_gpt":0.2548486047052972,"score_spread":0.22242858177727526,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2037372397","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007085297,0.70852506,0.0008299247,0.057892255,0.006631696,0.000102984624,0.00046570695,0.00007973677,0.21838742],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08867887,0.30733773,0.0015648344,0.005615649,0.0022660338,0.00016016989,0.0006062605,0.000101460464,0.593669],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9995814,0.0000406329,0.000030868814,0.00004857337,0.00022969932,0.00006884686],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995572,0.00007676494,0.000111112684,0.000022487791,0.000115702314,0.000116722156],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00051598693,0.0005696809,0.0004366679,0.0010145458,0.0012283325,0.0030056858,0.00048541976,0.001103417,0.016762998],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0018504224,0.0005346658,0.0002931908,0.0031748945,0.002011977,0.0034234717,0.0010974214,0.0018519326,0.0027175264],"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":[0.000019910149,0.000026964852,0.0011448008,0.0008860414,0.000011824767,0.00026357916,0.0066562234,0.00020338102,0.00034448484,0.029850382,0.79950714,0.16108519],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006890584,0.000016755263,0.014289024,0.00067506154,0.000007235595,0.000193732,0.0018816551,0.00011155606,0.000056626395,0.004448949,0.9783028,0.000009720812],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29598516,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.47923258,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29598516,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0073482534,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007437406,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5885247},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2070147880","doi":"10.1017/s0008197312000815","title":"FREE MOVEMENT, FEDERALISM AND INSTITUTIONAL CHOICE: A CANADA-EU COMPARISON","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Federalism; Multinational corporation; Diversity (politics); State (computer science); Politics; Political science; Free movement; International trade; Political economy; Economics; Business; International economics; Law","score_opus":0.022670014761444462,"score_gpt":0.2402962810305997,"score_spread":0.21762626626915524,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2070147880","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.3413008,0.011327741,0.0025951385,0.01970846,0.00015122886,0.00008749342,0.0014113797,0.000043924363,0.6233738],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9847609,0.003083454,0.00068194786,0.0012041361,0.000019963114,0.000018641203,0.00029805367,0.000020598285,0.009912229],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99492973,0.0005586822,0.00012522918,0.00028913663,0.0015887212,0.002508444],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99644816,0.0008142721,0.00037776688,0.00020567818,0.0014865982,0.00066748686],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022750185,0.00024247132,0.0006053907,0.0050565666,0.0071095843,0.0068817334,0.0010826482,0.001539106,0.006589216],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0063322727,0.00016530942,0.0005989122,0.009836471,0.00630538,0.0016199982,0.00299335,0.0014156759,0.00022097497],"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":[0.00013632512,0.000035546527,0.018219672,0.00008088721,0.000056332825,0.00020402057,0.0020281211,0.0018292621,0.00015975731,0.94711876,0.008363,0.021768318],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002535667,0.00014831538,0.35715568,0.0010121738,0.0004640077,0.00053629774,0.024271179,0.0066455007,0.0012721603,0.14467934,0.46329477,0.0002669723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97745615,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98893666,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07046709,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07046709,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.064514354,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.51127696},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2072498805","doi":"10.1017/s000819731300038x","title":"CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND THE NO-PROFIT RULE","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":38,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Constructive trust; Constructive; Business; Law and economics; Profit (economics); Economics; Microeconomics; Computer science","score_opus":0.010481985199346025,"score_gpt":0.2585663839237788,"score_spread":0.24808439872443278,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2072498805","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06617557,0.004015703,0.11493154,0.06186718,0.00091396185,0.00013021335,0.00014853128,0.00011310273,0.7517043],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9651747,0.000703022,0.005283598,0.0029696159,0.00060764473,0.00012590866,0.000024101557,0.000038291433,0.025073202],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9873768,0.004871467,0.000618449,0.0020158864,0.0034217555,0.0016956681],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97020525,0.019144285,0.0022850167,0.0043565375,0.0029578242,0.001051023],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012879616,0.00052208,0.0012757636,0.0010863567,0.004908987,0.009675419,0.0021492376,0.008690282,0.006098019],"category_scores_gemma":[0.035966717,0.0006454558,0.0010890005,0.00086545263,0.02701926,0.012483473,0.00445281,0.009400544,0.0011410622],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000033881356,0.0000038771477,0.00002538048,0.0000046537225,0.0000023552384,0.00001609475,0.00007259549,0.00008158838,0.000014599308,0.9988243,0.00044956923,0.0005016111],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000066150874,0.000002083414,0.000027821941,0.0000058215987,0.000002101732,0.000013179859,0.000027370781,0.00022362862,0.000025350724,0.99810445,0.0015585426,0.000002888237],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0032738398,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0028727138,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012879616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0048489333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004673455,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.0681147},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2073258159","doi":"10.1017/s0008197301000642","title":"Liability in Respect of the Intoxicated","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","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":"Liability; Tort; Harm; Strict liability; Law; Business; Work (physics); Law and economics; Political science; Sociology; Engineering","score_opus":0.06566853386219451,"score_gpt":0.41582736494286743,"score_spread":0.3501588310806729,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2073258159","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17366105,0.01116254,0.029750612,0.124774195,0.0016401104,0.000077713456,0.000092057846,0.00008122628,0.65876055],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9443362,0.0027896636,0.0016684186,0.009918713,0.0006637701,0.00002402202,0.000020548474,0.0000143615725,0.04056443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963025,0.000978336,0.00021114844,0.00029958718,0.0015002805,0.0007080939],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99696344,0.0013432314,0.00056155236,0.00032152273,0.00043699573,0.00037327604],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028873603,0.00023892685,0.000360588,0.0007204514,0.004047378,0.0026563874,0.0010209292,0.0081354715,0.003550474],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009334052,0.00023316052,0.0007421966,0.00037247696,0.01046276,0.0024867167,0.0069928137,0.0046560317,0.00071145507],"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":[0.00003246583,0.000028816392,0.0029602903,0.00004489664,0.000018897332,0.006253218,0.011532285,0.0006113957,0.0011281973,0.955743,0.0071069296,0.014539549],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002622427,0.00022874166,0.006467612,0.0006522131,0.000049928447,0.014142472,0.0073729157,0.0011679644,0.0024236839,0.692176,0.27522,0.00007223951],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007116097,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0080729425,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0081354715,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001529345,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0040917248,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.015269995},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2079011279","doi":"10.1017/s000819731400004x","title":"EXPRESS