{"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18763916,0.003940539,0.000098807504,0.53847206,0.0027884415,0.0012117714,0.00020659057,0.000039739505,0.2656029],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97861123,0.00049877353,0.000010544518,0.0006289105,0.0012256367,0.000009228532,0.000001059202,0.000007138126,0.019007478],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99908197,0.00021650227,0.00021471175,0.00007792082,0.000162488,0.00024639105],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99903584,0.00015169487,0.00014387465,0.00028608352,0.000114223716,0.00026826863],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013372425,0.00006998111,0.00008441761,0.000009901642,0.00370553,0.0003389726,0.00052237837,0.0000350136,0.000017208446],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008493069,0.000030443614,0.000082461025,0.00010185434,0.00043708895,0.00016039568,0.00005114751,0.00030953524,0.0000116985675],"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":[0.000006904704,0.0000080984955,0.0008100843,0.0000018690401,0.00006677196,7.7416036e-7,0.011408352,0.0006000516,0.000019140884,0.54491234,0.43831354,0.0038520938],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009390969,0.0000072658745,0.0014665532,0.000016813767,0.00005389746,0.000026144735,0.0027802577,0.00004889156,0.0000069625225,0.004195564,0.99125546,0.00004825294],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3139987,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4951921,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.79097205,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024131167,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00087595586,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9975915},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.660632,0.0007823945,0.00036346837,0.007663708,0.00019725574,0.0006642392,0.00006648456,0.000036941332,0.32959348],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9682253,0.0008188551,0.00023809278,0.0011232375,0.0007243692,0.000014012233,0.000001600606,0.000013622649,0.028840883],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989425,0.000089458605,0.00019236217,0.00014098528,0.00030849475,0.0003261829],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99923116,0.00024919145,0.00008365377,0.00014745427,0.0000845289,0.00020402031],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007300785,0.00009295075,0.00011517292,0.00001530967,0.0014748778,0.00032933225,0.0003305299,0.000056939585,0.000053630494],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000624185,0.000056282915,0.00007020381,0.00010417552,0.00025208536,0.000191536,0.00003170574,0.0002286267,0.00008865142],"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":[0.00014264318,0.00023012656,0.0005581313,0.000032254236,0.00017224488,0.000052437466,0.03199932,0.00035400837,0.0014018506,0.69666356,0.15930352,0.10908989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003794591,0.000056143508,0.0012630603,0.000013286327,0.000034395005,0.000046707202,0.007973916,0.00010200759,0.00009801052,0.0009978252,0.98898256,0.00005260237],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002061408,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014634922,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8296791,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007196408,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014517881,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99982506},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.39248332,0.0003409814,0.00029050236,0.046702653,0.00047933438,0.00020517778,0.000009554234,0.000088175526,0.5594003],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95373803,0.0007535897,0.00008422421,0.0023541392,0.0025520332,0.000008524187,0.0000020342386,0.000017334292,0.040490113],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983783,0.0002011329,0.00020561343,0.00016213169,0.0005410751,0.0005117638],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989154,0.00021485088,0.00017060766,0.00031049232,0.00012510037,0.00026358408],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011532827,0.00012451441,0.00014416283,0.000025222304,0.003465582,0.0007007018,0.00082911627,0.00008763565,0.00005842307],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013020085,0.000082847066,0.00013332168,0.00029512035,0.00031969737,0.00038946862,0.000091047645,0.0005952208,0.00018352906],"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":[0.000003079672,0.00006718492,0.00048069144,0.0000018222645,0.00003073528,0.000028521386,0.005751044,0.000036333568,0.00017181099,0.8941462,0.09725918,0.0020233993],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002261877,0.000023469154,0.0017203878,0.000011059903,0.000027084732,0.00011826142,0.0063734,0.000059351252,0.000067617584,0.002999312,0.9883182,0.000055655277],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0029534765,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0023786456,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8911469,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001109193,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000082881124,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99783176},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11869682,0.00032555734,0.00004040019,0.0026235662,0.00031827798,0.000065608474,0.00002347234,0.000013699059,0.8778926],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99391997,0.00025522872,0.00007036785,0.003936866,0.0004929825,0.0000012209172,0.0000012148619,0.0000050103954,0.001317116],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990024,0.00024801647,0.00011549462,0.000080460115,0.00029053935,0.00026309877],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994426,0.0001702941,0.00007399459,0.00009368895,0.00003922348,0.0001802197],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006851994,0.00007456051,0.00008863384,0.000012514946,0.0016956179,0.00009456844,0.00012633295,0.0000310662,0.00024441493],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000049380673,0.000051175077,0.000045191122,0.00005269838,0.0009424379,0.000106824664,0.000011662686,0.00024123547,0.000023896488],"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":[0.000008415234,0.000014456128,0.0002193502,7.288969e-7,0.000013709088,0.00001471319,0.00015565164,0.0000024291496,0.0000032884689,0.98920465,0.009797519,0.00056509435],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016986618,0.000044302877,0.00034437943,0.00001591839,0.000020015175,0.00014964896,0.0013907343,0.0000013499972,0.000037621572,0.014545349,0.98318934,0.00009146169],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0019974213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00035698558,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9746593,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000093382325,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028065272,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99960405},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.286316,0.0010237732,0.000017024267,0.04241214,0.0004716791,0.00010722781,0.000002612395,0.000039864186,0.66960967],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9916762,0.00027678124,0.00006347676,0.000890423,0.0015712366,0.0000033474864,0.000001213491,0.0000062617937,0.0055110576],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99866927,0.00029646617,0.00018390761,0.00008564584,0.00039035603,0.00037435273],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995666,0.0000819569,0.00009474016,0.00011039189,0.000068872905,0.000077414894],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