{"meta":{"query_hash":"99af3ad7142f","filters":{"venue":"The Canadian Bar Review"},"cohort_total":272,"direct_labels_cover":1,"predictions_cover":272,"exported":272,"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/99af3ad7142f","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=The+Canadian+Bar+Review"},"results":[{"id":"W2309054546","doi":"","title":"Les nouvelles normes relatives à l’indépendance des vérificateurs : l’implantation d’un cadre conceptuel fondé sur l’autoréglementation","year":2006,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Social Sciences and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Accounting; Audit; Context (archaeology); Independence (probability theory); Corporate governance; Accounting scandals; Political science; Business; Finance; Geography","score_opus":0.05628923081321836,"score_gpt":0.30813099770802316,"score_spread":0.2518417668948048,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2309054546","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0775959,0.7049156,0.00005603618,0.15548608,0.0013034306,0.0013358374,0.00036905918,0.000047439713,0.058890652],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78489125,0.19548191,0.00018150905,0.0015254698,0.00050460675,0.00005423036,0.000045442823,0.000022506692,0.01729308],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971142,0.000669515,0.0005001192,0.0003831248,0.00055641215,0.0007766237],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985508,0.00023727847,0.00046377993,0.00022708417,0.00023396667,0.00028713222],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012529537,0.00026049223,0.0003502366,0.000036650643,0.0027793022,0.00017409789,0.0006196676,0.00015251982,0.0022926785],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023615561,0.00021510078,0.00016635671,0.00096483517,0.0019778635,0.0006020954,0.0000217453,0.00024490186,0.00031712363],"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":[0.0000039529,0.000038282866,0.014457609,0.0006296583,0.000045540804,0.00002091677,0.017843897,0.00003766805,0.000028647588,0.58678514,0.08878447,0.29132423],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001546243,0.00002709262,0.16929246,0.0014971993,0.00012249876,0.000007701088,0.005111631,0.000015178321,0.000029314548,0.005814109,0.8176047,0.00032347644],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9365033,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95827603,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.72882026,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009109293,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014160534,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9986194},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2467834194","doi":"","title":"« Whistleblowing », divulgation, dénonciation … vers une meilleure surveillance des sociétés?","year":2012,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics in Business and Education","field":"Decision 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":"Corporate governance; Political science; Context (archaeology); Public relations; Accounting; Business; Public administration; Finance; Geography","score_opus":0.2522421889611003,"score_gpt":0.43611090027620597,"score_spread":0.18386871131510568,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2467834194","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0019302198,0.64351386,0.00022330982,0.32491422,0.0076590786,0.00050373905,0.000053019896,0.000017931136,0.021184606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69560605,0.27536857,0.0003738789,0.0134715205,0.001388014,0.000048189337,0.00007267677,0.000040686406,0.013630447],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99631894,0.0010270145,0.0007138254,0.00031644126,0.00085358194,0.0007702134],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958671,0.0013977634,0.0003573022,0.00082970073,0.00094690814,0.000601241],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.012251328,0.00024016833,0.00041872784,0.00011696092,0.0016979086,0.00030169782,0.0007818842,0.00021060275,0.004710873],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008933299,0.00017898701,0.0001824225,0.0018106477,0.00052591256,0.00086814555,0.000047509795,0.00043388546,0.0026610212],"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":[0.0000022008849,0.000035360114,0.028587928,0.0015581091,0.00005223364,0.000002240848,0.004924894,0.000045265246,0.0000033650692,0.101836376,0.27396423,0.5889878],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000070596376,0.0000063288853,0.06462742,0.002043769,0.0000701209,0.00001444729,0.00040354428,0.000037314374,0.0000021683018,0.012393106,0.9201042,0.00022696858],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.18453027,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.531305,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6936758,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0014391413,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026578414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996017},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2508662225","doi":"","title":"La Loi sur Investissement Canada à l’épreuve de l’attractivité : Contribution à la modernisation du cadre juridique canadien de l’investissement étranger","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Foreign direct investment; Welfare economics; Transparency (behavior); Political science; Skepticism; Attractiveness; International economics; Economy; Humanities; Economics; Law; Philosophy","score_opus":0.022145514499702527,"score_gpt":0.2282584444396596,"score_spread":0.20611292993995706,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2508662225","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.031124618,0.048104316,0.00048813372,0.8499358,0.0011254797,0.002122884,0.00037996247,0.00006249534,0.066656254],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8748435,0.011168099,0.000033547763,0.107826926,0.0006460996,0.0001728455,0.00013555291,0.00005209452,0.005121373],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99723953,0.0005146718,0.00055783504,0.0003680993,0.0004636945,0.00085617055],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981584,0.0002847831,0.0003606857,0.00035427173,0.00050129223,0.00034058155],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026349146,0.0003804937,0.00036097845,0.00012314052,0.00052532175,0.00030795,0.0004672301,0.00022490819,0.001649581],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010594042,0.00029178034,0.00012391586,0.00024048123,0.00018479546,0.0008596029,0.00005119179,0.00040127142,0.0001974773],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007637346,0.000039865332,0.0029703418,0.0010068972,0.00014403611,0.00019056746,0.000108485,0.000044562395,0.0001354965,0.73903227,0.25175095,0.0045689056],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00042137472,0.000011900933,0.013507046,0.0042271223,0.00027910538,0.00009043799,0.000022275515,0.0007868505,0.00013185151,0.001934735,0.97819644,0.00039087117],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9886803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9989608,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8437188,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0059830747,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0081453845,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995345},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2613895645","doi":"","title":"L'eau, chose commune : un statut juridique à confirmer","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Government (linguistics); Chose; Commission; Public administration","score_opus":0.030500846700034837,"score_gpt":0.3044705962452377,"score_spread":0.27396974954520287,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2613895645","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0005270789,0.31311107,0.0000013700313,0.38869783,0.00013499802,0.0006659344,0.00012764112,0.00001442925,0.29671964],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.097977415,0.7280006,0.00007149853,0.046651274,0.00042433295,0.00011427521,0.000032093572,0.000029650288,0.12669887],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99795073,0.0006156162,0.00035239846,0.00021506597,0.00021736146,0.0006488324],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982891,0.000100334815,0.00008747293,0.00073825964,0.000077748075,0.00070706307],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011865088,0.0001849533,0.00031817198,0.000018732282,0.0015554909,0.00010834427,0.0008652194,0.000113613394,0.05771674],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000467829,0.00014733612,0.00016351693,0.00055762276,0.00073355006,0.00012490121,0.000026841635,0.0004397066,0.010074182],"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":[5.276002e-7,0.000016761946,0.000012566986,0.00019497894,0.000024890427,0.000006038428,0.0010018334,0.0000022938334,3.4731428e-7,0.66996306,0.09521113,0.23356557],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006972239,0.000010129373,0.00044148834,0.0010132475,0.00011401344,0.0000072631046,0.000050778846,0.000005097739,0.000001678678,0.0013900188,0.99670196,0.00019461698],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.84645116,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90268016,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9014908,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004135801,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003892313,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99974436},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2789536600","doi":"","title":"Gladue and Bail: The Pre-Trial Sentencing of Aboriginal People in Canada","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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":"Interim; Context (archaeology); Political science; Interpretation (philosophy); Jurisprudence; Law; Criminology; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.0201298290976058,"score_gpt":0.32326579072116635,"score_spread":0.30313596162356055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2789536600","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":[0.94177866,0.020067982,0.0000018608827,0.032784883,0.00035632768,0.00054403226,0.000011433913,0.0000024461535,0.0044523575],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9675789,0.031458862,0.0000030743574,0.00063178845,0.00010509896,0.000013996691,5.6731125e-7,0.0000026960142,0.00020500734],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992526,0.00015955791,0.00014575418,0.00008592485,0.00017249963,0.00018362333],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993149,0.00009615351,0.00010549979,0.0003112792,0.000057244088,0.000114910144],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00088480517,0.000051556824,0.00016505251,0.000022581775,0.001135366,0.000061989296,0.000385151,0.000015481002,0.00014598834],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035059114,0.00003174604,0.00003919958,0.00014751923,0.00011977927,0.000059177462,0.000013887806,0.000097455864,0.0000029737282],"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":[0.0002144268,0.00003530329,0.10214697,0.0018208494,0.00018620443,0.0000794428,0.05039532,0.00004269878,0.000004837491,0.038343173,0.027747925,0.7789829],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00081965857,0.000026818301,0.051533565,0.0014687302,0.0007289441,0.000007939417,0.06928482,0.00012167529,0.0000017258797,0.00012616791,0.87566406,0.00021587082],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999755,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999964,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8479162,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003799381,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0048312824,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8732432},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2790497960","doi":"","title":"WHAT CHANGES DID GRASSY NARROWS FIRST NATION MAKE TO FEDERALISM AND OTHER DOCTRINES","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Environmental law and policy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Doctrine; Law; Political science; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Interpretation (philosophy); Federalism; Enforcement; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Politics","score_opus":0.08378179179671509,"score_gpt":0.33491145657983173,"score_spread":0.25112966478311666,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2790497960","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00922114,0.060211018,1.4749494e-7,0.84755176,0.00043923577,0.0008964704,0.000028020277,0.000014655275,0.081637524],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.39867154,0.43380457,0.000028843193,0.123662,0.0012143836,0.00013779843,0.000006539844,0.000031464937,0.042442866],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99940246,0.00007967933,0.00006866499,0.00011094789,0.00012094599,0.00021730372],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993893,0.000021193026,0.000052302923,0.00025838998,0.000008984077,0.000269859],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000486177,0.00007264793,0.0001138137,0.000019234,0.002076147,0.00040182087,0.00029791603,0.00003491284,0.0002846497],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009685653,0.00005248022,0.000025579428,0.000028931841,0.00016500747,0.0001286741,0.00002861304,0.000045626617,0.00013342247],"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":[0.0000028284421,0.0000098182645,0.0053906417,0.0005175432,0.000034258705,0.00001190834,0.011891439,3.8652476e-7,0.00000913124,0.6994283,0.07952648,0.20317727],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030042149,0.0000064586075,0.0030799725,0.0005064229,0.000010927807,0.0000013031412,0.000062365194,1.5111398e-7,0.0000030100496,0.0002736794,0.99594945,0.00007622584],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6795286,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99256176,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91642296,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000119311764,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005589508,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999223},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2791684113","doi":"","title":"Damages for Breach and Interpretation of Jurisdiction Agreements in Common Law Canada","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Jurisdiction; Damages; Jurisprudence; Law; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Interpretation (philosophy); Enforcement; Political science; Common law; Conflict of laws; Business; Original jurisdiction; Computer science","score_opus":0.026790064369380216,"score_gpt":0.3329113235339074,"score_spread":0.3061212591645272,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2791684113","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":[0.33080515,0.06945959,0.000046615525,0.29515293,0.0016498234,0.0059966627,0.00031424948,0.000028324475,0.29654664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9923203,0.0063306675,0.0000075956996,0.0010271708,0.00003350451,0.000018745304,0.0000066307675,0.0000032741243,0.00025214115],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99947286,0.0000800219,0.0001453373,0.00007228804,0.00010552446,0.00012397101],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995347,0.000039739076,0.00011455281,0.00017679248,0.000047608195,0.00008658949],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007170422,0.00004397879,0.00013218756,0.000017958131,0.00069929706,0.000045206667,0.00017939796,0.000024926867,0.000027563474],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006070155,0.000036450045,0.000020728248,0.000030435638,0.00013212592,0.0001052672,0.000011187881,0.00004694138,6.27828e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000015248614,0.000013499577,0.017072503,0.0010078087,0.000040906074,0.000003995011,0.0076007308,0.0000021192625,0.000009275281,0.26599246,0.012694948,0.6955465],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012592819,0.000015721998,0.040481005,0.00093332323,0.000034952922,5.2674903e-7,0.00015482765,0.000080635364,0.0000046055848,0.0009951945,0.9571086,0.00006464503],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9979785,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94441366,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021006419,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047316673,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53784984},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2792244971","doi":"","title":"PEUT-ON CONCILIER RÉALITÉ ET ENJEUX ÉTHIQUES, JURIDIQUES ET SCIENTIFIQUES DANS LE PROCESSUS D’ÉVALUATION MÉDICALE DE L’INAPTITUDE DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES?","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Health, Medicine and Society","field":"Health Professions","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":"Autonomy; Multidisciplinary approach; Psychology; Sociology; Nursing; Political science; Medicine; Social science; Law","score_opus":0.20906362131868791,"score_gpt":0.4672440304994635,"score_spread":0.25818040918077556,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2792244971","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022631481,0.27575988,0.00009369999,0.6454478,0.00077823945,0.0026940152,0.00017680257,0.00007296791,0.052345112],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19752376,0.5794094,0.0010705964,0.2014199,0.00092098466,0.00039950578,0.00008691146,0.000094053634,0.019074889],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98844934,0.008129932,0.0008314387,0.0005968438,0.0006259302,0.0013665151],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946975,0.00081681483,0.0005846057,0.0014532881,0.0010610211,0.0013867519],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","sts","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027691018,0.00040940574,0.00079748535,0.0000797381,0.008012658,0.00021795365,0.0010526228,0.00078686624,0.0010974746],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010328068,0.00031315454,0.00024308485,0.00020880693,0.0017465706,0.0004921154,0.000112230715,0.0026335085,0.0005505536],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000014633197,0.0001305419,0.0021067068,0.04290326,0.0001151462,0.0000718583,0.177083,0.0000023224954,0.000019062336,0.3351336,0.3656828,0.07673705],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00041232372,0.00014493486,0.00883812,0.044569656,0.00026097175,0.000025704383,0.0052915276,0.00009107566,0.000022991002,0.009210151,0.93078244,0.00035010168],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5403271,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8360451,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.56509966,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001770937,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.041267358,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99993205},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2792526048","doi":"","title":"REVISITING THE ROLE OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory interpretation; Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Statutory law; Law; Legislative intent; Legislature; Consistency (knowledge bases); Substantive law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Judicial interpretation; Reflexivity; Meaning (existential); Presumption; Legislative history; Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology; Computer science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.045856590037909255,"score_gpt":0.333922354086168,"score_spread":0.28806576404825873,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2792526048","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":[0.006944829,0.21615936,0.00001099129,0.06482619,0.00016171872,0.000931395,0.000045518213,0.0000052879186,0.71091473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9805719,0.01901259,0.0000058656583,0.00025556755,0.000053690415,0.000015241203,7.190716e-7,0.0000012657545,0.00008312135],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993927,0.00017149228,0.0001647049,0.000051551844,0.0001180469,0.00010149004],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99944985,0.000088172375,0.00017057509,0.0001506183,0.00010676481,0.000034028322],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009371336,0.000035641067,0.00012539889,0.000017781129,0.000771021,0.000015956122,0.00030198394,0.00001345359,0.000054017535],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00097379484,0.000021422144,0.000046776822,0.000059062913,0.0007562155,0.00007738912,0.000028236906,0.000070597394,0.000008159735],"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":[0.0000017365145,0.0000022197655,0.00593044,0.000057933434,0.000020401261,4.145498e-7,0.008232228,0.000002674178,0.0000037647462,0.8678754,0.0001582015,0.11771461],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000060576658,0.000009331378,0.1242018,0.006056004,0.00007637885,4.0634006e-7,0.0044195526,0.000025000581,0.000007213872,0.0297142,0.8353364,0.00009316479],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63217366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8075404,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9736271,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010301028,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00047261015,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59301484},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2795379623","doi":"","title":"PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE THROUGH COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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":"Excellence; Lifelong learning; Continuing professional development; Meaning (existential); Professional development; Public relations; Political science; Quality (philosophy); Legal profession; Process (computing); Engineering ethics; Pedagogy; Sociology; Law; Engineering; Psychology","score_opus":0.13792286919365468,"score_gpt":0.445149747260576,"score_spread":0.3072268780669213,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2795379623","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0001653418,0.007053444,0.0000026056955,0.60109544,0.0007044119,0.00029821045,0.0000019060909,0.000008806859,0.3906698],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.68366605,0.058271185,0.0032849868,0.11883382,0.000896745,0.0002659955,0.000026002459,0.000023465616,0.13473175],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991947,0.00016098403,0.00014764191,0.00009223882,0.00020453084,0.00019992067],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991384,0.000068798065,0.00014283917,0.00035554494,0.00015240468,0.00014200123],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011861925,0.00005257505,0.00008147698,0.000013265467,0.0058576963,0.0002058755,0.000645082,0.0000294409,0.0037868056],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011965906,0.00003665575,0.000022402375,0.000098561904,0.0002217892,0.00040762988,0.000022900867,0.00020375077,0.0011576931],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[2.6112394e-7,0.000009301545,0.00048402644,0.000075238684,0.000006741985,0.0000015951598,0.007592518,2.4540345e-8,3.4546966e-7,0.7757001,0.18246558,0.033664268],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017484053,0.000001020706,0.004706566,0.0004378599,0.000006821136,8.6843573e-7,0.00030059298,1.4127089e-7,0.0000010256671,0.0015281742,0.99293935,0.00006008266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.34283802,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.77323616,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8104738,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019921894,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010073461,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99962},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2795580582","doi":"","title":"CANADIAN BAR REVIEW EDITION ON LEGAL EDUCATION: INTRODUCTION FROM THE CBA LEGAL FUTURES INITIATIVE AND THE CBA EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Futures contract; Economic Justice; Political science; Law; Bar (unit); Engineering ethics; Sociology; Public administration; Engineering; Business; Geography","score_opus":0.06882788545955318,"score_gpt":0.38340027560023554,"score_spread":0.3145723901406824,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2795580582","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00006128465,0.050596155,0.0000042004986,0.80423427,0.0026068958,0.0013643554,0.00015072786,0.00001315066,0.14096896],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2915106,0.20438315,0.000044749395,0.4850786,0.015213153,0.00049768493,0.00032210784,0.00003229577,0.0029176446],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964719,0.001979636,0.00040886007,0.00032448466,0.00041539007,0.00039974164],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965014,0.0009688453,0.0005304866,0.0008919892,0.0006746574,0.00043264517],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts","scholarly_communication","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038355656,0.0002144994,0.00031592714,0.000069785696,0.008954072,0.0010691943,0.0008957046,0.000097276934,0.0025579436],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01166175,0.00012608524,0.000093971525,0.00040406242,0.00092046714,0.0013127808,0.00003242527,0.00092213345,0.00039699388],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004287286,0.000007457115,0.000008990351,0.00009680065,0.000029602086,0.0000011779475,0.0031717492,2.2756528e-7,5.0700972e-8,0.48409146,0.49849007,0.014098146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012354,0.000014545969,0.002027189,0.001527122,0.00042687272,0.000008647463,0.0047375252,0.0000018570506,6.4666654e-7,0.0027312383,0.9882308,0.00016999958],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9425768,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9843416,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.48974076,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008826619,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014848559,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999678},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2795857117","doi":"","title":"NUMÉRO DE LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADIEN SUR LA FORMATION JURIDIQUE: PRÉFACE DU PROJET AVENIRS EN DROIT ET DE L’INITIATIVE JUSTICE POUR TOUS DE L’ABC","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Humanities; Political science; Economic Justice; Art; Law","score_opus":0.04118145312435798,"score_gpt":0.3396733522082628,"score_spread":0.2984918990839048,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2795857117","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":[0.011427724,0.03476276,0.0001427192,0.39221781,0.0005491557,0.0010247183,0.0002794307,0.000021991753,0.55957365],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8528438,0.12547418,0.00017187586,0.007853313,0.0011141358,0.0001457812,0.000015643762,0.00002510123,0.0123561155],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962169,0.0024176156,0.00031472495,0.00021565409,0.00020755759,0.00062755094],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973693,0.0012022308,0.00033016634,0.0003144374,0.0003272891,0.00045659256],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0045860694,0.00022061233,0.00037753186,0.000043373897,0.0019963773,0.0002774878,0.00085859624,0.0001303194,0.00042270095],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004473844,0.000200699,0.0001438889,0.00011689019,0.00054840744,0.0006191273,0.00007790221,0.00038322213,0.00015363653],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000046868463,0.000018872319,0.0011677225,0.00068271323,0.000091002774,0.000110472094,0.021125419,0.000016228252,0.0000014675333,0.73229414,0.2419856,0.0025016812],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014578742,0.000029714585,0.010627393,0.002790704,0.00027339923,0.00017763501,0.001072728,0.00033468968,0.000008863569,0.005577131,0.9787236,0.00023838684],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7355089,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96396613,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8414161,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038070309,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007638532,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99930286},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2799918838","doi":"","title":"THE CANADIAN DEFAMATION ACTION","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Punitive damages; Plaintiff; Damages; Tort; Liability; Law; Cause of action; Political science; Quarter (Canadian coin); Action (physics); Business; History","score_opus":0.1280207382448755,"score_gpt":0.39891407069006696,"score_spread":0.2708933324451914,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2799918838","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":[0.00040522555,0.008095643,0.0000019921406,0.58914435,0.00022242512,0.00065999525,0.000014611611,0.0000121647,0.4014436],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9589108,0.02834692,0.000009583039,0.0050782715,0.00028128186,0.00007491654,0.0000051281827,0.0000067866326,0.007286311],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992893,0.00010753252,0.000098910554,0.000081749844,0.00014000783,0.0002825372],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988537,0.00003756768,0.00008894419,0.0005588527,0.000077146964,0.00038381576],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012513378,0.000048905487,0.00006341661,0.0000140755365,0.015846511,0.0005822834,0.0007426536,0.000039622824,0.00020801365],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00043328447,0.000029789702,0.000044368764,0.00006857967,0.00024960274,0.00012864798,0.000012634118,0.000119502714,0.0007089911],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.1531774e-7,6.001947e-7,0.00017521053,0.00001883699,0.0000050233357,5.879672e-7,0.00030519222,3.4574083e-7,3.3058816e-7,0.86213833,0.04267993,0.0946755],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012049163,9.775688e-7,0.0072537637,0.00007776597,0.000014176851,5.934133e-7,0.000060963637,0.000005594918,5.450409e-7,0.0020396132,0.99048924,0.00004472407],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9960041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99997807,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9585056,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00069166935,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024117131,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9854347},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2799923719","doi":"","title":"LA SOUS-TRAITANCE DES SERVICES JURIDIQUES AU CANADA","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","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":"Political science; Law","score_opus":0.02995348016672413,"score_gpt":0.2249723464213226,"score_spread":0.19501886625459847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2799923719","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009753779,0.59238714,0.000005232047,0.06673892,0.0033195408,0.0005626979,0.0011866878,0.0000109875955,0.32603502],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.692674,0.29182106,0.00003122578,0.007468739,0.0011252284,0.000041202045,0.000016315595,0.000055936263,0.0067663076],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974914,0.00012989827,0.00093316595,0.00048496295,0.00005127967,0.0009092677],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9968555,0.00009217613,0.0009778333,0.0014204665,0.00006978289,0.0005842721],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020355445,0.00028266927,0.0009987438,0.000055975714,0.0020858906,0.000523391,0.0016211317,0.00020235035,0.0009919582],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021202004,0.00034612213,0.00022034704,0.000078112134,0.00085024466,0.00043088497,0.00008380401,0.00031225587,0.0009659541],"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":[0.0000026948342,0.000015796913,0.0583053,0.008771106,0.0002460424,0.00007929015,0.00087795657,0.000009371569,7.932334e-8,0.8063437,0.07724511,0.048103593],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011610482,0.000013606454,0.035088107,0.0047561005,0.00005063989,0.00003132085,0.000046547957,0.000048690847,0.0000010757699,0.017886795,0.9415502,0.00041084056],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99919134,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999645,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8643051,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0030411452,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035164976,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99992126},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2802017509","doi":"","title":"THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION: A SKEPTIC’S PERSPECTIVE","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Commission; Mandate; Indigenous; Transformative learning; Political science; State (computer science); Power (physics); Perspective (graphical); Law; Skepticism; Public administration; Colonialism; Sociology; Epistemology","score_opus":0.022820757232352662,"score_gpt":0.3177244584861452,"score_spread":0.29490370125379256,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2802017509","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":[0.025389455,0.06176222,0.00000556353,0.2616807,0.0019456524,0.0031374115,0.000047659094,0.000011894064,0.64601946],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.79965854,0.19542983,0.000007363118,0.00027846804,0.00020409276,0.000005706704,8.2974225e-7,0.000004733896,0.0044104434],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989367,0.00046503491,0.00015293134,0.000074692856,0.0001672841,0.00020333355],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990363,0.000112849935,0.00017778022,0.0003310073,0.00020173284,0.00014031574],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016762981,0.000057399826,0.00011325741,0.0000109028815,0.021369034,0.000084605264,0.00047522114,0.000040204868,0.00007317079],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010465431,0.000024345134,0.000057420846,0.000058470123,0.0006672052,0.00010967376,0.0000013245469,0.000120729994,0.000010417407],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000022745812,0.000004576817,0.0000390128,0.00011247796,0.000016012298,2.19728e-7,0.26556814,9.4134926e-8,1.0022926e-7,0.7252981,0.0008006236,0.008158367],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056914916,0.000011054,0.0057219192,0.00038730647,0.000045000124,0.0000021517696,0.00850593,0.0000034031527,0.0000033729586,0.00453675,0.98067546,0.00005072416],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7876486,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944763,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97987485,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00032867354,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009598096,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99601656},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2804180676","doi":"","title":"THE MEANING OF “RELIGION” AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE ADJUDICATION OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS: AN ENGLISH AND CANADIAN COMPARISON","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Adjudication; Supreme court; Meaning (existential); Law; Political science; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology; History","score_opus":0.0196011765569384,"score_gpt":0.2826797714599633,"score_spread":0.26307859490302493,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2804180676","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09319512,0.41031513,0.000002306607,0.30150676,0.00033375426,0.0028601938,0.0001738969,0.000010347065,0.1916025],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98099554,0.013786684,0.000007892938,0.0051259873,0.000045048615,0.0000106872085,0.0000019412669,0.0000033205604,0.000022878636],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99846554,0.00078516855,0.00025193972,0.000072240015,0.00023580242,0.00018933952],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99881387,0.00036803752,0.00019104745,0.0002946739,0.00016258436,0.00016980058],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025140499,0.0000630856,0.00018877529,0.000022101598,0.00047807852,0.000030313671,0.00049086957,0.00002743063,0.0000037439925],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00050573476,0.000027471224,0.000033967914,0.00018758819,0.0021483777,0.000042908992,0.000017921666,0.00011805501,7.487392e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002074132,0.0000021191825,0.0032804816,0.000022168904,0.00000804152,1.743228e-7,0.012654924,0.0000046608984,2.1914333e-7,0.97582906,0.006857875,0.001338222],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009814742,0.000012233235,0.0013390881,0.00030462418,0.0000616928,0.000003006811,0.0068753627,0.000023411247,0.000001743004,0.007545561,0.98368615,0.000048955502],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95394915,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9839276,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9768283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010473119,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002666255,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7915787},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2805162057","doi":"","title":"L’INFLUENCE DE LA COUR SUPREME DU CANADA SUR L’APPLICATION DU CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC DEPUIS 1994","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Civil code","score_opus":0.008565300462022791,"score_gpt":0.2358780834766803,"score_spread":0.22731278301465752,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2805162057","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":[0.111293845,0.08357349,0.0000049105697,0.69347274,0.0011736781,0.0014215768,0.0003690171,0.00005206982,0.108638674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92343503,0.046552446,0.000010649306,0.024958253,0.0019430184,0.00007523168,0.000018433922,0.000030525793,0.0029764343],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971487,0.0008889891,0.00038787242,0.00032725456,0.000479328,0.0007678376],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976271,0.0004182261,0.00019782574,0.0004879858,0.00022596153,0.0010429483],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024066742,0.0002644114,0.0004136648,0.000026718764,0.0016882366,0.0001601117,0.0010887632,0.00025673915,0.0009602202],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00089433417,0.00023050324,0.00015334842,0.0005500429,0.0010797068,0.0002463376,0.00004545238,0.00068349385,0.00019289041],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000018923545,0.000028021816,0.008430995,0.00053930684,0.00005382328,0.00007975937,0.0027888922,0.000010903883,0.000027627899,0.8021678,0.17250662,0.013364369],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008622694,0.000005855015,0.00545585,0.00035789202,0.00013586912,0.000023518902,0.0000737286,0.000041658826,0.000004851385,0.0036133917,0.9899142,0.00028697887],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9998153,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999344,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81740755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001824414,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015394168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995303},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2807751550","doi":"","title":"LA METHODE D’INTERROGATOIRE « REID » ET LA METHODE POLICIERE D’ENQUETE « MR BIG » : LES ERREURS JUDICIAIRES ET L’ECART ENTRE LA VERITE ET LE MENSONGE","year":2014,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Confession (law); Interrogation; Conviction; Prison; Criminology; Psychology; Sociology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.08118404489453272,"score_gpt":0.3864088105546689,"score_spread":0.3052247656601362,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2807751550","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0015291661,0.21301156,0.00011482217,0.48074248,0.00056222815,0.00068120135,0.00014751717,0.000067563844,0.30314344],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5518664,0.37421393,0.0023993067,0.057854738,0.00057209365,0.00012589693,0.000034600514,0.00013879444,0.01279424],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97510296,0.022125673,0.0006060573,0.00060515536,0.0005553416,0.0010048371],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99449325,0.0032670987,0.00031885618,0.0008390997,0.00015275789,0.0009289272],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017270999,0.0005075385,0.0009826978,0.00011349338,0.001034523,0.0003545683,0.0012298025,0.00038994834,0.0004915574],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002528651,0.00042476805,0.00046201382,0.000615961,0.0015210502,0.0003694751,0.00017495135,0.0011290688,0.0002600525],"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":[0.0000056583754,0.000021050795,0.000068249,0.00092564314,0.00007100142,0.00006134151,0.008647458,0.000009557042,0.000013598803,0.6986887,0.0384677,0.25302005],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001449263,0.00004565351,0.00050646736,0.008562846,0.00045094753,0.00010677925,0.0018584852,0.00003820838,0.000016011782,0.0056975065,0.9821149,0.00045723218],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7452721,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9173363,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9436472,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038429355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022556782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998204},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2808037235","doi":"","title":"Les dommages punitifs et la protectiondu consommateur : un commentaire del’arrêt Time inc","year":2013,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","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":"Punitive damages; Supreme court; Law; Legislature; Political science; Damages","score_opus":0.033691718436937454,"score_gpt":0.23228374339311147,"score_spread":0.198592024956174,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2808037235","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009162797,0.46353427,0.000027955088,0.25987527,0.0015450071,0.0039768806,0.0012995983,0.000059277558,0.26051897],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6065724,0.30402258,0.00014211888,0.047485936,0.00088663853,0.0009946761,0.00023379989,0.00020782488,0.03945402],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9970798,0.000544019,0.0011876933,0.0004443631,0.000046711346,0.0006974469],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978394,0.00018601197,0.00063934934,0.0007579346,0.00009389979,0.00048340528],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002438713,0.0003233809,0.0010100313,0.00016083612,0.0008124572,0.00044943983,0.00065519975,0.00028407786,0.016614452],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001782218,0.0003781189,0.0002511565,0.00024999995,0.0005650137,0.00043870302,0.00009226561,0.00051369885,0.02121179],"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":[0.000002814598,0.00006388165,0.0050670807,0.0023264259,0.00035266852,0.000021355849,0.00064079853,0.000011284168,0.0000011182241,0.63690335,0.23860152,0.116007686],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029690997,0.000040137587,0.002831761,0.0018120317,0.000058971928,0.00007854425,0.00009137631,0.00018764936,0.00000275948,0.015431027,0.97870505,0.0004638114],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7208483,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.27762264,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7401035,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008050392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00027005115,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998671},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2808750194","doi":"","title":"THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT … OR MAYBE NOT: A COMMENT ON CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CO V MCKERCHER LLP","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Transport and Economic Policies","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"History; Political science","score_opus":0.07342115098307936,"score_gpt":0.25698257769523186,"score_spread":0.1835614267121525,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2808750194","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008996912,0.004782086,0.000007842791,0.6890383,0.00047013207,0.0013219618,0.00023114264,0.00006221249,0.29508942],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.61188287,0.0012543906,0.000013601709,0.38408136,0.0008557984,0.00005175437,0.00013406943,0.00003711208,0.0016890275],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99902695,0.000012612263,0.0002327948,0.00019030333,0.00013002318,0.000407285],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994448,0.000042010146,0.00008307178,0.00024507212,0.000051672778,0.00013339905],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007657514,0.0001811702,0.00026814285,0.00015380082,0.00042662237,0.0001744707,0.0002990115,0.000054960172,0.0018204146],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007994838,0.0001253715,0.00006159506,0.00010395558,0.00008184755,0.00018042116,0.000014759499,0.00014336429,0.0010821527],"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":[0.000010958076,0.0000085669635,0.005213387,0.00079982105,0.00005800575,0.000007571438,0.00015936303,0.000006330283,4.957244e-7,0.17036597,0.800549,0.022820577],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017634449,0.0000054244256,0.016290598,0.00039743684,0.00004740432,0.0000014369732,0.000024170185,0.000092202405,4.5132114e-7,0.0007782733,0.982008,0.00017825728],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8395891,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99410486,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.60288596,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00025381433,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003327731,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996956},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2809097328","doi":"","title":"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE CONCEPT OF LOYALTY","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Loyalty; Duty; Plaintiff; Duty of loyalty; Fiduciary; Law; Political science; Sociology; Advertising; Business; Law and