TERMINATION CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Damages; Context (archaeology); Position (finance); Set (abstract data type); Law and economics; Reading (process); Law; Political science; Business; Computer science; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.019473972081441346,"score_gpt":0.30527294866899923,"score_spread":0.2857989765875579,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2079011279","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04121889,0.002212955,0.19621144,0.014335429,0.00094713864,0.00025564292,0.00042776793,0.00027256866,0.7441182],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86463535,0.0012807657,0.046487864,0.0057904446,0.0006735712,0.0005415139,0.00030299794,0.00015686786,0.0801307],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98664665,0.0052484823,0.0012580967,0.0009458902,0.0046994044,0.0012013855],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862569,0.0075914892,0.0009280336,0.001857212,0.003093823,0.0002725465],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012974148,0.00041082644,0.00048791736,0.0012498153,0.003266774,0.00669921,0.0018923566,0.004169571,0.008708606],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020990545,0.00043672806,0.0007713998,0.0018195058,0.013683704,0.0068812543,0.0035919005,0.0061378274,0.0009422397],"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":[0.0000016460575,0.000001439671,0.000020238349,0.000004399851,6.6012086e-7,0.000013699243,0.00019940751,0.00007769562,0.000030191915,0.99836844,0.0005353524,0.0007468592],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016322801,0.000016736805,0.00016232076,0.00011611965,0.000010588944,0.00010853651,0.00038892316,0.0017593701,0.0005984657,0.926929,0.069871515,0.000022246928],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0069003995,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004978217,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.012974148,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005266562,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004294918,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06861466},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2107027439","doi":"10.1017/s0008197307000876","title":"THE PASSING OF PASSING-ON IN CANADA","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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":"Computer science; Message passing; Content (measure theory); Programming language; Mathematics","score_opus":0.009769972929983222,"score_gpt":0.22788787787953885,"score_spread":0.21811790494955563,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2107027439","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19492379,0.0027452286,0.0011866244,0.05094531,0.0014769287,0.00011680697,0.0015018459,0.00014586885,0.7469576],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7289335,0.0010277467,0.00041729785,0.0067913714,0.000075362586,0.000029296236,0.0002736522,0.00013032221,0.26232144],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9914846,0.00047320023,0.00011051423,0.0007402947,0.0020446938,0.0051467293],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99608505,0.00028302494,0.000121581324,0.00019090343,0.0018976569,0.0014217992],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022872037,0.00037338465,0.00074988935,0.0010950237,0.036659297,0.009355854,0.0021585946,0.0037316,0.030129738],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007200459,0.0005414586,0.0005265471,0.0022808935,0.0073921,0.0027513704,0.0053452305,0.0065942183,0.0015964761],"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":[0.00013925628,0.00004609455,0.015378059,0.00012297332,0.000049953247,0.0014210258,0.07813167,0.0004970358,0.0005199572,0.62845486,0.23558259,0.03965658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001754927,0.00003446534,0.029871413,0.0002942566,0.000060756123,0.00020573182,0.068967946,0.0004774384,0.00051566324,0.0120106675,0.8874158,0.00012822745],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99575835,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984164,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14343101,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14343101,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.21715645,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9934986},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2110013063","doi":"10.1017/s0008197300300101","title":"<scp>A DUTY TO GIVE REASONS?</scp>","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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; Estate; Duty; Aside; Law; Flannery; Psychology; Political science; Philosophy; Theology","score_opus":0.019805880869202878,"score_gpt":0.2934907427046273,"score_spread":0.27368486183542445,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2110013063","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0035984083,0.0018311663,0.0017924,0.40370736,0.0024379008,0.00005381373,0.0001643114,0.000091491886,0.5863232],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.18936318,0.0014262904,0.0018691542,0.518572,0.002452118,0.00016651831,0.00012469682,0.00011133047,0.28591475],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99714214,0.00087370595,0.00013745108,0.00026585785,0.00089869666,0.0006822226],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99696034,0.0013858414,0.00021454906,0.00030946138,0.0007684367,0.00036132443],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038108737,0.00039749342,0.00035506845,0.0005294434,0.007789826,0.0047790604,0.0013420678,0.02192549,0.026748097],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011447441,0.0004949954,0.0005100457,0.00055613817,0.009279176,0.0044115186,0.0023979864,0.0097913435,0.010033231],"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":[0.0000167271,0.000014264163,0.00031047934,0.000039183848,0.0000039505876,0.00027476088,0.0020915845,0.00003224048,0.00012643948,0.4404198,0.5499187,0.006751863],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018858593,0.000019689627,0.00084563706,0.00021831886,0.0000069700186,0.0005196468,0.001997282,0.00014004744,0.00028426584,0.09204002,0.90388334,0.000025877725],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.032107662,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.064258456,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.032107662,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0032479262,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004738084,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.089481294},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2113299159","doi":"10.1017/s0008197313000482","title":"WINNERS AND LOSERS: <i>EDWARDS</i> AND THE UNFAIR LAW OF DISMISSAL","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Notice; Statutory law; Dismissal; Law; Common law; Statute; Political science; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Unfair