014490181,0.00007408555,0.00009677368,0.000005810566,0.0017110512,0.00038826774,0.0005165428,0.000086599845,0.00012408016],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000046067027,0.000046248508,0.00009403118,0.0002613859,0.00043903684,0.00037674903,0.000037481936,0.00043830954,0.000044447435],"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":[0.0000046383648,0.000038631882,0.0020286487,0.000001391184,0.000007139989,0.000014507565,0.0036849277,0.000011266531,0.000043905588,0.9177691,0.076022044,0.00037380494],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00026230176,0.000008440357,0.0041532284,0.000012196321,0.0000060099655,0.000037438276,0.0056737624,0.0000049194564,0.000038456397,0.013065449,0.97664684,0.000090973386],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028893708,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008171616,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9047036,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012770115,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010138428,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995886},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013153856,0.0011705934,0.0002965692,0.06300961,0.0037247813,0.00019172474,0.000022250619,0.0000595633,0.918371],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9659777,0.000120516175,0.000012625411,0.024097504,0.006391081,0.0000032733553,0.0000029777339,0.000017827786,0.0033764753],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99875814,0.000017118775,0.00028926783,0.000119837874,0.0005075113,0.00030813765],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99913013,0.00019224125,0.00022892097,0.00023588905,0.00019158321,0.00002122427],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003751271,0.00014137219,0.00012401293,0.000023774697,0.0011449002,0.00061068725,0.0007373578,0.000028412687,0.00032728587],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00020802674,0.00007556756,0.000081080834,0.00014923813,0.0002577265,0.00041731345,0.00008268166,0.00036583605,0.00017033484],"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":[0.0000052524188,0.00003150305,0.0009986366,0.000009818109,0.000030796455,0.00004640003,0.000020437108,0.00012149993,0.000053047002,0.31589466,0.68206704,0.0007209072],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019325795,0.0000074366385,0.0022011537,0.000032581134,0.000046370515,0.00018812786,0.0002083489,0.002902659,0.000060912233,0.0019560703,0.99205256,0.00015052699],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1547237,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18407196,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9528239,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007360382,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000032560412,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.88057625},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.924738,0.0036056875,0.00008175348,0.0029395912,0.00018762815,0.00050705334,0.00021134091,0.000044482957,0.06768449],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9060211,0.035887472,0.00019830522,0.0006121984,0.0003048197,0.0000044685266,0.000009732024,0.000029105533,0.056932755],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99764967,0.00037123202,0.00035828937,0.00041086992,0.0004552547,0.00075471087],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980635,0.00038621115,0.00055483554,0.00024293142,0.00007146097,0.000681054],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012250071,0.00028652046,0.000340049,0.000025679077,0.0014183201,0.0005136606,0.00048622972,0.00019134123,0.000021712332],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016065562,0.00023941047,0.000067989866,0.00036274866,0.00070017326,0.00084538775,0.00015083922,0.0007214286,0.000005248802],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000025888481,0.00010980517,0.07219135,0.00003253229,0.00008977108,0.00007418142,0.003440032,0.00006823856,0.00030279893,0.32801947,0.5949556,0.0006903425],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00110595,0.000052484713,0.019721875,0.000043823133,0.000053120075,0.00010227263,0.0026590144,0.00003701935,0.00010149165,0.0019982103,0.97401744,0.00010727766],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.017990801,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006492205,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.37906185,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013543804,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020686505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998817},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6399592,0.0022871466,0.0002631995,0.020705411,0.002553479,0.0002121249,0.000016743434,0.00006344227,0.33393922],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97690696,0.000008727639,0.000034271176,0.018385664,0.004154287,0.0000029467458,0.000008514044,0.000009636907,0.00048896775],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990804,0.000016572412,0.00022051275,0.00007644713,0.00032683482,0.00027919404],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994879,0.000029696514,0.00022825343,0.00013280861,0.00008087089,0.000040493236],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003507002,0.00011788041,0.00012966269,0.00003820829,0.0011472673,0.0005249376,0.00022572307,0.000027129267,0.00013486961],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000061054045,0.0000800915,0.000033980723,0.000095287905,0.00008581067,0.001055733,0.00012047265,0.0002611047,0.00002425507],"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":[0.0000166334,0.000038200065,0.026065122,0.000016916681,0.000033099233,0.000004773635,0.00004786768,0.000031324536,0.00008036721,0.75667834,0.21616618,0.0008211731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00044874023,0.0000023851926,0.11176233,0.000016572756,0.000026942707,0.000023198641,0.00017946566,0.0003835028,0.00003042502,0.00017623388,0.8868399,0.00011029416],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5753902,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.38145858,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7565021,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006341759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005392557,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8823968},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.34182706,0.00026337715,0.00007866911,0.049207143,0.00033163684,0.00040332202,0.000006366802,0.000021120599,0.6078613],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951659,0.00015894839,0.00011050567,0.0011098606,0.0008805493,0.000023125525,2.504643e-7,0.000005030549,0.0025458517],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999182,0.00021048216,0.00013190601,0.000073509786,0.00020044048,0.0002016994],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993267,0.00020457082,0.000096968535,0.00012867176,0.00014244425,0.00010064134],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008123582,0.00005970086,0.000088600165,0.0000073665756,0.0025130843,0.00037863274,0.00030452825,0.00003122583,0.00018407468],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000057848167,0.0000286048,0.0000526347,0.000074950716,0.0015400323,0.00020532978,0.00005842655,0.00028286313,0.00027432278],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007846692,0.000002756997,0.00022864413,6.3771984e-7,0.000014366403,4.9539887e-7,0.0012602115,6.7955335e-7,0.00003125573,0.991281,0.0051208124,0.0020513302],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0018721581,0.000026127245,0.019900938,0.000023074019,0.00007530794,0.0002239373,0.014630277,0.00