economics","score_opus":0.08262759396344879,"score_gpt":0.3401623697814748,"score_spread":0.257534775818026,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2809097328","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":[0.014929444,0.17763351,0.000008237894,0.56798625,0.000056559693,0.0017089244,0.000060263854,0.000010913688,0.23760587],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98225236,0.012737344,0.0000069173507,0.004501444,0.00002474776,0.00000412832,7.8056047e-7,0.0000013046086,0.0004709912],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99957937,0.00010969729,0.00012486079,0.000044587967,0.000054620035,0.00008687666],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995676,0.00006919807,0.00006989724,0.00015970282,0.00004640721,0.00008718985],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006286327,0.00003054855,0.00012478653,0.000006631917,0.00017561892,0.000009945103,0.00022856442,0.000015727433,0.00012940924],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001361551,0.000016068121,0.000034105895,0.000098362245,0.00054933596,0.000017450226,0.00000821814,0.000052179625,0.0000071007325],"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":[4.2932425e-7,0.0000012443969,0.000011194171,0.000019437859,0.0000026619148,7.657454e-8,0.0013383371,9.443454e-8,0.0000010420816,0.9846331,0.0020370937,0.011955292],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067468805,0.0000056841727,0.000889302,0.00021617026,0.000020520461,3.8147277e-7,0.00010914298,0.0000014710215,0.000009315452,0.0026281222,0.9960292,0.00002323557],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21459459,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.468278,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9939921,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000021197897,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019080316,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7906355},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2810014282","doi":"","title":"OBSTACLES TO CROSSING THE DISCRIMINATION THRESHOLD: CONNECTING INDIVIDUAL EXCLUSION TO GROUP-BASED INEQUALITIES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Rights, and Freedoms","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Prima facie; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Law; Prejudice (legal term); Presumption; Common law; Law and economics; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.09414513416010219,"score_gpt":0.34463123741232127,"score_spread":0.2504861032522191,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2810014282","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":[0.1923832,0.053345986,0.0091436915,0.6650532,0.004006564,0.008267449,0.0002886717,0.0003448995,0.067166366],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9715962,0.00036731872,0.0001449738,0.02649284,0.0007933177,0.000037974998,0.000013415778,0.00001637554,0.0005376187],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998338,0.00038585532,0.00023532272,0.00019403707,0.00040297842,0.00044382174],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99889743,0.000217535,0.000076447686,0.0003263002,0.00013854036,0.0003437247],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029628545,0.00011694801,0.00017810219,0.00006258232,0.0052065104,0.00054240495,0.00066357054,0.00005125362,0.0003729531],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007144953,0.000066339846,0.000069298054,0.00043805555,0.0026919823,0.00014175288,0.00005806681,0.00010443074,0.00016426979],"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":[0.000002874646,0.000006075476,0.00015065908,0.00012102607,0.000009850647,0.0000023477212,0.06396823,0.0000032297903,0.000009983795,0.86732,0.01157925,0.056826472],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000068570014,0.00004224681,0.0006234706,0.001207333,0.000049114744,8.955863e-7,0.0036737118,0.000011730975,0.00002130745,0.004837391,0.98928654,0.00017766339],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.15136944,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8871092,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9777073,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030667658,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00055434456,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99608856},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2810719757","doi":"","title":"CIVIL JURY TRIALS - ASSESSING NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES - CIVIL JURY REFORM","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Jury Decision Making Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jury; Law; Damages; Political science; Supreme court; Jury trial; Civil procedure; Duty; Economic Justice; Privilege (computing)","score_opus":0.16038809630419473,"score_gpt":0.4029041945838013,"score_spread":0.24251609827960655,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2810719757","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":[0.0006438472,0.18526168,0.000020571722,0.10798739,0.0009174985,0.0012135168,0.000047470614,0.00012501147,0.70378304],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6330986,0.30593437,0.0005115644,0.030130554,0.0016925154,0.000130245,0.000020026655,0.00011198799,0.028370136],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99575776,0.0013550785,0.00083327247,0.00041372605,0.0008092372,0.0008309563],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99700284,0.0007859563,0.0004243325,0.00087799685,0.00023640004,0.0006724786],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.010225442,0.00028058205,0.0008616173,0.0001903819,0.0019786742,0.0005489804,0.0014274037,0.00017363616,0.007884474],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0047712503,0.0001946238,0.00027128623,0.0011573542,0.00041012795,0.0006064007,0.000080858146,0.00043416535,0.0015452767],"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":[0.0000014562091,0.000017374214,0.000027203292,0.00046883023,0.000038100785,0.00005695651,0.0012205313,6.8405683e-7,0.0000034167576,0.011682399,0.44535115,0.5411319],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010420736,0.000012223815,0.00060801196,0.0025677914,0.00013165352,0.000010105542,0.00031083098,0.000005559464,0.0000032933772,0.001887155,0.9940777,0.00028148034],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.050239015,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6449754,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6754129,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009540462,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016364441,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993206},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2883207131","doi":"","title":"CONTRIBUTION D’UN JURILINGUISTE À LA DISTINCTION ENTRE PRÉJUDICE ET DOMMAGE","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"linguistics and terminology studies","field":"Arts and Humanities","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":"Legislator; Mistake; Damages; Law; Meaning (existential); Political science; French; Doctrine; Civil code; Prejudice (legal term); Order (exchange); Civil law (Civil law); Law and economics; Legislation; Philosophy; Sociology; Humanities; Public law; Business; Epistemology","score_opus":0.03238804068731366,"score_gpt":0.2845306900818884,"score_spread":0.25214264939457476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2883207131","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":[0.00024172384,0.3580366,0.0000021742628,0.14861105,0.0033978065,0.00052353495,0.0005723476,0.000020163025,0.4885946],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7666206,0.19096392,0.000010938906,0.00621832,0.0026858852,0.00004598165,0.00008232137,0.000030762734,0.03334131],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985245,0.000307873,0.00033918893,0.00024251385,0.00012736958,0.0004585385],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981254,0.00017180393,0.00035021658,0.0007271162,0.00042154826,0.00020393978],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010465947,0.0002339864,0.0004188259,0.00003129814,0.005234369,0.00057637464,0.00045337054,0.000101970465,0.0015659097],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0025397448,0.00018168168,0.00016625384,0.000015717402,0.0013712076,0.00007841124,0.00010287378,0.00037604722,0.0005944186],"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":[0.0000026243658,0.000014372614,0.0001520936,0.00067045103,0.00014182493,0.00012981176,0.00086373114,6.309112e-8,6.7739535e-8,0.9501746,0.03496578,0.01288457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020977468,0.000026767239,0.0025175384,0.0027937093,0.000750358,0.000035094392,0.000049976097,0.000009141246,0.0000011379722,0.010123236,0.98327255,0.0002107424],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.19934477,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6549162,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94830674,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018180159,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034905615,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993468},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2883493300","doi":"","title":"THE EXEMPTION APPROACH TOWARD RIGHTS: A REVIEW OF THE BOEING AUSTRALIA DECISION","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Law and Human Rights","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Legislation; Supreme court; Law; Private sector; Common law; Political science; Public sector; Politics; Public administration; Economics; Law and economics","score_opus":0.11158804107484649,"score_gpt":0.30649426949435604,"score_spread":0.19490622841950955,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2883493300","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[8.5746825e-7,0.9835913,0.000003691749,0.0018663526,0.0007282993,0.0036561259,0.000018135986,0.000024585699,0.010110662],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.000008253889,0.992035,0.000020133171,0.0031423664,0.0014025248,0.00020335677,0.00010118987,0.000057086454,0.0030301048],"study_design_codex":"systematic_review","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9967216,0.00024715564,0.0013748037,0.0004950899,0.0005939311,0.0005674036],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99591386,0.00013776212,0.0016084553,0.0019162335,0.00035722204,0.00006646018],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031372271,0.0005975543,0.0017610606,0.000100162135,0.001542138,0.0003742226,0.00260434,0.0001856962,0.00094481447],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015641058,0.00022765668,0.0011646514,0.0010663351,0.00036671836,0.0002653523,0.00027499415,0.00057468156,0.0015303349],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[9.700601e-7,0.000008435729,8.0112795e-7,0.37928522,0.000089010326,0.000003671974,0.0000058693126,2.7010149e-8,2.4321527e-9,0.11141559,0.26091295,0.24827746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028522707,0.0000022506797,0.000005069508,0.30704433,0.0015488346,0.000012863273,7.4525786e-7,0.00000115828,6.843537e-9,0.004823009,0.6863135,0.00021968462],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023723025,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.085891366,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.42540056,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00029492506,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00052196026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99996847},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2884644435","doi":"","title":"RELIRE L’ARRÊT BÉLIVEAU ST-JACQUES POUR REDONNER VIE AU PREMIER ALINÉA DE L’ARTICLE 49 DE LA CHARTE QUÉBÉCOISE DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DE LA PERSONNE","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Charter; Sociology; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.029189209346710935,"score_gpt":0.330640849336775,"score_spread":0.3014516399900641,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2884644435","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":[0.04605792,0.14399229,0.0000040957852,0.36512133,0.00027765695,0.00061532797,0.00010311187,0.00004969205,0.44377857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85001343,0.10922954,0.0001462406,0.021123633,0.0014880585,0.00006210956,0.0000047165336,0.00006198325,0.017870277],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9940539,0.0035408086,0.00036181792,0.00038611642,0.00033430877,0.00132304],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969786,0.00046696968,0.00026421456,0.0007216264,0.00015011076,0.0014185176],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006022488,0.00033810915,0.00053326454,0.000040947012,0.0037206237,0.00056322647,0.0012423013,0.00041807446,0.00087343494],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0020689906,0.0002859209,0.00035511286,0.00021326366,0.002609254,0.0005379685,0.000092915565,0.00070497737,0.0004485031],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013034433,0.000096163545,0.0035846152,0.0011677039,0.00017246358,0.0002974691,0.08465413,0.000004618359,0.00005562279,0.79606944,0.060214806,0.053669948],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022839449,0.000034838813,0.007793226,0.0033222828,0.00031893505,0.000048395214,0.00040479717,0.000046148776,0.000018542962,0.10572786,0.8816733,0.00038330903],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8770274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89690816,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82145846,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002451575,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006624313,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999593},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2885224434","doi":"","title":"LESSONS FROM LATIF: GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Circumstantial evidence; Prima facie; Supreme court; Relevance (law); Spell; Respondent; Psychology; Political science; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.38240717373339045,"score_gpt":0.4173266072963282,"score_spread":0.03491943356293775,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2885224434","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":[0.05767362,0.082714,0.000010404577,0.79902834,0.0007377147,0.0013174372,0.00011230176,0.000021464652,0.058384728],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9820674,0.01114957,0.000013226902,0.0064595626,0.00019214256,0.000023442848,5.508417e-7,0.0000018807066,0.000092198774],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99895144,0.00022939642,0.00014530333,0.00012981129,0.00034398882,0.00020008636],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990823,0.00047591704,0.00006956773,0.00013503872,0.000177222,0.000059942264],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010625913,0.000057534362,0.000120510376,0.000031567466,0.0018360832,0.000047901947,0.00040325287,0.000019191615,0.00018120285],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0034030974,0.000033237626,0.000034477453,0.00052241,0.0030257418,0.00018844844,0.000031518044,0.00006263975,0.00004718953],"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":[0.0000021525702,0.0000054333846,0.0005038192,0.000009051803,0.0000037589023,0.0000022255147,0.0060834554,1.8785325e-7,0.000016333071,0.96550417,0.010651534,0.0172179],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000314503,0.000022090688,0.058677435,0.00394697,0.00002517157,5.155159e-7,0.0012132432,0.000006435093,0.000043004668,0.00656835,0.92932993,0.00013542244],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.76007354,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9369955,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9589358,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030519205,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010926685,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99968743},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2885421130","doi":"","title":"LE JUGE LEBEL ET LES IMMUNITÉS RETOUR SUR QUELQUES JUGEMENTS ET PISTES DE RÉFLEXION POUR LE FUTUR","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; International law; Law; Supreme court; Charter; Common law; Torture; Jurisprudence; Human rights","score_opus":0.061564013595908476,"score_gpt":0.3486614575143313,"score_spread":0.28709744391842285,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2885421130","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":[0.010755345,0.09436247,0.0000070931433,0.48060873,0.0007536674,0.0004971977,0.0001023743,0.000022911174,0.41289023],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7400225,0.0472664,0.000097303346,0.017862795,0.0005469605,0.0000283468,0.000034522272,0.00003320495,0.19410796],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99733585,0.0012269611,0.0003323439,0.00023989286,0.00032049924,0.0005444569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983314,0.00011471149,0.00032265714,0.0006519979,0.00025587328,0.00032331032],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028252352,0.00022112155,0.00033777836,0.00004849505,0.0041280813,0.0005095799,0.0014786613,0.00015060294,0.0012859083],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00029326716,0.00018120336,0.0002075307,0.000043660097,0.0005924424,0.00053966825,0.00008643284,0.00041570887,0.00061013276],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000021167518,0.000023362463,0.00008978777,0.00029248383,0.000055291886,0.000018403503,0.00080587174,8.174791e-7,0.0000027538313,0.9739703,0.021235112,0.003503732],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013938865,0.000016684424,0.0037095957,0.00309304,0.00006162958,0.0000074143422,0.00006060534,0.000009279422,0.000010750192,0.1565375,0.83614737,0.00020674418],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9528559,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9750533,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81743276,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00073041447,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008856114,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99962705},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2886736810","doi":"","title":"FOREWORD FROM THE PRESIDENT - CANADIAN BAR REVIEW - FIRST EDITION UNDER NEW EDITORS, AUGUST 2016","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Underground infrastructure and sustainability","field":"Engineering","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Library science; History; Computer science","score_opus":0.008763030624165462,"score_gpt":0.20100747259103927,"score_spread":0.1922444419668738,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2886736810","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00008956746,0.61008793,0.0005849784,0.37293312,0.004070164,0.002424898,0.0006108734,0.00013216794,0.009066267],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.09657738,0.8032047,0.00013046907,0.07285173,0.018681917,0.00033168355,0.00029585973,0.00022951752,0.007696724],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9980396,0.00016219186,0.00047957548,0.00029868557,0.00027152314,0.0007484242],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973937,0.0002638987,0.00006915639,0.0011729148,0.00010488687,0.0009954127],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006006656,0.0003366579,0.00044033286,0.000048097845,0.00046897898,0.000072192684,0.0007933167,0.00014282612,0.011712944],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033491524,0.00017105884,0.00019577071,0.00023907582,0.00012033761,0.000291339,0.00003250414,0.00031375122,0.00055969454],"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":[4.636389e-7,9.0198193e-7,0.00010433891,0.0007280689,0.000048618367,0.0000051886077,0.000025888452,0.000009638462,5.2904323e-7,0.0016778746,0.9865507,0.01084781],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009612967,0.000009976151,0.0074554696,0.007604651,0.00017395655,0.000008686357,0.000012186257,0.0000057114285,0.0000018514737,0.006817861,0.97755057,0.0002629784],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8171309,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9749488,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3000814,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0021837004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022352969,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98919046},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2888838856","doi":"","title":"Préclusion, res judicata et préclusion découlant d’une question déjà tranchée : des éclaircissements s’imposent !","year":2015,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Res judicata; Estoppel; Doctrine; Jurisprudence; Meaning (existential); Law; Political science; Terminology; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology; Linguistics","score_opus":0.13904631160432668,"score_gpt":0.4061392135271421,"score_spread":0.26709290192281543,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2888838856","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006122829,0.5189732,0.000030064582,0.4045275,0.0011733585,0.0010725333,0.00009133629,0.0000256505,0.06798358],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4752333,0.47952822,0.00015343481,0.01533431,0.0006864844,0.00010527574,0.00009270565,0.00003192403,0.028834356],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99664074,0.0012181214,0.0005165963,0.00034117428,0.00073979166,0.00054359727],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980733,0.00013198103,0.00021893,0.00035205562,0.0005620213,0.00066174427],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031050858,0.0002670558,0.00044614912,0.000065813474,0.0015548352,0.00009594912,0.00063973456,0.00008854574,0.0007221926],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005408407,0.00019750642,0.0001552483,0.0005911998,0.0008460926,0.000320107,0.00014311241,0.0002614559,0.000837156],"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":[0.000014178671,0.0000727529,0.0005621548,0.00045377828,0.000112022455,0.000026271615,0.009008687,0.000012975762,0.00000648831,0.44369936,0.51282424,0.033207085],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016262123,0.000106014166,0.0047363453,0.0062278113,0.00015294789,0.000012716109,0.00045093294,0.000041515083,0.000007959298,0.012113143,0.9757526,0.00023538266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6330089,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9141528,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46911046,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0014509871,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015613907,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999408},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2889205059","doi":"","title":"ARABS, MUSLIMS, HUMAN RIGHTS, ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUSTWORTHINESS: INSIGHTS FROM THIRTEEN LEGAL NARRATIVES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Human rights; Economic Justice; Law; Political science; Narrative; International human rights law; Sociology","score_opus":0.05362550134991011,"score_gpt":0.3380005040823064,"score_spread":0.2843750027323963,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2889205059","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":[0.11090685,0.12821846,0.000048352824,0.18306637,0.0015276943,0.001890802,0.00017328626,0.000092640425,0.5740755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98056084,0.003459528,0.000046659203,0.014044835,0.0015591214,0.000042540705,0.000016723854,0.0000047174426,0.00026505356],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99875987,0.00020498777,0.00020539905,0.00024927442,0.0003024328,0.0002780147],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991334,0.000064380605,0.000060070164,0.00015989455,0.00021051038,0.00037173196],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003300865,0.00014143673,0.00024736952,0.000053839085,0.0069691017,0.00019063558,0.00049414666,0.000055358858,0.00046564298],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015881563,0.00009344088,0.000044714827,0.00041507412,0.0016667867,0.0003448022,0.000078302866,0.00013636219,0.00020488021],"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":[0.0000024878887,0.0000055653595,0.00014785428,0.000030331608,0.00003766266,0.000011960678,0.004279596,3.5203564e-7,0.0000016229482,0.9785628,0.015115824,0.0018039681],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005830687,0.000014581871,0.010634138,0.0006175913,0.000094925424,0.0000016316986,0.00040113967,5.5731323e-7,0.0000010986544,0.03525089,0.95277053,0.00015460505],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7506079,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98341453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94331187,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020546386,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008655207,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9943237},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2889400010","doi":"","title":"“An Unconscionable Thing for the One to Do Towards the Other:” The Doctrine of Fraudulent Concealment","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Plaintiff; Unconscionability; Cause of action; Law; Jurisprudence; Context (archaeology); Political science; Common law; Action (physics); Law and economics; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.15340271677365055,"score_gpt":0.384241553108885,"score_spread":0.23083883633523447,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2889400010","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0007419167,0.047783773,0.00023173697,0.9177654,0.00016962968,0.004016202,0.00009336798,0.000015211216,0.029182762],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9433976,0.009353596,0.00015920075,0.043560244,0.0005479079,0.0007411243,0.0000038044611,0.000017185988,0.0022193622],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988018,0.0002638862,0.00021146012,0.000125245,0.0003181758,0.00027941517],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985621,0.00024451874,0.00009751669,0.00065507623,0.00017954657,0.00026127032],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0045251874,0.00007985753,0.00015054067,0.000010901135,0.0012834138,0.00010364749,0.0012131768,0.000025854572,0.0001984563],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00028529938,0.00003200093,0.00008147013,0.00028183174,0.00025281013,0.000050267845,0.00004292451,0.00011824439,0.000053687236],"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":[0.000001989157,0.000009317897,0.00002243535,0.00003775648,0.0000258424,9.145935e-8,0.0078298,0.00007456276,0.000002172693,0.93144256,0.027438778,0.03311467],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055130713,0.00001977758,0.00011747561,0.00014271635,0.00005709659,3.8239727e-7,0.0020363024,0.000026286198,0.000008054526,0.0033454564,0.99413717,0.000054174547],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5265017,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6834238,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96669835,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002503268,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013665708,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98711115},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2889951601","doi":"","title":"Divulgation de l’information génétique en assurances","year":2015,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Biomedical Ethics and Regulation","field":"Medicine","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":"Context (archaeology); Genetic testing; Actuarial science; Business; Scope (computer science); Duty; Personally identifiable information; Insurance policy; Legislator; Political science; Legislation; Law; Medicine; Computer science","score_opus":0.03364302993294873,"score_gpt":0.309299732202726,"score_spread":0.2756567022697773,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2889951601","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00011330604,0.382568,0.00033367684,0.5997416,0.0011023284,0.00061550684,0.000025866784,0.000012320682,0.015487414],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42157036,0.4825947,0.00049598137,0.086039595,0.0024607212,0.000072602845,0.0004311207,0.000030765135,0.0063041677],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984334,0.00041067827,0.00035735863,0.00008764315,0.00035266692,0.0003582621],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983776,0.000082640014,0.00012307233,0.00025752006,0.0002487128,0.00091043237],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004123981,0.00012010303,0.00024233261,0.000061455874,0.00015686548,0.000045689427,0.000159225,0.0002819304,0.0005206331],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00078151515,0.000080935955,0.00007375652,0.00029464642,0.0003969244,0.00023937851,0.000013603458,0.0004358853,0.0011727356],"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":[0.0000042838406,0.000008515191,0.00013797547,0.004546926,0.000046146462,0.000010475903,0.0015847784,0.00002011682,0.0000029966193,0.14059098,0.117819704,0.7352271],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022557199,0.00004678153,0.0036283012,0.007958909,0.00020378063,0.000081406644,0.00008925535,0.0016209844,0.000008270188,0.004005618,0.98203033,0.00010081543],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11034131,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11682654,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8642106,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010537832,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036818364,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99960494},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2890002325","doi":"","title":"Balancing the Rights of Migrants and International Criminal Law: The Case of Alleged Rwandan War Criminals Under Canada’s Immigration Laws","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Complicity; Immigration; Political science; Criminal law; Immigration law; Deportation; International law; Criminology; Genocide; Consistency (knowledge bases); Sociology","score_opus":0.05151556545909299,"score_gpt":0.31412929655584415,"score_spread":0.2626137310967512,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2890002325","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":[0.6351474,0.033855222,0.000015033481,0.20776434,0.0013474043,0.0017592733,0.0003190588,0.000015287465,0.11977697],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99477714,0.0005328379,0.000008738772,0.0028833046,0.00013563341,0.00000822968,0.000007968754,0.00000462828,0.0016415102],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987996,0.00032873385,0.00026535577,0.00010291008,0.0003344683,0.00016889806],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99899685,0.00015904414,0.00015343222,0.00018333325,0.00035890593,0.00014844708],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001399011,0.00008639475,0.00016006021,0.000023426708,0.00079417945,0.000031857122,0.00041921678,0.000029900491,0.00012102284],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007847946,0.000041504572,0.000050046594,0.00004383009,0.00043185396,0.00008636774,0.000019160416,0.00010786816,0.0000031317911],"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":[0.0000032755572,0.0000033338931,0.000008777382,0.0000388287,0.00002954412,0.000022424289,0.0036849263,0.00000209867,0.0000010363992,0.98763025,0.008300152,0.00027536755],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021388651,0.000027219035,0.00057066075,0.0007362345,0.00024186734,0.00018371252,0.0031764996,0.000047706842,0.00005401304,0.06122079,0.93336445,0.00016297399],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9973391,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999953,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9264094,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00026094748,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016612847,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6108267},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2890024288","doi":"","title":"Three Recent Cases Confirm Canadian Approach to Church Property Disputes","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Property (philosophy); Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.14743716641625992,"score_gpt":0.32741920029848837,"score_spread":0.17998203388222844,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2890024288","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":[0.00007678131,0.020786142,0.000018040653,0.15714118,0.00022259496,0.0010162179,0.00012726533,0.000020481195,0.8205913],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76238984,0.021004695,0.0009218502,0.1852768,0.0015465436,0.00035590693,0.00013223253,0.000053142416,0.028318979],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984503,0.00019811351,0.00017769767,0.00019117526,0.00032143597,0.0006613094],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.996528,0.00006346806,0.00003814129,0.0003223964,0.00027479933,0.002773158],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011148616,0.00012677418,0.00022779226,0.000055922625,0.0009417281,0.000081897924,0.00053378096,0.000053321346,0.00055642467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010378206,0.000075741395,0.000050793613,0.00041932476,0.00063666154,0.00006125897,0.00001984455,0.00014447237,0.0005353466],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[5.667776e-7,0.000003707318,0.00019389916,0.000030096118,0.0000087527205,0.0000128006,0.0003635965,0.0000015904993,2.9265102e-8,0.7420221,0.24886684,0.008496012],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029558816,0.000014381112,0.0001560552,0.00016368758,0.000029290788,0.000021314258,0.00023149104,0.0000020778436,1.1992007e-7,0.0002369037,0.9989673,0.00014780651],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99613804,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9989467,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7922723,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0013356876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029416047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97608626},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2890883979","doi":"","title":"SOME LACUNÆ IN THE LAW OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Governance and Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Limited partnership; General partnership; Limited liability partnership; Limited liability; Business; Investment (military); Liability; Law; Law and economics; Political science; Legal liability; Economics","score_opus":0.07365643594492914,"score_gpt":0.24208211527396198,"score_spread":0.16842567932903285,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2890883979","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":[0.035644636,0.15328565,5.25361e-7,0.58794767,0.00022734975,0.0016999606,0.000012151048,0.000042295313,0.22113976],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85122293,0.004072011,0.0000016164878,0.1441868,0.00032275324,0.000008452187,0.000010383029,0.00000600712,0.00016902624],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99931407,0.000029444354,0.00020217936,0.00009638628,0.00014429489,0.00021364557],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994397,0.000023277353,0.00013893037,0.0003444666,0.000039391118,0.000014201794],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00074503693,0.000092493465,0.00018354802,0.000038710452,0.00010927559,0.00006561848,0.0004270693,0.000025366404,0.00015157727],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000056990888,0.000051838455,0.00006477717,0.0004620094,0.00005258257,0.0002644961,0.000012809673,0.00012049763,0.00024009627],"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":[0.0000016179783,0.000007778947,0.00027485014,0.0002388261,0.0000029981454,0.000012875332,0.000021340451,8.5288644e-7,0.0000023202563,0.95272624,0.040312514,0.00639777],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000078093566,0.0000040602213,0.00632016,0.0007139615,0.000036850546,0.0000015103426,0.000021131991,0.000014374773,0.0000012088065,0.009027607,0.9837019,0.00007915057],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.070719466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.51339185,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94369864,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000032301363,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000059743787,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9354687},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2892429910","doi":"","title":"CANADA V PEIGAN:: HAS THE FEDERAL COURT GIVEN IN TO TEMPTATION?","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Original jurisdiction; Jurisdiction; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Federal jurisdiction; Political science; Appeal; High Court; Court of equity; Court of record","score_opus":0.05167844187224907,"score_gpt":0.32099670258496793,"score_spread":0.26931826071271886,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2892429910","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0019336588,0.0029234977,0.000004029006,0.92951673,0.00009940994,0.0008813569,0.000038510676,0.0000069287426,0.06459588],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9445811,0.00089287554,0.000022092536,0.050677903,0.0002677606,0.00008249686,0.0000039041906,0.0000063536504,0.003465506],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991748,0.00014072993,0.0001329474,0.00010385046,0.00018324943,0.0002644716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993487,0.00005598285,0.000031130847,0.00024129843,0.00008091669,0.00024197644],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007352212,0.00005562616,0.00009246201,0.00001399092,0.0016184965,0.00010669055,0.00048038192,0.000018287388,0.0005684857],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016447406,0.000034151068,0.00002301445,0.0003449285,0.00017567744,0.000036363675,0.000018441873,0.00009364833,0.00033325623],"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":[4.4898997e-7,0.000002643825,0.00054254406,0.00002495195,0.0000057556676,0.0000024043065,0.0031603365,0.000003047239,6.837806e-7,0.13597292,0.85332423,0.006960041],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001833857,0.000003416806,0.005080423,0.000106497915,0.000005533442,5.402607e-7,0.0002942588,0.0000050008416,5.4366836e-7,0.00028959554,0.994142,0.000053856595],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99913824,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999917,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94264746,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000582531,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0055321315,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99968123},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2893019377","doi":"","title":"Book Review: Copyright User Rights: Contracts and the Erosion of Property","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Concordia University","funders":"","keywords":"Law and economics; Property (philosophy); Property rights; Business; Erosion; Law; Political science; Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Epistemology; Geomorphology","score_opus":0.023799677262011806,"score_gpt":0.2777698502633209,"score_spread":0.2539701730013091,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2893019377","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000010599803,0.70791346,0.0000011328748,0.15901528,0.00010218753,0.0018138427,0.00000525483,0.000010361741,0.13112786],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.011473305,0.78009516,0.000012367351,0.16846915,0.00021476414,0.000050621467,0.0000018782041,0.000013184227,0.03966961],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978654,0.0010183194,0.00032292824,0.0001676571,0.00029280625,0.000332938],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987101,0.0001908184,0.00013013349,0.00042719656,0.00031348702,0.00022825082],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028537689,0.00012398785,0.00039360052,0.000019224064,0.0011855147,0.000042817148,0.0005589507,0.000057745314,0.007948155],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010639783,0.000042931802,0.00008597194,0.00022696076,0.0027881884,0.00013135803,0.000026741882,0.00016781173,0.0005574448],"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":[0.00000654951,0.0000035480325,0.0000010601321,0.00033999258,0.000011097321,9.720773e-7,0.00089386024,2.7891907e-9,0.000002222547,0.02964344,0.9662339,0.002863327],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012460836,0.0000253346,0.000008849491,0.0096379705,0.00010395359,0.000004438731,0.000010300547,0.0000031564034,0.00003364517,0.0003869796,0.9895711,0.00008965254],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.27362156,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5503116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.27669007,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015797939,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00072602584,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999257},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2893305507","doi":"","title":"STRATEGIES FOR MORE INCLUSIVE MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTING UN-HABITAT’S NEW URBAN AGENDA:: IMPROVING CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION IN URBAN PLANNING DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES THROUGH RAPID ETHNOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation","field":"Arts and Humanities","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":"Public participation; Neighbourhood (mathematics); Sociology; Urban planning; Citizen journalism; Corporate governance; Ethnography; Community engagement; Public relations; Deliberation; Environmental planning; Political science; Geography; Engineering; Management; Law; Civil engineering","score_opus":0.12754518948971555,"score_gpt":0.3718529049313126,"score_spread":0.24430771544159707,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2893305507","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":[0.8322756,0.14642425,0.0003360449,0.009248034,0.00024670523,0.004644879,0.00010242377,0.000081906604,0.006640135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9952847,0.0019184306,0.00045854851,0.0017693723,0.00021659635,0.0002300509,0.00003318827,0.000016648242,0.0000724715],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987874,0.00007840066,0.00038023962,0.00024347035,0.00015543167,0.00035505602],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99910307,0.00026259586,0.00024231139,0.00013579469,0.00018685493,0.000069392176],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00064907776,0.00017022957,0.00021243711,0.000051584186,0.0010873813,0.00037936534,0.00014080213,0.000030824096,0.00011251659],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00042403123,0.00012838804,0.00002771806,0.00014447219,0.00021877699,0.00079751195,0.000070247595,0.00010539603,8.7875685e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000073409705,0.000029524708,0.01506075,0.008919466,0.0001434061,0.000008936963,0.55549365,0.000023780487,0.000024216308,0.27165788,0.020645332,0.12791966],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001753951,0.00046945098,0.05438678,0.016268585,0.0006513874,0.0000043166165,0.08188219,0.0052941074,0.000020052521,0.025461538,0.81271785,0.0010897954],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.016671631,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6721109,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.79207253,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000078653946,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00033077493,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98987645},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2894643393","doi":"","title":"GENDER-BASED ANALYSIS PLUS (GBA+) AS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Gender Politics and Representation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Vetting; Political science; Misnomer; Constitutional law; Charter; Law; Law and economics; Constitutional right; Sociology; Constitution","score_opus":0.10643014115419168,"score_gpt":0.4173652034389942,"score_spread":0.3109350622848025,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2894643393","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":[0.010813299,0.02424691,0.0032116782,0.16911878,0.001124426,0.003045405,0.00024000654,0.00009578967,0.7881037],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98813295,0.0012214987,0.000109073924,0.0097127855,0.00022633879,0.000021884247,0.00007320793,0.0000031455027,0.00049911457],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989472,0.00022336595,0.0001576233,0.00012745288,0.0002773933,0.00026697962],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99929976,0.000030744446,0.000061345316,0.00017820654,0.00016889026,0.0002610439],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007708584,0.000060601113,0.000118596705,0.0000914155,0.0010816837,0.000064371234,0.00018132053,0.000030318366,0.005818938],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006942458,0.000046171368,0.00010420283,0.0005347368,0.0006434014,0.00004621901,0.0000070456463,0.00004746788,0.0004634374],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.0490197e-7,0.0000029916137,0.0018474859,0.000042253898,0.000121691526,0.0000025341674,0.0013345983,0.00001938375,0.0000012795695,0.978062,0.015460397,0.0031047885],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001136298,0.000009557229,0.004890897,0.00003591518,0.0004890827,0.0000011378792,0.00077895756,0.00007804193,0.000012269656,0.0032048929,0.9902793,0.000106274776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.50184745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.85638946,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97731966,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00041845377,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0037944333,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9950899},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2894736938","doi":"","title":"LE CODE DE DÉONTOLOGIE ET LES DROITS LINGUISTIQUES","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Code (set theory); Order (exchange); Political science; Law; Sociology; Computer science; Programming language; Business; Set (abstract data type)","score_opus":0.1267228313993864,"score_gpt":0.41993966705439795,"score_spread":0.29321683565501155,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2894736938","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":[0.0004733826,0.35499302,0.000010990173,0.27010968,0.00035667515,0.0001552122,0.000031903728,0.000010366714,0.37385878],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6522919,0.27142173,0.00013060712,0.025737055,0.0011853004,0.000026840271,0.0000045092393,0.000010790934,0.049191263],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985228,0.0006429475,0.00018549713,0.00014986425,0.00014503657,0.00035380982],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99904865,0.0001854504,0.00007871927,0.00015692128,0.00033911515,0.00019113063],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012578511,0.00011280667,0.00023364292,0.000019145236,0.0011237945,0.0000565697,0.00043776238,0.00006047235,0.0010011663],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010542657,0.00008913321,0.0000920914,0.00015892244,0.0012227402,0.00006296101,0.000038397127,0.00016981646,0.00064278895],"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":[5.8148095e-7,0.00000504012,0.00022807404,0.00006733328,0.000030833588,0.0000043550317,0.0012943154,1.2341565e-7,2.419195e-7,0.84868675,0.14218433,0.007498029],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026387595,0.00003294664,0.0014298549,0.0014731614,0.00004172311,0.0000036129948,0.00014280484,0.000008935515,0.000007484585,0.011946785,0.9847784,0.00010791127],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8091986,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9933053,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8425941,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000320886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019148574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999121},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2894981321","doi":"","title":"LE