dismissal; Discipline","score_opus":0.009136205729693987,"score_gpt":0.2503988532783828,"score_spread":0.2412626475486888,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2113299159","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.29303402,0.0035669138,0.0051990207,0.25960064,0.0012895168,0.000046083285,0.000068473084,0.000025211519,0.43717006],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9839755,0.00026059538,0.00019116544,0.005816011,0.0002468689,0.000010236717,0.000006185785,0.000008804628,0.009484582],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9851334,0.005528382,0.00073970336,0.001699986,0.003564393,0.0033339993],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98688185,0.008339968,0.00145291,0.0007147665,0.0012412628,0.0013692633],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014194969,0.00021889163,0.00061004434,0.0013982021,0.010223722,0.0115442285,0.0017748855,0.012476045,0.008178537],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031518776,0.00041623748,0.00048462173,0.0008525167,0.03561233,0.0062299953,0.006833495,0.012580571,0.0006129293],"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":[0.000030684147,0.000021951275,0.0015072316,0.000011617147,0.000006125702,0.0006199855,0.005354407,0.00010092387,0.000120450364,0.9807792,0.0083269905,0.003120429],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000080455364,0.00010268537,0.007918099,0.00041620308,0.000045475666,0.0012856303,0.027547415,0.0020615035,0.0005925201,0.85927546,0.10049634,0.00017830715],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.038739063,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.050424676,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.038739063,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00978919,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0067754416,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07702714},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2113519645","doi":"10.1017/s000819730000012x","title":"The Rule Against Perpetuities and the Law Commission's Flawed Philosophy","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Property Rights and Legal Doctrine","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":"Commission; Law; Rule of law; Perpetuity; Political science; Law and economics; Property (philosophy); Economics; Philosophy; Epistemology; Politics","score_opus":0.015856616679670102,"score_gpt":0.2507193452691885,"score_spread":0.2348627285895184,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2113519645","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019457566,0.013405738,0.07321402,0.5732622,0.0077220383,0.00014309476,0.00012978491,0.00024131162,0.3124242],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7701332,0.0037626433,0.034267034,0.13230826,0.0056810156,0.00042054197,0.000053869066,0.00024260378,0.053130876],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9581921,0.015255115,0.0024132251,0.005365946,0.015758995,0.0030145615],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9649053,0.023134088,0.0017649241,0.0036401718,0.0052134898,0.0013419391],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.049617033,0.0005577549,0.0017161653,0.0028520175,0.010939211,0.023326727,0.004299314,0.030528186,0.0016911301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06387585,0.0008171619,0.0015029237,0.002155896,0.100869946,0.014565985,0.006858813,0.036825087,0.00062440446],"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":[0.0000014505632,0.0000021986523,0.000017685556,0.0000032672492,0.0000012823587,0.00000981849,0.0003367748,0.000046965793,0.000005990754,0.99744475,0.0014755691,0.0006542542],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022777109,0.000010821464,0.000051130217,0.00006993839,0.000009209755,0.000037591013,0.00023876365,0.00034700785,0.000083153434,0.9448364,0.05426817,0.000024978955],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.043393157,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0250375,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.049617033,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017909369,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027652487,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26240313},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2115370753","doi":"10.1017/s0008197313000718","title":"THE GOD “DILUTION”? RELIGION, DISCRIMINATION AND THE CASE FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Accommodation; Duty; Normative; Reasonable accommodation; Disadvantage; Compromise; Religious discrimination; Law; Law and economics; Political science; Proportionality (law); Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.014983419445327386,"score_gpt":0.2772541085213401,"score_spread":0.2622706890760127,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2115370753","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.23311779,0.0034968373,0.0047627385,0.19477737,0.00055455684,0.00003933741,0.000045322016,0.000026566686,0.56317955],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98979926,0.00017943468,0.00029487864,0.0039265635,0.00005132283,0.0000062158424,0.0000030820079,0.000004152733,0.005735124],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954724,0.002021763,0.00011893615,0.0002864783,0.00095597276,0.0011443908],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99602085,0.0022323714,0.00033068634,0.00039424142,0.00060788426,0.00041400752],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044713398,0.00013796278,0.0002518232,0.0006086169,0.008661144,0.0063073407,0.0012653725,0.0071452144,0.004004644],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009776414,0.00019351997,0.00031541198,0.0005064923,0.04278287,0.0040329336,0.0044445735,0.0065188725,0.00028883768],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011166531,0.000008167248,0.0004960031,0.000010527046,0.0000013830185,0.00020468734,0.004210722,0.000057827954,0.00007431483,0.99081975,0.002071114,0.002034303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056124838,0.000055492867,0.0051888954,0.0005435935,0.000022024544,0.0008213635,0.039361414,0.0012174296,0.0007844561,0.71786284,0.2339982,0.00008815877],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12668107,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.14573762,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12668107,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0105740605,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007155938,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.25188744},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2128352995","doi":"10.1017/s000819730600715x","title":"A RE-APPRAISAL OF THE FIDUCIARY SELF-DEALING AND FAIR-DEALING RULES","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":38,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Beneficiary; Fiduciary; Database transaction; Law and economics; Business; Trust law; Settlor; Property (philosophy); Law; Economics; Actuarial science; Political science; Finance; Computer science; Philosophy; Database","score_opus":0.015555272777650881,"score_gpt":0.29165674806820563,"score_spread":0.27610147529055473,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2128352995","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.023066912,0.022836985,0.04481103,0.32508433,0.008029734,0.0001732261,0.0002509488,0.00010585837,0.575641],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7436791,0.010065892,0.021014052,0.1500349,0.010698611,0.0005400953,0.00019037038,0.00026047582,0.06351658],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.95823884,0.011053015,0.0027831153,0.0050288625,0.018902378,0.003993737],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96292853,0.021804035,0.0017454006,0.004710565,0.0074917953,0.0013197012],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03446482,0.00072661013,0.0012646605,0.0024339512,0.008267656,0.013446422,0.0056047877,0.016871357,0.003288683],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06633442,0.0007872487,0.0019078745,0.0015903687,0.043105885,0.019079285,0.0065800054,0.03228775,0.00090793974],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000047773333,0.000005129463,0.00005602663,0.000013112765,0.0000022530594,0.000025094037,0.00047053772,0.00006702869,0.0000138984,0.99181306,0.00573829,0.0017909554],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019253554,0.000022379032,0.00058657455,0.00039691795,0.000016353033,0.00010491488,0.00092471414,0.00082266604,0.00021147073,0.84782016,0.14903493,0.000039765295],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.029504221,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.021412209,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03446482,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009949581,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015953716,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18226957},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2132631441","doi":"10.1017/s0008197300000052","title":"Standing under the Human Rights Act 1998: Theories of Rights Enforcement &amp; the Nature of Public Law Adjudication","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":26,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Adjudication; Jurisdiction; Political