028827655,0.00012223226,0.092372075,0.87021595,0.00024966657],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006937664,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00033572246,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8989089,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000031402797,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000055198554,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996752},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8306383,0.00016389973,0.000013071093,0.06700122,0.0006319721,0.00033855345,0.0000029056835,0.0000130161725,0.101197064],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99482864,0.00014662433,0.000026962298,0.002439789,0.00048691692,0.000010637953,4.3323354e-7,0.0000087918215,0.0020511784],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9957732,0.0026063658,0.00073514116,0.00012433741,0.00038559578,0.00037533537],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969127,0.0018479519,0.00037022383,0.0005905608,0.00015671444,0.00012184663],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005863498,0.000095160576,0.00023930709,0.000028380828,0.00070733245,0.0000100418065,0.0005562141,0.0001221228,0.0013107838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0028218688,0.00004393117,0.00010051274,0.00037786225,0.00035873533,0.000116586794,0.00015148737,0.0021459102,0.00016017049],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0013465544,0.00080892566,0.6943831,0.00028054765,0.000087788845,0.00007184367,0.010070026,0.00002340568,0.002939949,0.18295409,0.10325819,0.003775571],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0010156551,0.000093620474,0.34968492,0.0003737417,0.00003789762,0.0000627154,0.0047033117,0.000081269034,0.00033301205,0.0045033824,0.6390018,0.00010867605],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002216415,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015562819,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5357436,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013320726,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00021961384,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99960214},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.49612033,0.00008951289,0.0009208854,0.019790193,0.00028786762,0.00018975175,0.0000034042687,0.000030482039,0.48256755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99780977,0.00005029185,0.000064407104,0.0007104392,0.00066241797,0.000007034351,5.4717395e-7,0.0000044462276,0.00069065334],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991931,0.00021529802,0.00014598374,0.00006276874,0.00019899993,0.00018384935],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99951357,0.00016959467,0.00008827013,0.000104009974,0.000053449712,0.00007111367],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012501129,0.00004428461,0.000067166104,0.000018404453,0.0008097814,0.00017528226,0.00027053573,0.0000346283,0.000022808186],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009570287,0.000030477837,0.00003258545,0.000085698346,0.0001562355,0.00021595714,0.000020490741,0.00021322175,0.000035249188],"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":[0.000004406505,0.000025487234,0.0003702843,8.9980915e-7,0.0000023750401,0.0000019564193,0.0012670594,0.000025264655,0.0005502529,0.9893418,0.0016571885,0.0067530232],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024487442,0.000011019534,0.013589117,0.000017181064,0.0000061335686,0.000013009082,0.0007872327,0.00014057627,0.0002693222,0.00400638,0.9808462,0.00006889947],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022270493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0037119635,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9853354,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055320677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000035799403,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6228266},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.44160736,0.0014244085,0.000037775248,0.02451229,0.0026675202,0.000117799,0.000008200428,0.000007269651,0.52961737],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9975272,0.0001344934,0.000004266626,0.00053156796,0.00036471387,3.217488e-7,9.992639e-8,0.000004230205,0.0014331064],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989152,0.00014311115,0.00020594923,0.000048033566,0.0003942444,0.00029344103],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99933326,0.00027551688,0.00013033606,0.00010255798,0.00004683036,0.00011151656],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020066493,0.000040473282,0.000075670905,0.00006033038,0.002811377,0.0002210737,0.00029325264,0.000023403336,0.000028923288],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007916864,0.000029617462,0.000041373285,0.0001735234,0.00054163154,0.00007148401,0.00001087268,0.00030418058,0.000003684234],"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":[0.0000834915,0.000026724709,0.0022612242,0.0000062103077,0.000029747729,0.00026769598,0.005984749,0.00006922392,0.00011042934,0.73460263,0.145402,0.1111559],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010228827,0.000008327942,0.02366688,0.00002849511,0.000005132021,0.000014425238,0.00491438,0.0000040462483,0.000028147926,0.00024390964,0.9709345,0.000049484723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.998702,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999878,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8255325,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0023444083,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024634884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9984868},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.22384171,0.0001226133,0.000111440924,0.020340964,0.00014472131,0.00017702722,0.00001699278,0.00004379539,0.75520074],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9501119,0.00021956833,0.0002117788,0.0030054194,0.0014755822,0.000012744256,0.0000010551684,0.000011776697,0.044950157],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876714,0.0001760773,0.00017736305,0.00012603209,0.0003645964,0.00038878692],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991142,0.00018484551,0.000064674176,0.00022524055,0.00008725765,0.00032378713],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00096123,0.00008650787,0.00010454668,0.000016946036,0.0025012468,0.000300765,0.00057197886,0.00004861067,0.00031090347],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009188597,0.000059960767,0.000096546006,0.00025775383,0.00021289458,0.00016868177,0.000038728092,0.0003284068,0.0012706459],"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":[0.000005405561,0.000042897285,0.00015807258,0.0000010466016,0.00002110584,0.00001192799,0.004872522,0.00006876848,0.0000885641,0.78460133,0.19887386,0.011254522],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000101074846,0.00001816308,0.0029831463,0.0000096317135,0.000014255611,0.000041775904,0.0016274024,0.0000094564075,0.00007166953,0.0013938264,0.99369174,0.00003785878],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00426356,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0020609833,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.79481786,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009407198,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010257484,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999507},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.49408218,0.0012081995,0.00013747999,0.12033927,0.00015461502,0.0004778002,0.000013285003,0.000023041075,0.38356414],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9971922,0.0003955