CARACTÈRE « EXCEPTIONNEL » FRAPPE ENCORE ! UNE NOUVELLE VICTIME PAR RICOCHET :: LA CLAUSE D’EXCEPTION DE L’ART 3082 CCQ","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Appeal; Context (archaeology); Political science; Common law; Confusion; Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Liability; Humanities; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.018844303494513777,"score_gpt":0.281617003558825,"score_spread":0.26277270006431125,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2894981321","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":[0.016079875,0.12814,0.00016306022,0.49000013,0.0020891165,0.0015327327,0.00013299378,0.00011338518,0.36174873],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82021093,0.13427915,0.00005172394,0.012325794,0.0025544951,0.00006407959,0.000048663733,0.000049005797,0.030416172],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9969661,0.000945858,0.00045902285,0.00039534943,0.00039128057,0.0008423448],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980232,0.00011047803,0.00023801923,0.0005761762,0.0002558207,0.00079628994],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021626703,0.00029167923,0.00042777864,0.00008452168,0.002292826,0.00015727806,0.0005547682,0.00035935323,0.0070739016],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014946733,0.00026727974,0.00026213407,0.000989519,0.0013177489,0.0003267762,0.00004547082,0.00045683188,0.005371187],"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":[0.0000095429305,0.00009367167,0.00072551763,0.00061978045,0.000105387706,0.000028486598,0.026103944,0.0000028777981,0.00004052971,0.11694107,0.63136995,0.22395924],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017408855,0.000080673155,0.0048797927,0.0016868288,0.00021786858,0.000029922321,0.0009843793,0.0000374563,0.000007454172,0.0014536113,0.9901336,0.00031434093],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.58125097,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8935268,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.80413103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007585216,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0029929925,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99997795},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2895980635","doi":"","title":"L’IMPASSE (DEADLOCK) EN MATIÈRE DE DIFFÉRENDS ENTRE ACTIONNAIRES AU QUÉBEC","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Deadlock; Shareholder; Intervention (counseling); Corporation; Oppression; Principal (computer security); Political science; Law; Law and economics; Business; Sociology; Corporate governance; Computer security; Computer science; Finance","score_opus":0.014201821662905947,"score_gpt":0.21789055328626847,"score_spread":0.2036887316233625,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2895980635","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0020199595,0.27276313,0.000019831703,0.69055426,0.0010250914,0.00040923798,0.00006258762,0.000037403264,0.03310849],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.56877935,0.12222434,0.00002147784,0.04492876,0.005299509,0.00010322214,0.00001748128,0.00009748536,0.2585284],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998284,0.00009827458,0.00034488097,0.00029034974,0.00022458653,0.00075793295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99871796,0.00011744635,0.00032418905,0.00057623425,0.00013230923,0.00013187055],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006946924,0.0003092138,0.00036538285,0.000079705715,0.0005718297,0.000171649,0.0006305734,0.00012030873,0.009623529],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005019398,0.000195915,0.00017917411,0.00041361022,0.0001700053,0.0006317671,0.00008653808,0.0002163544,0.005001833],"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":[0.0000054143297,0.000021615417,0.012874532,0.0040477193,0.000064082065,0.00007163457,0.0001119646,0.0000010061111,0.000013647445,0.03409993,0.4384239,0.5102645],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016377443,0.000006833666,0.027220871,0.012876307,0.00026067987,0.000024748553,0.00001910042,0.000016086604,0.000004412049,0.00081147277,0.9583028,0.0002929199],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94218063,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99585,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.64562553,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0025287187,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022946426,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9957729},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2896167223","doi":"","title":"CONFUSION IN MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Causation; Confusion; Economic Justice; Political science; Underpinning; Sociology; Psychology; Engineering","score_opus":0.01913521227157854,"score_gpt":0.3034768577057742,"score_spread":0.28434164543419566,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2896167223","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":[0.033756565,0.011263294,0.00005103168,0.6121358,0.00052190374,0.0025779773,0.00007742913,0.000058118898,0.33955786],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9891172,0.005165639,0.0000061649034,0.0051244227,0.00014212182,0.000029479586,0.000011853752,0.0000025639822,0.0004005697],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994264,0.00018237262,0.000095685835,0.000061332124,0.00007392488,0.00016026612],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996812,0.00002408676,0.000026455913,0.00012177756,0.000031380383,0.00011514469],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011057497,0.000031466894,0.00007884072,0.000012451879,0.0003595067,0.000035570683,0.00016223158,0.00002682042,0.00070968457],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018017688,0.00002243607,0.000019665813,0.00011596812,0.00006548041,0.00003015515,0.000008525462,0.00004982467,0.00028043042],"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":[2.713307e-7,0.0000014606335,0.00008873971,0.000018457047,5.666591e-7,2.3172126e-7,0.000125464,2.1972997e-7,0.000008623938,0.986614,0.0042738016,0.008868187],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031358944,0.00000198636,0.0013943407,0.00014113924,0.0000044513363,2.241959e-7,0.00001000313,0.0000061636256,0.000003858379,0.0015876795,0.9967859,0.000032920507],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.48772144,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9056668,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99251205,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00015956485,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002454015,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7770548},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2896595312","doi":"","title":"THE CONCERN FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: THE IMPACT ON SIKH CANADIANS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"South Asian Studies and Diaspora","field":"Arts and Humanities","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":"Sikhism; Symbol (formal); National security; Political science; Carry (investment); Sociology; Law; Public administration; History; Islam; Business; Computer science","score_opus":0.053742292401093204,"score_gpt":0.2860761568154213,"score_spread":0.2323338644143281,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2896595312","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":[0.000472517,0.05593982,7.548357e-7,0.18090421,0.00065517327,0.0015981307,0.0010114575,0.000024769282,0.75939316],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9412866,0.0019252875,6.29263e-7,0.048384402,0.0015115564,0.0001883367,0.000029007642,0.000026236294,0.006647942],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990421,0.000098494675,0.00017554814,0.00012431797,0.00017347073,0.0003860551],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99874157,0.0004897808,0.00007819664,0.00031832728,0.00017341212,0.00019874517],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009036433,0.00014623346,0.00018661776,0.000020383426,0.0024590157,0.00021325813,0.0004066072,0.000020302452,0.0010819715],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002746586,0.000057875513,0.00018276976,0.000040211202,0.00031827565,0.000029137229,0.000012466154,0.00013331983,0.00027361186],"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":[0.0000018948452,0.0000010979142,0.0000063578204,0.000031186555,0.000032562097,2.8762966e-7,0.0020514582,8.567354e-7,3.0846423e-9,0.5453836,0.44809213,0.0043986114],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000818878,0.00003797108,0.00013091261,0.00014174484,0.00003433627,0.0000017942281,0.0011129271,0.00003907363,6.948423e-8,0.009551702,0.9887737,0.00009389623],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29332098,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95932126,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9408141,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022632131,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005384197,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998312},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2897437691","doi":"","title":"REFERENTIAL TAX LEGISLATION: THE ROLE OF PROVINCIAL LAW IN THE MEDICAL EXPENSE TAX CREDIT","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Taxpayer; Legislation; Tax law; Jurisdiction; Context (archaeology); Law; Federal law; Tax policy; Business; Common law; Economics; Tax reform; Political science","score_opus":0.019187413069713676,"score_gpt":0.2376020717444167,"score_spread":0.21841465867470303,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2897437691","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":[0.0155123435,0.038101174,0.0000052071964,0.2536761,0.0005782593,0.0031382923,0.00001565196,0.000039743507,0.68893325],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9730354,0.00048445087,0.0000035788983,0.024472395,0.0012836893,0.000098012184,0.000019704505,0.000009960171,0.00059278874],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988874,0.00008862162,0.00029771414,0.00011383726,0.00041283024,0.00019958304],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99925727,0.000063629646,0.00019132036,0.00035229843,0.00010732371,0.000028169881],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010593225,0.00010335207,0.00017205227,0.000043473643,0.00024531232,0.00018897552,0.00065411784,0.000054762055,0.0061717993],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00037425093,0.000048436363,0.00006537602,0.00026083158,0.00013658899,0.00033592794,0.000047454258,0.00023019446,0.0007227353],"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":[0.0000023740943,0.000013485448,0.0002497241,0.00021542698,0.000010085356,0.000005113194,0.00028757073,6.5444465e-7,0.0000029562818,0.84559464,0.13053127,0.02308669],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008109292,0.0000026808316,0.0018224603,0.00032429898,0.00002837287,0.0000023942926,0.00018741126,0.000079751444,0.000001649437,0.0023369493,0.9950654,0.000067530054],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75099295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89295113,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95752305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000029393312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00016060837,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9947367},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2898484665","doi":"","title":"Good Faith as An Organizing Principle in Contract Law: Bhasin v Hrynew – Two Steps Forward & One Look","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Duty; Doctrine; Supreme court; Political science; Faith; Fair dealing; Good faith; Bad faith; Context (archaeology); Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Theology","score_opus":0.04119949123924443,"score_gpt":0.34038703641733986,"score_spread":0.2991875451780954,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2898484665","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":[0.07049897,0.031368926,0.00006917447,0.4045759,0.00021412017,0.0052198004,0.0001727407,0.00017464024,0.4877057],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98154515,0.007402373,0.0000901857,0.00819516,0.00018664572,0.00004531317,0.000005176205,0.00002193038,0.002508067],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984368,0.0002985264,0.00027928702,0.00024616334,0.00023990677,0.00049930427],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986898,0.00011118233,0.000098848875,0.0004815313,0.00008117273,0.0005374894],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015144829,0.000120500634,0.00025957692,0.00003309362,0.0006396246,0.00010291723,0.0006179582,0.00005698284,0.0013021968],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023987229,0.000077263554,0.000059779482,0.00032018725,0.00019765245,0.0002658045,0.000035035213,0.00014894325,0.0009367649],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.723362e-7,0.000016071532,0.00041999883,0.000037443388,0.000008507568,0.0000044307335,0.0006201712,1.8885076e-7,0.000034543333,0.9801772,0.0003377914,0.018342743],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001982154,0.000015114062,0.0013626495,0.0007362733,0.000031316882,0.0000024740957,0.00010118418,0.0000011942508,0.000021989452,0.004245193,0.993133,0.00015135894],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.64696395,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9803594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9927952,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006190398,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014395398,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998411},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2898677318","doi":"","title":"REORGANIZATION: A COMMERCIAL CONCEPT JURIDICIALLY DEFINED","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Statute; Law; Political science; Statutory interpretation; Common law; Order (exchange); Law and economics; Business; Sociology","score_opus":0.03076101241153468,"score_gpt":0.31739299367690466,"score_spread":0.28663198126537,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2898677318","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":[0.00019305087,0.0218358,0.00003398641,0.72152776,0.0000895255,0.0007235387,0.000020141564,0.000048378388,0.25552782],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87588966,0.018772203,0.00011495477,0.10165716,0.00068968587,0.000018551345,0.000026575663,0.00001084152,0.0028203425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992417,0.00013452556,0.00014765393,0.00009898723,0.00015040307,0.0002267317],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993485,0.000031510095,0.000049417482,0.00022890726,0.00009295024,0.00024872282],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00047196975,0.00006160504,0.00012316449,0.00001534741,0.0012078627,0.00006457835,0.00038399833,0.000038421273,0.0010652038],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022229321,0.000047297348,0.00004447917,0.00041199007,0.00012983037,0.000054568896,0.000008385641,0.00009778137,0.00040760255],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.7507517e-7,0.0000031812203,0.00002059389,0.0000064632177,0.0000019530382,9.871887e-7,0.0006460225,3.0960933e-7,7.3307206e-7,0.8941079,0.08107264,0.02413906],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032090207,0.000006332934,0.0019325975,0.00010086853,0.000022190112,9.0437624e-7,0.00002737084,6.1759914e-7,0.0000013870115,0.002748494,0.99505967,0.0000675072],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.12926897,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.68991834,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.913987,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018528913,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013756516,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99984795},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2898831201","doi":"","title":"LA CONTRIBUTION DU JUGE LEBEL AU DROIT JUDICIAIRE ET À LA TRADITION CIVILISTE","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Common law; Civil law (Civil law); Comparative law; Interpretation (philosophy); Law and economics; Sociology; Public law; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04526007921419212,"score_gpt":0.3393400224150378,"score_spread":0.2940799432008457,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2898831201","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":[0.0073971595,0.16968407,0.000014509518,0.5912618,0.0011140909,0.0007284435,0.00017757165,0.000022113498,0.2296002],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8560739,0.13475583,0.0000038251414,0.0055819093,0.00051433477,0.000026369746,0.00001959187,0.000012938378,0.0030112662],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9972608,0.001384795,0.00028036127,0.00024536246,0.00030331366,0.00052536244],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982066,0.00029827305,0.00026439747,0.0005736971,0.00012713214,0.00052990415],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005159875,0.00017723624,0.00036460566,0.000024007184,0.0030968785,0.00033637098,0.00078936975,0.00018339114,0.0006282748],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013743042,0.00015564077,0.00019999295,0.00012201015,0.0015112379,0.00052147347,0.000033542772,0.0003630616,0.00073047075],"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":[0.0000023184102,0.000010555904,0.00020044803,0.00052511157,0.000016309166,0.00007058618,0.00087508943,3.167034e-7,7.789244e-7,0.8997877,0.035359755,0.06315102],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009499193,0.0000191754,0.023271885,0.007682425,0.00028629624,0.000056330107,0.00010480193,0.000009414674,9.733549e-7,0.009192546,0.9590947,0.00018648333],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7818011,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96784514,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9237349,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010460529,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024243053,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99820095},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2899711185","doi":"","title":"THE CURIOUS HISTORY OF INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY AND ITS (LACK OF) APPLICATION TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legislation; Doctrine; Law; Jurisdiction; Confusion; Political science; Federal jurisdiction; Psychology","score_opus":0.06791176723274683,"score_gpt":0.3410161437907523,"score_spread":0.27310437655800546,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2899711185","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032306682,0.53620994,0.00029338614,0.2005647,0.00057942077,0.0050555663,0.00007539042,0.000035624922,0.2248793],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98839635,0.009182727,0.000015099243,0.0009376044,0.00008394341,0.00007525566,0.00000375535,0.0000034411262,0.0013018337],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994529,0.000117490956,0.0001506838,0.000046865163,0.00010730263,0.00012475124],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99947584,0.00006526703,0.00008997595,0.00015399647,0.000081988335,0.00013295274],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00094142655,0.000037319158,0.00007789702,0.000014944265,0.0004123656,0.000008737915,0.0001837328,0.000021249913,0.000045278462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009203627,0.000025088664,0.000028439234,0.00009660297,0.00012082431,0.000070384536,0.000019030264,0.00006587058,0.00002760898],"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":[0.0000014866029,0.000009393035,0.0004249678,0.00007722215,0.000009770399,1.2945677e-8,0.004985358,0.000001168821,0.00005377035,0.94370437,0.01271936,0.038013138],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001432564,0.0000035724609,0.004830843,0.00005857161,0.000011106152,3.6931974e-7,0.000058936937,0.000008940215,0.000003999756,0.00036493776,0.9946154,0.0000290028],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11287517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.28989932,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98189604,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00033519926,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00041457702,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.89303225},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2899920778","doi":"","title":"Une conceptualisation novatrice de la diffamation en droit privé à la lueur de la charte des droits et libertés de la personne et du code civil du Québec","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Freedom of Expression and Defamation","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Harm; Reputation; Political science; Supreme court; Civil code; Honour; Sociology; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.01693556169378429,"score_gpt":0.29555386157975655,"score_spread":0.27861829988597225,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2899920778","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":[0.17661914,0.091371395,0.0032645313,0.46243408,0.00041109932,0.0015022027,0.00019576993,0.00017757094,0.2640242],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89257336,0.09369638,0.00027377473,0.0087893205,0.0003298216,0.00006974476,0.000016403945,0.000041404404,0.0042098085],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9902616,0.008223318,0.00038789987,0.00026831598,0.00033633338,0.0005225074],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99505424,0.0036941972,0.00028620628,0.00029338078,0.0001401496,0.00053179846],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0089626955,0.00023734827,0.00034016356,0.000082798455,0.00061526825,0.00023346778,0.00047805277,0.0003376197,0.0010288093],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003942012,0.00018097566,0.00014764922,0.00051665463,0.0015373374,0.0004926266,0.000037146056,0.00032701445,0.00024250202],"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":[0.000009471904,0.00005990167,0.0020024383,0.0006099186,0.00004493419,0.000036427005,0.06838278,0.000016421865,0.0006073449,0.82058007,0.058501575,0.04914872],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005565828,0.000029493598,0.0121960575,0.0044673462,0.00015551534,0.00012415797,0.0012523727,0.00030959194,0.000041367104,0.009441441,0.971107,0.00031906136],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5631969,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7739877,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91260546,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0018079329,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036897166,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99988437},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2900012942","doi":"","title":"ON THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE CASES","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Damages; Causation; Plaintiff; Appeal; Law; Contributory negligence; Context (archaeology); Punitive damages; Duty; Trilogy; Supreme court; Tort; Political science; Law and economics; Economics; Liability; History","score_opus":0.09468283474353169,"score_gpt":0.35206536308866804,"score_spread":0.25738252834513636,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2900012942","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":[0.051748954,0.18016307,0.0000042431075,0.4288514,0.00026954565,0.002406835,0.000070363574,0.00002404178,0.33646154],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9853705,0.010169712,0.000003870082,0.003996618,0.00009971941,0.00003584546,5.7720666e-7,0.0000034534155,0.00031969708],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99925965,0.00021996144,0.00010923695,0.000050804676,0.0001430643,0.00021728953],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993342,0.00020480414,0.000044141234,0.00025042426,0.000032416996,0.00013400022],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012347783,0.000044536027,0.00009032257,0.00001520246,0.00035763695,0.000014432513,0.00035349617,0.000021931435,0.00033106923],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00052286824,0.000024172914,0.00003580812,0.0002513553,0.00014241683,0.000045913774,0.000011484778,0.000095899,0.000110377034],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.9635587e-7,0.000005934538,0.0005001971,0.0000331895,0.0000024631931,4.575987e-7,0.0014230005,8.4466893e-7,0.0000027189344,0.98060393,0.01140981,0.006017241],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000986597,0.0000031416553,0.0033043816,0.00042317313,0.000010816678,6.786002e-7,0.00027229058,6.8992506e-7,0.000009871928,0.0006655293,0.99525523,0.000044319695],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4895836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8284157,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9838454,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000105934065,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003517368,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5138153},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2900471280","doi":"","title":"LE CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC ET L’AVANT-PROJET OHADA SUR LE DROIT DES CONTRATS","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"European and International Contract Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Legislation; Political science; Context (archaeology); Harmonization; Law; Code (set theory); Geography; Computer science; Set (abstract data type); Programming language","score_opus":0.03933116784168352,"score_gpt":0.2742342121624285,"score_spread":0.23490304432074496,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2900471280","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":[0.0060445564,0.12601565,0.000008018561,0.31036305,0.0016923157,0.00067348743,0.00020302457,0.000031637974,0.55496824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76562995,0.093833566,0.000030886084,0.04052341,0.00066227326,0.000018416331,0.00002781151,0.00004289613,0.09923082],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99762857,0.0008259729,0.00037552966,0.00026647505,0.00031302377,0.0005904268],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983195,0.00022014338,0.00016341158,0.0003752291,0.0003144523,0.00060725777],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026582002,0.00020456259,0.0003528773,0.000033055923,0.00095009117,0.00024875175,0.0009009457,0.00010499394,0.0037227015],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00073922036,0.00017775422,0.00019628294,0.0001890336,0.0011578471,0.00045769892,0.000036024252,0.00055128924,0.0014191566],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000015264723,0.00002403585,0.000088951696,0.00015843098,0.000034280598,0.000038403916,0.0005209284,3.766983e-7,0.000032980017,0.9435195,0.042706788,0.012873823],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017910522,0.000013661001,0.0011982176,0.001236656,0.00005471001,0.000019361774,0.00007984788,0.00003285727,0.000016200545,0.0028579496,0.9940835,0.00022791151],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9456155,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997086,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95137674,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00031384543,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0070353737,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99935836},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2900788814","doi":"","title":"TOWARDS A SINGULAR CONCEPT OF LEGAL PERSONALITY","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Certainty; Argument (complex analysis); Corporation; Natural person; Legal person; Legal certainty; Personality; Law; State (computer science); Political science; Law and economics; Epistemology; Sociology; Psychology; Social psychology; Computer science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03880785455980722,"score_gpt":0.3242590011372247,"score_spread":0.2854511465774175,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2900788814","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":[0.0030173429,0.032111276,0.000119310644,0.29769582,0.000109268134,0.00082604395,0.000051398114,0.000027481727,0.66604203],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9900839,0.0017688774,0.00008820182,0.006380281,0.00015181501,0.000014506167,0.0000037666578,0.0000047168096,0.0015039884],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99925655,0.00020595746,0.00012383531,0.00008304732,0.00015940398,0.00017118524],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994262,0.00003248178,0.00005345178,0.00022191564,0.00007175753,0.00019422833],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010833746,0.000045855773,0.00013462134,0.000009095894,0.00041995777,0.000026967053,0.00031419206,0.00002535455,0.00073937414],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00026360844,0.000032654698,0.000073063406,0.00015464639,0.00028682733,0.00003869253,0.000012247246,0.00007327942,0.00006230993],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.836175e-8,0.0000020981684,0.000027747259,0.000054598306,0.0000037967009,1.8828594e-7,0.0007109454,2.3704091e-7,0.0000011194438,0.9702806,0.005537638,0.023380956],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002048957,0.0000037299271,0.00053679023,0.00013881017,0.000020299693,4.7307253e-7,0.000056074747,0.0000062473505,0.000004833682,0.0011284293,0.9980397,0.000044086424],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6836304,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6472168,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9925021,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00011194087,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008265106,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.80956286},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2901021339","doi":"","title":"DE LA RENONCIATION A UNE FIDUCIE PERSONNELLE","year":2002,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Settlor; Renunciation; Beneficiary; Trust law; Deed; Express trust; Property (philosophy); Institution; Law and economics; Testamentary trust; Law; Political science; Punitive damages; Business; Sociology; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.04660194896805139,"score_gpt":0.3065957183954511,"score_spread":0.2599937694273997,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2901021339","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00022167507,0.30012906,0.000009522738,0.40128773,0.00009378954,0.0003092886,0.000027017775,0.000010276633,0.29791164],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33200964,0.46340254,0.00015351201,0.025898948,0.0008421848,0.0000844071,0.000007497809,0.000023350172,0.17757791],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986778,0.0004847026,0.00016034125,0.00014444017,0.0001498094,0.00038294104],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99911124,0.000121607845,0.000075418575,0.00028077347,0.000045343695,0.00036562065],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012431472,0.00009252017,0.00014368385,0.000017351373,0.0011376436,0.00010016121,0.00035826972,0.000092637085,0.007770338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019530438,0.00007679022,0.00010288096,0.000624929,0.0003679389,0.00007875629,0.000014662892,0.00021532843,0.0027693787],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[7.3649645e-8,0.000011326108,0.00002929506,0.00017582861,0.00001018715,0.000003964994,0.0048273797,0.000003826581,6.5186396e-7,0.6537142,0.25396025,0.087263025],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032707943,0.0000053583426,0.00021829638,0.0005856542,0.00007950778,0.0000075374833,0.0001915752,0.00023078856,3.206571e-7,0.0018993927,0.9966502,0.00009867061],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.59178704,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.61654866,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7426899,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007563003,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00049323944,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99800706},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2901057521","doi":"","title":"The Changing Landscape of Corporate Legal Practice: An Empirical Study of Lawyers in Large Corporate Law Firms","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"General partnership; Corporate law; Practice of law; Legal ethics; Competition (biology); Business; Legal profession; Law; Legal research; Empirical legal studies; Legal practice; Public relations; Political science; Corporate governance","score_opus":0.17104935254128212,"score_gpt":0.4277385962548079,"score_spread":0.2566892437135258,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2901057521","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":[0.19541988,0.01720818,0.0000037474908,0.5796839,0.0010389904,0.0031167527,0.000052566586,0.000032353044,0.20344362],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9922077,0.001155272,0.00002063375,0.0058999085,0.00007273004,0.000029441282,0.00000898252,0.000007681437,0.0005976185],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976009,0.0013309498,0.0003582134,0.00011236225,0.00032511275,0.0002724581],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99802154,0.00030933367,0.00063977967,0.00032247548,0.00048679655,0.00022008752],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008236426,0.000074143616,0.00019124195,0.000075368866,0.0005492034,0.000099114724,0.00036856672,0.000039221806,0.000100926525],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0020020863,0.000047549216,0.000026039945,0.0014002058,0.0001779255,0.0005488808,0.000020003317,0.00027961266,0.000029093177],"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":[0.000025518946,0.00034155048,0.014482371,0.00008517158,0.00004679373,0.000016819316,0.06590982,0.000009904807,6.04534e-7,0.8881138,0.028981708,0.0019859602],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018663425,0.000067504036,0.001007889,0.000098419834,0.00004344534,0.0000025992488,0.058210254,0.000018005785,5.040302e-7,0.0005656785,0.93973005,0.00006901054],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.41660443,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9426395,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91074836,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017655916,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0032561426,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58728045},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2901208445","doi":"","title":"L’IMPACT DU CHAPITRE 11 DE L’ALENA SUR LACAPACITE DE L’ETAT D’ADOPTER DESMESURES PROTEGEANT L’ENVIRONNEMENTET LA SANTE PUBLIQUE : LES TRAVAUXRECENTS DE CHERCHEURS EN SANTEPUBLIQUE JETTENT UN","year":2013,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Lawsuit; Legislation; Political science; Corporation; Public health; Legislature; Government (linguistics); Humanities; State (computer science); Public administration; Law; Art; Medicine; Nursing; Philosophy","score_opus":0.02826932913133698,"score_gpt":0.2756428060131595,"score_spread":0.2473734768818225,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2901208445","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.1380665,0.11832381,0.000111979585,0.7332315,0.00031526873,0.0027673796,0.00009932511,0.0000729312,0.007011339],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49823195,0.22018233,0.0002664463,0.27774867,0.0014458598,0.0005986484,0.00012314327,0.0001519858,0.0012509706],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9924426,0.0023398541,0.0010980598,0.0005879053,0.00030258167,0.0032289934],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9967734,0.000466373,0.00058534084,0.0007903371,0.00048141542,0.0009031242],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009965557,0.000751629,0.0010503521,0.00029214326,0.00078695745,0.00068336836,0.0013094082,0.00057657453,0.0057179853],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0046659545,0.000560507,0.0004804671,0.0006454457,0.0004914881,0.0012302607,0.00021469392,0.0012190022,0.0006190375],"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":[0.000010779275,0.00016477563,0.11457596,0.006982356,0.00028625748,0.000086600136,0.00042090364,0.00012303417,0.000009025926,0.053326603,0.77538794,0.04862575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00033549732,0.000033784625,0.22246905,0.002832749,0.00020430044,0.00014504077,0.000118542615,0.0016940469,8.319812e-7,0.0012925133,0.7704345,0.0004391295],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9046237,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.43437845,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4702452,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0020696428,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022126343,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99968463},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2902380474","doi":"","title":"KEEPING SECRETS: SURVEILLANCE POST PRIVILEGE","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Law; Political science; Discretion; Secrecy; Commonwealth; Jurisprudence; Law enforcement; Disadvantage; Scope (computer science); Enforcement; High Court; Computer science","score_opus":0.03150780530205958,"score_gpt":0.29836898566846004,"score_spread":0.26686118036640044,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2902380474","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":[0.00662293,0.14886323,0.000004280939,0.62808233,0.0004370595,0.0015462679,0.000019652942,0.00006601089,0.21435826],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9204182,0.044103123,0.000030673975,0.03256401,0.0002896487,0.00005376958,0.000005616508,0.00001237487,0.0025226031],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876976,0.0002988517,0.00015977387,0.00014067686,0.00020918892,0.00042172812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989697,0.00013681164,0.000053241813,0.00029802718,0.0001476589,0.00039456988],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012680585,0.000082576684,0.0001697274,0.00002008308,0.0008314497,0.00011410543,0.0005085846,0.00003866318,0.004123794],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00074815634,0.000059865215,0.000067382985,0.0002094618,0.00020330503,0.0001787133,0.000020803744,0.00012064293,0.0027412553],"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":[0.0000014284768,0.0000090770745,0.0040026326,0.0014530431,0.000032860975,0.000031096508,0.0047853407,8.1788085e-7,0.00002158166,0.37886873,0.45845836,0.152335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012768158,0.000005369567,0.0057285586,0.00077236135,0.000009181244,0.000003276609,0.00014725931,0.0000016589972,4.4018697e-7,0.0004205523,0.99279946,0.000099128345],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82376957,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9580359,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91379523,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024353282,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007168635,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99803525},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2902851948","doi":"","title":"ADEQUACY OF REASONS – FROM PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS TO SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW: NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR NURSES’ UNION V NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR (TREASURY BOARD)","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Treasury; Geography; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.031997796459460326,"score_gpt":0.34278812260644814,"score_spread":0.3107903261469878,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2902851948","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19701292,0.73309255,0.0000061665487,0.06296825,0.00094077305,0.0035210212,0.0003615866,0.00004226966,0.002054463],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69599843,0.28754684,0.00016471866,0.0124891,0.00065833447,0.0002222491,0.00017254974,0.00008147152,0.0026662883],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99714196,0.00091388135,0.00059501565,0.0003352818,0.00026642845,0.00074743567],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974906,0.0004287955,0.0002954219,0.0005728816,0.00024590816,0.0009664324],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001384546,0.00030479755,0.00088601926,0.00011081839,0.00063789915,0.000022633541,0.00025190873,0.00014864838,0.00045630397],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00059881376,0.00021200134,0.00008804654,0.00055380946,0.00014580642,0.00021751072,0.00006294004,0.0004061397,0.00012377821],"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":[0.0001136176,0.0000778471,0.19697696,0.024978705,0.00023062842,0.00001702901,0.017152166,8.209511e-8,0.000034742225,0.0059075644,0.5456792,0.20883146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00045482785,0.00005644488,0.3088334,0.023621306,0.00051547016,0.000019610063,0.0010238617,6.351703e-7,9.773497e-7,0.00011437311,0.66506153,0.0002975857],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5419752,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7650149,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49898553,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00047116808,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00083421817,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8645164},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2902868605","doi":"","title":"LES PROJETS DE REFORME DU DROIT FRANCAIS DES OBLIGATIONS ET L’INFLUENCE DU DROIT QUEBECOIS","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Legislation; French; Impossibility; Civil code; Punitive damages; Damages; Civil law (Civil law); Rescission; Civil procedure; Common law; Public law; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.025030889537402207,"score_gpt":0.2917760063276249,"score_spread":0.2667451167902227,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2902868605","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":[0.13555558,0.07389625,0.00000608805,0.5054593,0.00092260574,0.0013748542,0.00016571717,0.00007220158,0.28254735],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89000326,0.08065374,0.00014906068,0.020936532,0.0012345648,0.000110834706,0.000012681897,0.000036139594,0.0068631717],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975828,0.0005218043,0.00041356005,0.0003021092,0.00036168762,0.00081804494],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99802214,0.0001556978,0.00018406834,0.00043720118,0.0003267981,0.0008740898],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024106472,0.00025046867,0.0004065993,0.00005979392,0.0028864525,0.00022836882,0.00094185234,0.0002856447,0.001820463],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011889825,0.00020954145,0.00026266687,0.0008451965,0.0019776572,0.00061501126,0.000047793626,0.0008081862,0.0010063653],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[7.583599e-7,0.000020499281,0.00293537,0.00048404926,0.000032407832,0.000019613279,0.010091282,0.0000012645045,0.00000801922,0.9316016,0.0044730282,0.05033211],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000680912,0.000016855138,0.020477287,0.0012725556,0.00011610774,0.000019357185,0.0001403911,0.0000064464934,0.0000030724439,0.15977432,0.81783545,0.00027003876],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9460423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9911143,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8133624,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011392863,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003279881,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997715},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903015180","doi":"","title":"WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MISFEASANCE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE IN MODERN CANADIAN TORT LAW","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Tort; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Law; Estate; Scope (computer science); Political science; Law and economics; Business; Economics; Liability","score_opus":0.031296463108715734,"score_gpt":0.29419223446006504,"score_spread":0.2628957713513493,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903015180","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":[0.033809524,0.08530628,2.929255e-7,0.56862295,0.00018920048,0.0017894789,0.00006494946,0.000010729087,0.31020662],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9753874,0.010968116,0.000008191717,0.013064599,0.00004964567,0.000068008696,0.0000025076706,0.0000066932953,0.00044481928],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99903977,0.00012083604,0.0001913071,0.00013205464,0.00014884729,0.0003671821],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999058,0.00005346265,0.000051339546,0.00042963141,0.000060280287,0.00034729994],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012064538,0.000068050846,0.00014176051,0.00004266469,0.0003749351,0.00011385866,0.00073869654,0.000058616642,0.000389017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009885337,0.000046620953,0.000046181158,0.0004723464,0.0002450509,0.00020455997,0.000016500979,0.00026702136,0.00006296013],"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":[2.1274052e-7,0.00000503338,0.0009437949,0.000027480788,0.0000027699803,0.0000010961891,0.0028778648,7.8006207e-7,0.0000064010637,0.9646757,0.0010771165,0.030381711],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023649369,0.0000011269436,0.0020771108,0.00017860536,0.000004708666,6.111217e-7,0.0004896034,0.00002878982,0.0000023731866,0.0044714683,0.99266225,0.000059692346],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99435884,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999748,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99158514,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00025732515,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0025609215,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45429647},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903089948","doi":"","title":"AVANT-PROPOS DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL DE RÉDACTION - REVUE DU BARREAU CANADIEN - PREMIER NUMÉRO DES NOUVEAUX RÉDACTEURS, AOÛT 2016","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Social Sciences