science; Human rights; Enforcement; Context (archaeology); Convention; Test (biology); Law and economics; Order (exchange); Sociology; Business","score_opus":0.028750558317221266,"score_gpt":0.30496848903460483,"score_spread":0.27621793071738354,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2132631441","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.043466467,0.02152747,0.05561977,0.1194177,0.00057825266,0.00019114744,0.00020606558,0.00004847139,0.75894475],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9437446,0.008402647,0.0078414185,0.0058303596,0.000933842,0.0004159118,0.00012988794,0.000033256973,0.03266795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9934308,0.0036513733,0.00023501688,0.00053608813,0.0015370576,0.00060962926],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.990121,0.0072592176,0.00094127376,0.00058459514,0.0008713433,0.00022259243],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0088559855,0.00059016934,0.00049148616,0.0028074074,0.004016314,0.009839449,0.0022505363,0.009382639,0.0062970114],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012408863,0.00050144474,0.0006731302,0.0033344578,0.032476358,0.00975051,0.0026092837,0.0062243026,0.00089277717],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000013850234,0.000005347531,0.00009416817,0.0000072897437,9.93178e-7,0.000017480252,0.0005310535,0.00009247572,0.0000060337698,0.9971739,0.00085157173,0.0012183426],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010659636,0.000017245347,0.0007676186,0.00018673476,0.0000068804884,0.000078600846,0.00079593406,0.00096908736,0.00008498023,0.966242,0.030829733,0.00001056527],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00965461,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007506378,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.009839449,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008707934,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00616209,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.063180804},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2145274391","doi":"10.1017/s0008197306007070","title":"THE MYSTERY OF OLD BAILEY COUNSEL","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Historical Economic and Social Studies","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","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":"Quarter (Canadian coin); Law; Right to counsel; History; Genealogy; Legal history; Political science; Archaeology; Supreme court","score_opus":0.017452209459341454,"score_gpt":0.18787008522278717,"score_spread":0.17041787576344572,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2145274391","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11286283,0.013272291,0.0034217832,0.6522429,0.0028985706,0.000020401332,0.0001630093,0.00008229802,0.21503596],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87116563,0.003557641,0.0007447559,0.06492644,0.0023443457,0.000023614462,0.000034843077,0.00010225784,0.057100512],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9940889,0.0019890338,0.0002044193,0.0011529998,0.0015600116,0.0010046674],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9868537,0.006147018,0.0012138246,0.00065700983,0.001879716,0.003248685],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009972698,0.00013771266,0.00035193533,0.0014631789,0.00827184,0.0078096977,0.0011739066,0.005953941,0.010936301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032813422,0.00055224646,0.00013119633,0.0012218672,0.023150198,0.010982301,0.0031253002,0.010504777,0.0012598333],"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":[0.00003680589,0.000043745644,0.00307103,0.000028445373,0.0000058338483,0.00016950919,0.01954296,0.00008331175,0.000108661596,0.9109312,0.043328047,0.022650374],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018671157,0.000060075603,0.0057232007,0.00018943845,0.000008014137,0.00035475058,0.013108848,0.00017255543,0.00034422535,0.15578683,0.8241866,0.00004683255],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022441575,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036692355,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.022441575,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0065484005,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004998856,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05274129},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2148472277","doi":"10.1017/s0008197303266307","title":"<scp>VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA</scp>","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Tort; Vicarious liability; Law; Commit; Liability; Political science","score_opus":0.03216145893755584,"score_gpt":0.30629682825174726,"score_spread":0.2741353693141914,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2148472277","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.33686918,0.023182712,0.0017420676,0.1274918,0.0010583805,0.0002566666,0.00037217344,0.000080783684,0.5089462],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7714952,0.002906062,0.0009046293,0.042696208,0.0002276714,0.00012501945,0.000119383505,0.00003339314,0.18149236],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.996506,0.0005615257,0.00016281407,0.00032187087,0.001185963,0.0012618758],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99702877,0.0006366567,0.00033788182,0.0001672287,0.00079928513,0.0010301085],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018218914,0.00021044638,0.00030254218,0.0008856715,0.008484886,0.0046421434,0.001249031,0.0072619254,0.0061582634],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007016924,0.0004561709,0.0003901264,0.0007080009,0.005699645,0.0022994515,0.004902192,0.0056683035,0.0007004687],"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":[0.00007846502,0.00011735343,0.012841764,0.00024825224,0.000033901186,0.0055197272,0.043720473,0.00047361612,0.0012927328,0.80425656,0.100011274,0.03140586],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007189866,0.00013203472,0.12024958,0.0007603934,0.000072334704,0.0026281853,0.015936013,0.0011015288,0.0009717666,0.06911451,0.7887975,0.00016434774],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69547397,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8102865,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.69547397,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012210828,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023520786,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.61263883},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2152559745","doi":"10.1017/s0008197303326212","title":"Exemplary Damages—Two Commonwealth Cases","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Commonwealth; Damages; Jurisdiction; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.04775190898519161,"score_gpt":0.34829330561716054,"score_spread":0.30054139663196894,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2152559745","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.3685153,0.005257179,0.008686176,0.04412022,0.0009012862,0.00034959745,0.00045050972,0.000109933775,0.57160974],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9344399,0.0018214758,0.0023365796,0.0112967305,0.00043371707,0.00028488107,0.00019250666,0.000033885306,0.049160283],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9915302,0.0017596422,0.00041717867,0.0009744384,0.0030685205,0.0022502097],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992339,0.0034973158,0.0007493546,0.0012306778,0.0010660551,0.0011175348],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0049717,0.0004944986,0.0006116072,0.0016071254,0.010017787,0.0045805387,0.0026400855,0.011940124,0.0042833607],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017777925,0.0005511437,0.0013591452,0.0016253616,0.008526007,0.0037992857,0.010435396,0.008936899,0.000618711],"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":[0.00014672584,0.0001976543,0.0091436785,0.00011150059,0.00006411115,0.00904549,0.015506201,0.00073601503,0.00091436267,0.89890397,0.04715979,0.018070461],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00035410243,0.00034766833,0.058178607,0.0010262508,0.00027716078,0.017326599,0.021537118,0.00314624,0.0035496005,0.23848802,0.6553712,0.00039758434],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.037406642,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06432792,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.037406642,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0044506392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026914096,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.074377835},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2157653217","doi":"10.1017/s0008197303006457","title":"Interceptive