663,0.000056400353,0.0014907743,0.00028398552,0.000007947885,3.3175073e-7,0.0000056371414,0.0005671705],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99919456,0.00017306929,0.00016407046,0.00007568164,0.00021256604,0.00018006228],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993698,0.00019778252,0.00011213189,0.00013064565,0.00007367925,0.00011596148],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00090822275,0.00006503565,0.00011368262,0.0000068597374,0.001336882,0.0002259532,0.00025581094,0.000031391904,0.000026059874],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000254532,0.000032290023,0.000048406928,0.0000780218,0.0020140256,0.00022251655,0.00007064048,0.00021045089,0.000008774665],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010216783,0.0000083653995,0.00009527994,0.0000025113088,0.00001640898,4.5511172e-7,0.0018103662,0.0000023288367,0.00009591206,0.99366206,0.0033080943,0.0009879739],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0017115499,0.0000487226,0.004632402,0.00004345949,0.000102066995,0.00009825711,0.015075052,0.000203044,0.0003026514,0.05155934,0.92601115,0.00021230089],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01617423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001386222,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94210273,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000015040355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000034255103,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999632},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022727814,0.00292819,0.0000018318004,0.14957477,0.00026935898,0.00018211328,0.000005085453,0.00003064547,0.8242802],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9589634,0.0037355665,0.000009542438,0.0055062505,0.0017870237,0.0000068731733,7.0492916e-7,0.000012086198,0.02997854],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99798673,0.0007793873,0.00024459357,0.00011200479,0.00048545952,0.00039184184],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989982,0.000407503,0.00009412727,0.00026003606,0.00007809297,0.00016200688],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00236817,0.00013634749,0.00017425572,0.000009252287,0.01226141,0.0009671108,0.00076380104,0.000050560957,0.00023732403],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000034134886,0.0000450164,0.00012843702,0.0001000554,0.00364338,0.00027227376,0.000059149177,0.00058120035,0.000063485204],"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":[0.00015099882,0.000012781053,0.00000384006,0.000001487746,0.000032244447,0.000011245036,0.0040255273,0.000004694249,0.000009312351,0.9794748,0.0066415677,0.009631538],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007155358,0.000021531772,0.000079251084,0.000026666723,0.000023481442,0.00005978812,0.0012082765,0.00006420451,0.000026731948,0.017168276,0.9805074,0.0000988827],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004980514,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015841078,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9738658,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000043235177,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006835591,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99906814},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14594972,0.0056108385,0.012599507,0.4755689,0.0023637663,0.0038737052,0.000021839254,0.00011318884,0.35389853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9946193,0.002049754,0.00009024959,0.00062762445,0.0007491731,0.00011654106,0.0000051914394,0.0000099470735,0.0017321857],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985365,0.0005156606,0.00026639318,0.0001097717,0.00028677302,0.00028487376],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99814385,0.0009221359,0.00023486858,0.00019731546,0.00041754768,0.00008425769],"candidate_categories":["sts","scholarly_communication"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034019,0.000094924835,0.00009811346,0.000020955773,0.008375708,0.0010588635,0.00030739227,0.0000563122,0.000008026854],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005167435,0.000042017436,0.00009005895,0.00011854135,0.0009118352,0.00056136935,0.000041479332,0.00018292568,0.000013077693],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000039773917,0.000008901198,0.000015876512,0.0000030088395,0.000011462845,0.000002395515,0.002088525,0.000009367517,0.000010998285,0.9001665,0.08682735,0.01081585],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0026804619,0.000085544045,0.0015496153,0.00004341908,0.00022252348,0.0015027219,0.03677394,0.004740483,0.000074270305,0.77729666,0.17477348,0.00025689363],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04144673,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01658249,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8486696,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009961161,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006497329,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999781},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.809256,0.000744141,0.00024472162,0.019470815,0.0003143291,0.00019263769,0.000022810715,0.000046961468,0.16970755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99801075,0.00010739467,0.00040646913,0.00023083223,0.0009817613,0.0000035015064,7.849113e-7,0.000008793347,0.0002497294],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998888,0.00020713432,0.00025509033,0.00009810585,0.00031852987,0.00023310848],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992199,0.00025555608,0.00021096817,0.00017507069,0.000077944,0.000060546976],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012450485,0.00007622087,0.00011038195,0.000014364483,0.0021609936,0.00015300186,0.0003914237,0.000047358346,0.000011285749],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004583055,0.000044267486,0.00009073004,0.00013546852,0.00033763354,0.00012512093,0.000089120185,0.00029072133,0.000004609237],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005177409,0.000031506686,0.0015495331,0.0000062943104,0.000017810049,0.0000017186676,0.002037446,0.000083513565,0.0003430495,0.9921691,0.0031766351,0.0005782079],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006984336,0.00003427609,0.039465442,0.00013380007,0.00016354318,0.00010091202,0.011327761,0.00067800406,0.0013122287,0.022062542,0.9236762,0.00034688637],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009930403,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0038247898,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97010654,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003864216,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009840675,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99913806},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2804988,0.0015967563,0.00009955879,0.009524754,0.00032213825,0.00023951703,0.000018770872,0.000016700928,0.707683],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99819785,0.00017876159,0.0000064531137,0.0004333978,0.00062086113,0.000005959485,0.0000031481497,0.0000036935962,0.0005498876],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980675,0.00046334174,0.00033260527,0.00009701999,0.00076774147,0.00027178056],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99898034,0.0003095218,0.00027917483,0.00020448909,0.00017126444,0.00005522122],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001991346,0.00011233082,0.0001703905,0.000020479847,0.008447142,0.00012351065,0.0006361897,0.00007323769,0.00031003225],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000016097669,0.000046263387,0.00013845671,0.00023528609,0.0