and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Humanities; Philosophy; Art","score_opus":0.024409180024562504,"score_gpt":0.26867386856727615,"score_spread":0.24426468854271366,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903089948","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01582412,0.16612993,0.000034668377,0.7647545,0.009560755,0.0016857611,0.0003246516,0.00005992124,0.041625734],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.22341442,0.65253377,0.0000714361,0.010191882,0.0047352775,0.00012737907,0.0000057608677,0.000061896346,0.10885819],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995663,0.001033709,0.0005754322,0.00058344135,0.0005379872,0.0016064455],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965905,0.0003626963,0.00045789746,0.0005587018,0.00034321984,0.0016870054],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029465377,0.00038148134,0.00057152816,0.00005293382,0.002443187,0.00019740404,0.001228582,0.00025954974,0.007498751],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0021819193,0.00025785647,0.00030014807,0.00062399096,0.0021715288,0.00068910135,0.00007046257,0.00027932765,0.002345885],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000060626357,0.000021059133,0.011290862,0.00041509848,0.00005751597,0.00011973107,0.01127076,0.0000016051492,0.000009739781,0.032952625,0.849296,0.09455895],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018870662,0.000053133615,0.012507254,0.0058383346,0.00016563834,0.00013520768,0.0007776169,0.000013960625,0.0000054408456,0.0030511392,0.9768337,0.00042988383],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9752259,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927306,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.75456256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008886807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011249592,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998736},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903295800","doi":"","title":"LES IMPACTS PSYCHOLOGIQUES DES EXCUSES ET LEUR PROTECTION EN DROIT CIVIL QUEBECOIS","year":2014,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Military, Security, and Education Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Mediation; Alternative dispute resolution; Negotiation; Online dispute resolution; Law; Dispute resolution; Economic Justice; Restorative justice","score_opus":0.09561339239001887,"score_gpt":0.3681992685158155,"score_spread":0.27258587612579666,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903295800","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013798198,0.6715873,0.000033060594,0.25441435,0.0011133961,0.00093865686,0.000024128001,0.000049758844,0.058041178],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4875484,0.49293306,0.000055346343,0.009855239,0.0007027847,0.000114088274,0.00000475267,0.00001924707,0.008767062],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9960128,0.0025563627,0.0003341993,0.00029242176,0.00022166783,0.0005825667],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986065,0.00023806328,0.00013468014,0.00037866159,0.00019460185,0.00044747375],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004169303,0.00021985006,0.00037500288,0.00006701928,0.0014337793,0.00009279566,0.00044211236,0.00015354854,0.0018882545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0019577662,0.00017187337,0.00015731291,0.0004381497,0.0009594113,0.00024138905,0.000030897754,0.00033679022,0.0006099058],"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":[0.0000029961259,0.00005913508,0.003162395,0.0032648665,0.00010031762,0.0000022864738,0.05051614,0.0000011403323,0.000001638901,0.21762636,0.23817654,0.48708618],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004291698,0.00006140558,0.021025741,0.002463867,0.000092106,0.000008041165,0.0012991522,0.000001684408,0.0000013672574,0.01646328,0.9583356,0.00020486192],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9440026,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99538416,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.72015905,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008503081,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008205108,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99986625},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903296248","doi":"","title":"SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Conflict of laws; Law; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Sociology","score_opus":0.04445663548282397,"score_gpt":0.31964159329450864,"score_spread":0.27518495781168467,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903296248","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022636179,0.40835613,0.0000046547084,0.18922427,0.0008443787,0.0020967894,0.000026332014,0.000028048233,0.37678322],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8855859,0.106285796,0.0000067316637,0.0060562873,0.00044763,0.000026591537,0.0000013463831,0.000006727363,0.0015830066],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99907625,0.00029095562,0.00015546543,0.000058264108,0.00016535512,0.00025368447],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999337,0.000109692315,0.00007801992,0.00019698012,0.00004483033,0.0002334419],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022872917,0.00005841755,0.00017070063,0.000016290142,0.00051016593,0.000023494804,0.00019336172,0.000033112054,0.00037091266],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013919115,0.000031439107,0.00006134689,0.00011742184,0.0004973462,0.00006380637,0.000017972245,0.000081272934,0.000039539384],"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":[0.0000027709318,0.000006194515,0.0012878967,0.0001436679,0.000022858025,3.0265986e-7,0.012490027,6.956411e-8,0.0000022364218,0.9383932,0.017694581,0.029956214],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008662137,0.0000042488305,0.003296545,0.00019691247,0.000047387097,0.0000015754999,0.0001296094,0.0000014544415,0.000001851886,0.00010352339,0.99608755,0.00004272262],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3323975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5457561,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97839296,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000625947,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019899858,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67204815},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903399945","doi":"","title":"INEQUITY IN EQUITABLE SET-OFF: TELFORD V HOLT REVISITED","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","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":"Doctrine; Set (abstract data type); Supreme court; Law and economics; Plaintiff; Political science; Law; Mathematical economics; Economics; Computer science","score_opus":0.06130980770966662,"score_gpt":0.24345682233564167,"score_spread":0.18214701462597505,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903399945","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015199403,0.5214858,0.000079969584,0.057474986,0.001182329,0.0022935169,0.0009934412,0.00006437423,0.4012262],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8803588,0.108558014,0.000017011887,0.007910716,0.0003179379,0.00007565924,0.000017584918,0.000041992174,0.002702279],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978428,0.000061608924,0.0009712173,0.00039141712,0.000032060467,0.00070088764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99853885,0.000065601416,0.00033316377,0.0007370872,0.000029533505,0.00029578526],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028493402,0.00016218307,0.0007917112,0.00017162251,0.00019385431,0.00007079741,0.00057615485,0.00010497726,0.0021154864],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00035895887,0.00013823094,0.00014935272,0.00032055881,0.00011595048,0.00023725537,0.00007046039,0.00013185895,0.0053413557],"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":[0.0000036835802,0.000011736729,0.03313865,0.0005930158,0.000044915254,0.00001306243,0.00013288966,0.0000011234494,0.0000018632034,0.8826423,0.05848095,0.024935763],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002608776,0.000017132448,0.0046014753,0.0012053271,0.000008359626,0.0000060351344,0.0000051702123,0.000013662611,0.000001636433,0.028777754,0.9648465,0.00025609613],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11939031,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.30027416,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9063655,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00087178446,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018678079,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987967},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2903548177","doi":"","title":"THE TORT OF CONVERSION AND THE COLLECTING BANK: TEVA CANADA LTD V BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Tort; Law; Vicarious liability; Supreme court; Nova scotia; Statutory law; Common law; Political science; Unjust enrichment; Liability; Sociology","score_opus":0.021087773566045444,"score_gpt":0.2733911320622001,"score_spread":0.25230335849615465,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2903548177","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":[0.05933187,0.099944375,0.0000119339975,0.52948076,0.0005808034,0.0036913569,0.00008377499,0.000015623593,0.3068595],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9906044,0.0063222316,0.0000071563813,0.0020343685,0.000051724073,0.000005521025,9.0290393e-7,0.0000040313703,0.0009696341],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991188,0.0002642048,0.00018938804,0.000076192846,0.00018186783,0.0001695434],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989222,0.00047645852,0.00013041381,0.00026085236,0.00010055802,0.000109461085],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021184452,0.000052271847,0.00015679795,0.000008104492,0.00092386827,0.000024439172,0.00037930114,0.000020414427,0.0001330641],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005278268,0.000025787933,0.00003923772,0.00023660687,0.0004529668,0.000021236398,0.000028184046,0.000084243846,0.000005551606],"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":[0.0000053594517,0.0000040064674,0.002527309,0.000470297,0.000045042758,4.2663874e-7,0.0018825998,0.0000034583816,0.000008748758,0.8671954,0.11218482,0.015672514],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007728782,0.000003485405,0.0013114897,0.00019439014,0.000036830283,6.5737265e-7,0.00028127906,0.000020612122,0.000009883125,0.00024011423,0.99778587,0.000038108414],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9968174,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9995699,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93127257,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001428951,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018022525,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7105741},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2904557932","doi":"","title":"JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: CONTEMPORARY PRESSURES AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSES","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legitimacy; Judicial independence; Independence (probability theory); Law; Criticism; Political science; Judicial activism; Supreme court; Judicial review; Government (linguistics); Judicial opinion; Judicial discretion; Citizenship; Law and economics; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.07678461801054327,"score_gpt":0.3393280790654607,"score_spread":0.26254346105491744,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2904557932","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035317015,0.6343788,8.3650366e-7,0.19276212,0.00031156844,0.0019156846,0.000030120951,0.000077621575,0.13520621],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8721854,0.11780503,0.000015685142,0.004937846,0.0002559992,0.0000444664,0.0000019538888,0.000008239568,0.0047453837],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99830735,0.0006388316,0.00018537763,0.0001797604,0.00034756077,0.0003411372],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991895,0.00015359613,0.000078474404,0.00015967854,0.000111837566,0.00030689026],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016176807,0.00011740452,0.00025221924,0.000023683766,0.0017244443,0.00009495249,0.000316354,0.00008344899,0.00031357812],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010747769,0.000074018564,0.000054777825,0.0002037814,0.0005972137,0.00014061022,0.00004410049,0.00020145689,0.00008860394],"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":[0.00013525774,0.000052206302,0.09157014,0.0016879761,0.00053465273,0.00043725915,0.06996105,0.0000015437141,0.00002403968,0.15765147,0.504116,0.17382841],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007163872,0.000009199016,0.020432701,0.00037388716,0.000035010864,0.0000041364956,0.0006302243,5.533592e-7,8.378668e-7,0.00053220236,0.97778934,0.00012027323],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6917705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.74685776,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8368684,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016269636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00066337705,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995752},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2904982269","doi":"","title":"RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND THE STANDARD OF CARE OF PHYSICIANS","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","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":"Business; Health care; Government (linguistics); Liability; Resource allocation; Quality (philosophy); Public relations; Economics; Political science; Law; Finance","score_opus":0.03770277003715917,"score_gpt":0.3918240275784649,"score_spread":0.35412125754130575,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2904982269","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":[0.016210299,0.13089974,0.000010360659,0.8329395,0.0000719335,0.0018830595,0.000049456485,0.0000076120714,0.017928002],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9620117,0.021848934,0.000041299445,0.015803715,0.00007318276,0.000040933282,0.000008209054,0.0000072219445,0.00016483205],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998741,0.0005970978,0.0002923951,0.00007156586,0.00015518483,0.00014275694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988087,0.00044891352,0.0001759085,0.00034874017,0.00014343804,0.000074320546],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001409808,0.00005226208,0.0002839381,0.000013601991,0.00024911482,0.0000016788069,0.00015182074,0.00003963823,0.00018502127],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012496053,0.000026457943,0.000039773327,0.00011675794,0.00027044912,0.00002394826,0.000018318315,0.00023129776,0.000020086365],"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":[0.00011591379,0.000013793289,0.0007422293,0.02501609,0.000064110274,0.0000017394404,0.044008393,0.000006733988,0.000008069585,0.8335315,0.032723017,0.06376842],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00035656866,0.000039285962,0.00074884505,0.0058075343,0.00010614215,3.7887523e-7,0.0040492266,5.3979414e-7,0.000008800561,0.0009395119,0.987911,0.00003220223],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07281352,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.20962322,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9551879,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010272792,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007175268,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9333607},"labels":[{"model":"gemma","categories":[],"domain":null,"study_design":"not_applicable","genre":"empirical","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"low"},{"model":"gpt","categories":[],"domain":null,"study_design":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre":"commentary","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"high"}],"label_agreement":"split"},{"id":"W2905004868","doi":"","title":"UNMASKING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCRETIONARY NATIONAL SECURITY DECISIONS IN CANADA","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Dissent; National security; Torture; Political science; Law; Criminalization; Civil liberties; State (computer science); Public administration; Human rights; Politics","score_opus":0.11396264168841275,"score_gpt":0.3348469862344929,"score_spread":0.22088434454608014,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905004868","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":[0.014705989,0.018700968,0.0000030491817,0.9119579,0.00027870183,0.0004963061,0.000019558594,0.0000056934036,0.05383181],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9840585,0.0069174212,0.0000035988471,0.008841353,0.00007590972,0.000022548851,0.0000047799963,0.000003396629,0.000072485134],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99857235,0.0005582252,0.00019372723,0.0001144452,0.00028012195,0.00028110988],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989151,0.0006334367,0.000040853432,0.00016293704,0.00006701752,0.00018067184],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027713105,0.000060388895,0.00011462908,0.000042252716,0.00047440792,0.000055579127,0.0005697958,0.000022040855,0.00035007243],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00283284,0.000037647773,0.000030545227,0.0004141662,0.00013489832,0.00011409992,0.00003259686,0.00020458926,0.00003688713],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[4.2712912e-7,0.0000024627034,0.0033831187,0.000019834715,0.0000015120025,0.000006048696,0.0004245536,0.0000024435835,5.122265e-8,0.9606448,0.026573298,0.008941481],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020026911,0.0000015453761,0.010025003,0.00081286015,0.0000033461017,0.0000027740716,0.00035970894,0.000044840282,3.7023614e-8,0.017109422,0.97156256,0.000057843852],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99768984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999845,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96935254,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016661345,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0059228614,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99971265},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905008473","doi":"","title":"OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF BIDDING AND TENDERING","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Call for bids; Bidding; Mistake; Procurement; Business; Supreme court; Duty; Construction contract; Law and economics; Law; Contract management; Economics; Political science; Marketing","score_opus":0.09645502507909347,"score_gpt":0.34618132060989354,"score_spread":0.24972629553080006,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905008473","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019261075,0.39403042,0.000009199957,0.27906293,0.00010916723,0.0015821559,0.000050092,0.000016129588,0.30587882],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96352565,0.03445189,0.000028657732,0.0018752853,0.00001792665,0.000005673293,1.8302849e-7,0.0000025247075,0.00009218997],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9996444,0.000042214273,0.00009937983,0.000044320164,0.00008043042,0.00008924151],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996849,0.000018226388,0.000051946223,0.0001581943,0.00002299841,0.00006376077],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00040115297,0.000028213693,0.00008650965,0.000005710589,0.00031039506,0.000008714069,0.00020368582,0.000013385452,0.000047122172],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004491573,0.000015969028,0.000037078775,0.0001614973,0.00020534509,0.000026449095,0.000021813097,0.000043246928,0.0000039817396],"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":[2.5541226e-8,8.815445e-7,0.000033620054,0.00016591903,0.0000024136223,5.2294027e-8,0.00042242435,0.0000014490258,0.0000061553264,0.99672383,0.00005542321,0.002587809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026093086,0.000001749927,0.0012131046,0.0012273397,0.00002404195,7.2716676e-7,0.00011164981,5.083769e-7,0.000026544278,0.006146204,0.99119055,0.00003146749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4687234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.77411026,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911351,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000057966616,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00027404763,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5348144},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905149855","doi":"","title":"INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS AND IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Interlocutory; Harm; Plaintiff; Law; Appeal; Jurisprudence; Political science; High Court; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.03042409735497193,"score_gpt":0.3312179239207884,"score_spread":0.3007938265658165,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905149855","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":[0.049906507,0.020523774,0.000003802954,0.5572954,0.0004169476,0.0017071624,0.000022172293,0.00003186965,0.37009236],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.976817,0.0065351264,0.000020652331,0.013836299,0.00014848229,0.000095578886,0.0000022855686,0.0000045508204,0.002540012],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99943554,0.00011626904,0.00009707823,0.00008584918,0.00009029005,0.00017499781],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99955475,0.000058372163,0.000025689444,0.00021250946,0.000024341487,0.00012432755],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011181077,0.000045746285,0.00007337019,0.000017297492,0.000988145,0.000114811875,0.0002831707,0.000028918697,0.000357126],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010541268,0.000027078513,0.000026289557,0.00013882229,0.00020043306,0.00006182142,0.000012824825,0.0002471572,0.00009837088],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[3.7054605e-7,0.000009511089,0.00067007303,0.000044674936,0.0000049880655,0.0000023194893,0.00453389,3.734879e-7,0.000004887541,0.90084296,0.080464736,0.013421196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019583917,0.000002275738,0.0025259904,0.000056759844,0.000008113528,0.0000031531017,0.00027126947,0.0000037557218,1.9004172e-7,0.001829051,0.99524033,0.00003953716],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4438764,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9683876,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9269105,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000608564,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00041552944,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.76001126},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905438037","doi":"","title":"CROWD-FUNDING OFFERS UNDER CANADIAN AND US SECURITIES REGULATION: WILL AN EXEMPTION WORK?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Work (physics); Business; Tax exemption; Finance; Cost–benefit analysis; Economics; Public economics; Law and economics; Political science; Law","score_opus":0.05540670590889378,"score_gpt":0.24156099979859832,"score_spread":0.18615429388970456,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905438037","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":[0.41776484,0.123045295,0.00012355007,0.14410177,0.0023111883,0.003780813,0.000079846,0.0004451899,0.30834752],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98206073,0.0008628306,0.000025093661,0.014841843,0.0004538037,0.000026635636,0.00007387582,0.000044100914,0.0016110615],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998676,0.000025402087,0.00026521296,0.00028692491,0.00020370926,0.0005427281],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999086,0.000016585092,0.00013238599,0.00037437232,0.00016282857,0.00022781617],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00075233995,0.0002208499,0.00025962119,0.000274707,0.0004643243,0.00068018236,0.000317403,0.000082516555,0.00027646238],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016922483,0.0001917067,0.000051041476,0.00062789227,0.00015695371,0.0018095783,0.000048833386,0.00016690676,0.00028899167],"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":[0.000015259378,0.000014026592,0.03726969,0.0023945093,0.000049987502,0.00007855546,0.0002860207,0.00009373861,0.0000035840337,0.70760995,0.21808538,0.034099303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012760524,0.0000073285332,0.036338717,0.0018369687,0.000057942994,0.000018619738,0.0000805872,0.000116744435,6.910492e-7,0.0072363354,0.9538571,0.00032132232],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6525535,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9535731,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7357718,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000614676,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00040956563,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78175724},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905557790","doi":"","title":"A SURVEY OF CANADIAN JUDGES ABOUT THEIR MEETINGS WITH CHILDREN: BECOMING MORE COMMON BUT STILL CONTENTIOUS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Confidentiality; Good practice; Psychology; Political science; Law; Engineering ethics; Engineering","score_opus":0.07248963929508759,"score_gpt":0.33564688591892394,"score_spread":0.2631572466238363,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905557790","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":[0.20400584,0.02249706,0.0000038458197,0.6216151,0.0003399541,0.0017956909,0.00041109722,0.000043075448,0.14928834],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9777957,0.002841529,0.000026803546,0.018352523,0.00006369849,0.000020162583,0.000069401365,0.000013765644,0.00081640563],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99831265,0.000751889,0.00026947222,0.00014005846,0.00018087898,0.00034504035],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982053,0.0003408426,0.00022407962,0.00034019304,0.00044635474,0.00044325204],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034123152,0.00011108852,0.00025905692,0.00018184376,0.00080554705,0.00011643087,0.00044524166,0.0000548535,0.0005064699],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0019724895,0.00007672049,0.000041853942,0.0010672718,0.00030857054,0.00016230594,0.000008663901,0.00026640826,0.000044902885],"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":[0.000009645061,0.000055463137,0.49267086,0.00044382375,0.0002784436,0.0000051997176,0.036233947,0.0000070812894,0.000003289424,0.21685226,0.1459478,0.10749219],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000068208494,0.000011424763,0.2502405,0.00041532458,0.00003823323,0.0000035934763,0.0006139084,0.0000035342769,0.0000013337258,0.000042368163,0.74844635,0.000115237104],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.998698,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999882,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7737899,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024360907,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0039656116,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7034825},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2905935632","doi":"","title":"A History of Canadian Legal Thought: Collected Essays","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"History; Law; Epistemology; Political science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04765222907171745,"score_gpt":0.2853197804898607,"score_spread":0.23766755141814322,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2905935632","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":[0.00048900157,0.18680428,1.48264e-7,0.17487605,0.00033142563,0.00087497436,0.000028647926,0.000028595354,0.6365669],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.66852194,0.13502946,0.00019881174,0.042988252,0.0005570312,0.00007159322,0.000020305843,0.000029455758,0.15258314],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99835277,0.00036168387,0.00025832682,0.0001617936,0.00029748853,0.0005679589],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99868685,0.000056414297,0.00010364413,0.00024052855,0.00021819229,0.0006943904],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00082922564,0.00013710276,0.00035130765,0.00012436134,0.0009257474,0.000027509712,0.00050977484,0.00008363289,0.0011531971],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00069742795,0.00009684496,0.00012806088,0.00084887544,0.000392819,0.00010216006,0.000009169133,0.00018804599,0.000120466546],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000010459693,0.0000051656225,0.00006505936,0.00008260288,0.000027296393,0.000016482649,0.0060294345,3.3799301e-7,0.000003801444,0.1917659,0.7950751,0.006927754],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053404405,0.000013556494,0.003273384,0.00035267317,0.000052968444,0.0000015227989,0.00026767256,9.1007126e-7,7.509444e-7,0.000118577795,0.9957324,0.00013212352],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99543655,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9996433,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.66803294,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0051337397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005598592,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997599},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2907040471","doi":"","title":"STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN A NEW NUTSHELL","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory interpretation; Interpreter; Interpretation (philosophy); Statutory law; Argument (complex analysis); Meaning (existential); Legislature; Law; Political science; Epistemology; Sociology; Linguistics; Computer science; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04890395639949631,"score_gpt":0.3395160502354411,"score_spread":0.29061209383594483,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2907040471","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":[0.0015523818,0.2794363,0.00003858565,0.1167031,0.00043449504,0.0009901088,0.0000034004365,0.000024886453,0.6008168],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89817584,0.06925629,0.0001232518,0.018057736,0.00009287943,0.000016485537,0.0000019673746,0.000010669806,0.014264879],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99912083,0.0003255977,0.000121624325,0.00008816263,0.00011964295,0.00022414238],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995099,0.00006359265,0.000027914311,0.00013744818,0.00002324761,0.00023794008],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011569875,0.00004871688,0.000100007404,0.00002856153,0.00018516555,0.00003538954,0.0001888427,0.000025066603,0.0011472588],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006356918,0.0000378116,0.00003444639,0.00021161656,0.00007847295,0.00009850667,0.0000034973605,0.000094886884,0.0003856833],"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":[0.0000016433288,0.000003984306,0.0005229181,0.00023209437,0.0000037183747,0.000015543848,0.007903687,0.0000020143937,0.0000010393389,0.79574317,0.1170384,0.07853177],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020631649,0.000004092229,0.00030289163,0.0008333555,0.000010559986,0.0000011201553,0.00023364821,0.0000012148928,6.2033934e-7,0.002222062,0.99631816,0.0000516716],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6208872,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97890425,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89662343,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003379327,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002378567,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997658},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2907748168","doi":"","title":"HAS THE CLOCK RUN OUT ON THE BULK SALES ACT: TAX TIME AND OTHER RECENT CASES","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Repeal; Statute; Legislation; Jurisdiction; Law; Appeal; Political science; Commission; Geography","score_opus":0.09819997060725771,"score_gpt":0.25698746103017206,"score_spread":0.15878749042291435,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2907748168","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025304,0.0823926,0.0000038975436,0.5626388,0.00079023006,0.0016015129,0.00008855537,0.00005124036,0.34990272],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49514994,0.034957178,0.000017238945,0.45224094,0.0017706711,0.00007990501,0.000036369358,0.00007941886,0.015668357],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992716,0.000052693944,0.00016819387,0.0001390014,0.00015721502,0.00021134311],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993215,0.00016519609,0.00010085402,0.00031590805,0.00006400792,0.000032536078],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006622009,0.00013265137,0.00014653086,0.000028515875,0.0005156299,0.00028386075,0.00033774585,0.00002694754,0.002805677],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009404773,0.00006072811,0.000055269044,0.00009552367,0.00023965635,0.000075974065,0.000023502791,0.00012365986,0.0017258512],"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":[0.0000021175745,0.000008824396,0.00020382348,0.0001338246,0.000036122863,0.000009334467,0.00003624711,0.000003207629,0.0000012657044,0.6334759,0.36238366,0.0037056957],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050397808,0.0000038745043,0.00027282373,0.00037181348,0.00006134781,0.000009521118,0.000013896291,0.00003175853,0.0000022032955,0.0020922134,0.9969935,0.00009667247],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019351639,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10737112,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6346098,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005751021,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009618574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990514},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2907973464","doi":"","title":"LA LEGITIME DEFENSE EN DROIT PENAL CANADIEN : ANATOMIE D'UN MOYEN DE DEFENSE","year":2004,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Self defense; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Political science; Consistency (knowledge bases); Criminal law; Section (typography); Penal code; Criminology; Humanities; Law and economics; Sociology; Philosophy; Computer science; Linguistics; Medicine","score_opus":0.022987089396512266,"score_gpt":0.28436157626453895,"score_spread":0.26137448686802667,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2907973464","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030305842,0.44386938,0.000012954942,0.39121133,0.0005592759,0.0011227683,0.00015335761,0.000043189128,0.13272187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8079224,0.15476319,0.00028086637,0.022062307,0.0006595175,0.00006549809,0.000012662181,0.000059324106,0.014174245],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961314,0.0012665406,0.00041818718,0.00039864882,0.00041232305,0.0013728838],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9969937,0.00037674018,0.00013796112,0.0005753221,0.00012593147,0.0017903068],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037390841,0.00031300174,0.00050033117,0.000071987626,0.0012370899,0.000162555,0.0010502259,0.00025067033,0.0027059028],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00079290493,0.00028302,0.00029498007,0.00062915287,0.0010006296,0.00026174,0.00005728082,0.0006049638,0.001892921],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000058222604,0.000022032487,0.00013693832,0.0009367687,0.00007958561,0.002075619,0.007897473,0.000033332402,0.0000010517031,0.88095564,0.035716444,0.07213928],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001403731,0.000033211687,0.00048683758,0.0039789937,0.00044385588,0.0007652499,0.000497067,0.0000052865144,0.0000034363889,0.019035777,0.9742395,0.00037037148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96184015,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9936313,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9385231,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0046694544,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007342766,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999622},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2909669195","doi":"","title":"Blurred Lines of Intoxication and Insanity: An Examination of the Treatment at Law of Accused Persons Found to Have Committed Criminal Acts While in States of Substance-associated Psychosis, Where Int","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints","field":"Psychology","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Insanity; Criminal law; Law; Psychology; Mens rea; Normative; Criminology; Subject (documents); Liability; Psychiatry; Political science","score_opus":0.09933573994635668,"score_gpt":0.3752795135249761,"score_spread":0.27594377357861943,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2909669195","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":[0.9865991,0.007367444,0.0000018068522,0.004779555,0.00006616748,0.00072338525,0.00020223475,0.0000030813708,0.00025721133],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99062,0.008992763,0.000016722634,0.00024009118,0.000007773799,0.0000315769,0.000012373725,0.000010539711,0.00006812928],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983528,0.000693922,0.000480792,0.00015995953,0.00014760118,0.0001648718],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985339,0.00032597804,0.00034906893,0.00046804923,0.00020028694,0.00012268312],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007636634,0.000108017,0.00036820755,0.00009004797,0.000064083884,0.0000036621518,0.00020834757,0.00008460394,0.00008631334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015929928,0.00005758535,0.000051984505,0.00023887561,0.00017078612,0.000034202836,0.000008432977,0.000061260274,0.0000022648353],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00021551267,0.0009828681,0.030454088,0.0020590946,0.00033943373,0.000013346163,0.103048235,0.000003423104,0.002771248,0.00471922,0.0016964212,0.8536971],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011578053,0.00082304067,0.9602043,0.013280883,0.00018212793,0.000010023958,0.0033264519,0.0000116404735,0.00087044766,0.0003125634,0.019634673,0.00018605041],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0781463,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8575192,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9297502,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030755482,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00011764473,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9279924},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2909839346","doi":"","title":"LOI SUR LE RECOUVREMENT DE CERTAINES CRÉANCES","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Law; Debt; Order (exchange); Creditor; Political science; Business","score_opus":0.045879465363656245,"score_gpt":0.22835386965818436,"score_spread":0.1824744042945281,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2909839346","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0014253617,0.6312048,0.000012366946,0.32132646,0.0018930407,0.0005342196,0.000022379465,0.000023088396,0.04355827],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31746733,0.37225497,0.00016993277,0.19088942,0.010541277,0.000119955985,0.00004440635,0.000118980366,0.108393736],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9983842,0.000058320333,0.00037932952,0.0002906337,0.00020710056,0.00068045827],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986407,0.00003542971,0.00033450447,0.0005156137,0.00038860383,0.00008515131],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011629418,0.00025380205,0.00033711432,0.000057381018,0.0007305502,0.00027419877,0.0006336637,0.00007769408,0.004031323],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00032531482,0.00020430643,0.0001416451,0.00059216435,0.00029452835,0.0006511595,0.000069682654,0.00018904066,0.0034377682],"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":[0.000004265047,0.000023106946,0.0019210248,0.0040457146,0.000039196973,0.000033103846,0.000041169034,0.0000019728407,0.000002753949,0.05415543,0.8413626,0.09836964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001290276,0.000012521615,0.0037259297,0.008136303,0.00015170196,0.000008942073,0.000016172404,0.00017320825,0.0000061462993,0.0029483547,0.9844177,0.0002740395],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69507146,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.92496395,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31604198,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00033674508,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012667513,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9973382},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2910570850","doi":"","title":"LA CLAUSE DE NON-SOLLICITATION EST MORTE, LONGUE VIE A LA CLAUSE DE NON-SOLLICITATION?","year":2013,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Goodwill; Business; Sociology","score_opus":0.01597182488406587,"score_gpt":0.29745418169161336,"score_spread":0.2814823568075475,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2910570850","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":[0.26924476,0.1539026,0.0004717281,0.31449184,0.001645737,0.0065764072,0.00046395548,0.00010784146,0.25309512],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7844587,0.1431516,0.00089883845,0.048455838,0.00068905915,0.0004929272,0.0000715956,0.0000946012,0.021686831],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964667,0.0012845813,0.0005289085,0.00034040085,0.0003783755,0.0010010587],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9972168,0.00047997895,0.00038570524,0.00055915234,0.00031144108,0.0010468905],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002471187,0.00031429876,0.00043701634,0.00011042625,0.001050899,0.00036044858,0.00071917573,0.0002913312,0.0036542418],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006525867,0.00026079433,0.00019616498,0.0010840171,0.0005567292,0.00047120117,0.00003955449,0.0004883412,0.0008832362],"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":[0.000002733752,0.00016341679,0.0042557577,0.0011348907,0.00028237593,0.00010307746,0.021755846,0.0000871652,0.00006405166,0.61080396,0.2179733,0.14337341],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025147718,0.00003902365,0.10207563,0.0026611183,0.00032682673,0.000011983669,0.0008536811,0.00029898708,0.0000036656681,0.0030908247,0.8900212,0.00036560005],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.81236327,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9091812,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.67204785,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011424458,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0031912788,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998444},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2910941243","doi":"","title":"Éléments de common law canadienne : comparaison avec le droit civil québécois","year":2009,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law; Civil law (Civil law); Public law","score_opus":0.044245647959590406,"score_gpt":0.3156315781490368,"score_spread":0.2713859301894464,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2910941243","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":[0.007879539,0.29502508,0.0000024898611,0.34232643,0.00038644022,0.00043707312,0.00008520729,0.000013120935,0.3538446],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8730994,0.05867273,0.000011855044,0.055520702,0.00024056307,0.000015941816,0.00001435657,0.000009612816,0.012414863],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99804485,0.00038997363,0.00034358137,0.0002278955,0.00023710958,0.0007566002],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869514,0.00010089298,0.00013258867,0.00028797155,0.00014167141,0.0006417305],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008988608,0.00021041125,0.00047514055,0.000032060118,0.0015105752,0.00007227124,0.00064121926,0.0000613482,0.0015778525],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000050214592,0.00018719566,0.00017156271,0.0002748437,0.0006063226,0.00015207705,0.000025618743,0.00025191772,0.000461554],"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":[0.0000013578903,0.000020798647,0.00013340809,0.000061215025,0.000052855517,0.000016838134,0.0026258554,0.000003245916,4.709893e-7,0.938671,0.042174894,0.016238093],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008615069,0.000050961433,0.004772331,0.0014755232,0.00008594879,0.000010673336,0.00019370444,0.00003740326,0.0000026295918,0.02310408,0.9699762,0.000204405],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99666166,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99995065,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9278013,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0018868283,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001351712,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997893},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2912520768","doi":"","title":"THE OPPRESSION REMEDY","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Oppression; Plaintiff; CLARITY; Law; Corporation; Political science; Statutory law; Harm; Statute; Sociology; Terminology; Law and economics","score_opus":0.05423227589189154,"score_gpt":0.36860260135828327,"score_spread":0.3143703254663917,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2912520768","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":[0.00019942895,0.036507793,0.0000040166647,0.45678666,0.00016583603,0.0005617373,0.000005349526,0.000018944636,0.50575024],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7801979,0.1477799,0.000056936544,0.0327726,0.0016383878,0.00013395758,0.0000039169227,0.000016788135,0.03739959],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99935085,0.00014706135,0.00008881379,0.00007206847,0.00012930129,0.00021190285],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993277,0.000061078266,0.00003397714,0.0003212072,0.000067563364,0.00018843639],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011372657,0.000036787336,0.00005295339,0.0000055022233,0.0032084733,0.00007593649,0.0005069409,0.000020924079,0.00050449674],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023242453,0.000017980576,0.00003326255,0.0001651471,0.00036293291,0.000032924738,0.00002122047,0.00007428009,0.0010373534],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.7674108e-7,9.210406e-7,0.000019901396,0.000011103147,0.0000025983181,2.4775366e-7,0.00046085575,1.7649711e-8,0.0000016393408,0.71639746,0.22607054,0.057034526],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008686999,0.0000023071893,0.00024707758,0.00014175006,0.000008272912,3.3642254e-7,0.000059227106,0.0000018205997,0.0000020784576,0.0017855709,0.9977119,0.000030961688],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2591665,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91586477,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7799985,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010188757,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005258746,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997405},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2912654848","doi":"","title":"IS THE RULE OF LAWTHE GOLDEN RULE? ACCESSING “JUSTICE” FOR CANADA’S POOR","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Rule of law; Charter; Supreme court; Political science; Economic Justice; Due process; Normative; Public law; Sociology; Sources of