Subtraction, Unjust Enrichment and Wrongs—A Reply to Professor Birks","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":73,"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":"Unjust enrichment; Plaintiff; Restitution; Law; Wrongdoing; Obligation; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.026767368077400263,"score_gpt":0.32192189340998867,"score_spread":0.2951545253325884,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2157653217","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00015938615,0.007932646,0.00010472217,0.987241,0.0033364135,0.0000012521822,0.00000783705,0.0000061464516,0.0012105441],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.012530387,0.011261045,0.00036552426,0.94790494,0.020887379,0.00001975442,0.000012628464,0.000044798315,0.0069735358],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927699,0.0028090007,0.00044454233,0.0012769732,0.0018892084,0.0008104679],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.976346,0.019179938,0.0006068838,0.00053613004,0.0020512843,0.001279819],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013129499,0.00085522194,0.0018051715,0.0013869393,0.006471606,0.008338802,0.004303908,0.045971658,0.005521954],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029145272,0.0008860653,0.0014222086,0.001622081,0.032174807,0.024661075,0.0047913184,0.059729,0.0021209691],"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":[0.000028273958,0.000020522364,0.0001581412,0.000065609966,0.000010166857,0.00016454562,0.0008099154,0.00011712315,0.000048891332,0.14750585,0.84376746,0.0073035387],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000060407983,0.000032175158,0.00062856404,0.0006403989,0.000018983324,0.00044090368,0.0023556275,0.0003528158,0.00015544688,0.19820175,0.7970009,0.000112004665],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.030702766,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.040485214,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.045971658,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011001709,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01151523,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.079823315},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2158558054","doi":"10.1017/s0008197300000027","title":"Practice Directions and the Civil Procedure Rules","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Jurisdiction; Statute; Civil procedure; Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.010753279426418435,"score_gpt":0.28814126681326285,"score_spread":0.2773879873868444,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2158558054","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022650337,0.0048895343,0.05853812,0.16688937,0.0009601958,0.00032330918,0.000083991035,0.00010358855,0.7455615],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.899079,0.0030899222,0.039599314,0.017110795,0.0007603206,0.0006653983,0.00008989905,0.000094650444,0.03951059],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.94631934,0.031735912,0.0034243844,0.00459377,0.010437016,0.0034896503],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9496989,0.02995719,0.0050650625,0.006270933,0.006583951,0.0024240206],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03894026,0.00055097305,0.0005371639,0.002469419,0.008315504,0.012229933,0.0018900144,0.009290945,0.005563039],"category_scores_gemma":[0.061203837,0.00081757404,0.00055731565,0.0022849534,0.08489487,0.01680401,0.007070661,0.013964152,0.0010193678],"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":[9.0674e-7,0.0000027410988,0.00003882829,0.000006642173,5.3919666e-7,0.00001469604,0.001069327,0.000025840833,0.0000149574225,0.9970139,0.0005200154,0.0012915846],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023026705,0.000019273284,0.0003548289,0.00019074533,0.0000038497747,0.00012212241,0.002466591,0.00016685264,0.00012743488,0.8777412,0.118763454,0.000020651656],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009568863,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007458447,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03894026,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009247234,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023332784,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20593828},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2161752717","doi":"10.1017/s0008197302001551","title":"Digging the Dirt: Disclosure of Records in Sexual Assault Cases","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Credibility; Confidentiality; Context (archaeology); Attendance; Anonymity; Criminology; Sexual assault; Political science; Law; Section (typography); Psychology; Sexual violence; Poison control; Medicine; History; Suicide prevention; Business; Medical emergency; Advertising","score_opus":0.06966465143572685,"score_gpt":0.3151801492568423,"score_spread":0.24551549782111542,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2161752717","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.54016805,0.01682473,0.0071993517,0.26028123,0.0010970557,0.00018471373,0.00018331203,0.000041514257,0.17402005],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96713114,0.0070284796,0.0021284502,0.017575355,0.0005589382,0.000057765395,0.000049742346,0.0000101206815,0.005460113],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9700962,0.018091107,0.0021904367,0.0008808304,0.0052207834,0.0035206561],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9353421,0.05130166,0.0069734394,0.0023238778,0.002472887,0.0015860518],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03129231,0.00021195326,0.0005460849,0.003269054,0.006166715,0.008199263,0.0021595026,0.015288492,0.002334735],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10800028,0.00077313144,0.0005422193,0.0032519763,0.014708255,0.013013482,0.008159756,0.008814008,0.00029780084],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002489963,0.00014363519,0.03510204,0.00057335466,0.000045723566,0.015252942,0.11583988,0.00056867197,0.00080439175,0.7474544,0.015733596,0.06823244],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029053394,0.0010861473,0.11726148,0.009681002,0.0004959361,0.037004977,0.24747428,0.003107007,0.0065335585,0.29999217,0.27644283,0.0006301366],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03287527,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07660334,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03287527,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.005420806,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0123765785,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16549152},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2166977184","doi":"10.1017/s0008197301000666","title":"Relief Against Forfeiture: A Restatement","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Obligation; Doctrine; Law; Jurisdiction; Creditor; Economic Justice; Security interest; Debt; Law and economics; Business; Political science; Unjust enrichment; Choice of