033013108,0.00022807147,0.000047398964,0.0004402215,0.00001430481],"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":[0.000016645023,0.000027079936,0.000061643455,0.0000012890575,0.00011494933,4.9535817e-7,0.0020541793,0.000020861948,0.000046392954,0.9965015,0.0009619554,0.00019303076],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016531274,0.00002333938,0.0010813064,0.000038747865,0.00006303916,0.000009875482,0.0017443856,0.0000012255204,0.0002713055,0.53542554,0.4611001,0.00007581339],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02541522,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.051540725,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.71769905,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010363073,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008434997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994111},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16691436,0.024408873,0.0010284601,0.0061522443,0.0023185934,0.00016144545,0.00009105,0.000020768653,0.7989042],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98979294,0.00094673154,0.000018021248,0.00034851977,0.0007113083,0.00000417507,7.8875786e-7,0.000012028029,0.008165507],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99898446,0.00002588793,0.0006153884,0.000101339334,0.00003938127,0.00023352494],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991267,0.000157169,0.00045857104,0.00018112356,0.000038811595,0.000037663835],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009605369,0.00009036573,0.0002764936,0.000019651745,0.0011050149,0.000077792785,0.0003190135,0.000043959506,0.000035430843],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000026023528,0.000059524576,0.00017267108,0.00007218063,0.000284856,0.000083937484,0.00003384392,0.00021256818,0.00017113115],"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":[0.000010266477,0.000017759317,0.0015277904,0.0000027512665,0.000042066105,0.0000016580793,0.00015616947,0.000022083506,0.0000030929546,0.9531457,0.04480708,0.0002636101],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028939257,0.000030320754,0.008123819,0.0000064225032,0.0000085725305,0.000019876092,0.0002172917,0.00006529005,0.00001096069,0.036195204,0.95492166,0.000111186135],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002356158,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00033897907,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91695046,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016249063,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001214439,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8498993},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8793205,0.00014838115,0.000032687833,0.0017912106,0.000107350155,0.0001299249,0.0000045221523,0.000011337141,0.118454106],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99682623,0.00012654613,0.00008382047,0.00020486974,0.00021921308,0.000005770156,3.306892e-7,0.0000046954465,0.002528533],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989265,0.00030763884,0.00017801298,0.00011135779,0.00019390015,0.00028259086],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993332,0.00026415233,0.000068614754,0.00013890093,0.00004648086,0.00014865678],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017691711,0.00006907093,0.00009981281,0.000016394615,0.0009046585,0.0001942208,0.00019405295,0.000055688644,0.000019966856],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00024060298,0.00004812219,0.000039608873,0.00015448932,0.0003320587,0.00012793498,0.000023708151,0.00037595,0.00002070285],"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":[0.0000016582366,0.00004517053,0.028250596,0.0000028508373,0.000008100822,0.000008720479,0.005825443,0.000016425342,0.00006663339,0.9640961,0.0012058388,0.0004724259],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002844837,0.000012957106,0.04636838,0.000005582446,0.000009253669,0.000034953347,0.001059038,0.000005616496,0.00006723159,0.00547265,0.94664776,0.000032089498],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005414701,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012888152,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95862347,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000070911294,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006824177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.81854445},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.093288,0.0009959921,0.00032707825,0.024089225,0.00035396803,0.00023635713,0.00002248639,0.00005721554,0.88062966],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9943626,0.00021117584,0.00017718256,0.002423997,0.00047760853,0.0000061711216,0.0000011992954,0.000009939633,0.0023301614],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99862933,0.00046703315,0.00018251476,0.00009422613,0.00028952828,0.00033738048],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991427,0.00023515645,0.0001126188,0.0002281593,0.00007547804,0.00020589402],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014550998,0.000079161066,0.00011854794,0.0000158306,0.0037358422,0.00024170079,0.00038757443,0.000032417953,0.00016529544],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006628848,0.000054263663,0.00010752857,0.00016079926,0.0003422572,0.00018928725,0.00003144012,0.0003821073,0.000109067165],"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":[0.000002966913,0.000027503684,0.00015406759,0.0000010768007,0.000037108384,0.000028297995,0.00057636574,0.000012202996,0.000024968898,0.9839035,0.014939432,0.00029248936],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018837271,0.000018315131,0.0003667528,0.0000045566157,0.000091365655,0.00035840555,0.002150237,0.0000046539826,0.000086716995,0.002723054,0.9939114,0.000096161835],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0065996293,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005733663,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9811805,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007613726,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017176133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99767095},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.42587182,0.0002831024,0.0024819397,0.096966386,0.0008773024,0.000842605,0.000012307494,0.00006803572,0.4725965],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9903687,0.00013748306,0.00023293974,0.0029920072,0.00038334334,0.00002320499,4.431534e-7,0.000008642686,0.0058532106],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988888,0.00024788664,0.00019489224,0.00013727832,0.0002409037,0.00029026688],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993098,0.000086703534,0.000107392414,0.00015492467,0.0001308645,0.00021036397],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014091753,0.00008093124,0.00009272729,0.000020061509,0.002088876,0.00022498412,0.00020227913,0.000035487716,0.00009421124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000092858514,0.000055545752,0.000044510256,0.00017613491,0.00018870203,0.00023422723,0.00004092772,0.00032454528,0.00008286077],"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":[0.000015908707,0.000046501802,0.00028747643,0.0000020821344,0.000020518113,0.000003346809,0.0066917506,0.000006105179,0.00031471642,0.96999973,0.02084848,0.0017633698],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015279173,0.00004328773,0.0029559839,0.00001443076,0.000020398138,0.000052211974,0.01374302,0.0000026341659,0.0002232464,0.001515737,0.9811785,0.000097724514],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0016385531,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014482851,