law; Politics","score_opus":0.0562258748281742,"score_gpt":0.32641494124774106,"score_spread":0.27018906641956686,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2912654848","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":[0.0007429062,0.11776028,0.0000054786983,0.72445315,0.0002769787,0.0008185614,0.000118147094,0.000009357886,0.15581511],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.88952225,0.01854459,0.000038179,0.09008632,0.00046082243,0.000029545065,0.000003840634,0.0000056172385,0.0013088098],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990949,0.000087958324,0.00017835363,0.000099417615,0.00024788736,0.00029146683],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99935883,0.00014337806,0.00008619672,0.00014068435,0.0001389374,0.00013194304],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00070240983,0.00007851408,0.00018953563,0.000012369146,0.00190459,0.00003706154,0.00047464407,0.000026384756,0.00018433186],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00036126812,0.000044328775,0.0000805791,0.00018683058,0.00032667568,0.00004806068,0.000013335729,0.00007155515,0.000012602515],"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":[0.0000024847573,0.0000056582403,0.00014979442,0.00016574463,0.000046981964,0.000002824747,0.0014965285,0.0000011559738,0.0000025755053,0.67614704,0.25264353,0.06933571],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033988515,0.0000047716867,0.0022816528,0.00042443324,0.0001527021,8.0817057e-7,0.00040448603,0.0000013045794,0.0000038140881,0.0095139425,0.9871072,0.00007086873],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.989119,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984365,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8887794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002847823,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0044857347,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993948},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2912979748","doi":"","title":"LAWYERS’ MONOPOLY? THINK AGAIN:: THE REALITY OF NON-LAWYER LEGAL SERVICE PROVISION IN CANADA","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Monopoly; Legal ethics; Legal profession; Law; Statute; Practice of law; Privilege (computing); Political science; Public interest; Legal advice; Duty; Legal research; Law and economics; Sociology; Economics","score_opus":0.05613086201205925,"score_gpt":0.3658218807234167,"score_spread":0.30969101871135746,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2912979748","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0057078376,0.0023763068,0.0000014225895,0.8401634,0.00041013444,0.00076368195,0.000021917504,0.000005655838,0.15054965],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9116609,0.0020944707,0.00002455324,0.08480051,0.00020120289,0.000023570698,0.000008062123,0.0000074389513,0.0011793056],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99853283,0.00049534114,0.0002931367,0.00012270686,0.00029113397,0.0002648243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99869287,0.00018607946,0.00016429742,0.00042820745,0.00036993317,0.00015864203],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024778836,0.000076711614,0.00014734275,0.000032139094,0.00072404445,0.00006543853,0.00055799645,0.00003746562,0.0008483187],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007270876,0.000048041205,0.00002661974,0.0010710867,0.00018046104,0.00024791044,0.000019385725,0.00029168703,0.00007841976],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000063592684,0.00002515565,0.0010389541,0.0003576078,0.000029533556,0.000004756447,0.027380161,0.0000033431313,0.0000076129436,0.30008674,0.6364096,0.03465017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003585139,0.0000048872753,0.0038062537,0.00025397755,0.000015850967,9.560439e-7,0.002044758,0.000021497688,0.0000048765996,0.0003213031,0.9934242,0.00006558946],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999112,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999923,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90595305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008799475,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024188627,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9813433},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2913030202","doi":"","title":"LE RESPECT DES VOLONTES ANTICIPEES DE FIN DE VIE : ENTRE JUGEMENT CLINIQUE ET DROIT","year":2008,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Health, Medicine and Society","field":"Health Professions","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":"Abandonment (legal); Autonomy; Paternalism; Obligation; Humanities; Psychology; Welfare economics; Law; Political science; Philosophy; Economics","score_opus":0.1085220557689705,"score_gpt":0.41875566488761506,"score_spread":0.31023360911864456,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2913030202","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030907745,0.4627243,0.00008118353,0.48398268,0.0005334633,0.001956453,0.000085239226,0.000037895064,0.01969103],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08722653,0.6835118,0.00085027964,0.21366425,0.0007342565,0.000110660185,0.000020424623,0.000048840175,0.013832952],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9910308,0.0058717914,0.00090908475,0.0003205371,0.00024615505,0.0016215944],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99597937,0.0013560329,0.00023842139,0.00070169556,0.0001963922,0.0015280835],"candidate_categories":["sts","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.009597824,0.00027127474,0.00075353036,0.000058790705,0.0022711917,0.000013834256,0.0004666655,0.0005334492,0.0022601378],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0034585844,0.00022264145,0.00025277055,0.00037884348,0.00056360185,0.00009050395,0.00005680813,0.0023330636,0.0008804758],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000062135064,0.00007159514,0.006450079,0.012309616,0.00007988239,0.00028866262,0.047162645,0.0000018709667,0.0000022791126,0.04435119,0.8597615,0.029514495],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000315445,0.000112795824,0.012158263,0.02095871,0.00015081966,0.00008408507,0.0019188157,0.000024981484,0.0000030532367,0.0019821373,0.9620899,0.00020101707],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.53926694,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.87799066,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3387237,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0020094684,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04662471,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999686},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2913050508","doi":"","title":"PUBLIC POLICY IS AN UNRULY HORSE AND THE LAW OF CONTRACT IS AN ASS","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Saskatchewan","funders":"","keywords":"Boilerplate text; Supreme court; Law; Doctrine; Legislature; Political science; Jurisprudence; Law and economics; Economics","score_opus":0.06346364556507723,"score_gpt":0.28204363402229554,"score_spread":0.21857998845721832,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2913050508","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":[0.007446033,0.016451899,0.000009432435,0.48752224,0.00020196181,0.00096931285,0.0000612044,0.00004992782,0.48728797],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86097264,0.0032672212,0.000004492866,0.13464215,0.00063529407,0.000014618267,0.000011801179,0.000014186389,0.0004376114],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991978,0.00005584746,0.00020374132,0.00014747145,0.00013553376,0.00025962747],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99907976,0.00001854142,0.00013984491,0.00047535557,0.00020321971,0.000083266095],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007365031,0.00011242349,0.00021712981,0.00008506423,0.0005407399,0.00030262436,0.00035019932,0.0000384893,0.0015646266],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000100318095,0.00006538189,0.00007185201,0.0004039036,0.0004488874,0.00064221094,0.000036191203,0.00009647247,0.00026314706],"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":[0.0000025680931,0.000011562449,0.000114336144,0.00014515902,0.00002297954,5.303825e-7,0.000058447084,2.1133674e-8,0.0000013750029,0.94843847,0.02853288,0.022671672],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021191982,0.00000711774,0.002279722,0.00014897194,0.00009051837,0.000003950117,0.00004886059,0.0002146492,0.0000010505821,0.001955026,0.99494976,0.000088436114],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3988969,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.54577667,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9664169,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045980043,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00019828856,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993481},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2913619814","doi":"","title":"Electronic Presentment of Cheques in Canada: Digital Official Images of Eligible Bills","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Banking stability, regulation, efficiency","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Business; Advertising; Internet privacy; Computer security; Computer science","score_opus":0.02210353709284707,"score_gpt":0.212905078106121,"score_spread":0.19080154101327393,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2913619814","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":[0.6945103,0.28806403,0.000017994966,0.004304419,0.00010884611,0.0009918878,0.00044945432,0.0000069509783,0.0115461415],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.983969,0.0157316,0.000009610194,0.00013228667,0.000014833787,0.000010459054,0.000010307436,0.000009838706,0.00011209883],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.99879044,0.0000226277,0.0006428536,0.00017717652,0.00005984783,0.00030703345],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99922186,0.000043699238,0.00025374859,0.00036921544,0.000045157132,0.000066296096],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00044676074,0.00009532019,0.0004208468,0.00010816077,0.000054391163,0.000007233031,0.0002885038,0.000025660524,0.00021169231],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019173879,0.0000851377,0.00007105853,0.00037232888,0.00010462237,0.00007653078,0.000020298576,0.00008354863,0.000015466741],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009788972,0.00016954099,0.66026473,0.0021513635,0.00011584664,0.000011803042,0.00066250144,0.0007601602,0.000008289979,0.31170008,0.011770993,0.0123749105],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004011039,0.000102483755,0.7485391,0.0007943263,0.000022659047,0.00001867838,0.000024216504,0.00025272538,0.00028849707,0.014123131,0.23496555,0.0004675493],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9769298,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99067855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29757693,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001232825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024870932,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44119966},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2913737857","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - AGAINST JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE DECLINE OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN CANADA - APPOINTING JUDGES IN AN AGE OF JUDICIAL POWER: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Democracy; Judicial activism; Political science; Power (physics); Law; Judicial review; Politics","score_opus":0.027164084117366375,"score_gpt":0.3120949977601394,"score_spread":0.284930913642773,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2913737857","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013072365,0.8582416,0.0000026887221,0.11019998,0.00013017587,0.000763496,0.0000344583,0.0000053385897,0.017549857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7546297,0.22935675,0.000014910957,0.015855134,0.00011906124,0.000007962275,0.0000032400415,0.0000058899896,0.0000073549795],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99793726,0.00045972836,0.00057189696,0.00020181767,0.00040425934,0.00042501453],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987605,0.00055437966,0.00015598262,0.00018089694,0.00015700998,0.0001912208],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002814535,0.0001389731,0.0005876106,0.0000662347,0.0005762659,0.000013842795,0.00038256316,0.00004225709,0.00017449344],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0018889515,0.00009782963,0.00006705412,0.0005187739,0.0015196742,0.00012404913,0.000067179426,0.00027372915,0.0000017248755],"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":[0.00007208329,0.00019177287,0.053766925,0.0028793262,0.00016947502,0.00045574288,0.015202638,0.000010464797,0.000036590514,0.77001697,0.09196987,0.06522814],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00040548906,0.00006854328,0.21364187,0.018449122,0.00023092584,0.000009918402,0.010236806,0.000007983436,0.0000049390687,0.00696477,0.74945855,0.0005211025],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9901323,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997701,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7630522,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00058713293,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003116973,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55993026},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2913928614","doi":"","title":"A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE TO THE NEW CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Governance and Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Workaround; Corporate governance; Legislation; Companies Act; Corporate law; Law and economics; Business; Restructuring; Profit (economics); Not for profit; Law; Public administration; Political science; Accounting; Economics; Finance","score_opus":0.05570319439785312,"score_gpt":0.24050213284967947,"score_spread":0.18479893845182635,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2913928614","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0011065817,0.009863596,0.00042986922,0.78557914,0.0012740357,0.0043649795,0.00013654302,0.00006769682,0.19717756],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2183894,0.0024816622,0.00042504023,0.74229056,0.0033980086,0.00047356493,0.00018475276,0.000086915454,0.032270093],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991221,0.00001319248,0.00023655132,0.00016633267,0.00017685325,0.00028499708],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989908,0.000028377637,0.00023398688,0.0004958926,0.00017636156,0.00007461208],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00045744833,0.00013443778,0.00016599448,0.0000334294,0.0005385556,0.00012548322,0.00050004723,0.000023376188,0.0013210024],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027112756,0.00008207748,0.000065176006,0.000415279,0.000023234663,0.00031688178,0.00004143323,0.00010074493,0.0006474079],"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":[0.0000026283228,5.5131585e-7,0.0002842552,0.00008437666,0.000012069303,0.000005029638,0.0000135004075,0.000004503676,0.0000012731691,0.10162024,0.89222294,0.0057486338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006140239,0.0000028091395,0.0054132566,0.0002684639,0.00009292617,0.000003241564,0.000018580125,0.000020987165,0.0000035197997,0.00062387565,0.9933578,0.0001331605],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99309903,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99967057,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21728283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00019906172,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002169148,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99959195},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2914737984","doi":"","title":"ENTIRE AGREEMENT CLAUSES: NEITHER RIDDLE NOR ENIGMA","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Misrepresentation; Agreement; Law; Law and economics; Res ipsa loquitur; Exclusion clause; Political science; Economics; Linguistics; Philosophy; Tort; Liability; Contract management","score_opus":0.0449347226490299,"score_gpt":0.33354256167615187,"score_spread":0.28860783902712195,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2914737984","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":[0.001274719,0.043417983,0.000011345251,0.41352022,0.000102314676,0.0012537508,0.00003333763,0.000036513116,0.54034984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8301506,0.04973776,0.00011455935,0.08347253,0.0005510794,0.000089137546,0.000013870761,0.000014432658,0.035856012],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999135,0.000114280476,0.00014636957,0.00012615527,0.00018079969,0.00029740602],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992566,0.000019483085,0.00004912019,0.0003318117,0.00004483576,0.0002981244],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00061801897,0.00007328101,0.00012082558,0.000016753884,0.0008364991,0.00007366309,0.0004354914,0.000032860415,0.0022042328],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000057907255,0.000051198364,0.00007551972,0.00022648716,0.000081346494,0.000058774338,0.000010793167,0.00009765568,0.001402437],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[3.479962e-7,0.000013236293,0.00011991642,0.00004347897,0.000010115698,0.0000028572842,0.0011645174,6.435135e-7,0.0000032480934,0.7896523,0.10265463,0.10633473],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002925742,0.000006934211,0.0012660606,0.00018184273,0.000024787307,5.5782755e-7,0.000082005914,0.0000014426793,0.000001307781,0.0012394276,0.9970913,0.00007506354],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22751565,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7800621,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89443666,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00023589525,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000523366,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9993751},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2915500942","doi":"","title":"CONJURER UN SORT INCERTAIN : LE PRINCIPE DE PRECAUTION ET L’EVALUATION DES ESPECES EN PERIL AU CANADA","year":2008,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Environmental Conservation and Management","field":"Environmental Science","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":"Wildlife; Endangered species; Risk assessment; Precautionary principle; Wildlife trade; Listing (finance); Geography; Legislation; Environmental planning; Business; Political science; Environmental resource management; Environmental protection; Ecology; Law; Computer science; Biology; Environmental science; Habitat; Computer security","score_opus":0.03342484951496749,"score_gpt":0.24997685103417885,"score_spread":0.21655200151921136,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2915500942","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":[0.23877126,0.14696293,0.00010694861,0.48135138,0.00057807454,0.0037767044,0.00016259674,0.000029641682,0.12826046],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85434574,0.0870684,0.00032550824,0.046677846,0.00006086738,0.00014658047,0.00008140712,0.00002511137,0.011268526],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974841,0.0009568061,0.00030658895,0.00028230145,0.0004833443,0.00048689463],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99903965,0.000056947483,0.00011736113,0.00037704848,0.000015011303,0.00039398053],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021511493,0.00020044751,0.0001942401,0.000022788532,0.0008717605,0.00002790068,0.00035233947,0.00006256193,0.014634],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015613911,0.00017937385,0.00006238124,0.00020528109,0.00050183694,0.00021977948,0.000096385884,0.00018473,0.00038919674],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000015071258,0.00016845242,0.099648945,0.0022253576,0.00023934561,0.00016083966,0.007245728,0.0060094367,0.0001830668,0.078386016,0.37226605,0.43345168],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012114411,0.000015428643,0.24680632,0.0004027862,0.00008531066,0.00003464573,0.00008830757,0.00046339098,0.00003970611,0.00022535402,0.7515509,0.0001666977],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99590725,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99957126,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6155745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009489052,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0038062793,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99431336},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2916203628","doi":"","title":"OBSERVATIONS SUR LA CONCEPTION JUDICIAIRE DU ROLE DE LA JUSTICE CONTRACTUELLE EN MATIERE D’HYPOTHEQUE CONVENTIONNELLE","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Debtor; Legislator; Economic Justice; Creditor; Payment; Law; Business; Political science; Property (philosophy); Law and economics; Civil code; Debt; Legislation; Sociology; Philosophy; Finance","score_opus":0.021675024050635285,"score_gpt":0.28885294365165926,"score_spread":0.267177919601024,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2916203628","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":[0.026148455,0.11918802,0.00021984304,0.56214434,0.0011837586,0.002187965,0.00040755665,0.00008334684,0.28843668],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89833033,0.07176094,0.0002773884,0.009053834,0.0010464471,0.00016572162,0.000035991554,0.000031000935,0.019298319],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99780804,0.0010822373,0.00032379682,0.00019644212,0.00018339379,0.00040608612],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99786663,0.0009766415,0.00017758788,0.00036752108,0.00017820229,0.00043341186],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026313707,0.00015512582,0.00024247705,0.000023402994,0.0015402684,0.00016059539,0.0005263849,0.00024288124,0.0038070262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009471582,0.00013798698,0.00014759049,0.00034582766,0.0008214141,0.00023629943,0.000030803785,0.00060476316,0.0007563318],"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":[5.242032e-7,0.00002888459,0.00033695778,0.00028462312,0.000022232722,0.0000039289557,0.0018479112,0.000013162875,0.00004939314,0.9321578,0.04932158,0.01593296],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011907216,0.0000059806357,0.0066040633,0.00062125677,0.00033293618,0.00001792266,0.000627133,0.00033648786,0.0000032941803,0.010138379,0.98103225,0.00016121399],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.36712196,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6590728,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93171066,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00032987495,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018228102,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997596},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2916589643","doi":"","title":"THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BAR: AN UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Supreme court; Independence (probability theory); Legislation; Constitutional right; Government (linguistics); Constitutional law; Mathematics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.0406275365159231,"score_gpt":0.31698606332046025,"score_spread":0.27635852680453715,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2916589643","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":[0.003418599,0.15487343,0.000009000323,0.42831194,0.0004938699,0.0012402241,0.0000754893,0.000024694122,0.41155276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9725991,0.02040557,0.000011797464,0.005995598,0.00027864796,0.000024540454,0.0000011405697,0.0000020864954,0.00068153365],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987663,0.00026341612,0.0001866353,0.00010181539,0.0004284533,0.00025335644],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992737,0.00010566349,0.00007731231,0.00023904127,0.00016105868,0.0001431777],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014327246,0.00007017433,0.00012179526,0.00000967065,0.0034100986,0.00003476525,0.00072752597,0.000036838224,0.00028025318],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047097812,0.000033342774,0.00007861385,0.00021950927,0.003427017,0.00008884793,0.000049175753,0.00015282891,0.00011363367],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[5.35717e-7,0.000003263076,0.0009782866,0.000007250987,0.000011041832,4.269588e-7,0.00018011288,0.000004024442,4.5856478e-7,0.98789805,0.0028410458,0.008075506],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026268981,0.0000032891903,0.006600079,0.00020594358,0.000025841999,0.0000030755411,0.00014666228,0.000001796065,0.0000017149518,0.0057162987,0.98721534,0.00005369442],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17711332,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9038467,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9843743,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002307636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0030421538,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992851},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2916766024","doi":"","title":"L’aide médicale à mourir à la croisée des chemins : perspectives de droit comparé à la suite de l’arrêt Carter","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Health, Medicine and Society","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.06207965759265508,"score_gpt":0.3764894234082803,"score_spread":0.3144097658156252,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2916766024","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.036938988,0.49844432,0.000101919766,0.39443022,0.00026545618,0.0014726291,0.00021610409,0.000057400797,0.06807298],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2616539,0.5912842,0.00049378263,0.07397582,0.0014589785,0.00020687607,0.000010647873,0.00011558306,0.070800185],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9920316,0.0045253527,0.00071614934,0.00042397185,0.00029664053,0.0020063235],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933027,0.0027524198,0.00020456772,0.0008369536,0.00022904997,0.0026742958],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.008762861,0.00034823996,0.000844293,0.0000625563,0.0014354781,0.000031703286,0.0006103418,0.0008287505,0.005183113],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0025044389,0.00023297813,0.000313811,0.00035306063,0.0014812354,0.00014009837,0.000064301,0.0021784066,0.0011647954],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008099811,0.00008330699,0.0104563385,0.01511851,0.00015834316,0.00020508161,0.08783894,2.2348817e-7,0.000044439264,0.061112333,0.71546733,0.10950706],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000522592,0.00004104103,0.017204693,0.026757484,0.00025433942,0.0001771714,0.008153853,0.000009214513,0.000004958854,0.0018500326,0.94474685,0.00027777677],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.18971191,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3819006,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3204544,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004133948,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01231161,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998645},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2916970689","doi":"","title":"The Attorney General's Standing to Seek Relief in the Public Interest: The Evolving Doctrine of Parens Patriae","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Law; Supreme court; Public interest; Context (archaeology); Political science; History","score_opus":0.07240285337715215,"score_gpt":0.3456311690745672,"score_spread":0.27322831569741507,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2916970689","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":[0.029765403,0.29365572,0.000035876496,0.5734663,0.0010547136,0.003571665,0.000031237774,0.000033153752,0.098385915],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9763929,0.016679885,0.00000531529,0.0059686145,0.0005173764,0.000030930478,0.0000011622774,0.000009786962,0.00039398516],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99766105,0.00071668066,0.00047302747,0.00015509732,0.00040294038,0.00059118186],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983165,0.0006614984,0.00017588849,0.0004451735,0.00017477776,0.00022613343],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012139684,0.000116525785,0.00024085917,0.000056722074,0.0015238518,0.0002621738,0.0012650517,0.000048106773,0.000094712006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0022239867,0.000048728343,0.00009409994,0.0011493276,0.0002327667,0.00011804068,0.000050303093,0.00026160065,0.000036616522],"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":[0.0000066231974,0.0000117926365,0.004051,0.0002976361,0.000038519593,0.000022004253,0.01511014,0.0000015506552,0.000007979859,0.8382733,0.100602396,0.041577064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004316324,0.000018065008,0.0016310952,0.0006996465,0.000019151541,0.0000028544323,0.0022748243,0.0000016639501,0.0000015577824,0.0010991602,0.994129,0.00007981489],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4595474,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97958624,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94662756,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00039723955,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00092716375,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999776},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2917357851","doi":"","title":"GUANTANAMO NORTH: TERRORISM AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CANADA","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Terrorism; Administration (probate law); Political science; Criminology; Economic Justice; Administration of justice; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.019525538891298783,"score_gpt":0.28042521759339323,"score_spread":0.26089967870209446,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2917357851","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":[0.4078759,0.027795572,0.0000014253314,0.3689608,0.0004728956,0.0014815044,0.00005427455,0.0000071131917,0.19335052],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99156064,0.0023046723,0.0000028608972,0.0054485234,0.000059113583,0.0000031950674,0.0000028674738,0.0000012695265,0.0006168535],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99940443,0.00013194187,0.00014070832,0.000053462878,0.00015739082,0.00011204325],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99968195,0.000065196466,0.00005187641,0.00008696087,0.000042328338,0.000071716684],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00045402732,0.00003861962,0.00009969499,0.000013463571,0.0002742725,0.0000147360915,0.00018732059,0.000011618356,0.00012734126],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007490704,0.00002154947,0.000016920356,0.000053906104,0.00011336916,0.000034730925,0.0000025279871,0.00006450759,0.000003501449],"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":[0.0000029412365,9.420043e-7,0.00004936208,0.0000272246,0.0000021088783,0.000006479594,0.00040384295,3.3973413e-7,2.8741841e-8,0.99670917,0.0015003325,0.0012972492],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00028009113,0.000022600116,0.07623143,0.00074579567,0.00012203609,0.000008695633,0.00023900633,0.00002540405,0.0000016210782,0.03278747,0.8893878,0.00014803653],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99734116,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999932,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96392167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002840797,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002799324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.49658805},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2918223279","doi":"","title":"L’AUTONOMIE REPRODUCTIVE : UN ENJEU ETHIQUE ET LEGAL POUR LE DIAGNOSTIC PREIMPLANTATOIRE","year":2008,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Reproductive Health and Technologies","field":"Medicine","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Autonomy; Preimplantation genetic diagnosis; Reproductive rights; Political science; Humanities; Gynecology; Sociology; Philosophy; Law; Medicine; Biology; Population; Pregnancy; Genetics; Reproductive health","score_opus":0.05521794991550168,"score_gpt":0.30977093391838806,"score_spread":0.2545529840028864,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2918223279","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025702023,0.5243547,0.000011762147,0.4476011,0.0008165981,0.0019075277,0.00008049557,0.00008399977,0.02257361],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19904794,0.73599666,0.0005570898,0.0473501,0.0012915905,0.00031227258,0.0000554163,0.00008400645,0.015304938],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9959252,0.000929225,0.00070892397,0.0009704131,0.00025711008,0.0012091558],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99565417,0.0008179488,0.00027154162,0.002105179,0.00031843322,0.00083275215],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002665695,0.00044633876,0.0009652846,0.00015018076,0.0008955231,0.000027846378,0.00053894497,0.00032367583,0.00057861535],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014637818,0.0003460375,0.00022318577,0.00054013,0.0010603344,0.00021458844,0.00009275171,0.0016759441,0.0016780818],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000032796346,0.0001481974,0.0019082992,0.009792993,0.0003260119,0.0034352145,0.0006825168,0.000012098623,0.000018338156,0.41105014,0.39761284,0.17498055],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00039660415,0.00017059679,0.016090982,0.00830478,0.00039512134,0.0076002134,0.00010074699,0.000004473708,0.00045327193,0.0055285143,0.9605976,0.00035714672],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29087192,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.090295084,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5629847,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011566895,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01628563,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99989915},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2918876867","doi":"","title":"ABORIGINAL TITLE: THE CHIPPEWAS OF SARNIA","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Trespass; Fallacy; Appeal; Law; High Court; Surrender; Equity (law); Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.03568701721323528,"score_gpt":0.3321455949587789,"score_spread":0.2964585777455436,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2918876867","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":[0.00010141711,0.061642125,5.2861463e-7,0.084986754,0.00005070987,0.00016677407,0.000008317082,0.000005141895,0.85303825],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4996077,0.40211287,0.000031232317,0.0054220012,0.00037424025,0.000033534376,0.0000021174762,0.000010280708,0.092406005],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9997187,0.000038401842,0.00005489311,0.000030406107,0.00006756398,0.00009001371],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997375,0.000022982329,0.000022418186,0.00013385918,0.000018926012,0.00006433849],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00025702227,0.000020194804,0.000040152896,0.0000041092503,0.0004017221,0.000014622373,0.00020445451,0.000010401996,0.0026888463],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000024409092,0.0000109928615,0.000023816307,0.00010843831,0.00010264716,0.000010222254,0.0000022335444,0.00004521988,0.0014375483],"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":[2.5707894e-8,0.0000010476314,0.000019388342,0.000014846473,0.000002353685,1.7507733e-7,0.00020896393,4.2006732e-8,2.2641947e-7,0.75096303,0.20367889,0.04511101],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004994653,8.462389e-7,0.00013413768,0.00003859087,0.0000063002376,2.2466308e-7,0.000010384838,0.000002324504,3.3229992e-7,0.0003731451,0.99941283,0.000015884596],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.060210265,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3754927,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7957339,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000037966645,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00013432022,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99933994},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919374310","doi":"","title":"TREATMENT DELAYED - LIBERTY DENIED","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints","field":"Psychology","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Autonomy; Victory; Law; Anguish; Balance (ability); Mental health; Involuntary treatment; Political science; Personal autonomy; Psychiatry; Psychology; Politics","score_opus":0.06418376055400837,"score_gpt":0.39019485681519467,"score_spread":0.3260110962611863,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2919374310","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":[0.033493873,0.3691761,0.000015054025,0.3914544,0.0012810327,0.0023930604,0.000097797645,0.0001360242,0.20195267],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92319024,0.021759799,0.00007583085,0.04434385,0.00023983335,0.000052914773,0.000025330699,0.000024711962,0.010287518],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986516,0.00029625365,0.00027208967,0.00022239164,0.00011417825,0.0004434474],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99860954,0.00009275855,0.000057208,0.00070523075,0.00003773151,0.00049754145],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00034663492,0.00014659058,0.0002745438,0.000052099087,0.00024664614,0.000021561307,0.00027936444,0.00009266991,0.0023393165],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007266659,0.000081305065,0.00012222864,0.00019040437,0.000036168403,0.000015375364,0.0000039786255,0.00015095666,0.0033640382],"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":[0.0000053600284,0.000021531874,0.000010327432,0.000023074237,0.00004235039,0.00087048294,0.00040770427,2.3016365e-7,7.133689e-7,0.0043240204,0.037117384,0.9571768],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015582783,0.00016201528,0.004192864,0.0004025451,0.000051872357,0.0005557197,0.000022937431,0.0000018619706,4.829178e-7,0.0007496969,0.9935954,0.00010875422],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10683217,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.17078605,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9570681,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00033218923,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046713825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9985727},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919395100","doi":"","title":"LA COMPETENCE DES TRIBUNAUX EN MATIERE DE FAILLITE","year":2004,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Family and Matrimonial Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisdiction; Debtor; Bankruptcy; Law; Supreme court; Creditor; Political science; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Confusion; Jurisprudence; Original jurisdiction; Business; Psychology; Debt","score_opus":0.02810567432508452,"score_gpt":0.29722359107335655,"score_spread":0.269117916748272,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2919395100","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0028969604,0.69757444,0.00002891146,0.16376717,0.00043552998,0.00061580044,0.000109437475,0.000028043283,0.13454373],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.27604112,0.6912244,0.0011331167,0.02151159,0.00037429304,0.000031960946,0.000010304725,0.000029011355,0.009644217],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975793,0.0011040646,0.00025821716,0.00017431716,0.00020244556,0.000681696],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987099,0.00020881621,0.00008146051,0.00029145327,0.000073684205,0.0006346498],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023275907,0.00016568312,0.00031644606,0.000026498783,0.0009813051,0.000109030196,0.0006449741,0.00016033454,0.0008189228],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00041920025,0.00013187519,0.00015228256,0.0005155834,0.0013407908,0.0001914454,0.000029091587,0.00032407313,0.0014262713],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.9281265e-7,0.000007773124,0.000060414997,0.0009454096,0.000016962927,0.000046359717,0.0035779702,0.00000943771,0.0000010113764,0.9104658,0.0055304053,0.07933779],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000088266075,0.000018995936,0.0010162806,0.0054604076,0.00011008578,0.000030508607,0.00032163647,0.0000012458212,0.0000020916802,0.036531605,0.9562536,0.00016531012],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.744071,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91141814,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9507232,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0015143204,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003329375,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99935126},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919878300","doi":"","title":"TRANSFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW THE DIDACTIC ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Administrative law; Political science; Precedent; Mainstream","score_opus":0.05413915082977199,"score_gpt":0.31507479021099816,"score_spread":0.26093563938122616,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2919878300","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":[0.024995781,0.07920714,0.0000012272849,0.45941666,0.0002622406,0.0016641467,0.00006849332,0.0000072348366,0.43437707],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98967135,0.006732416,0.0000018380605,0.0028344656,0.000038143753,0.000010067972,4.3992063e-7,0.000004231713,0.00070703356],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988438,0.00027101606,0.0002086666,0.000077683646,0.0003383897,0.0002604566],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99918365,0.00020286022,0.00009954527,0.00028095293,0.00008961172,0.00014335763],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010120725,0.00007170068,0.00017342174,0.000005742667,0.00077955506,0.000015387037,0.00064838835,0.000023719942,0.00038432743],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00020165098,0.000035300338,0.00008363234,0.00022910639,0.0004786668,0.00006555191,0.0000095956275,0.00012197563,0.000003106571],"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":[0.000006878579,0.000009363887,0.00059225364,0.00038459283,0.0000407766,0.0000082506385,0.009965897,0.000003311317,0.000035021283,0.9672363,0.012633705,0.00908365],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001805228,0.000009402252,0.0004900015,0.00071133464,0.00007473262,0.0000059072318,0.0022929548,0.0000012069679,0.000088555775,0.0009429925,0.9953131,0.000051722396],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9953101,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999226,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9826794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021412942,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004023039,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.71366984},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920400168","doi":"","title":"CANADA’S LEGAL PROFESSION: SELF-REGULATING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legal profession; Public interest; Privilege (computing); Law; Political science; Value (mathematics); Legal ethics; Legislature; State (computer science); Self-interest; Sociology","score_opus":0.16847896868102122,"score_gpt":0.40049127442613547,"score_spread":0.23201230574511425,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2920400168","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00083355815,0.00461121,2.4992622e-7,0.86360604,0.00047602723,0.00040911694,0.0000025290203,0.000009681637,0.13005157],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92468613,0.0005973606,0.00003166095,0.07181638,0.00024187767,0.000047625424,0.000006864007,0.000005330668,0.0025667567],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981751,0.0009839266,0.00020079655,0.000087324814,0.00028359788,0.00026928177],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990427,0.00016868483,0.000091522634,0.0002573641,0.00019439908,0.00024533094],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003995933,0.000060877,0.00009109778,0.000039665607,0.00072573835,0.00023328362,0.0005376062,0.000031110456,0.00039765087],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002574632,0.00003583118,0.000018704848,0.0007854469,0.00006502272,0.00036102426,0.000013625412,0.0003763761,0.00006978221],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.5239422e-7,0.000004463224,0.00019179919,0.0000207599,0.0000028627358,0.000002879691,0.003571443,5.6608723e-8,2.0163007e-8,0.4892849,0.50281453,0.0041060974],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029713268,0.0000022575116,0.0003574134,0.00016858065,0.00000837506,0.0000054646634,0.004946677,0.0000024079284,5.7565494e-8,0.00029935784,0.9941262,0.00005346469],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9956537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99996114,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92385256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009525517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04570749,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9597025},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920504598","doi":"","title":"CONSTITUTIONAL WORKAROUNDS : SENATE REFORM AND OTHER EXAMPLES","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Workaround; Constitution; Federalism; Political science; Legislation; Parliament; Law; Constitutional law; CLARITY; Politics; Constitutional amendment; Government (linguistics); Polity; Public administration","score_opus":0.09624698732660815,"score_gpt":0.29624348472236467,"score_spread":0.19999649739575653,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2920504598","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":[0.0012163871,0.067536816,0.0000043119776,0.014453353,0.00013071348,0.00027852558,0.000043922693,0.000014140761,0.9163218],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9637297,0.013155918,0.00004770832,0.017911479,0.00022050765,0.000021371872,8.207679e-7,0.000004897329,0.004907627],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99936056,0.00009090597,0.00010132282,0.00008021704,0.00011343502,0.00025353106],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995227,0.000018567935,0.000034150235,0.000114551614,0.000023178109,0.00028689348],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00068228587,0.00005054213,0.00010446065,0.00000608247,0.00044576052,0.000025000092,0.00014430286,0.00003150417,0.00071613933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009516175,0.000031324165,0.000026669712,0.00007459069,0.000783053,0.00005209408,0.000009349748,0.0000579519,0.00014081018],"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":[1.7859315e-7,8.425545e-7,0.00045241206,0.000040164796,0.0000039476367,0.0000017145346,0.00034066912,1.6592571e-9,7.610935e-8,0.995288,0.0016385146,0.0022334629],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000210973,0.000001983756,0.0023362078,0.0006035017,0.000008925042,0.0000047967865,0.0000479998,1.2121207e-7,3.7672814e-7,0.0035613049,0.9933608,0.00005288563],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9213745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9205747,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9917267,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00029177874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004233997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7841223},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920803715","doi":"","title":"ROADMAP