law; Restitution; Economics; Finance","score_opus":0.029245477412799842,"score_gpt":0.3171947528902771,"score_spread":0.2879492754774773,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2166977184","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05242437,0.0064841737,0.07180191,0.22479118,0.0030051947,0.00029386606,0.00008349857,0.00034555697,0.64077026],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87100345,0.0012948179,0.008186139,0.038745243,0.0018842123,0.00030041946,0.00003765383,0.0001435142,0.078404546],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9751751,0.009968431,0.0015887625,0.004028782,0.0053950245,0.0038439534],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878781,0.005309787,0.0011527878,0.003150199,0.0017821299,0.00072703685],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018917877,0.00072302273,0.0013272826,0.0013862184,0.007354768,0.01079413,0.0044173696,0.026931318,0.0063516265],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038160346,0.0007852565,0.0019074486,0.00064404734,0.031081112,0.013053388,0.014264948,0.014603203,0.0016123488],"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":[0.00003171067,0.00003899579,0.00016492775,0.000023391594,0.000012084215,0.0003433975,0.0010704332,0.0002244729,0.0003323077,0.9866676,0.0052870554,0.0058035166],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011674386,0.00025173303,0.0010171289,0.00032752744,0.000066719986,0.0013539484,0.0014048524,0.0023222207,0.0014074701,0.80827653,0.18334424,0.0001108798],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0025564388,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0025882453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026931318,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0039300183,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0054701357,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.10004848},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2213666015","doi":"10.1017/s0008197315000471","title":"“THE CHOICE IS CRUEL”: ASSISTED SUICIDE AND CHARTER RIGHTS IN CANADA","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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; Law; Charter; Political science","score_opus":0.053430002113746246,"score_gpt":0.3076852628311166,"score_spread":0.2542552607173703,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2213666015","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.30620468,0.012300365,0.0013300307,0.28856668,0.0009740221,0.000114356335,0.0006765432,0.000038622897,0.3897947],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9504628,0.0037335588,0.00041023293,0.020473015,0.000116347204,0.000033569664,0.00010906777,0.000028404962,0.024632962],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9946615,0.0006455682,0.000095252915,0.00041800155,0.0013176361,0.0028621806],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99366874,0.0015049253,0.0003553333,0.00016937226,0.0018612222,0.0024403248],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031150556,0.00030100756,0.00047640802,0.0016743483,0.033616178,0.010907934,0.002843637,0.0068939226,0.009014408],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012570333,0.00044232703,0.0005728959,0.0036882102,0.019662127,0.0039978717,0.0055997167,0.011664413,0.00028212415],"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":[0.00009067257,0.00009916449,0.019391874,0.00006956192,0.000031542662,0.0010428941,0.038000274,0.0006990454,0.00015028255,0.8582203,0.058542978,0.023661498],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00034401746,0.000094698495,0.11591327,0.0011662958,0.0002008543,0.0008331302,0.146706,0.0039937524,0.0006118205,0.17019376,0.5593813,0.00056106865],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9979796,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99900323,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1683796,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1683796,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3149643,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.96456176},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2312918544","doi":"10.1017/s0008197315000112","title":"GOOD FAITH PERFORMANCE IN CANADIAN CONTRACT LAW","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Duty; Law; Faith; Honesty; Good faith; Obligation; Fair dealing; Bad faith; Context (archaeology); Negotiation; Commonwealth; Political science; Corporation; Sociology; Law and economics; Philosophy; Theology; History","score_opus":0.0343651089007624,"score_gpt":0.29227942069292556,"score_spread":0.2579143117921632,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2312918544","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019731985,0.004890295,0.002772239,0.041505028,0.00089345744,0.00014285887,0.0003673028,0.00008466514,0.92961216],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.56938285,0.0043148035,0.0047085513,0.030115407,0.00028085022,0.00016233404,0.0003229223,0.000118894066,0.3905933],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9906096,0.0009860306,0.00024199915,0.0011341623,0.0044777654,0.0025505295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99562883,0.00084154075,0.00015363687,0.00023991893,0.0022675428,0.00086854893],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0057268487,0.00056908716,0.00034712997,0.0019494578,0.029811969,0.009394126,0.0020451634,0.006760357,0.014632319],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013414326,0.0007025379,0.00060700095,0.0029812,0.01152835,0.0036002572,0.0042845327,0.0088398615,0.0014398544],"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":[0.000010063476,0.00001069258,0.0006571764,0.000027126463,0.0000031547638,0.00015732078,0.0040106834,0.00017366078,0.00007773229,0.94711566,0.037826624,0.009930164],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020534184,0.000028136474,0.0069767106,0.00020161853,0.000016894695,0.00022214385,0.0031124807,0.00090223533,0.00024975993,0.06360992,0.9245158,0.0001437736],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98487884,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9872082,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11436619,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11436619,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13802187,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8297887},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2604343536","doi":"10.1017/s000819731700006x","title":"RUNNERS AND RIDERS: THE HORSEMEAT SCANDAL, EU LAW AND MULTI-LEVEL ENFORCEMENT","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Global trade, sustainability, and social impact","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Enforcement; Food safety; Law; Business; Corporate governance; Political science; Food science; Biology; Finance","score_opus":0.05188507023285473,"score_gpt":0.2854654525494799,"score_spread":0.2335803823166252,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2604343536","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.45126197,0.0065878243,0.0026760222,0.20430174,0.0011145243,0.000038057908,0.00012785905,0.00011375295,0.33377832],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97196084,0.00052519346,0.00025394373,0.015928756,0.00014619494,0.00001021673,0.000020532683,0.000028651204,0.01112567],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.991389,0.0036904183,0.0004158106,0.0008766653,0.0016084503,0.0020196736],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98660386,0.007866378,0.0020489367,0.0009723954,0.0012538714,0.0012545855],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011126167,0.00016612018,0.0003256177,0.0012172086,0.0071070134,0.0147304395,0.0010300551,0.008168656,0.0060840957],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017404329,0.000241239,0.00039556896,0.001556287,0.014623522,0.004230334,0.00532832,0.005769449,0.0004556993],"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":[0.00009652448,0.00007966502,0.015738072,0.000104930725,0.000033587745,0.0018174739,0.018292192,0.0007136909,0.00031697942,0.848733,0.08014255,0.033931397],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005664711,0.00015869735,0.073397554,0.0019808994,0.000053776017,0.0009276044,0.068005905,0.0036904698,0.001128965,0.17318591,0.677154,0.00025945884],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026611129,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025907924,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026611129,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040140315,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0050785453,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.058841467},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3199187393","doi":"10.1017/s0008197321000775","title":"MAKING SENSE OF MESNE PROFITS: REMEDIES","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":34,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Restitution; Unjust enrichment; Damages; Tort; Duty; Breach of contract; Law; Debt; Business; Law and economics; Economics; Political