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.968484,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001483361,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008583684,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992103},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0139844995,0.0061248075,0.000010162562,0.0653379,0.00034890953,0.00020170266,0.000005128693,0.00005242449,0.91393447],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9791611,0.0023268946,0.0001432773,0.002306812,0.001563662,0.000010944,2.7251477e-7,0.000011366198,0.014475712],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981614,0.00082052016,0.0001775603,0.00010865481,0.00043897692,0.00029290523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986982,0.00076691195,0.000114591945,0.00017483624,0.00012153213,0.00012395075],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024692991,0.00008986972,0.00011822201,0.000013439015,0.004274584,0.0005360567,0.00040482348,0.000053191943,0.00034021187],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006463872,0.000045721223,0.000069120084,0.0001936252,0.0015067182,0.00047053036,0.000034728593,0.0005559547,0.00016483192],"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":[0.00023643853,0.000057143578,0.00007389176,0.000004210895,0.00009539695,0.000028303793,0.118057996,0.000013749357,0.000004020941,0.8342785,0.032952055,0.014198245],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00036391578,0.000013074975,0.00016614333,0.000013837632,0.000074720374,0.0002532858,0.006440028,0.00001666707,0.0000041834196,0.0025083956,0.99007237,0.00007335408],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0028723883,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0015887212,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9651766,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000056698093,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009809169,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99702173},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8888802,0.0016826168,0.000019654466,0.038249265,0.000549677,0.00012932306,0.000008693135,0.000016191,0.07046439],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99656767,0.0004124846,0.000014348036,0.00034822235,0.0006834335,0.0000026670702,2.3536188e-7,0.0000075451617,0.0019634003],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99824727,0.0004758864,0.00028823718,0.00010144502,0.00055427005,0.0003329246],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99884844,0.00062938867,0.00016669258,0.00018809272,0.00008519252,0.00008220239],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022019288,0.00009138923,0.00015220609,0.000025156412,0.0012034872,0.00014163835,0.00054139184,0.00005175523,0.00015528192],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003170132,0.0000490956,0.000076640834,0.00022925534,0.0005710666,0.00028825118,0.00005180114,0.0004931305,0.000020975545],"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":[0.00022912804,0.00048376338,0.06129339,0.00007619488,0.00013881347,0.0010584189,0.07741639,0.00034949466,0.0007224526,0.52527153,0.21366607,0.11929435],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007346732,0.00035072144,0.03703982,0.00039791418,0.00016028644,0.0013025987,0.088741444,0.0004185934,0.00025613638,0.0020293288,0.8680511,0.0005173794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023690136,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.051251512,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.65438503,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007332578,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000039434133,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9828112},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09607934,0.00036419908,0.000699401,0.06659446,0.0003363049,0.00022608857,0.000006165963,0.00005315742,0.8356409],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9890362,0.0015621071,0.00011866561,0.0029979825,0.0011431244,0.000010691804,0.0000016462801,0.0000089137375,0.0051206783],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989158,0.0001327756,0.00019799925,0.000092078786,0.0003467235,0.00031465947],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993999,0.000057925743,0.000109733686,0.00019250889,0.00008202785,0.00015789592],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011011207,0.00006944574,0.000076630655,0.000015043649,0.0025535296,0.00024503397,0.0004146959,0.0000364989,0.00005894686],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000028953413,0.000044967215,0.00008117853,0.00016981405,0.00021683023,0.00017284414,0.00004575943,0.00030128993,0.00012331727],"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":[0.0000125484485,0.000039032566,0.00012623958,9.47725e-7,0.000015398457,0.00002419802,0.00130425,0.00004739125,0.00011683319,0.9534841,0.038914423,0.005914636],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016374321,0.000014151512,0.00053726655,0.00001003433,0.000010355169,0.00003526255,0.0014197447,0.000026207319,0.00002910547,0.0022733856,0.99541026,0.0000704783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001903033,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0032657047,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9564958,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011233677,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000884946,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.998745},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.8845828,0.0020585556,0.0000011429606,0.06250445,0.0009418184,0.00020211078,0.0000076771075,0.000013068238,0.049688354],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9958303,0.00013230303,0.000011425252,0.0012976885,0.00057964365,0.000005380477,3.2127653e-7,0.000004640818,0.0021382968],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99825937,0.00038065392,0.0002328387,0.00011014548,0.0005820886,0.00043492756],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990059,0.00034845245,0.00012775224,0.00010679268,0.00017095532,0.00024011095],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011316567,0.00011139047,0.00015786165,0.000008959689,0.002953515,0.0002579431,0.00034363,0.00003845426,0.000015910091],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017267963,0.000053985677,0.000039192517,0.00013239216,0.00043540465,0.00019630593,0.0000618313,0.00037841848,0.000011516802],"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":[0.00014988416,0.00007002682,0.11285429,0.000013013274,0.0003808101,0.00026467195,0.06360819,0.000013916972,0.000108683074,0.11791739,0.69074064,0.013878458],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00044361156,0.00001359783,0.1665825,0.000022764003,0.000018436333,0.000033458706,0.008626424,0.000020255764,0.000030393763,0.0003336432,0.8237451,0.00012984843],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9889892,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99814945,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13300441,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00090492726,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034884762,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9983445},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.25435895,0.00011579419,0.000006238992,0.015138106,0.00017923732,0.00011273803,0.000008457296,0.000011109799,0.73006934],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99693376,0.000048077196,0.00002563555,0.0015635331,0.0005331492,0.0000056198583,0.0000010370688,0.000006235462,0.00088295894],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99899757,0.000112649745,0.00015360067,0.000071878734,0.00