FOR A TRULY CANADIAN LEGAL EDUCATION","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law 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":"Law; Statutory law; Political science; Statute; Civil law (Civil law); Common law; Comparative law; Legal research; Legal education; Legislation; Legal profession; Diversity (politics); Public law","score_opus":0.12624622700960195,"score_gpt":0.4028084523212755,"score_spread":0.2765622253116735,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2920803715","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":[0.00060271326,0.07491859,0.000003616167,0.30270174,0.0007171752,0.0009822614,0.000044650573,0.00001023862,0.620019],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9067606,0.005479307,0.00008017236,0.039701108,0.0010074589,0.00034009595,0.00003764443,0.000012495378,0.046581164],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993153,0.0001039964,0.000110264344,0.000092167735,0.00013842688,0.00023985126],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989314,0.000037981667,0.00003436627,0.000110830224,0.0003345431,0.00055086025],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007332736,0.00006034632,0.00011701373,0.000043778226,0.0006831448,0.000065354936,0.00026202673,0.00002066965,0.00024782118],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00049607904,0.000045273882,0.000053991844,0.00013405248,0.000096463074,0.00009771664,0.000005569946,0.000049765007,0.00025660495],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[4.124784e-7,0.0000015384126,0.0000635978,0.000012817734,0.000006134406,2.4332826e-7,0.00059655186,1.4555866e-7,2.011732e-8,0.53295445,0.4602193,0.0061448063],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000038829876,0.000009720833,0.00033615896,0.0001298482,0.000017755374,9.2629165e-7,0.0003809445,0.0000022443196,2.8645252e-7,0.002476583,0.9965435,0.000063174615],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99123496,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99979115,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90615785,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009764117,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011079172,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9945271},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920839095","doi":"","title":"AM I MY PARTNER’S KEEPER? THE DUTY TO REPORT A COLLEAGUE","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Honesty; Obligation; Duty; Law; Misconduct; Competence (human resources); Legal ethics; Political science; Professional conduct; Ethical code; Business; Management; Economics","score_opus":0.1834431340006346,"score_gpt":0.44039089624611255,"score_spread":0.25694776224547794,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2920839095","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0002324596,0.0047913664,0.0000023737575,0.69659036,0.00042563275,0.00061531004,0.0000049095383,0.000015281115,0.29732227],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.40989092,0.0075142197,0.00021535195,0.4007312,0.001541709,0.00052695756,0.00003580829,0.000030584306,0.17951325],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99864364,0.0004609179,0.00023305217,0.00012301083,0.00028838855,0.00025096568],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983965,0.00014368285,0.00010504496,0.00046414035,0.0003647339,0.00052587374],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0046583605,0.00006615662,0.00011801093,0.000032883247,0.001046476,0.0001855598,0.00042917146,0.000034454024,0.001499158],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0059498893,0.000038993032,0.000042720632,0.0009657901,0.00013602135,0.00014272238,0.000016386752,0.00022009588,0.0022541776],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[4.4899568e-7,0.0000038384096,0.00011651155,0.000009881417,0.000006257874,0.0000075042776,0.0053526754,6.017986e-7,7.827737e-8,0.13753001,0.85345066,0.00352156],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021331036,0.000004985122,0.00025324983,0.00008583188,0.000024948231,0.000018943163,0.0016042765,5.015791e-7,2.497914e-7,0.000647334,0.99727327,0.00006506821],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.55468214,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89294714,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.40965846,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00040772159,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008569992,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9994136},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2920862888","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT, COMMERCE AND THE CONSUMER: MAKING THE MOST OF LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Bankruptcy; Legislation; Law; Insolvency; Settlement (finance); Precedent; Statutory law; Business; Political science; Finance; Payment","score_opus":0.07645830173637957,"score_gpt":0.26498578494745434,"score_spread":0.18852748321107476,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2920862888","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":[0.00453582,0.27542424,0.000004104195,0.5544711,0.00023192314,0.0013381541,0.000011431977,0.000037693208,0.16394557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8519089,0.07523132,0.000002693311,0.07025235,0.00019254787,0.000030014116,0.0000100581165,0.000016205031,0.002355866],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99916476,0.0001151647,0.00026131625,0.00008608319,0.00015915724,0.00021352462],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998874,0.0002898314,0.00025463646,0.00042194157,0.0001388187,0.000020777852],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014628934,0.00011852106,0.00020237463,0.000035375273,0.0010366275,0.00030271205,0.0004966264,0.000022868562,0.00034175834],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034487116,0.00004699289,0.00005874547,0.00026164055,0.0005591748,0.00015176907,0.00006803,0.00015543494,0.00005810718],"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":[0.000013078153,0.000004169415,0.0011425753,0.00034581005,0.00005868939,0.0000058851,0.00024723646,0.0000013470933,5.480773e-7,0.7493341,0.20222493,0.046621673],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001439388,0.0000014781397,0.0017012117,0.00049019646,0.00012688724,0.000008331421,0.000649852,0.00017449001,1.4866863e-7,0.00043795726,0.99619406,0.000071469636],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14126718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.27054724,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8473731,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000018934905,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007255097,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86445117},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921538605","doi":"","title":"BEYOND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO THE DUTY OF LOYALTY:FROM MARTIN V. GRAY TO R. V. NEIL","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Duty; Loyalty; Ambivalence; Supreme court; Gray (unit); Political science; Law; Law and economics; Sociology; Social psychology; Psychology","score_opus":0.08474684672615154,"score_gpt":0.3647161061434266,"score_spread":0.279969259417275,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921538605","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":[0.020530794,0.005434608,0.0000073991096,0.8417827,0.0003427786,0.00076941925,0.00008893896,0.00000717643,0.13103618],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9563261,0.0005813696,0.00009177409,0.038161155,0.00021267336,0.00002936183,0.000012841014,0.0000071767763,0.0045775175],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990458,0.0002646856,0.00028882863,0.0000907652,0.00014226159,0.0001676744],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99895763,0.00018770146,0.00013785367,0.00032052287,0.00022526163,0.00017100107],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012683246,0.000059056907,0.00014545192,0.000045905115,0.00026243515,0.000045991128,0.00041999907,0.000027339174,0.0017581534],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012065865,0.000037734808,0.00004343341,0.0007260701,0.00011052854,0.00007536191,0.000017707865,0.00012679788,0.00029709717],"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":[0.0000025139923,0.00001600468,0.00065226713,0.000055157216,0.000012287416,4.783241e-7,0.005662588,0.0000028322474,0.000025704056,0.4719516,0.5111222,0.01049637],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019766752,0.000010146028,0.0042726076,0.00020036558,0.000022672994,2.403129e-7,0.00031628556,2.9773543e-7,0.000023791137,0.0011419154,0.993945,0.00004688855],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.85862905,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9718819,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9357953,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010303121,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0011455346,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9991544},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921568760","doi":"","title":"JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN PRIVATE LAW","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Tort; Private law; Precedent; Common law; Charter; Public law; Liability","score_opus":0.051531622556219125,"score_gpt":0.3382382600379025,"score_spread":0.2867066374816834,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921568760","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":[0.00591525,0.011005396,0.0000034595982,0.25128472,0.00006747839,0.0007330526,0.000006498583,0.000020972338,0.7309632],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9618923,0.021688446,0.000013952235,0.014976109,0.00016611506,0.00004354156,0.0000019809368,0.000005747988,0.0012118048],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993619,0.000105291976,0.00010302855,0.00008542783,0.00010385174,0.00024050768],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958265,0.000026177908,0.000027752169,0.00017789738,0.000016106811,0.00016940811],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00061515346,0.000044219887,0.00009528221,0.000015656784,0.0005089311,0.0000354596,0.0002877658,0.000027722468,0.00051358703],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000055749515,0.000033155673,0.000032621894,0.00029790468,0.00013085242,0.00006178904,0.0000127004305,0.000110432244,0.00038956324],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.6487645e-7,0.0000024451347,0.00012515431,0.000010407112,0.0000012870443,0.0000031474735,0.00026659897,2.835918e-7,7.2806967e-7,0.9875983,0.0021966577,0.009794823],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023097515,0.0000013719313,0.001370652,0.00014485953,0.0000058364917,7.9299724e-7,0.000019929237,0.0000010979309,5.2486206e-7,0.0064458787,0.99193907,0.000046892466],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75585836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98414296,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9897424,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022312769,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00037188435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.56234175},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921602097","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND TRIBUNALS - DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS: A RECENT PHENOMENON OR A RETURN TO BASICS?","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Deference; Scrutiny; Supreme court; Law; Statutory law; Judicial review; Jurisprudence; Appeal; Administrative law; Political science; Standard of review; Judicial opinion","score_opus":0.0904309366278587,"score_gpt":0.33706495871145664,"score_spread":0.24663402208359794,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921602097","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":[0.0056799524,0.0664805,0.000004581368,0.8471725,0.00016613667,0.0020729506,0.0001335247,0.0000070922392,0.07828276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8923031,0.08961047,0.000007212004,0.016654668,0.0001415874,0.00014315438,0.0000013469831,0.0000042808238,0.0011341767],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99883413,0.00019806254,0.00019394727,0.00012632838,0.00032477034,0.0003227509],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998974,0.00023511483,0.000066076114,0.00015149558,0.00025970605,0.0003136004],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012109949,0.00008833431,0.00018434972,0.000010588299,0.001784152,0.00004601217,0.00040807444,0.000016884702,0.00020303624],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013393664,0.000039605922,0.000021332815,0.00052296714,0.00031507216,0.000027697923,0.000026530442,0.000084669075,0.0000074346713],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001503837,0.000028638986,0.0030727722,0.0002554277,0.00024761193,0.0000454034,0.028467534,0.0000060113853,0.000001899089,0.5404303,0.24944153,0.17785247],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002482309,0.00003292526,0.0012828836,0.00039689994,0.000027583583,0.0000027667515,0.0026366343,2.477827e-7,0.0000011529573,0.00191574,0.99361044,0.000067915345],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9409727,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998882,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88662314,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00029994673,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006905638,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995154},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921844405","doi":"","title":"THE RECEPTION OF EQUITY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (1875-2000)","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Fiduciary; Law; Doctrine; Supreme court; Equity (law); Tort; Political science; Conscience; Good faith; Duty; Liability; Economics","score_opus":0.06841189570124676,"score_gpt":0.35082082447772717,"score_spread":0.2824089287764804,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921844405","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":[0.01366503,0.054670766,0.0000057080647,0.43471548,0.00015803073,0.0019307279,0.000071437935,0.000007070149,0.49477574],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9619741,0.035456527,0.000004575947,0.001588534,0.000042267893,0.00002863261,0.0000020365246,0.000003037168,0.0009002965],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998912,0.00032722836,0.00020869327,0.00006349069,0.00026586215,0.00022277313],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992715,0.000169943,0.00009301281,0.00031203878,0.00006992352,0.00008356925],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027221083,0.00004514492,0.00010908798,0.0000093409,0.0005434527,0.000018081315,0.00061757193,0.000021513526,0.00022991648],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031791805,0.000023069524,0.000037301797,0.00036887062,0.00018282194,0.000027702337,0.000015397898,0.00010189237,0.0000070620276],"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":[0.000001156565,0.000008693731,0.000791942,0.00009769448,0.000008470708,0.0000013461645,0.0026647185,0.000008340002,0.00000470154,0.91058946,0.05210957,0.033713885],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018932153,0.0000028293325,0.0032952311,0.0001336148,0.000010928252,7.814911e-7,0.00057463936,0.0000033496776,0.0000015357439,0.001504801,0.99442315,0.000030209205],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99283916,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999025,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94830906,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00040916988,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0040481337,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7181215},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2921948824","doi":"","title":"LAWYERS MEET THE SOCIAL CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL COMPETENCE","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Cultural competence; Competence (human resources); Social justice; Psychology; Cultural diversity; Cultural values; Social psychology; Sociology; Public relations; Political science; Pedagogy; Social science; Law; Criminology","score_opus":0.1612604705285253,"score_gpt":0.4026962245734172,"score_spread":0.2414357540448919,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2921948824","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":[0.00015117241,0.005736373,0.000006096506,0.676468,0.00023956897,0.0002800129,0.000007793115,0.000015003552,0.31709597],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96094245,0.0013018141,0.000011192479,0.03458842,0.00038039932,0.000018190081,0.0000069831003,0.000004808315,0.0027457634],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99896765,0.00037031708,0.00015118245,0.000080111866,0.00019689629,0.00023385185],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994253,0.00017385464,0.000092475275,0.000118756456,0.00011061064,0.00007898864],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011949373,0.00006134222,0.0000919537,0.000018972241,0.003605379,0.00026554812,0.0003329848,0.000031306456,0.0008907444],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031297613,0.000035863857,0.000051823074,0.00049797416,0.00043588862,0.0002335099,0.000007183041,0.00019472129,0.00016131265],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.5155723e-7,0.0000013683191,0.00002746658,0.0000090667745,0.000003399032,3.367203e-7,0.0025563587,1.799807e-7,2.6740204e-7,0.7549394,0.24195844,0.0005035851],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025632771,0.0000013257842,0.000253068,0.0000757853,0.00002517032,0.0000016224473,0.009337944,0.0000012625553,2.0361124e-7,0.0065437187,0.98367405,0.00006022763],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6794778,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96208197,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96079123,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00069309614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016829212,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9976918},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2922225905","doi":"","title":"LA COUR SUPREME DU CANADA ET LA TRADITION DU DROIT CIVIL","year":2001,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":23,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Civil law (Civil law); Jurisprudence; Public law","score_opus":0.03181982028567717,"score_gpt":0.2732602105662148,"score_spread":0.24144039028053763,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2922225905","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":[0.011044825,0.233041,0.0000012192558,0.5114233,0.000921969,0.0007948652,0.00017058362,0.00002697064,0.24257526],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6403441,0.3370778,0.000008204148,0.01437116,0.0006078625,0.000042481133,0.00002041567,0.000019250729,0.007508729],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963938,0.0018252049,0.00033938303,0.00026725716,0.00051308144,0.000661288],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99828416,0.0005190374,0.00014330447,0.00023889783,0.0001577061,0.0006568783],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021754017,0.00026374217,0.00045586823,0.000017923114,0.0014738888,0.0001253153,0.00054259645,0.0001495471,0.0030503122],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006968681,0.00020347179,0.00016896357,0.0004816373,0.00071631995,0.00020934912,0.000030560495,0.0004339948,0.00026483074],"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":[0.0000017463819,0.000024097408,0.0015737264,0.0006609399,0.00014123207,0.0003787738,0.005885087,0.0000071546924,5.113518e-7,0.35281718,0.59963644,0.038873125],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010744727,0.00001021592,0.011081353,0.0014428897,0.0001777069,0.000084015766,0.0008240855,0.0000094818715,1.4672406e-7,0.0004891798,0.9855016,0.0002719035],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9985377,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99993706,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6292993,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0030695933,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003634833,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998261},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2922274671","doi":"","title":"SOME RECENT DECISIONS ON THE ELEMENTOF UNLAWFULNESS IN INTENTIONAL TORTS","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Element (criminal law); Appeal; Tort; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Contributory negligence; Res ipsa loquitur; Liability; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.07926216876163567,"score_gpt":0.33636609424239433,"score_spread":0.25710392548075867,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2922274671","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006344879,0.013808419,0.000003495825,0.90950984,0.00018048019,0.0020195148,0.000022536782,0.000013746804,0.068097085],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84506917,0.088364266,0.000025810072,0.059074406,0.00037079,0.0010840067,0.000018200535,0.000014915318,0.0059784064],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99904627,0.0001955358,0.00018057233,0.00011095075,0.00021870663,0.00024797398],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99923396,0.00017332054,0.00004428776,0.00028800042,0.00007603847,0.0001844094],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010591209,0.000059167043,0.000090504334,0.000025480937,0.0007172482,0.000080299804,0.00046019338,0.000024543604,0.0054439437],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039726924,0.00003233045,0.00004815731,0.00029975362,0.000113113565,0.000078283716,0.000026049038,0.0001394071,0.0013190393],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.09956815e-7,0.000006550042,0.000057663,0.0000047902777,0.0000026634088,3.6691034e-7,0.00014039599,7.9388064e-7,3.6121344e-7,0.9126622,0.060515422,0.026608704],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020363148,0.0000025660827,0.0031527109,0.00027625507,0.000005433858,2.4572245e-7,0.00015668523,0.0000031825018,6.959804e-7,0.020048575,0.97628576,0.000047526297],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29112646,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7624306,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91577035,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003514883,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00050088105,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99945855},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2922520760","doi":"","title":"A TRIUMPH OF SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IN HOW DISCRIMINATION LAW TREATS OBESITY","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Medical model of disability; Law; Human rights; Supreme court; Mental illness; Employment discrimination; Addiction; Race (biology); Political science; Disability discrimination; Obesity; Criminology; Psychology; Psychiatry; Sociology; Medicine; Mental health; Gender studies","score_opus":0.048573971470636,"score_gpt":0.2877468988833982,"score_spread":0.23917292741276222,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2922520760","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":[0.15188666,0.053269807,0.000016157723,0.49224558,0.0004375998,0.001984271,0.000026687661,0.00003439907,0.30009884],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89809406,0.0063657695,0.000011617825,0.09518292,0.00008671478,0.000024346587,0.000014610724,0.000009237122,0.00021070229],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991239,0.00006537532,0.00025066116,0.00011531785,0.00008225133,0.00036253146],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994702,0.00004240967,0.00015330235,0.00022932695,0.0000656799,0.00003908921],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013487367,0.000095567644,0.0003000976,0.00006903187,0.00011628137,0.000027046246,0.00017196703,0.000046535253,0.00016105999],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034009264,0.000065539934,0.00005993829,0.00038973804,0.00006067346,0.00027527416,0.000007632576,0.000086838605,0.000040078492],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[9.274836e-7,0.000008049928,0.0025760366,0.0012829439,0.0000033077142,0.0000018593212,0.000022916453,0.0000020932575,3.601684e-7,0.897064,0.098023504,0.0010140322],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013371081,0.0000027065093,0.018989002,0.0003992123,0.00002062254,0.0000012764747,0.000020485686,0.000056614237,3.87535e-7,0.004703291,0.9756016,0.000071069284],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5279393,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.858161,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8923607,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016749484,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008565332,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4752042},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2922812838","doi":"","title":"LE DROIT A L'EGALITE: INTERFACE ENTRE DROITS INDIVIDUELS ET DROITS COLLECTIFS","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Charter; Context (archaeology); Democracy; Fundamental rights; Law and economics; Constitutional court; Balance (ability); Sociology; Human rights; Constitution; Politics","score_opus":0.024654759271849094,"score_gpt":0.29872499166880034,"score_spread":0.2740702323969513,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2922812838","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0044862726,0.42828897,9.1026243e-7,0.32237703,0.00055496814,0.0016287343,0.00018989133,0.000051160958,0.24242209],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33182645,0.3061782,0.000059910974,0.01901107,0.0004416983,0.00014282772,0.000023564939,0.00005681974,0.34225947],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99522406,0.0015815196,0.0006458521,0.0005634192,0.0006641183,0.0013210475],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99783844,0.0002681325,0.00021519374,0.0004972366,0.00021144304,0.0009695658],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018987056,0.00046062155,0.00084703276,0.00005072076,0.002798208,0.0003357155,0.0011773376,0.00026819506,0.017617185],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005129324,0.0003824848,0.00038031064,0.0015136483,0.0012224632,0.00043618158,0.00009095842,0.0007295029,0.0050872844],"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":[0.00000780189,0.00008439244,0.00021929407,0.0014443082,0.00046689916,0.00006234975,0.040450074,0.000025075075,0.000002411821,0.37164038,0.41503274,0.17056428],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022918104,0.000038817303,0.0008410792,0.0040851757,0.00026272508,0.000021342712,0.0009733584,0.0000081609305,0.0000055549217,0.0018562512,0.9911916,0.0004867065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.821995,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9481547,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5761589,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0022003537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026098033,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99986273},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2924176290","doi":"","title":"GAITKEEPING IN CANADA: MIS-STEPS IN ASSESSING THE RELIABILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":12,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Reliability (semiconductor); Identification (biology); Law; Psychology; Political science","score_opus":0.08591931805928985,"score_gpt":0.4285089102597314,"score_spread":0.3425895922004416,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2924176290","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":[0.18706584,0.041983236,0.000012213385,0.7364254,0.00059956126,0.0029175,0.00001231801,0.000015605028,0.030968329],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96077305,0.003000329,0.000076079115,0.035806227,0.00010226,0.00012316948,0.0000037795544,0.00001318751,0.000101904385],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99483764,0.0032346987,0.0008759651,0.00021666926,0.0002857099,0.00054931367],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9939887,0.00449782,0.00024777933,0.00086044124,0.00011192531,0.00029335727],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0076757264,0.00012904742,0.000505296,0.00004304134,0.00031272226,0.0000071346844,0.00047729758,0.000083148196,0.00091122324],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017233703,0.00007301963,0.000043439144,0.00040440433,0.00011839975,0.0000896987,0.00003866648,0.0009426484,0.00004470506],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012819941,0.00007998336,0.67147034,0.01801636,0.000022711369,0.000039854465,0.008089709,0.000061746025,0.000017986134,0.0075092763,0.15004908,0.14463015],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014982063,0.000009228844,0.17389132,0.009947057,0.000018224444,0.000001188886,0.001790879,0.00043491743,0.0000014622933,0.0002913833,0.8133499,0.00011460427],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9989554,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99977756,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7737072,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0014848289,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008299906,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99772555},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2925623713","doi":"","title":"LA NOTION DE DOMMAGE DANS LE CADRE DU DÉLIT DE NÉGLIGENCE (COMMON LAW) ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EXTRACONTRACTUELLE DU FAIT PERSONNEL (DROIT CIVIL) AU CANADA:: UNE ÉTUDE EN DROIT COMPARÉ","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Law; Context (archaeology); Common law; Legal liability; Political science; Civil law (Civil law); Liability; Public law; Geography","score_opus":0.024838920584620713,"score_gpt":0.3547311123940081,"score_spread":0.3298921918093874,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2925623713","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":[0.3472266,0.03341813,0.0004646718,0.5357287,0.0007264063,0.0023625535,0.00035863876,0.00007053637,0.07964378],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.940459,0.017417274,0.00034429863,0.03769487,0.0011500927,0.00017081188,0.000039724568,0.000083132916,0.0026408085],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9749089,0.021029813,0.0010846509,0.00060480175,0.0005303965,0.0018414475],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9856715,0.010114373,0.0004272035,0.0013041665,0.00023438768,0.002248329],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","sts","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.024466546,0.00048170233,0.0009874813,0.000069157075,0.0023278948,0.00008223459,0.0011871753,0.0007310315,0.0044334577],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009930918,0.00044488092,0.00022589951,0.00045628182,0.0015796069,0.00031621323,0.00013598005,0.0027869367,0.00040225143],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016003891,0.00039099276,0.02403897,0.012288916,0.00020760244,0.0009702784,0.081686735,0.0000341125,0.00008708036,0.75105256,0.11569524,0.013387459],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004237701,0.00009438188,0.08283605,0.0075870627,0.00040224325,0.00026305314,0.007477005,0.00042371012,0.000016643964,0.0038082951,0.89622325,0.00044456846],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9977513,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.780528,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008386807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.029899137,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998003},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2931356137","doi":"","title":"WHITHER JUDICIAL REVIEW","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial review; Supreme court; Political science; Law; Consistency (knowledge bases); Economic Justice; Administrative law; Judicial activism; Standard of review; Remedial education; Action (physics); Law and economics; Judicial deference; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.043854095294708524,"score_gpt":0.3552670090950194,"score_spread":0.3114129138003109,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2931356137","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000091934315,0.34934917,4.1737837e-7,0.4156669,0.00043907983,0.00057485787,0.000004653622,0.000019798435,0.23385319],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.057275698,0.8160811,0.00004395567,0.11907808,0.00091033144,0.00005356938,0.0000032919006,0.000016987407,0.006537003],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998905,0.0002041179,0.00017227377,0.00013176294,0.0002462096,0.00034064148],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99904704,0.000060261485,0.00005569708,0.000361031,0.00008786162,0.00038812243],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022705276,0.00008282569,0.00020912568,0.00001530269,0.0007716659,0.000043258566,0.0005707221,0.000046635505,0.009127637],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00088966487,0.000055761895,0.000095749194,0.00024631468,0.00028015103,0.000084688974,0.000015416983,0.00026192283,0.0021353841],"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":[3.3475277e-7,0.000002684228,0.00007057803,0.0011254523,0.000005343549,0.000009248138,0.00031438816,6.879774e-9,0.0000025707766,0.20921168,0.7065631,0.082694575],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010447637,0.000003425661,0.00019405766,0.0045377607,0.00007089966,0.000004879401,0.000016256203,7.7842024e-8,3.9854666e-7,0.0007993521,0.99427813,0.000084330044],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46412733,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.973519,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.50939167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007944767,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010256374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99864155},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2933483557","doi":"","title":"SHOULD DETERRENCE BE A SENTENCING PRINCIPLE UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Deterrence (psychology); Criminology; Criminal justice; Political science; Legislature; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Law; Deterrence theory; Sentencing guidelines; Psychology","score_opus":0.15455318289423123,"score_gpt":0.38679247640192294,"score_spread":0.2322392935076917,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2933483557","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":[0.5479135,0.14075592,0.0051641786,0.17607296,0.0032635406,0.003348874,0.000060165912,0.0002490526,0.12317185],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9646461,0.0130824605,0.000036873807,0.021129897,0.0003468714,0.000010767872,0.0000041637545,0.000010574264,0.0007322989],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984076,0.00024328554,0.000246321,0.00018907289,0.00038466454,0.00052907015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987709,0.00025304215,0.000094461495,0.00040072371,0.00014502888,0.00033584982],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029229901,0.00012182237,0.00017641309,0.000066324086,0.002288065,0.00011942541,0.00058850786,0.000051551262,0.00045990062],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045345575,0.000073739655,0.00015590688,0.00068327115,0.00025253015,0.00009392502,0.000032561424,0.00028293772,0.000107764776],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024843279,0.00006870973,0.0010630443,0.0018047467,0.00026526593,0.00013692092,0.20845696,0.00014730157,0.000018347462,0.09449883,0.0077890023,0.68572605],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040665596,0.00001754961,0.0009419487,0.0006758338,0.0050800093,0.000020637683,0.60877025,0.000051047813,0.0000047335684,0.000047940524,0.38412654,0.00022281491],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6981174,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9885372,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6855032,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00045170964,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00090917497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9990108},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2936389928","doi":"","title":"“EXISTING” ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN SECTION 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Indigenous rights; Political science; Fundamental rights; Constitution; Common law; Indigenous; Reservation of rights; International human rights law; Right to property; Section (typography); Linguistic rights; Human rights; Ex post facto law; Business","score_opus":0.022144553323193313,"score_gpt":0.31653540269488556,"score_spread":0.29439084937169224,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2936389928","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":[0.039765347,0.012606671,0.0000028309667,0.028811688,0.00080679456,0.001405659,0.000024156589,0.000023630002,0.9165532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99294317,0.003586332,0.000009615795,0.0018672433,0.00021405278,0.0000045273996,0.000002831108,0.000001803914,0.001370403],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990052,0.00025265382,0.00018576949,0.000096366246,0.00018762324,0.0002724076],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995232,0.000027990456,0.00009470395,0.00019350044,0.000058688416,0.00010191462],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00094246195,0.000070219234,0.00015118065,0.000035775454,0.0012795158,0.00002791798,0.00028931114,0.000053872835,0.00027833946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000041523374,0.000036506484,0.00006289813,0.00039505816,0.00030192902,0.00006904642,0.000002540679,0.00015168251,0.000025588803],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.0473325e-7,0.0000063995494,0.00015830026,0.00003689296,0.000002547519,0.0000031328104,0.0021969513,0.0000019506963,0.000002255606,0.9929598,0.0017967685,0.0028341878],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040175415,0.0000095808255,0.0026931316,0.00063291285,0.00001913233,0.000004251191,0.00002937021,0.0000011848662,0.000008533474,0.0030948212,0.99340713,0.0000597532],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8490423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.993347,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9916104,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043783616,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0020350064,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98411304},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2937180997","doi":"","title":"SECTION 9 AND SECOND FAMILIES","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Underemployment; Spouse; Section (typography); Unemployment; Argument (complex analysis); Relevance (law); Scale (ratio); Child support; Economics; Sociology; Labour economics; Demographic economics; Public economics; Political science; Law; Economic growth; Business; Geography; Medicine","score_opus":0.0689438864642507,"score_gpt":0.3153809800479768,"score_spread":0.24643709358372612,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2937180997","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.041357208,0.40173662,5.855191e-7,0.17714481,0.00076720794,0.0011482855,0.000017951275,0.00006396734,0.37776336],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85170954,0.11991415,0.000049710354,0.011518705,0.0006845662,0.00005119371,0.000003922724,0.000011169616,0.016057031],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99931866,0.00018224836,0.000082601655,0.0000857587,0.00013731286,0.00019341214],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99947995,0.000034127235,0.000028759072,0.00008052621,0.000084015395,0.00029261876],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007777912,0.00005977981,0.00012270185,0.000011222498,0.0008006692,0.000050746046,0.00011342319,0.000034028584,0.000270551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003883617,0.000036905887,0.0000262581,0.00012655224,0.0002503026,0.00008762413,0.00001615616,0.00008442565,0.00011414099],"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":[0.0000018153747,0.000005179453,0.0036462604,0.00051740283,0.00007083683,0.000008143656,0.06327782,6.029465e-7,0.0000031513093,0.061278258,0.7937862,0.0774043],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003275171,0.0000049261303,0.0029465507,0.00011320986,0.00001704573,0.0000012589693,0.0024212282,4.5285157e-7,4.022153e-7,0.00022980968,0.99417347,0.000058919362],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5982376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9723529,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8103523,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00034253593,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024555167,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6158181},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2938792628","doi":"","title":"THE ENFORCEMENT OF MULTI-TIERED DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","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":"Arbitration; Negotiation; Enforcement; Tribunal; Dispute resolution; Mediation; Online dispute resolution; Business; Dispute mechanism; Law and economics; Alternative dispute resolution; Law; Arbitration clause; Process (computing); Compliance (psychology); Resolution (logic); Political science; Compulsory arbitration; Economics; Computer science","score_opus":0.0336933488878995,"score_gpt":0.25695810104075695,"score_spread":0.22326475215285746,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2938792628","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":[0.002381528,0.024833247,0.00008699436,0.06487916,0.00169376,0.0019610093,0.00002064892,0.00002930432,0.90411437],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9441715,0.0045090155,0.000047665635,0.049904726,0.00012908422,0.000051704894,0.000045448596,0.0000098030205,0.0011310622],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99924254,0.00003131848,0.00029928974,0.0000869922,0.0001852974,0.00015456384],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99951226,0.000032592627,0.00015777539,0.00014701425,0.00013396845,0.000016384785],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00071188906,0.00007741421,0.00009952987,0.00006763579,0.00017123889,0.00008832022,0.00026537981,0.000019584151,0.0006475467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003414636,0.000047054575,0.00005106386,0.00014302979,0.00006424506,0.00024739082,0.000016047448,0.00007939043,0.00012786686],"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":[0.0000025752681,0.000009884468,0.000267492,0.000048924172,0.000014485246,0.0000011623931,0.000009569489,0.000019779303,0.000005715448,0.9921117,0.006799634,0.0007091175],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021167363,0.0000020925931,0.0016762844,0.00032527954,0.000014570614,9.778474e-7,0.000016803246,0.0013668766,0.000012505559,0.0017007713,0.9946133,0.00005890216],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.039060876,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.28053638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99041086,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00013452511,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000989159,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9673381},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2939098456","doi":"","title":"TOWARDS A COSTS JURISPRUDENCE IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Public interest; Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Commonwealth; Context (archaeology); Political science; Economic Justice; Law; Law and economics; Economics; Geography","score_opus":0.09088388749194683,"score_gpt":0.35427415455647293,"score_spread":0.2633902670645261,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2939098456","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":[0.0067456495,0.014331626,0.000023132481,0.84181714,0.00007240812,0.00086550956,0.000014471997,0.000025132942,0.13610494],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97801435,0.015249467,0.00004426003,0.006285237,0.0000685337,0.000072812625,0.000004902003,0.0000044484837,0.00025600783],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99928474,0.0001061929,0.00014129705,0.000105651525,0.000121392804,0.00024069964],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99944025,0.000020618942,0.0000378304,0.00019840126,0.000053535783,0.0002493827],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00086890464,0.00005072122,0.00009278188,0.00003478345,0.0003578884,0.00009675239,0.0004018111,0.000032914024,0.00022191406],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031647793,0.000038895225,0.000035735873,0.00044785623,0.00013643468,0.0001295243,0.000018127728,0.000121108475,0.0003422428],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.330613e-8,0.0000033223007,0.00006300636,0.000024176989,0.0000011017548,0.0000014273218,0.00041763863,2.8871446e-7,6.466582e-7,0.9786804,0.0006703677,0.020137595],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000037057955,0.0000028568045,0.0021473602,0.0005373294,0.00000436594,9.4929544e-7,0.00008149026,7.629718e-7,0.0000020652376,0.0053137136,0.991817,0.000055042852],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5667517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98407614,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911466,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010480034,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018645177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4398953},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2941074681","doi":"","title":"TO BE OR NOT TO BE?: SOME LEGAL ETHICS FOR JUDICIAL LAW CLERKS","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Legislation; Facilitator; Legal ethics; Principal (computer security); Practice of law; Political science; Judicial opinion; Legal profession; Sociology; Computer