science; Liability; Finance","score_opus":0.07136537914229837,"score_gpt":0.3619567587059496,"score_spread":0.2905913795636512,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3199187393","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09400146,0.0031261921,0.032262065,0.057033744,0.0009835873,0.00029320744,0.000057526453,0.0001554643,0.8120869],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9693216,0.00055711984,0.004349306,0.0032220879,0.0003189064,0.00007658572,0.000013925792,0.000017652688,0.022122838],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98092735,0.0057953657,0.0011755527,0.001908862,0.008030962,0.0021619773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98592234,0.007548763,0.0016345362,0.0016100571,0.0024658141,0.00081857],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010493838,0.0006207701,0.00075716525,0.0026864342,0.005545987,0.009611132,0.002343206,0.008921648,0.0077143204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026109165,0.0004186346,0.00060724514,0.000880545,0.03271688,0.0074458066,0.0089583285,0.0075301453,0.0007558146],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000021464122,0.000083080406,0.0009825793,0.000055742712,0.00001612442,0.0007308158,0.0041210707,0.0006057318,0.0005944152,0.9710788,0.0052597495,0.016450439],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049742204,0.00012660211,0.0043273172,0.0005025557,0.00005693966,0.0012479805,0.008705062,0.0033152327,0.002928625,0.7851735,0.19344261,0.00012381512],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0021919122,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0039678295,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.010493838,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004389414,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0039712437,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.055497408},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4210873251","doi":"10.1017/s0008197321001045","title":"REMARKS ON TECHNOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW AS A SUBJECT MATTER PROBLEM: LESSONS FROM CANADA","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Copyright and Intellectual Property","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 Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Neutrality; Copyright law; Proposition; Subject matter; Expression (computer science); Subject (documents); Fair use; Net neutrality; Law and economics; Law; Liability; Intellectual property; Corollary; Fair dealing; Nothing; Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Political science; Sociology; Computer science; The Internet; Epistemology; Philosophy; Mathematics","score_opus":0.019798306435797518,"score_gpt":0.22303566883410392,"score_spread":0.2032373623983064,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4210873251","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.052234035,0.004302358,0.009399248,0.23946682,0.0005768592,0.00008688631,0.00031185013,0.00011845037,0.6935035],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9132167,0.0035097778,0.004503967,0.022282287,0.00046699442,0.0000780222,0.00012362265,0.00013168452,0.055686876],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99036914,0.0016376924,0.00040419213,0.0012009774,0.0037422716,0.0026456248],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9793783,0.010747884,0.00058492634,0.0014414217,0.006382384,0.0014651077],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009282916,0.00037996875,0.0013987549,0.0025448462,0.017541578,0.016651284,0.003496387,0.00969173,0.016151553],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0340805,0.0003888775,0.00090839324,0.004091084,0.02792438,0.012344422,0.005390506,0.009899064,0.00080965564],"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":[0.000015221828,0.000011154959,0.00037408198,0.000019307285,0.0000066867074,0.00012372647,0.000850302,0.00045345176,0.000054049975,0.9898317,0.004381812,0.0038784104],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005675373,0.000014922311,0.0013385831,0.00016586212,0.00002740887,0.00008228509,0.0027244794,0.0023149252,0.0002689975,0.8900715,0.10286231,0.00007193438],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9418126,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89648294,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07579231,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07579231,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10011984,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5499143},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4255917115","doi":"10.1017/s0008197308000044","title":"Sham Trusts","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","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":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Testamentary trust; Lease; Database transaction; Context (archaeology); Doctrine; Statutory law; Law; Payment; Business; Law and economics; Political science; Sociology; History; Computer science; Finance","score_opus":0.04437690517440169,"score_gpt":0.3045272433894376,"score_spread":0.2601503382150359,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4255917115","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07650859,0.0024583843,0.03267551,0.026279112,0.0010059812,0.00017436211,0.000233266,0.00022013119,0.8604447],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91332084,0.000771297,0.0020750756,0.0021659553,0.00021799252,0.000076497905,0.000064715416,0.00004208563,0.08126559],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9925863,0.0022278868,0.00048531225,0.0009706564,0.0022058827,0.0015240016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9887567,0.003314223,0.0016260631,0.0021025648,0.002695989,0.0015043718],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0051108,0.00032817945,0.0005053472,0.0010428439,0.0065870816,0.008451919,0.0010939561,0.0038065787,0.01849525],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019395368,0.00034783606,0.0005307136,0.001025997,0.019964827,0.010567267,0.007009804,0.0037527066,0.0027096597],"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":[0.0000072318835,0.000003978509,0.00025916912,0.000020833038,0.0000026345742,0.00013225708,0.0024809688,0.0000554405,0.00006472682,0.9917169,0.0027753897,0.0024803972],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022932565,0.000048777496,0.00071369903,0.00020188293,0.00001732205,0.0007585844,0.00635042,0.00075372803,0.00026745957,0.7429664,0.24786444,0.000034302175],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004873555,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004207655,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.01849525,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0064452253,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0066327164,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06187284},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4297896711","doi":"10.1017/s0008197322000198","title":"RECOGNISING STATE BLAME IN SENTENCING: A COMMUNICATIVE AND RELATIONAL FRAMEWORK","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":17,"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":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; McGill University","keywords":"Blame; Punishment (psychology); State (computer science); Context (archaeology); Social psychology; Flexibility (engineering); Psychology; Political science; Epistemology; Criminology; Sociology; Computer