024348321,0.0004207934],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919885,0.000037425965,0.00006231214,0.00012570489,0.00008485965,0.0004908221],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016136031,0.000060453225,0.0000843194,0.000022244023,0.0011119734,0.00020167459,0.00037939058,0.00004350234,0.000028871682],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000026102458,0.00004227113,0.0000330026,0.00014941924,0.00022808921,0.00028321493,0.000017795926,0.00034631573,0.00010924003],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004247335,0.000010690098,0.003618392,5.733648e-7,0.000004006158,0.000008590097,0.001523576,0.000049655344,0.0000039442707,0.99293566,0.0012560332,0.00058462325],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024700674,0.000016657028,0.010895088,0.000009887015,0.0000054416178,0.00003397701,0.001107094,0.00013856417,0.000019529609,0.00061702053,0.9868332,0.00007651992],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8518094,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9644299,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99231863,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003679553,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006555825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.85525125},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.82856756,0.00084508065,0.00010546356,0.021578837,0.00093998085,0.00057694054,0.000018563018,0.000047563783,0.14731997],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99082106,0.0001691311,0.00002431127,0.0072885817,0.001431206,0.0000039067318,0.0000020213226,0.000018461811,0.00024131268],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99880296,0.00003736479,0.00024483213,0.00017549061,0.00029498382,0.0004443487],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99906063,0.000044237247,0.00030779288,0.00037712549,0.00015671727,0.00005351219],"candidate_categories":["sts","scholarly_communication"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012121348,0.00021141178,0.00021192098,0.000027503003,0.005470267,0.0030935686,0.00051535206,0.000059197235,0.000014617313],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014568407,0.000117516014,0.0000998262,0.000051651725,0.0010231729,0.0012567521,0.00030965233,0.00034072052,0.000008940979],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00015426768,0.00010843828,0.009634721,0.0001456912,0.00025131876,0.000063836895,0.001510017,0.00004374673,0.00006254893,0.9717957,0.0095953625,0.0066343592],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.009517798,0.0001651193,0.2738817,0.00036896492,0.0012552163,0.00040133047,0.084600575,0.0035688481,0.00010990737,0.021202132,0.60325855,0.0016698671],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.015195554,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0020375801,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95059353,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000060885788,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000022441134,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9979413},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2356676,0.0014400673,0.0005476192,0.053097196,0.0004981528,0.00017157967,0.000017781698,0.000037644153,0.7085224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9959918,0.00025057397,0.00038091527,0.0005258496,0.0006342961,0.0000024870758,6.378049e-7,0.0000055636883,0.0022078224],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990882,0.00017882255,0.00018833687,0.00006982029,0.00029499788,0.00017982005],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99933684,0.00009781465,0.00013481696,0.0001498747,0.00022500762,0.00005566989],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00086337555,0.000047726196,0.000097022414,0.0000102201575,0.0010711148,0.00008897115,0.00016726952,0.00002919075,0.00006247395],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011073915,0.00003265393,0.000073488976,0.00017434533,0.00027583,0.00010174545,0.000060026796,0.00020472059,0.000015422884],"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":[0.0000049856976,0.000019077841,0.00010213035,0.000005015729,0.000022177339,0.000023777906,0.0024448629,0.000008034171,0.0021143907,0.9902815,0.0035720055,0.0014020213],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018967352,0.000013546042,0.0014589942,0.00007347398,0.000042752417,0.00019455788,0.011229195,0.000023939561,0.006369412,0.0044720806,0.9758294,0.00010297693],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00040302982,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0014565743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98580945,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000039832958,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001571202,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8238257},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.40635943,0.00012894056,0.000010211301,0.040622376,0.000515636,0.0003042337,0.00002073432,0.000057168243,0.5519813],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97330695,0.000006717036,0.000009993595,0.025131648,0.00050496304,0.000031623604,0.000019652123,0.000026369,0.0009620837],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981356,0.0001269811,0.000413738,0.00030894898,0.0005387015,0.00047599874],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920434,0.00014330374,0.00020454703,0.00035085983,0.000070493865,0.000026441747],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000883389,0.00023374528,0.000282458,0.00008577023,0.0014701147,0.00041302503,0.0008394351,0.000060728944,0.009469731],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000032113843,0.00013869298,0.0001078526,0.00039977388,0.00019126647,0.00038547293,0.0004205127,0.0015092599,0.0002496448],"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":[0.00065186317,0.00019845356,0.0012914608,0.0000218228,0.000066529654,0.0005064955,0.00006781863,0.00009355987,0.000513133,0.21246518,0.7828763,0.0012473718],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00084815075,0.000059130572,0.0044975234,0.00006616932,0.000049729344,0.00017004008,0.00050393015,0.0014258652,0.0006091144,0.017179983,0.9741558,0.00043457022],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7928729,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.58577484,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5669475,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00033911632,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000103754544,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998298},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.22713941,0.00019877689,0.00022344706,0.021536117,0.00026142562,0.00010356376,0.000004614061,0.000041355677,0.75049126],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9914916,0.00021759162,0.000085469466,0.0010420886,0.0012590243,0.000003940506,4.221059e-7,0.000005834437,0.0058940025],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992137,0.00009955524,0.0001260827,0.00006457343,0.0002708225,0.00022529525],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995494,0.00005793858,0.00006679916,0.00013362952,0.000062022504,0.00013024281],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000537646,0.00004947917,0.000064772095,0.000010507811,0.0037149778,0.00008701621,0.0003690786,0.000030844094,0.00013178612],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000025508345,0.00003201814,0.00007230224,0.00012258608,0.00039629635,0.00014589632,0.00003089069,0.00025169953,0.00021249244],"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":[0.000003767087,0.000019586692,0.00020536773,4.1455354e-7,0.000008