science","score_opus":0.4333036997660276,"score_gpt":0.4785080265117015,"score_spread":0.04520432674567387,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2941074681","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00012891543,0.0005504374,0.000016707,0.88233554,0.0006715117,0.0011359025,0.00006292239,0.000019427567,0.115078606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07766518,0.0013380272,0.00068687706,0.91060203,0.00068501517,0.00018527679,0.000010354426,0.000017010247,0.008810254],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987886,0.00026087917,0.0002248259,0.0001512999,0.00023373375,0.00034066307],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984964,0.00033069187,0.00006670703,0.0002685715,0.0003108297,0.0005268157],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002866068,0.00008333509,0.0001554455,0.000056369954,0.0014233134,0.00014012276,0.00044643114,0.00009152927,0.0030639134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0042758463,0.00006265841,0.000056081048,0.00056073134,0.000104830964,0.00032252155,0.000016968455,0.00037696815,0.00041950287],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005655074,0.0000056360695,8.8899117e-7,0.00003663764,0.0000060090506,7.044677e-7,0.014712022,8.297244e-8,6.064344e-7,0.80212444,0.18075152,0.0023558056],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003290524,0.000029957791,0.0000495486,0.00012170935,0.00003789449,9.3482197e-7,0.0008497991,2.1907418e-7,0.0000056623344,0.0014468896,0.9973178,0.00010671829],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7537497,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9805672,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8165662,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002621334,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0057992046,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998767},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2942745695","doi":"","title":"L'UNION HOMOSEXUELLE ET LE CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC: DE L'IGNORANCE A LA RECONNAISSANCE?","year":2002,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Legislature; Ignorance; Silence; Political science; Law; Legislation; Civil law (Civil law); Civil liberties; Sociology; Public law; Philosophy","score_opus":0.053597448072913764,"score_gpt":0.2911875712746566,"score_spread":0.23759012320174283,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2942745695","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00058857107,0.46067277,0.000004893335,0.42993197,0.00036047187,0.00063992734,0.00004251205,0.000027190817,0.107731715],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.340517,0.58441925,0.00007748261,0.016841847,0.0004568935,0.00013971407,0.00000508516,0.00003094753,0.057511736],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99567163,0.0024785814,0.0003625069,0.0003354574,0.00028860325,0.0008632494],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99843955,0.00030859836,0.00018512373,0.00035490128,0.0001467802,0.0005650306],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025725716,0.00029070248,0.0005226223,0.000021617778,0.0021713648,0.0001786385,0.00069218193,0.00018240497,0.0044132667],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006891198,0.00022653883,0.0002306024,0.0005796354,0.0014047623,0.000325226,0.00005589416,0.00047987883,0.0013545232],"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":[7.8390826e-7,0.000043137068,0.00041026023,0.0008718465,0.0000769186,0.00004370651,0.016538218,0.000005632748,0.000002512923,0.16438335,0.6819091,0.13571455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015573895,0.000013956279,0.0011235242,0.0030087873,0.00009403512,0.00001786668,0.0013644366,0.000063445696,0.0000020349978,0.00043917916,0.9934079,0.00030909068],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91900134,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99635005,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4130901,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0013361218,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006724486,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999423},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2943695129","doi":"","title":"ENFORCEABILITY OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS IN THE WAKE OF GOSSELIN: ROOM FOR CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Justiciability; Political science; Supreme court; Social rights; Context (archaeology); Optimism; Law; Human rights; Psychology; Social psychology","score_opus":0.04081102600490723,"score_gpt":0.32143117250879294,"score_spread":0.2806201465038857,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2943695129","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":[0.5336148,0.094778165,0.000006656947,0.33657444,0.00034887603,0.007870849,0.000315139,0.000023837385,0.02646719],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9954876,0.0036157435,0.00006107579,0.0006457322,0.00006962442,0.000043928398,0.000002774712,0.0000025765978,0.00007097387],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991708,0.00016738473,0.0002526832,0.000102169026,0.000097729375,0.00020923514],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99953663,0.00014061292,0.0001065299,0.000109561995,0.00005171543,0.000054930057],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013841034,0.00007464776,0.00027043614,0.000011591274,0.0006419601,0.000014578895,0.00026855493,0.00004992204,0.000042108524],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012929524,0.000041064755,0.00009145419,0.00007030051,0.00046089687,0.000049189322,0.000012748858,0.00007355209,0.000004127768],"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":[0.0000062448444,0.000022247426,0.00051688077,0.0010907569,0.00006906602,0.0000013306213,0.09523999,0.000056720906,0.0000032166938,0.89293706,0.0036793018,0.0063771736],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006146993,0.000049731705,0.013576415,0.0005534842,0.00015996696,0.0000019247198,0.0041311756,0.000008667021,0.000012963105,0.024728622,0.95590967,0.00025269017],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.72992015,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95258945,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95223033,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00046648033,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00034803335,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4937503},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2944527804","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - A REVIEW ESSAY: PROBING THE BLACK BOX - AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE TACKLES JUDICIAL AGENDA SETTING BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Political science; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.05781270026438395,"score_gpt":0.38242304214531847,"score_spread":0.3246103418809345,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2944527804","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[8.576441e-9,0.62826884,5.7215783e-7,0.34588122,0.00027355403,0.0035007102,0.00020089495,0.000014858564,0.021859312],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.000002312855,0.81481475,0.000010826857,0.18221004,0.0003675906,0.00031521075,0.000093536626,0.00004299574,0.0021427574],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9916743,0.0032226136,0.0017594156,0.000585911,0.0016540856,0.0011036517],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99383813,0.0008742775,0.0028835945,0.0011600194,0.0008292268,0.00041476835],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.013651908,0.0005526646,0.0021807954,0.00009812405,0.0056485017,0.0003107508,0.0035185376,0.00010255221,0.0019870254],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0051314784,0.000307968,0.0005203836,0.0053855865,0.004061348,0.00040973802,0.00013874673,0.0017156518,0.000086643086],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.4711227e-7,0.0000060714497,8.2395005e-8,0.042603217,0.000047137913,0.0000017966001,0.0005379589,3.024493e-8,1.1969312e-8,0.006052466,0.7387556,0.21199548],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020588799,0.0000061590317,9.2059076e-7,0.19406098,0.00128591,0.000014401865,0.00015783565,1.0209539e-7,3.259462e-8,0.000023520895,0.80413365,0.000295872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9100106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90571684,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21169962,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0041287765,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1273708,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99993724},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945248121","doi":"","title":"THE SHORT LIFE AND LONG AFTER LIFE OF CHARITABLE IMMUNITY IN THE COMMON LAW","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Tort; Law; Common law; Sovereign immunity; Argument (complex analysis); Unconscionability; Political science; Liability; Damages; Law and economics; Sociology; Economics; Constitution","score_opus":0.044480520706335964,"score_gpt":0.31304104353315926,"score_spread":0.2685605228268233,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945248121","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.101740755,0.38228235,0.0000020021655,0.22310911,0.00008229794,0.002306235,0.00003678951,0.000011067473,0.2904294],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9625463,0.02833813,0.0000030679157,0.008837837,0.000021466089,0.00007173669,9.2608025e-7,0.000003313456,0.0001772083],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989709,0.0004959997,0.00015694716,0.00006188457,0.000119630866,0.0001945938],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992984,0.00016194033,0.00003063572,0.0003381212,0.000028573797,0.00014234931],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025489733,0.00004996458,0.000115167015,0.0000073798014,0.0009134822,0.00006600529,0.00039026115,0.000025608886,0.000091195456],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018763289,0.000025043188,0.000032925727,0.00020749572,0.00033686994,0.000048119076,0.000017414628,0.00015674543,0.000014755143],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[4.5394492e-7,0.0000053972035,0.0035205993,0.00005222351,0.000005203022,6.7863346e-7,0.0014045323,2.3315287e-7,1.9576795e-7,0.99174374,0.001501537,0.0017652158],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017610484,0.000002835696,0.013402165,0.0001099012,0.000014363834,6.7745793e-7,0.00049087673,0.0000010038984,4.8659746e-7,0.0016611759,0.9842574,0.000041489344],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4259312,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9565184,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99008256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000045638477,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00040660353,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70258594},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945877519","doi":"","title":"USING COPYRIGHT LAW TO PREVENT PARALLEL IMPORTATION: A COMMENT ON KRAFT CANADA, INC. V. EURO EXCELLENCE, INC.","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Supreme court; Law; Legislature; Copyright law; Legislative history; Excellence; Political science; Business; Intellectual property; Economics","score_opus":0.06868688414945506,"score_gpt":0.32832721913259605,"score_spread":0.259640334983141,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945877519","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0016492335,0.021006353,0.00007718999,0.4112066,0.0010667115,0.005011465,0.000084468404,0.0000617145,0.55983627],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5621387,0.0034284075,0.00037238325,0.42808676,0.0003941461,0.000052308147,0.000026276604,0.0000473004,0.005453758],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976269,0.000416653,0.00041841264,0.0002519601,0.0005908553,0.0006952138],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983452,0.00019258176,0.00010548582,0.00039662726,0.00017061987,0.0007894939],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023355575,0.00018146534,0.00027391544,0.000053304517,0.001493419,0.00006731391,0.00061945553,0.000060503986,0.002290687],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021667664,0.00013052493,0.000052251926,0.00039877935,0.00019273582,0.00006640757,0.00003610296,0.00023356536,0.00032559453],"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":[0.0000084634,0.000025725996,0.000014531428,0.00014807805,0.000030126332,0.00008884952,0.0025931536,0.00003515375,0.000003242031,0.19172047,0.801471,0.0038611954],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045085995,0.000033137956,0.000017761387,0.0006362833,0.00002982844,0.000003789722,0.00014357797,0.000016291524,0.000025547752,0.00018385689,0.998671,0.00019386198],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9970317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99982977,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5604894,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0021688626,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0033067246,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998065},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2945979223","doi":"","title":"CANADIAN MILITARY LAW SENTENCING UNDER THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT: PERSPECTIVES AND MUSINGS OF A FORMER SOLDIER","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Military and Defense 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":"Law; Military justice; Tribunal; Appeal; Political science; Charter","score_opus":0.038255671892414564,"score_gpt":0.29293163488073265,"score_spread":0.25467596298831807,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2945979223","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022810249,0.46283796,0.0000023848202,0.10017679,0.0001309439,0.00082256953,0.00005265796,0.000010300304,0.41315612],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9574299,0.028964877,0.000041710875,0.01298171,0.00004488609,0.000012845819,8.9322583e-7,0.0000055480687,0.0005176148],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99887305,0.00027249038,0.00014646896,0.00014619184,0.00023046623,0.0003313481],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99923795,0.00015771684,0.000031950047,0.00012511239,0.00019405648,0.00025319093],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014897283,0.000092061375,0.00016014885,0.000037916318,0.0017923529,0.00001327286,0.00016629044,0.000033398315,0.0004122782],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00043364952,0.000057244022,0.00006616323,0.00023133893,0.000774625,0.0001125038,0.000010824425,0.00011388589,0.000016888373],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[7.621581e-7,0.0000028395261,0.00030079865,0.000099695106,0.00004359881,0.0000020093055,0.025411354,0.000002539345,0.000001333029,0.96388835,0.009737536,0.000509171],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061228704,0.000010907344,0.0024158838,0.00045432535,0.000069601854,0.000011937663,0.046918616,0.0000033864726,0.0000015764798,0.016583918,0.93330866,0.0001599419],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97447914,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9992509,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9473044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043956982,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017493322,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995072},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946065876","doi":"","title":"Assessing Tort Damages in the Conflict of Laws: Loci, Fori, Illogical","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Punitive damages; Damages; Tort; Law; Jurisdiction; Plaintiff; Choice of law; Conflict of laws; Common law; Delict; Political science; Business; Law and economics; Economics; Private law; Liability; Comparative law; Black letter law","score_opus":0.1375191178248268,"score_gpt":0.39347463436927543,"score_spread":0.25595551654444865,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946065876","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":[0.035173953,0.041020613,0.000013393319,0.3520917,0.00006676401,0.0024387725,0.000015530084,0.00001997366,0.56915927],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.981877,0.008474072,0.000034206452,0.008944503,0.000072354065,0.00008306564,0.0000032641697,0.0000036119714,0.00050791673],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99917215,0.0002375931,0.00016369103,0.0000792652,0.00015023182,0.0001970875],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99943024,0.0001187662,0.000056568442,0.00023884857,0.000053930187,0.000101648555],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012275586,0.000050100083,0.00012771861,0.000013115639,0.0003770373,0.00010700987,0.000498214,0.000033626842,0.0007051425],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017244698,0.000026401669,0.000048666843,0.00023675087,0.00021943367,0.00012181355,0.000015680744,0.000115734925,0.000099403296],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.840966e-8,0.000010723826,0.0011567808,0.00010563884,0.0000058274136,0.0000017801718,0.0026190763,8.85505e-7,0.000006741025,0.9374143,0.02727117,0.03140698],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018131683,0.0000027818126,0.014254495,0.00014217691,0.000009905544,5.231547e-7,0.0008216589,0.000003275577,6.9004136e-7,0.0009960314,0.983709,0.000041329557],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4976471,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5779408,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9564378,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008463312,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00035448527,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77208155},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946087818","doi":"","title":"LA DEDUCTIBILITE DES FRAIS JURIDIQUES EN MATIERE DE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE : LES ENJEUX FISCAUX SOULEVES PAR LA POLITIQUE ADMINISTRATIVE","year":2008,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legislature; Equity (law); Context (archaeology); Tax law; Government (linguistics); Political science; Law; Economic Justice; Agency (philosophy); Law and economics; Public administration; Welfare economics; Economics; Sociology; Double taxation; Geography","score_opus":0.04389745135742237,"score_gpt":0.3011548494339817,"score_spread":0.25725739807655934,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946087818","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08491394,0.46189016,0.000060726295,0.07371253,0.00014798607,0.00088521634,0.00009906283,0.000118683005,0.3781717],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8561675,0.12865222,0.000609411,0.005930674,0.000579948,0.00006146507,0.000030373885,0.000056022105,0.007912403],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974491,0.0010295499,0.00041498995,0.0003001671,0.00017259075,0.00063363154],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984669,0.00047128915,0.0002579096,0.00038776244,0.00022675208,0.00018938264],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018067298,0.00033422504,0.00045184145,0.00013156953,0.0008089868,0.00038802766,0.00046309622,0.0002657142,0.0023572927],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0016886923,0.00029195502,0.00020234782,0.00036985212,0.0010903776,0.000601812,0.00006041287,0.0005345559,0.00031300998],"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":[0.000007732873,0.00008448167,0.01315825,0.008562048,0.00013509231,0.00030325016,0.006142043,0.000004446995,0.00000807242,0.8376486,0.10180834,0.0321377],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010628009,0.000014165509,0.033524636,0.004685501,0.00017165404,0.00018814376,0.00096013106,0.000015108561,0.000029525523,0.019005435,0.9409714,0.0003280296],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.40705422,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.277137,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83916306,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00044649208,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018310716,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99995327},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946328909","doi":"","title":"L'INCLUSION DE LA LIBERTE SYNDICALE DANS LA LIBERTE GENERALE D'ASSOCIATION: UN PARI CONSTITUTIONEL PERDU?","year":2003,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Labor Movements and Unions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Freedom of association; Charter; Jurisprudence; Context (archaeology); Political science; Law; Sociology; Labour law; Interpretation (philosophy); Law and economics; Human rights; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.010514152046944997,"score_gpt":0.2604585177275832,"score_spread":0.24994436568063821,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946328909","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0046577756,0.309078,0.00007347723,0.20784742,0.0011669797,0.0008104104,0.00019405135,0.000040234012,0.47613165],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.21040593,0.51171345,0.0004446878,0.06910851,0.00069224794,0.000098754244,0.000044091517,0.00005650884,0.20743582],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99496263,0.0032199458,0.00036731825,0.0002706191,0.0004312457,0.0007482467],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998202,0.00035792775,0.00019598138,0.0003702236,0.00011253639,0.0007613215],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003980746,0.00021879925,0.0003518365,0.000040123847,0.0037843012,0.00017144065,0.0005060087,0.00029480524,0.0047569606],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00073468423,0.00017597234,0.00019039128,0.0006908682,0.00093520916,0.00017180688,0.00009123744,0.00040405383,0.00019153244],"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":[2.8083292e-7,0.000039825652,0.000835838,0.00007985953,0.00006901449,0.000041303316,0.0028702389,0.00000602418,0.000005952297,0.9228251,0.06410738,0.009119195],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000171106,0.000010795432,0.0023304834,0.00097605033,0.00029549495,0.000026888283,0.0001328128,0.000015071057,0.0000075739285,0.00735498,0.9884464,0.00023231872],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.24163218,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.49650028,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92433906,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0022084315,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0039000516,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99751264},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946350230","doi":"","title":"LE STATUT DES LANGUES AUTOCHTONES AU CANADA : LE CAS DE L’INUIT AU NUNAVUT","year":2009,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Political science; Legislation; Jurisdiction; Ethnology; Legislature; Population; Promotion (chess); Geography; Law; History; Sociology; Politics; Demography","score_opus":0.02389204770621831,"score_gpt":0.2551658302787616,"score_spread":0.2312737825725433,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946350230","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0060131596,0.4541542,0.0000016762665,0.27677503,0.0009792817,0.0005471436,0.000379883,0.000026748505,0.26112288],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5944811,0.14645499,0.000066043576,0.036756694,0.001683675,0.00003721662,0.000031239262,0.000053968437,0.22043507],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997311,0.0004964598,0.00032680863,0.00027402028,0.00034253096,0.0012491671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977649,0.00007664103,0.0001268792,0.00043392106,0.00010984973,0.0014878444],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010486979,0.00021454679,0.000415777,0.00013622305,0.0041254484,0.00024390519,0.00071777287,0.00013404473,0.0013902425],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000286899,0.0002443407,0.00016683555,0.0006108282,0.0014265559,0.00023270297,0.000017760207,0.00032753102,0.0002801626],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000011194159,0.000014744239,0.00015473283,0.00068525324,0.00003893035,0.00024492492,0.01906018,0.000008360495,0.000001374875,0.5399939,0.37134844,0.068448074],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007312922,0.0000178639,0.009871878,0.0014592591,0.000117278694,0.000038000602,0.0008840112,0.0000019004776,9.5339965e-7,0.0016825732,0.9855555,0.00029761877],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99999875,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":1,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6142071,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.026862947,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.28448057,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995226},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946429698","doi":"","title":"LE DROIT CANADIEN DES BREVETS EN CAPSULE – PARTIE II","year":2009,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Patentability; Scope (computer science); Political science; Patent law; Law; Normative; State (computer science); Law and economics; Sociology; Intellectual property; Computer science","score_opus":0.022762561645108533,"score_gpt":0.2748898762452553,"score_spread":0.25212731460014676,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946429698","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006656081,0.3917681,0.0000020528153,0.381774,0.0005732899,0.0005861917,0.00005554685,0.00002365212,0.21856107],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69556224,0.21250747,0.000030631494,0.02056793,0.0007922539,0.000021369331,0.000014870298,0.000020547892,0.070482686],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978676,0.0004564945,0.00032421763,0.00025376742,0.00025083235,0.0008471051],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983795,0.000035025838,0.00010443922,0.00039982042,0.00010682774,0.0009743751],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015644517,0.00018605369,0.00034627612,0.000044856763,0.0025242001,0.00007912399,0.00052222627,0.00013620273,0.0021930058],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015711963,0.00017129538,0.00017057819,0.0005267317,0.0004896428,0.000214234,0.000021338405,0.0002511905,0.00039956108],"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":[5.8891305e-7,0.000016929804,0.000033050215,0.00017825654,0.000025000707,0.000032223947,0.005058065,0.000001884301,0.000002188894,0.5438092,0.05134135,0.39950132],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000074284355,0.000085436535,0.0030352024,0.0016179212,0.00012675532,0.000028048562,0.00013483758,0.000008252824,0.0000031345876,0.007924629,0.9867473,0.00021416172],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9626542,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9963375,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93540597,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0012311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003393651,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99877435},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946470317","doi":"","title":"Getting Respect: The Mature Minor’s Medical Treatment Decisions: A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services)","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Minor (academic); Medicine; Psychology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.02988983452082696,"score_gpt":0.3328846512147668,"score_spread":0.30299481669393985,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946470317","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.040904026,0.5735343,2.3378509e-7,0.3650775,0.00036630098,0.0011705135,0.000049537484,0.000017503617,0.018880077],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47515646,0.4521356,0.00021855564,0.07016245,0.001468526,0.000063329855,0.000035938698,0.00004636272,0.00071276963],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99850494,0.00016289644,0.00038358083,0.00021300519,0.00044582528,0.00028976728],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99796236,0.00042776123,0.00010485051,0.0007257502,0.00014586227,0.0006334309],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015440218,0.00016127995,0.0004078075,0.000054392207,0.0003541807,0.000022504586,0.00030465014,0.00021798282,0.00045753352],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009250521,0.000076784425,0.00009592568,0.00022623177,0.00016130964,0.000021906717,0.00004063299,0.0009955105,0.000036968562],"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":[0.00005679665,0.00011273346,0.008487936,0.010531116,0.0003999281,0.00041818654,0.004256135,1.5487797e-7,0.000054007665,0.0429235,0.06789554,0.864864],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002077865,0.00006355092,0.013141935,0.0041474565,0.0002333718,0.00024721178,0.00018154019,0.000011538949,0.0000044125704,0.00016412648,0.9815142,0.00008284766],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16605467,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.716192,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9136187,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000104444036,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000944706,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83949864},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946896408","doi":"","title":"MAKING THE CHOICE BETWEEN MERGER AND CONCURRENCY RULES IN TORT: A COMMENT ON YOUNG V. BELLA","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Issues in South Africa","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"BELLA; Supreme court; Tort; Law; Action (physics); Political science; Position (finance); Cause of action; Liability; Business","score_opus":0.06253256117679147,"score_gpt":0.3556093057262634,"score_spread":0.29307674454947197,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946896408","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012883217,0.3893173,9.1064567e-7,0.29919237,0.0004299724,0.0017885756,0.000075990356,0.000033993834,0.29627767],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98570186,0.0049895323,0.000012080449,0.008267517,0.0003622023,0.000034203633,0.0000047665912,0.000010097315,0.00061776204],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99849933,0.00048538207,0.00023029126,0.00015622962,0.00025386718,0.0003748756],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99921995,0.00027729725,0.000078119134,0.00027241392,0.000028851997,0.00012338243],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014125517,0.000109160756,0.00021225649,0.000033142853,0.00072704215,0.00008600675,0.0004531703,0.000047145546,0.00021522222],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00024561066,0.00006630118,0.00004442503,0.00025904167,0.0002866188,0.000050697752,0.00003533091,0.00022044059,0.00011499649],"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":[0.000001744966,0.00002235564,0.15599965,0.00044085426,0.00004557497,0.00002937735,0.042356063,0.0000028228424,5.7626204e-7,0.45637012,0.295834,0.04889689],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004273701,0.0000054125435,0.014815245,0.0006891913,0.000032268905,2.8843021e-7,0.00012197007,9.4598147e-7,1.9975924e-7,0.0005708421,0.98362887,0.0000920377],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.60463285,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7876844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9728186,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00035236223,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022646388,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5591894},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2946962158","doi":"","title":"RE-ARRANGING THE ARRANGEMENT LANDSCAPE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RE MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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; Test (biology); Law; Variety (cybernetics); Balancing test; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.07158653283137478,"score_gpt":0.31340565440114715,"score_spread":0.24181912156977237,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2946962158","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":[0.0008232337,0.020384219,0.000014867358,0.43098068,0.0002956492,0.0007169555,0.000029931378,0.000015333613,0.54673916],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95919085,0.03056643,0.000018820607,0.008331363,0.0002464393,0.00007602132,0.000008690502,0.0000074286313,0.0015539874],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99928415,0.0001546797,0.00016204185,0.000077444514,0.00016915247,0.00015251459],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993656,0.00005822497,0.000092017035,0.00031468924,0.00009608021,0.00007333272],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001365429,0.000051987463,0.00008119953,0.000023641585,0.0007503239,0.000030218185,0.0006140347,0.00002187361,0.0031881714],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000082229104,0.00002620008,0.00006510471,0.00018633406,0.0001561974,0.000047505113,0.000023935205,0.00009203104,0.000055424214],"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":[0.0000040311797,0.000019865181,0.0049937707,0.00011233037,0.00011290311,0.000001486185,0.04797572,0.0000011550623,0.00000675302,0.56450105,0.19240755,0.18986338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026974622,0.0000040962536,0.01154292,0.00014545195,0.00004155534,5.7615165e-7,0.0011861692,0.0000030885124,0.0000011954049,0.00078052783,0.9862308,0.000036664045],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16437975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7340671,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9583676,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008174237,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00022636037,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99772304},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947271353","doi":"","title":"STICKS AND CARROTS: RYLANDS V FLETCHER, CSR, AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HARM IN COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Law and Human Rights","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Harm; Corporate social responsibility; Context (archaeology); Plaintiff; Law; Business; Blueprint; Political science; Government (linguistics); Environmental law; Law and economics; Engineering; Liability; Economics","score_opus":0.021507896204997646,"score_gpt":0.22619013327094814,"score_spread":0.20468223706595048,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947271353","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":[0.91488755,0.03695713,0.000003863054,0.020699486,0.00020709645,0.0039615687,0.000084839405,0.000044579574,0.023153894],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9898338,0.0013228402,0.000010609012,0.0079487255,0.00017379872,0.00016440963,0.000057983623,0.00001563273,0.00047224652],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993125,0.000014573743,0.00020347763,0.00018425172,0.00006826543,0.00021692974],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99961686,0.000034853452,0.00006366272,0.00022004421,0.000018491011,0.000046078527],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003087218,0.0001286614,0.0002245081,0.000044105407,0.0003831013,0.00019795728,0.00012445672,0.00004012336,0.0009313806],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000004333851,0.00009024696,0.000033867564,0.000063934196,0.00015445564,0.00036362183,0.000043101885,0.00010797082,0.00011098553],"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":[0.000025784819,0.0001516829,0.087001644,0.00904105,0.00011509582,0.00001877769,0.00072931155,0.0000028432846,0.00007107473,0.6842196,0.099421665,0.11920147],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000296344,0.000007153241,0.05012273,0.00032915306,0.000092983864,0.0000032466203,0.000043013264,0.00015083134,7.3238516e-7,0.025283428,0.92348546,0.00018490912],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1401836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.69881415,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82406384,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008016446,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000026971094,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999819},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947337420","doi":"","title":"MOVING TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Charter; Political science; Modernization theory; Law; Sociology; Politics","score_opus":0.07014460930952837,"score_gpt":0.3263478769814064,"score_spread":0.256203267671878,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947337420","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":[0.004391948,0.21449506,0.0000029541025,0.4213625,0.00044355638,0.001352936,0.000014940664,0.000098700875,0.3578374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5688399,0.35420138,0.0001384195,0.035547838,0.0009932608,0.00010098708,0.000007105315,0.000028050374,0.040143065],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985714,0.00030996662,0.00017735091,0.0001599124,0.00027746498,0.00050391123],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920684,0.000089530455,0.000058919646,0.00020294696,0.00007209348,0.00036969074],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001067023,0.00011776602,0.00024420206,0.000017084958,0.0015310999,0.0000882132,0.00046771174,0.000054926044,0.0025633797],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007346587,0.00007550416,0.000110896115,0.00028871256,0.0002636849,0.00010223133,0.00003739621,0.00016343094,0.0008340395],"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":[0.000002921229,0.000017480614,0.007996794,0.00077442796,0.00017409929,0.00014604245,0.056713272,0.0000029710009,0.0000075257813,0.12220545,0.44244486,0.36951414],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003382302,0.0000034751163,0.002526123,0.00033650803,0.00003317887,0.0000021129927,0.0012713394,0.0000011556419,4.3355232e-7,0.00028379133,0.9953863,0.00012175176],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.75961185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9003747,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.56444794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007158311,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00030699227,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999439},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947375075","doi":"","title":"LAW REFORM AND ITS AGENCIES","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Comparative and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Commission; Mandate; Political science; Demise; Statutory law; Law; Public administration; Multidisciplinary approach; Democracy; Corporate governance; Politics; Management; Economics","score_opus":0.08047739241427969,"score_gpt":0.3440964757055375,"score_spread":0.26361908329125777,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947375075","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":[0.0028096493,0.13522418,1.6371622e-8,0.044258915,0.000027304784,0.00013812954,0.0000060942016,0.0000057120947,0.81753],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7566681,0.20063625,0.000002879415,0.013719652,0.00009868551,0.000014973208,0.0000013287782,0.0000025712625,0.028855553],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9995911,0.00006077064,0.00006765604,0.000058049085,0.00009882295,0.00012360122],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997732,0.00001955082,0.00001236028,0.00005722579,0.00004324937,0.00009440494],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00029635258,0.00003916852,0.00008324728,0.0000065667036,0.00078477233,0.000027726053,0.00013071748,0.0000102671665,0.003615096],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000026256344,0.000024546309,0.000022974138,0.000065607564,0.0001445222,0.000066934685,0.000006811182,0.000038906193,0.0004670216],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.9004547e-7,4.6025542e-7,0.0000059074528,0.000015809555,0.000006241489,8.713574e-7,0.0010120786,2.6776936e-8,1.2890649e-7,0.985441,0.0072827036,0.0062345737],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010566131,0.0000037665352,0.0003021626,0.0001521989,0.0000077811055,8.0928083e-7,0.000107153384,9.7975e-7,0.000001063178,0.0009938808,0.9983833,0.00003634436],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49001512,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96012646,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9911006,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022509287,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00014716288,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99729574},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947396960","doi":"","title":"POUR UNE RECONNAISSANCE ENCADREE DES DOMMAGES-INTERETS PUNITIFS EN DROIT PRIVE FRANCAIS CONTEMPORAIN, A L’INSTAR DU MODELE JURIDIQUE QUEBECOIS","year":2007,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Punitive damages; French; Damages; Law; Political science; Liability; Tort; Civil law (Civil law); Sociology; Humanities; Philosophy; Public law","score_opus":0.04410547934929361,"score_gpt":0.2961233634895897,"score_spread":0.2520178841402961,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947396960","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":[0.0053454493,0.23376971,0.00019792085,0.34587446,0.0008452917,0.0015399777,0.00019283188,0.000056940768,0.4121774],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8253314,0.124513395,0.00019912129,0.026517376,0.002068511,0.000058809797,0.000021440665,0.0000723543,0.021217601],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99550456,0.0013378214,0.000848694,0.000528826,0.00047054145,0.0013095371],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99672467,0.00053263194,0.00035646907,0.00060283684,0.0004977739,0.001285646],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.005056398,0.00047445428,0.00089459197,0.00010665232,0.001950643,0.00017059717,0.0012894454,0.00038992194,0.0019048387],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010471139,0.00041897,0.0004960936,0.0010739065,0.0022091419,0.00061618764,0.00007732926,0.0008855965,0.0011610115],"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":[0.000013356347,0.00004787074,0.00019656689,0.0010867522,0.00014171009,0.00030084376,0.022476278,0.0000012376634,0.000003168593,0.86627835,0.044636216,0.06481762],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024457264,0.000051189,0.000542272,0.0041352487,0.00013827132,0.000024831086,0.0007786551,0.000011105327,0.000008703698,0.16015671,0.8334208,0.00048764242],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8788977,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98220545,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8199859,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0023734276,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0042992667,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998262},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947740181","doi":"","title":"OVERCOMING THE BARRIERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CANADA","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","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":"Dispute resolution; Limiting; Resolution (logic); Political science; Alternative dispute resolution; Environmental planning; Environmental protection; Business; Geography; Law; Computer science; Engineering","score_opus":0.016246230771807826,"score_gpt":0.1890343635667311,"score_spread":0.17278813279492328,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947740181","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":[0.025118036,0.057406843,0.000024442725,0.62447107,0.0012836152,0.0027873837,0.0000811564,0.000055991088,0.28877145],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9220906,0.0026503652,0.0000033535018,0.074212946,0.00017224156,0.000050382227,0.000009074237,0.0000140986185,0.0007969695],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990912,0.0000283784,0.00019367978,0.00014753343,0.00019449265,0.00034470868],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99950415,0.000019857187,0.00005627442,0.0003107756,0.00000890072,0.000100060206],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00027650787,0.00011222924,0.00012945788,0.000063665895,0.0005396126,0.00008853005,0.0003292233,0.000018449919,0.0039194836],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000103424754,0.000074398966,0.00005049347,0.00036500432,0.00003444268,0.00018554831,0.00005086043,0.00015055711,0.0007195558],"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":[0.0000023218477,0.000009878097,0.006141947,0.0002272778,0.00002523734,0.000027820224,0.00006483364,0.00028136786,0.000006058485,0.048610244,0.9012369,0.04336613],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005683061,8.077243e-7,0.011401033,0.00021756212,0.000025644036,0.00000299905,0.00011007267,0.0018278352,1.413234e-7,0.000026549942,0.986227,0.00010356479],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98404974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99936557,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89697254,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011962892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023307405,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9969911},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947788385","doi":"","title":"L'EFFICACITE EN DROIT QUEBECOIS D'UNE CONVENTION D'ARBITRAGE OU D'ELECTION DE FOR INVOQUEE A L'ENCONTRE D'UN APPEL EN GARANTIE","year":2004,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Political science; Law; Arbitration; Convention; Appeal; Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Jurisprudence","score_opus":0.015452921952930805,"score_gpt":0.28063631076907675,"score_spread":0.26518338881614595,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947788385","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005988066,0.44837555,0.006089894,0.51170945,0.0028982381,0.005403809,0.00021751453,0.00013702316,0.019180426],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4221571,0.50690275,0.0007831837,0.024425475,0.0037079158,0.0006244307,0.00017462218,0.00015454194,0.041069947],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99722695,0.0006835396,0.0005415395,0.00038963385,0.00029622612,0.0008621255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984473,0.00016423398,0.00024641206,0.00035777688,0.00021783085,0.00056644704],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002931875,0.00028642005,0.00049356057,0.000106366504,0.0011693165,0.00014310161,0.00042922702,0.00032142684,0.0007078569],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00037675037,0.00027384853,0.00046842883,0.0007458636,0.00028580005,0.0002859507,0.000017190996,0.00043804158,0.00026900938],"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":[0.000019823698,0.00007877634,0.000064104155,0.0017528863,0.00022133657,0.000018266242,0.008181375,0.000042804397,0.00003740694,0.4335129,0.013434223,0.5426361],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005864754,0.00009859497,0.0011424837,0.003019732,0.0005850347,0.00002772271,0.00021873177,0.0000723989,0.000041933592,0.015015482,0.97887176,0.00031967048],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7663517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95154166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96543753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0025332826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002313389,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999714},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2947861528","doi":"","title":"LA RECEPTION JUDICIAIRE DES DIRECTIVES ENCADRANT LES ACTIVITES CLINIQUES DES MEDECINS","year":2012,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Clinical practice guidelines implementation","field":"Medicine","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Context (archaeology); Liability; Expression (computer science); Discipline; Law; Sociology; Political science; Epistemology; Philosophy; Computer science; History","score_opus":0.40099887666441,"score_gpt":0.5177224681921302,"score_spread":0.11672359152772022,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2947861528","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04330954,0.8663584,0.0001996984,0.07294104,0.001184483,0.0016234274,0.00009869298,0.00006228451,0.01422245],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.46430495,0.52581334,0.0011742302,0.0060270554,0.0015233603,0.00006935529,0.00005399746,0.000053613807,0.000980082],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99408925,0.0030915535,0.0012072308,0.00031505036,0.00034865623,0.00094828295],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9932057,0.004373824,0.00045096397,0.00056101097,0.00035584893,0.0010526533],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.009686965,0.0003473117,0.00071228645,0.000118744094,0.00074063474,0.000063884305,0.00024963793,0.00025047065,0.005135574],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020918595,0.00026084957,0.0002842049,0.0004964333,0.0012600224,0.00083574903,0.000054222284,0.0007972795,0.00094926014],"study_design_candidate":"design_other","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":[0.000022316883,0.000104138846,0.02383594,0.0025563934,0.00016027692,0.000015784975,0.001617018,3.4564516e-7,0.000049873997,0.0022726587,0.018452818,0.9509124],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032755107,0.00014782668,0.12555802,0.018300738,0.0017610723,0.0002595367,0.001109917,0.000011074725,0.000098063785,0.0014291347,0.8507145,0.00028256228],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26409855,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.61902153,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9506299,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001556417,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012057909,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999844},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948013211","doi":"","title":"SECONDARY RESEARCH USE OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES AND DATA IN QUEBEC","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics in Clinical Research","field":"Medicine","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":"Dignity; Biological materials; Biological data; Internet privacy; Medicine; Data science; Computer science; Political science; Biology; Law; Bioinformatics","score_opus":0.8836934945689816,"score_gpt":0.6250013745908949,"score_spread":0.2586921199780867,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948013211","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.20937134,0.44893646,0.0000031039226,0.32408038,0.000077688324,0.0029075933,0.0006005291,0.00001658988,0.014006314],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62593883,0.358453,0.0007494276,0.00819031,0.0002183367,0.000031724758,0.0003089007,0.000026128357,0.006083342],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99793726,0.00062883156,0.00039245622,0.0002879345,0.0004125573,0.00034095315],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98976266,0.008301026,0.000036701436,0.0013839124,0.00024349375,0.00027222515],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012514449,0.00006653469,0.00034005375,0.00010996536,0.00008351971,0.000025164254,0.00049463776,0.00015357089,0.00040054668],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026369799,0.000039374074,0.000028159238,0.0003572775,0.00094600604,0.00004513953,0.00028388636,0.0015471138,0.00003360004],"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":[0.000076359145,0.00013315801,0.17339917,0.013218515,0.000063244,0.0004074454,0.00011614728,2.8340327e-7,0.00017572385,0.3216623,0.14590289,0.34484476],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019393866,0.00006415943,0.21332502,0.0043771463,0.000014461103,0.000015121824,0.000017372657,0.0000057044986,0.000007817115,0.008428021,0.773494,0.00005724605],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92683613,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99485177,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6275911,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014907143,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0029362873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9818315},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948036181","doi":"","title":"THE CAPABLE MINOR’S HEALTHCARE: WHO DECIDES?