science; Economics","score_opus":0.04039433290059854,"score_gpt":0.313343634912937,"score_spread":0.27294930201233847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4297896711","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14756073,0.0020867845,0.51808524,0.028898522,0.0003170613,0.0004155833,0.00014788925,0.0004120339,0.30207616],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9736789,0.00031172132,0.023440171,0.00016819665,0.000054393553,0.00006926496,0.000025178288,0.000030650783,0.0022214432],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9842249,0.0119991265,0.00044096136,0.00070258684,0.0017455103,0.0008869142],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98385584,0.010213202,0.0018415059,0.0015838789,0.001732554,0.00077302405],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013088075,0.0006763896,0.00050478126,0.0037654655,0.007226494,0.011602704,0.0025903312,0.0043753744,0.0049010688],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021573523,0.0005666634,0.00071563886,0.0014822974,0.034419175,0.011949433,0.00883285,0.004913274,0.0004396122],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001431942,0.00003658197,0.0010303487,0.00006784311,0.000015187282,0.00044852446,0.03399679,0.0017767862,0.00041958917,0.95430195,0.00036402323,0.007527998],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000127269695,0.00008091818,0.0027381252,0.0004992899,0.00006492788,0.000793756,0.04023285,0.01066638,0.0010529518,0.91672045,0.027051957,0.00008579148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009341794,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008046791,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.013088075,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0064737406,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00617754,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.069217205},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4380886494","doi":"10.1017/s0008197323000193","title":"WHAT IS THE HARM IN ADDICTION? AUTONOMY, VULNERABILITY, AND THE CASE FOR HARM REDUCTION DRUG POLICY","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk","field":"Medicine","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 Waterloo","funders":"","keywords":"Harm reduction; Harm; Addiction; Abstinence; Autonomy; Vulnerability (computing); Normative; Aside; Criminology; Political science; Law and economics; Public health; Psychology; Psychiatry; Medicine; Law; Sociology; Nursing; Computer security","score_opus":0.04326781635267888,"score_gpt":0.3617405016173014,"score_spread":0.3184726852646225,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4380886494","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032906305,0.003733337,0.004416527,0.8713928,0.0004017733,0.00002591117,0.000037052447,0.000012660895,0.08707364],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9409479,0.0015238216,0.0009071752,0.051715277,0.0007402857,0.000059745224,0.000009960168,0.000014747576,0.0040811035],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9872263,0.008423598,0.00030561394,0.0008648601,0.0015329681,0.0016465825],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97246784,0.02135783,0.0012612945,0.0011289265,0.0011758003,0.0026082576],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.020993382,0.00023155568,0.0006898255,0.0009924354,0.0068818354,0.009213369,0.0010896132,0.011407256,0.0037198244],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027464004,0.00030409216,0.0005487598,0.0006186969,0.06415175,0.010193893,0.007911673,0.010571745,0.00028668484],"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":[0.000008944598,0.000012546266,0.00065911585,0.0000187603,0.00000457471,0.000114028735,0.0015248265,0.00018068697,0.000050071045,0.99317086,0.0025736063,0.0016820122],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011293838,0.000008426616,0.0004922712,0.00010320889,0.0000043556906,0.00010016159,0.001680551,0.00035200908,0.00006153306,0.9785089,0.018663798,0.000013479339],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009550126,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006671307,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.020993382,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0073932307,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008658463,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.111024916},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4386784288","doi":"10.1017/s0008197323000417","title":"THE UK INTERNAL MARKET: A GLOBAL OUTLIER?","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Global Financial Regulation and Crises","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":"Centralisation; Domestic market; Market integration; Single market; Deregulation; Blueprint; Globalization; Economics; Market analysis; Business; Market segmentation; Market economy; International trade; European union; Marketing; Macroeconomics; Engineering","score_opus":0.0223271284515544,"score_gpt":0.2362116216415862,"score_spread":0.2138844931900318,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W4386784288","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12573929,0.0116657,0.004748112,0.30961102,0.0046310243,0.000049325165,0.001203381,0.00035699594,0.5419951],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91910756,0.0036825647,0.00089806714,0.040091936,0.0011796323,0.00004170808,0.00041761913,0.00020226446,0.03437881],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952785,0.0012854052,0.0002591123,0.0007139557,0.0013762368,0.0010869284],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9921846,0.0023375114,0.0013013077,0.0008905337,0.002498526,0.0007875942],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004209961,0.00023216936,0.00039123296,0.0018194927,0.0018287923,0.010419267,0.0007245243,0.0034550994,0.014079398],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012319733,0.0001545998,0.00030316843,0.0023116244,0.005999323,0.0053342213,0.0042495783,0.0029646507,0.0019574482],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008392315,0.000025671901,0.0070369598,0.00014508353,0.000017684435,0.0010806589,0.0044111107,0.0004263189,0.00021406935,0.71849793,0.21815039,0.049910124],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003096724,0.00006791688,0.018919637,0.0007670151,0.000021622041,0.001281539,0.012782653,0.0012763054,0.0006217405,0.10560627,0.8585237,0.00010058449],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.026620537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.021493787,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.026620537,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0079717515,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035927729,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.057839334},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W7155685037","doi":"10.1017/s0008197326101147","title":"<i>Sources of English Legal History: Public Law to 1750</i> . By John H. Baker. [Oxford University Press, 2024. lii + 788 pp. Hardback £157.50. ISBN 978-0-19954-679-4.]","year":2025,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Cambridge Law Journal","topic":"Historical Legal Studies and Society","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 New Brunswick","funders":"","keywords":"Public law; English law; Jurisprudence; Legal history; Legal research","score_opus":0.014284288018349599,"score_gpt":0.2220195717210987,"score_spread":0.2077352837027491,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W7155685037","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010446829,0.68956846,0.0011052333,0.030048773,0.0054886816,0.00004599227,0.0043921974,0.0003353406,0.26797068],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.034478012,0.35365704,0.0020732998,0.0052813007,0.0033994915,0.00010918131,0.0066538984,0.00055961293,0.59378815],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9996823,0.000059929895,0.000026925021,0.000035544927,0.000152269,0.00004299333],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994142,0.00018047876,0.00009511116,0.000034377535,0.00021513827,0.00006070679],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005200903,0.00072446937,0.0003755052,0.004820549,0.0011084583,0.0031312169,0.0008025901,0.00092001725,0.11095238],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0023483236,0.00043850954,0.00021836862,0.0066979537,0.001503565,0.004796098,0.0015793134,0.0011154722,0.026376996],"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":[0.0000120635505,0.00000419708,0.00009458776,0.0004949817,0.0000030390866,0.000037761838,0.0007220581,0.000026149253,0.000056685887,0.013225335,0.9045759,0.08074727],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000013615974,0.000002375105,0.0007480357,0.0009245164,0.0000015223245,0.000036160898,0.00040740936,0.000013328565,0.0000343555,0.0033886428,0.9944396,0.0000026742098],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.022713413,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.04360061,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11095238,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040326943,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0027057324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37117267},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}