075815,0.00001539189,0.0022229704,0.000006783989,0.000049837305,0.9671909,0.029187448,0.0010894412],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011694942,0.000008551197,0.0029954775,0.000003344512,0.000006876013,0.00018815769,0.0008190302,0.000014452848,0.00006901681,0.001028106,0.99468905,0.000061003957],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0020724013,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008052013,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9661628,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005579898,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000103077364,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9975821},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9797018,0.00066287664,0.0011354445,0.0069938074,0.00021853448,0.00007180684,0.000006021295,0.000011861711,0.011197809],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99813706,0.0005362981,0.0003643893,0.0006213565,0.00011543872,0.000006489216,0.000001241168,0.000005243152,0.00021246636],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984229,0.00080175215,0.0001900128,0.000084544714,0.00031932502,0.00018143412],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990625,0.00056572247,0.00013221701,0.00011703782,0.000061667124,0.00006088769],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019044164,0.000054477907,0.00009733454,0.0000688957,0.0037751002,0.00011189223,0.00021951273,0.000018609902,0.00014828851],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013049132,0.000045515364,0.000054573553,0.00040828722,0.00024159867,0.00014005695,0.00012499299,0.00087056326,0.000004272972],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003196675,0.00029426414,0.014121642,0.000010072237,0.00024373387,0.00016958246,0.449159,0.005956366,0.00010086896,0.35227475,0.002010049,0.17534001],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017457522,0.000047360703,0.0025345637,0.000038882605,0.000100047706,0.00018158834,0.95811886,0.0010896395,0.000003969293,0.009429424,0.02816191,0.0001191796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.021760724,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.025308775,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5089599,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021010266,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009285077,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9975219},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6905562,0.0011030016,0.00003265603,0.3035907,0.0012223193,0.0012602172,0.000049176917,0.00007557026,0.002110137],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98749036,0.0013575394,0.00003059129,0.0031599693,0.002596728,0.00011977703,0.000010663598,0.000042882253,0.0051914966],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980154,0.00047136282,0.00050929654,0.00026090525,0.00029657513,0.00044647523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99816155,0.0007588112,0.00019591159,0.0005554558,0.00016150367,0.00016678781],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004226878,0.00020642462,0.00031985532,0.00014091512,0.0013667913,0.00035816646,0.000255669,0.000069050264,0.000033083867],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027230737,0.00009795335,0.0001668675,0.000561639,0.0006779693,0.00040809123,0.00012805781,0.00097280176,0.00004562935],"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":[0.0044850158,0.0004490576,0.00052500854,0.00023749033,0.0010140021,0.0013215853,0.2223608,0.00053787284,0.0012875047,0.08968654,0.42799756,0.25009757],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.024756119,0.0006297087,0.008781885,0.00072418933,0.0014370768,0.113780916,0.43029284,0.025340969,0.0040489817,0.017237665,0.37215528,0.0008143847],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022568936,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00036660646,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30043072,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030457875,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00026593913,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999333},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16616105,0.0030359686,0.0010670692,0.015962265,0.0052223406,0.00018696142,0.00020046218,0.000090756745,0.80807316],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98544693,0.0005269631,0.000016005317,0.0008806961,0.0005397329,0.000005667252,0.0000019935703,0.0000119374645,0.012570081],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988269,0.00003893252,0.0004887428,0.00015377134,0.00009101797,0.000400611],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992164,0.00007644405,0.0002776728,0.0002748401,0.000047466634,0.000107207874],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012954789,0.00012384274,0.00018272713,0.000032352746,0.0010538184,0.0004094529,0.0005817302,0.000050287144,0.00022509856],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012852438,0.00008028172,0.00020132307,0.00034675447,0.00016390503,0.00010644813,0.00011531543,0.00023891845,0.0017956654],"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":[0.000039447135,0.000006915449,0.009244574,0.0000013832913,0.000034399756,0.00001584955,0.0000301794,0.000024401208,9.549365e-7,0.7805398,0.20663817,0.0034239206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031286804,0.000029269046,0.17718591,0.000010857888,0.000005602003,0.00017404534,0.00014984302,0.00067974714,0.00000415531,0.052779235,0.76855195,0.00011650703],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00029214466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00024413923,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81928587,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014027629,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000021446678,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99898154},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007458264,0.010601679,0.00013092456,0.015872793,0.0045565576,0.0003469093,0.00011762965,0.00010228727,0.9608129],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6897417,0.00980601,0.0002734934,0.008470678,0.0034841553,0.000010164116,0.000011308664,0.000056154993,0.28814635],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969998,0.0005644691,0.00044098418,0.0003525873,0.00085484027,0.00078732637],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979426,0.00023853127,0.00029418842,0.0003562555,0.0007006807,0.00046768994],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014965328,0.00026646114,0.00051839475,0.000032046883,0.003271931,0.00023913237,0.0013009598,0.00020041024,0.00016009767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003031477,0.00022209769,0.0004436342,0.0005434776,0.0012375518,0.0006105497,0.00034450248,0.0008769148,0.000010778373],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000044967997,0.00007629482,0.00017840398,0.000012671613,0.00011099558,0.000008374371,0.0032245596,0.000004986804,0.000017114438,0.3330341,0.6630288,0.0002587561],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00044263757,0.00007718877,0.00011944982,0.000039719762,0.0000900048,0.0000022356369,0.004360057,0.0000045807933,0.00003196937,0.000042392545,0.9945505,0.0002392532],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03850146,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0063969297,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6822834,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0020486983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000424279,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99802566},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}