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Jurisdiction; Statute; Legislation; Law; Common law; Political science; State (computer science); Minor (academic); Health care","score_opus":0.07458406773120137,"score_gpt":0.35076695348855363,"score_spread":0.2761828857573523,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948036181","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0011161651,0.5340816,7.210077e-7,0.44677445,0.00023541,0.0007995143,0.0000118079215,0.000018377243,0.016961943],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.15465203,0.7286599,0.00008398951,0.091533914,0.00059958256,0.00007721783,0.000017564209,0.000037869777,0.024337923],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981041,0.0002561151,0.00041697893,0.00021671485,0.0003817829,0.00062433525],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997464,0.00028824987,0.00009159286,0.0009382875,0.00028631705,0.00093154935],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016632198,0.00016007845,0.00040184232,0.00004062022,0.0014844758,0.00002415998,0.00035360423,0.00012787653,0.00035544124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008966461,0.00008526115,0.00013415971,0.0003787227,0.0002629051,0.000033911427,0.000025891311,0.00086162705,0.00044463263],"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":[0.000008671885,0.000008847944,0.0037344897,0.00328248,0.000045000193,0.00024958458,0.001175555,3.0819083e-7,3.5176336e-7,0.042367317,0.9197111,0.029416267],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000102499114,0.00005352555,0.003050019,0.001246509,0.000059856236,0.0004049653,0.000025725894,0.0000058069727,0.0000014056609,0.00033277067,0.99462104,0.00009587892],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44859177,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5878673,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.35524055,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004375351,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0037533415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99981546},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948381335","doi":"","title":"THE IMPROBABLE RISE AND FALL OF AUCKLAND HARBOUR BOARD V THE KING","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Thompson Rivers University","funders":"","keywords":"Appropriation; Parliament; Jurisdiction; Law; Order (exchange); Political science; Public administration; Business; Politics; Finance","score_opus":0.019927657800610347,"score_gpt":0.28244493700424594,"score_spread":0.2625172792036356,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948381335","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":[0.047582924,0.31772357,0.0000038332764,0.43136328,0.00021965631,0.0029681975,0.000037802947,0.000022274387,0.20007846],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9203845,0.071225,0.000011532762,0.002419732,0.00008704584,0.000038266895,5.634781e-7,0.000006926783,0.0058263824],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993622,0.00012836042,0.00011668349,0.000078870464,0.00011636145,0.00019752842],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99935997,0.00011866019,0.00006670395,0.0003080664,0.000039431437,0.00010718857],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012860919,0.00004740892,0.000097471784,0.0000062045197,0.00096016494,0.000083123756,0.00041207703,0.000021352856,0.00008184401],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000083238876,0.000021237844,0.00004020691,0.00013182231,0.00020161663,0.00003685163,0.000030243846,0.00009914449,0.000087580316],"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":[0.0000010326017,0.0000032251419,0.0029941367,0.00020005948,0.000024660947,4.2425106e-7,0.0018390643,0.0000028293875,0.000009502477,0.94421136,0.019955134,0.030758541],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024416537,0.0000030368717,0.0018727594,0.00013057202,0.000019954843,3.9149808e-7,0.00013945354,0.000011414383,8.669313e-7,0.0013246519,0.9964378,0.00003467697],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47788757,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84121704,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9764827,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000055142424,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00036240183,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73849094},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948418414","doi":"","title":"DU MARIAGE GAI A LA POLYGAMIE : TRIOMPHE DU DROIT A L'EGALITE?","year":2011,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legalization; Lesbian; Same sex; Political science; Sociology; Law; Gender studies","score_opus":0.052718911929517276,"score_gpt":0.2779552513832206,"score_spread":0.2252363394537033,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948418414","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0013638552,0.44763398,0.000002020774,0.25533357,0.0010152915,0.001254232,0.00007990446,0.00004549309,0.29327166],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.28148586,0.60838044,0.00020640291,0.026232636,0.0016122522,0.00020294229,0.000012897582,0.00006812198,0.081798434],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99592584,0.0016334064,0.00053157,0.00040047677,0.00045345558,0.0010552753],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978826,0.00029608473,0.0002353659,0.00047000512,0.00020051547,0.00091543124],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002723749,0.0003771241,0.0007079877,0.000040368428,0.001990189,0.00014342753,0.0010332958,0.00023419953,0.012080847],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011661722,0.0002684428,0.00042574486,0.00081985956,0.0016039431,0.00027029266,0.00012043877,0.0004423126,0.003288564],"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":[0.00000572576,0.000058718928,0.0011606398,0.0011492495,0.00030328587,0.00021979997,0.040585846,1.3777772e-7,9.578727e-7,0.5991537,0.25205293,0.105309],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017163523,0.00002695864,0.0068020164,0.0017957181,0.00041855677,0.000029412775,0.0009682514,0.0000047974786,8.5615653e-7,0.0017095101,0.98769605,0.0003762261],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90714365,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.88770235,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.73564315,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016312656,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00097615056,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99997675},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948421026","doi":"","title":"INJUNCTIONS - THE ABILITY TO BIND NON-PARTIES","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Contempt; Law; Action (physics); Political science; Position (finance); Order (exchange); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Style (visual arts); Sociology; Business; History","score_opus":0.06877479723390967,"score_gpt":0.3195584144455455,"score_spread":0.25078361721163583,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948421026","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":[0.0027658062,0.011776339,0.000009920359,0.75687784,0.00012719881,0.0012420226,0.000028136097,0.000022858261,0.22714986],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9503342,0.010980807,0.000031640502,0.027791232,0.00025876384,0.00025456786,0.0000015244638,0.0000076293823,0.010339623],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992901,0.00012589808,0.00012102616,0.00010268712,0.00013053825,0.00022971457],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99918836,0.000061077764,0.000025695237,0.00041285157,0.000050680617,0.00026132425],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00078889844,0.000053201777,0.00008439882,0.000013548263,0.0017973528,0.00007662373,0.00042170467,0.000021687592,0.0026625984],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021314825,0.000029775074,0.000056109457,0.0004103666,0.0001992458,0.00004701454,0.000021194812,0.00010778875,0.002502878],"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":[2.4845176e-7,0.000013269909,0.0002467173,0.00007121854,0.000010227096,4.951908e-7,0.0062607825,0.000010647209,0.0000035316323,0.36066103,0.5979785,0.03474333],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008834993,0.000003233019,0.0013194918,0.000053670858,0.00001689302,3.2714942e-7,0.00015631282,0.0000073254923,4.71692e-7,0.00047378716,0.99791354,0.000046108795],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3578006,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8615857,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9475684,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017913432,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00020577299,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995022},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948462574","doi":"","title":"LES PRESOMPTIONS LEGALES DE FAUTE ET DE RESPONSABILITE S’APPLIQUENT-ELLES AU CONTRAT?","year":2007,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","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":"Legislator; Law; Legal liability; Political science; Law and economics; Liability; Sociology; Legislation","score_opus":0.05257216943246001,"score_gpt":0.2850644319208132,"score_spread":0.2324922624883532,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948462574","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012725503,0.6875642,0.0010579143,0.106105596,0.0013221963,0.0015740704,0.0011412712,0.000034638822,0.18847461],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6980626,0.26911974,0.00034001196,0.014992514,0.0011616102,0.00011476133,0.000046913734,0.00009419595,0.016067648],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964666,0.00036139577,0.0013576589,0.00049618573,0.000045179127,0.0012730219],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973927,0.0004609098,0.00052219676,0.00080720737,0.000060945724,0.0007560354],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.009523519,0.00028678385,0.00090978725,0.00018523462,0.00068305427,0.00021442192,0.00065918796,0.00031976996,0.0012787144],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005696676,0.00036090592,0.00039863083,0.00025555943,0.00062887813,0.0002182333,0.000045808243,0.0004555438,0.0012585779],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010356943,0.000027085945,0.016595935,0.0009140912,0.000115118426,0.000018550094,0.0007315742,0.000035141256,0.0000014819339,0.958106,0.0139732575,0.009471402],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021669269,0.00003500456,0.02304019,0.0017804459,0.00007734664,0.000060943174,0.00009381835,0.00009802001,0.0000052560044,0.029180534,0.9450172,0.00039451546],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6858589,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9246378,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.931044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0042082346,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016894684,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998843},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948541102","doi":"","title":"LA COUR SUPREME FACE A LA VIE, FACE A LA MORT: DE VALEURS ET DE DROITS","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Autonomy; Dignity; Context (archaeology); Law; Face (sociological concept); Political science; Promotion (chess); Foundation (evidence); Sociology; History; Social science; Politics","score_opus":0.03626316724901889,"score_gpt":0.3469324294718574,"score_spread":0.31066926222283847,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948541102","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.026904143,0.4643068,0.0000039666065,0.21496725,0.00015711285,0.0011692699,0.00021466336,0.000057384317,0.2922194],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31549022,0.59084886,0.00013505678,0.01427844,0.00021416096,0.00009677782,0.000009249572,0.00004310275,0.07888413],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99381006,0.003984054,0.0003522176,0.00034799552,0.00042199684,0.0010836838],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99793553,0.00063606125,0.00012098059,0.0003432834,0.00008495714,0.00087917846],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0039432105,0.0003435932,0.00057254056,0.000021583248,0.0010776717,0.00020906018,0.0008443004,0.00027971933,0.0025549973],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007100799,0.0002633212,0.0002736828,0.0005298261,0.0011322467,0.0002111167,0.000053417116,0.0006991935,0.0013630849],"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":[0.000008617658,0.00010634029,0.0034609283,0.0030727647,0.00052550266,0.0004884783,0.11629558,0.0001978925,0.000009519388,0.19654182,0.38261795,0.2966746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013331466,0.00001450527,0.007491719,0.0026622687,0.0002680942,0.00006651926,0.001277616,0.00002882491,9.713293e-7,0.00036590488,0.9873554,0.000334862],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6473961,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.78713435,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.60473746,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0017220367,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019230538,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999819},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948560367","doi":"","title":"Elements of Quebec Civil Law: A Comparison with the Common Law of CanadaEdited by Aline Grenon and Louise Bélanger-Hardy","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science","score_opus":0.01827510953141925,"score_gpt":0.28197699947104043,"score_spread":0.2637018899396212,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948560367","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":[0.15566432,0.07483633,0.0000012720949,0.40195438,0.00052452506,0.0032791174,0.0008740261,0.00003931273,0.36282673],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99222296,0.0010553477,0.000007762444,0.0061028926,0.00012591352,0.000012041388,0.000019275634,0.000008549803,0.00044523188],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998881,0.00025059842,0.0002389066,0.00010283526,0.0003006258,0.00022602359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99916226,0.0000869521,0.00018006662,0.0002336826,0.000114237766,0.0002227881],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00083563774,0.00009840163,0.00032304716,0.000013577438,0.0005256353,0.00002769427,0.00036586242,0.00005384561,0.0002017455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000032338536,0.00005527979,0.000042478492,0.00018509255,0.0009421303,0.000056543093,0.000019290797,0.00021936503,0.0000042456254],"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":[0.000011498207,0.000034978642,0.0018356796,0.00039891602,0.00008603765,0.0000038594035,0.0059567643,1.8977748e-7,0.000058783164,0.8712348,0.116319604,0.0040589185],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012527559,0.000024445131,0.00035830057,0.00026017506,0.00008642801,4.4910627e-7,0.00020218438,0.0000017551168,0.000021541546,0.0013438122,0.99748725,0.000088359106],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99313587,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999018,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88116765,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000078911486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000576228,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4042815},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948682131","doi":"","title":"THE CHANGING FAMILY, RIGHTS DISCOURSE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":10,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Family law; Common law; Public law; Jurisprudence; Fundamental rights; Sociology; Human rights","score_opus":0.02986626369755888,"score_gpt":0.293839664566131,"score_spread":0.2639734008685721,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948682131","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":[0.024359751,0.3206354,5.905222e-7,0.6014328,0.00036108505,0.0014552065,0.000021982409,0.000011670541,0.051721506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8736034,0.11741514,0.0000035522683,0.003734304,0.00017863524,0.0000401026,0.0000010953138,0.0000060493326,0.005017709],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985185,0.00040264503,0.00017784955,0.000100954094,0.00033740068,0.00046263586],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99908364,0.0003383107,0.000090572976,0.00020846883,0.000094990864,0.0001840348],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018281617,0.00010053831,0.00022769294,0.000008867374,0.004314152,0.000055350905,0.00045255385,0.000023876657,0.000065525506],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003140187,0.000038421313,0.000060187438,0.00024029693,0.0011513493,0.000048719303,0.000040053572,0.00012317074,0.0000059281524],"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":[0.000012994554,0.0000065978743,0.0011227255,0.00024551648,0.00026897143,0.000026809494,0.04862254,0.0000034045504,0.000001463469,0.6355274,0.28544444,0.028717158],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008535926,0.0000021181893,0.0017576468,0.00027260397,0.000058027334,0.0000016672767,0.0052128923,0.000006040193,3.5939354e-7,0.00051838945,0.992012,0.0000728726],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9961291,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998258,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84924364,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003630835,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006850394,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9969821},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948737149","doi":"","title":"The Empirical Gap in Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Study of the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science; Empirical research; Philosophy","score_opus":0.11382085104936428,"score_gpt":0.3538755267127173,"score_spread":0.24005467566335303,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948737149","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":[0.3126065,0.15722208,1.7640822e-7,0.45420966,0.0004262762,0.0026227671,0.000031210388,0.000006232795,0.072875105],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98830295,0.0075296657,5.520216e-7,0.004027307,0.000036552585,0.000009870586,1.5240316e-7,0.0000013567054,0.000091608985],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986111,0.00039527562,0.00024552355,0.000082279126,0.00043516431,0.00023064538],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99928236,0.00018745488,0.00009077734,0.00019459748,0.00016031884,0.00008449863],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00055139937,0.00006570412,0.00021666524,0.000011410532,0.0009566629,0.0000090902495,0.0005379087,0.00001858771,0.000029319814],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00031060787,0.000031524643,0.000047696667,0.00041963355,0.00047771455,0.000018043722,0.00002583334,0.000121435034,0.0000018566211],"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":[0.000021694523,0.00018970642,0.06874525,0.00015682468,0.0001835706,0.00003609425,0.024697177,0.00004740856,0.0000056373824,0.5982839,0.2850465,0.022586282],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009317533,0.000034483186,0.3102813,0.0004996586,0.000044085038,9.850888e-7,0.0052711247,0.0000010520988,7.9823917e-7,0.0035593894,0.6801395,0.000074467156],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99065846,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998383,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.67569643,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00028899254,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004119599,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7357974},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948757733","doi":"","title":"PIPEDA: A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"European Criminal Justice and Data Protection","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":"Legislation; Scope (computer science); Jurisdiction; Political science; Law; Freedom of information; Personally identifiable information; Private sector; Business; Public administration; Computer science","score_opus":0.06610119793146595,"score_gpt":0.3551137673935828,"score_spread":0.28901256946211684,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948757733","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":[0.00073030073,0.07858294,0.007165312,0.06684246,0.0003924686,0.0009964779,0.00007299806,0.000074332216,0.8451427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90594715,0.05590986,0.00037805634,0.03278243,0.0008219255,0.000015357036,0.00007264866,0.00000971467,0.0040628444],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991641,0.00016238466,0.00013648525,0.00010148246,0.00019125373,0.00024429627],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993733,0.000068244866,0.00004233204,0.00018089563,0.00007630922,0.00025892523],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029236586,0.000049557584,0.00010661645,0.000087308385,0.00093081326,0.00004048976,0.00022686047,0.000024892208,0.0012453519],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045017136,0.000036287023,0.00008209743,0.0007494871,0.00047670878,0.00007641697,0.0000099327835,0.000104249295,0.00073927],"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":[0.0000019983574,0.0000046792593,0.00034343576,0.00012507827,0.000088066685,0.000042233707,0.0005865324,0.0000013446278,0.000001149169,0.89639467,0.018233482,0.08417731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014710525,0.0000033069812,0.0011281712,0.00010219783,0.00057150365,0.000002789305,0.00025376483,0.0000012479832,7.262145e-7,0.00012621954,0.997741,0.0000544074],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3219399,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9275092,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97950745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021737647,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006789516,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99966764},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948808174","doi":"","title":"HEALTHY CHILD DEVELOPMENT: LEGISLATIVE AND POLICYAPPROACHES IN WESTMINSTER DEMOCRACIES","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Child and Adolescent Health","field":"Health Professions","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":"Legislation; Legislature; Nature versus nurture; Accountability; Public administration; Incentive; Political science; Strengths and weaknesses; Public health; Public relations; Economic growth; Sociology; Law; Medicine; Economics; Psychology; Nursing","score_opus":0.11908057518008615,"score_gpt":0.371435338275954,"score_spread":0.25235476309586785,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948808174","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":[0.11937241,0.27422604,0.0000038803873,0.45409438,0.0003053719,0.0054967436,0.000044743163,0.00007170551,0.14638472],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7573788,0.100271866,0.0001363424,0.14026,0.0002571579,0.000040689214,0.000023076966,0.000029387918,0.0016026384],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99795324,0.0005315737,0.00050281826,0.000219529,0.00012598718,0.0006668641],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99900454,0.00010381496,0.00012401448,0.00025923603,0.00003382239,0.0004745743],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008849234,0.00016261709,0.00036982467,0.00011245101,0.0020366448,0.0000048979578,0.00017171087,0.00008389302,0.0001415773],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011112639,0.00010907856,0.000030610026,0.00026864474,0.00013268091,0.000077243436,0.000046530025,0.0007061415,0.0002627878],"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":[0.000059846352,0.00013393529,0.5189733,0.028480848,0.000081862534,0.000109957524,0.16020621,0.0000010683888,6.82468e-7,0.070977904,0.11143381,0.109540574],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00026064366,0.000012404784,0.27056897,0.0067679714,0.0000061371265,0.000031661122,0.0002313208,0.00000219422,1.9820119e-7,0.000061302206,0.7219303,0.00012686172],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0583327,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6103768,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63800645,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00047183843,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026237562,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992626},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948864406","doi":"","title":"L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA PREUVE SCIENTIFIQUE EN DROIT NORD-AMÉRICAIN","year":2019,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Jury Decision Making Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Scientific evidence; Flexibility (engineering); Test (biology); Reliability (semiconductor); Presentation (obstetrics); Empirical evidence; Law; Civil procedure; Political science; Economics; Epistemology; Management","score_opus":0.036384542030782084,"score_gpt":0.3572678166669413,"score_spread":0.32088327463615923,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948864406","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":[0.018019857,0.30523428,0.00014387399,0.26937473,0.0022645132,0.002613867,0.00009009144,0.00006315605,0.4021956],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7056256,0.07378136,0.00050265784,0.013546587,0.0004484421,0.000060296537,0.000011354456,0.00004540548,0.20597833],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99622625,0.0019846156,0.00035019562,0.00035472188,0.00046962357,0.00061458984],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976372,0.0009489544,0.00017735604,0.00054800493,0.00017177993,0.00051670073],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.008227618,0.00017338477,0.0003035668,0.00007519635,0.00055990793,0.00033128652,0.0010037696,0.00021621058,0.004138166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001967973,0.00014949686,0.00013009802,0.0010522204,0.0005782005,0.0002391523,0.000043138018,0.00038996144,0.0049988106],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000027642577,0.000029587865,0.0005187999,0.0023552792,0.00003035958,0.000039753286,0.004406412,0.000015764765,0.000006083632,0.66900575,0.089423954,0.2341655],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050761308,0.000022077675,0.0012464992,0.003547814,0.0000727507,0.000030289464,0.00013885183,0.000032642656,0.000008150605,0.011120088,0.9835455,0.00018461607],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.060635265,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.49439263,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8941215,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001472519,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006389982,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99924284},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2948973771","doi":"","title":"IS THERE A DOCTRINE OF CANADIAN PUBLIC UTILITY LAW","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Constitutional 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":"Doctrine; Constraint (computer-aided design); Law and economics; Perspective (graphical); Economics; Value (mathematics); Law; Political science; Computer science; Engineering","score_opus":0.10538407743938027,"score_gpt":0.23896358984151944,"score_spread":0.13357951240213917,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2948973771","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":[0.0013685249,0.2785824,0.0000051809197,0.076173075,0.00011002366,0.0002477019,0.0003876575,0.000005429585,0.64312],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96781194,0.017007848,0.000015548207,0.0142378425,0.000044623896,0.000008134499,0.000007459481,0.0000054240422,0.00086119305],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990478,0.000011277105,0.00038669282,0.00016093034,0.000033113436,0.00036016316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991526,0.000023222841,0.00010653796,0.00030790377,0.00006029073,0.0003494311],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010700634,0.000096021584,0.0003016126,0.0001644948,0.0003330069,0.000023970433,0.00028916897,0.000041097486,0.002772626],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008540215,0.000076068885,0.00011304616,0.0005299834,0.00020551862,0.00007209752,0.00001885043,0.00011408851,0.00075011165],"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":[3.9115508e-7,0.000003160518,0.0074172295,0.0001043679,0.000032340555,0.000004177639,0.000028000883,2.0110514e-8,2.9470476e-8,0.9811298,0.009176487,0.0021039974],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050179293,0.000005420319,0.022399642,0.000094926734,0.000007315308,0.0000044203657,0.00000586518,0.0000014264414,0.000002034915,0.009921937,0.96741825,0.00008860083],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9711113,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9969176,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97120786,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002516718,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00038656936,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99813896},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949051790","doi":"","title":"A DISPUTED ALTERNATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - A DISCUSSION OF CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR QUEBEC CLASS ACTION LITIGANTS AND PRACTITIONERS","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitration; Class action; Plaintiff; Supreme court; Compulsory arbitration; Dispute resolution; Law; Political science; Damages; Relevance (law); Civil procedure; Class (philosophy); Consolidation (business); Alternative dispute resolution; Law and economics; Sociology; State (computer science); Business; Computer science","score_opus":0.036205248364237365,"score_gpt":0.2909591379021896,"score_spread":0.2547538895379522,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949051790","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":[0.11130404,0.018964034,0.019888882,0.8167171,0.0018021029,0.012091591,0.00047167408,0.0002217805,0.018538797],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98060477,0.007489267,0.00017106238,0.0103169605,0.000357768,0.0002684258,0.0001268225,0.000031207936,0.000633718],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989112,0.000036359506,0.00030885314,0.0002912364,0.00019655633,0.00025579496],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99911964,0.00006692818,0.00030743252,0.00017470485,0.00024221619,0.00008908677],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00036548177,0.00017033747,0.00023949808,0.00017278182,0.0004318523,0.00014057527,0.00012568479,0.000053156375,0.000018883038],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005632136,0.000116337826,0.000066376015,0.0003736063,0.00007448403,0.0010534588,0.000041586933,0.00013483388,0.000027006985],"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":[0.00010583482,0.000076893935,0.00010102698,0.002481097,0.00012174209,0.000005306262,0.00031638588,0.00057829515,0.00059620343,0.9543441,0.008974567,0.03229854],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00075875863,0.00004182632,0.0063441736,0.0035082898,0.00022293419,0.000008776184,0.00022287967,0.0053459164,0.00011868202,0.0057431487,0.97737896,0.00030563356],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07087866,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.51965356,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9684044,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003649758,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00017494186,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93530846},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949272464","doi":"","title":"LE RÔLE DU JUGE DANS L’ÉVOLUTION DU DROIT ET LA JURISPRUDENCE DU JUGE LEBEL EN MATIÈRE DE LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES LIÉES AU TRAVAIL","year":2017,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Systems and Institutions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Political science; Law; Context (archaeology); Supreme court; Comparative law; Charter; History","score_opus":0.012316568673831624,"score_gpt":0.24255754937833457,"score_spread":0.23024098070450294,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949272464","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":[0.025500158,0.112000555,0.00015672487,0.26893458,0.002228343,0.0017780428,0.0001760032,0.00008653013,0.58913904],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9234535,0.03650225,0.000038819166,0.005001109,0.0025314074,0.000109373,0.000059647813,0.000055989152,0.03224791],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9979657,0.000217943,0.00050962943,0.0003607517,0.00025879356,0.00068719266],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983634,0.00006346071,0.0004169647,0.0008551761,0.00013972873,0.00016127869],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","scholarly_communication","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020874036,0.00034618165,0.00049564685,0.00009392959,0.0031568995,0.00125842,0.0011959758,0.00018076372,0.0005919913],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047185068,0.00030279366,0.00025404536,0.00019828981,0.000612654,0.002283654,0.00019981174,0.00035647803,0.0017428108],"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":[0.0000023104255,0.00005720299,0.012391762,0.0037623611,0.00007151124,0.00007921654,0.00043027947,0.0000066851867,0.000025373258,0.8733154,0.09683139,0.0130265],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002593773,0.000009276726,0.052453365,0.0074266773,0.00030254404,0.00009641626,0.00011331638,0.0002680388,0.0000043335276,0.0006108785,0.93810314,0.0003526235],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.87047213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90593916,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89795333,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009686366,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015775876,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999424},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949280497","doi":"","title":"PATENT LITIGATION IN CANADA - THE USE OF THE PROTOCOL QUESTIONS IN LIGHT OF LORD HOFFMAN’S DECISION IN KIRIN-AMGEN V. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL LTD.","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Intellectual Property and Patents","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Patent infringement; Protocol (science); Law; Patent troll; Law and economics; Political science; Business; Sociology; Patent law; Medicine; Intellectual property; Alternative medicine; Pathology","score_opus":0.12489409792596678,"score_gpt":0.22332316920605463,"score_spread":0.09842907128008785,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949280497","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":[0.704778,0.008706349,0.000030470523,0.083149,0.0008391986,0.18020633,0.000074195865,0.000030692434,0.022185734],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9925367,0.0003742307,0.0000123092905,0.003499215,0.000065466906,0.0031561062,0.00001518181,0.000018456025,0.00032232096],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987221,0.00012218556,0.000558319,0.00013844948,0.00022633822,0.00023260416],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99924284,0.00007306409,0.00020833235,0.00035386637,0.00010804798,0.000013845697],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006930198,0.00012597357,0.0002235414,0.00013150844,0.00011834795,0.00004309311,0.00039275558,0.00004170416,0.00015168442],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002588154,0.0000638605,0.000052735923,0.00080449466,0.000040275543,0.00021167145,0.000055263452,0.00020466727,0.000018745197],"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":[0.00026371915,0.0004046493,0.55385983,0.0115894945,0.000058721784,0.00009287549,0.00084774115,0.008829017,0.0002024025,0.044544235,0.21314439,0.16616292],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00035100622,0.0000076244196,0.16661279,0.007684176,0.000027901468,0.00000193577,0.000028533797,0.0017334458,0.000053622625,0.0010930578,0.8222408,0.00016505732],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9975944,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998135,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.60909647,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004943418,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00075760327,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26041555},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949479188","doi":"","title":"PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa; University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Mandate; Public interest; Public law; Political science; Law; Law and economics; Public policy; Economics","score_opus":0.16042853497149698,"score_gpt":0.39811916092067406,"score_spread":0.2376906259491771,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949479188","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":[0.0008279997,0.0046357075,8.1896184e-7,0.7898616,0.0003628316,0.00068177126,0.0000011099321,0.0000116723195,0.20361644],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.943953,0.0020582387,0.000010939565,0.043617826,0.00017774588,0.00005505419,0.0000018947164,0.000005202875,0.0101201],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988891,0.0006426269,0.000109700675,0.00006806484,0.000106454565,0.0001840812],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991951,0.00024365289,0.0000719517,0.0002590619,0.00012257553,0.000107665706],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.003583617,0.000038873754,0.000058415735,0.000025093654,0.0014625989,0.0002667713,0.0003983011,0.00002170201,0.0055684224],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003234833,0.000021475707,0.000029326398,0.0005460043,0.00008475868,0.000234843,0.000010850456,0.0004566148,0.0027858485],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.0362964e-7,0.0000022328245,0.00018642165,0.00004594205,0.000006103739,2.0998814e-7,0.0023172488,2.1040133e-8,6.2577107e-7,0.90546477,0.0642851,0.02769125],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010046403,0.00000197728,0.00015457223,0.00013123515,0.0000061635515,0.0000019118245,0.0011717485,7.3675307e-7,2.7743963e-7,0.00045860998,0.99802804,0.00003469248],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.23238702,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8790552,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.943125,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018214322,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0025255485,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99983734},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949668603","doi":"","title":"DAMAGES FOR IMPROVIDENT EMPLOYER BEHAVIOUR: TWO JUDICIAL APPROACHES","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Notice; Damages; Law; Dismissal; Duty; Political science; Common law; Punitive damages; Discretion; Labour law; Bad faith; Judicial discretion; Judicial opinion; Judicial review","score_opus":0.13363396325925153,"score_gpt":0.36845483874094515,"score_spread":0.23482087548169361,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949668603","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":[0.011939579,0.066273995,0.00039886218,0.83450484,0.0004078932,0.00817388,0.00026791048,0.00013979887,0.07789324],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98355645,0.0059385127,0.00041163305,0.0074684205,0.000584787,0.00055084645,0.000021609341,0.000020909898,0.0014468288],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99917954,0.00005870923,0.00015404825,0.00014946061,0.00014285292,0.00031537926],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993313,0.000031998123,0.00005410366,0.0002588571,0.000051357063,0.00027238124],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007886865,0.00007774557,0.0001362958,0.000020024196,0.0011616149,0.000087247136,0.00042269556,0.000034249042,0.00010422963],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00010688876,0.00005706501,0.00010115191,0.00015915521,0.0001742355,0.000074244446,0.000019549505,0.00009557255,0.00011595895],"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":[4.737883e-7,0.000012818049,0.00020008815,0.00007418703,0.00000890547,9.689414e-7,0.000993457,0.000005647187,0.000001617619,0.9732372,0.007221336,0.018243263],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010049836,0.0000102964505,0.0007903982,0.00015113244,0.00007610704,8.6634446e-7,0.0001488058,0.000001008802,0.0000055006494,0.0067891846,0.9918239,0.000102294776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5819434,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9223638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9846026,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003547661,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012081792,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.893432},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2949896619","doi":"","title":"CIVIL CODE OF QUEBEC - CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Advanced Mathematical Theories","field":"Mathematics","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Code (set theory); Political science; Computer science; Programming language; Law; Set (abstract data type)","score_opus":0.06412683887831215,"score_gpt":0.2972494903067834,"score_spread":0.23312265142847122,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2949896619","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":[0.004577983,0.30471033,0.006223192,0.13303086,0.0007801018,0.007355621,0.00089852506,0.0006150043,0.54180837],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.739488,0.10291476,0.016747523,0.025589308,0.0009261496,0.00066710653,0.00004715315,0.00068328436,0.11293669],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99803054,0.0002368107,0.00067815307,0.00023915633,0.00032426827,0.0004910853],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99724406,0.00083278475,0.00027702568,0.0011349336,0.00014777567,0.0003634228],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00093244336,0.00027816545,0.0007971506,0.00005889405,0.00020673331,0.0000307543,0.0006892369,0.00008694201,0.006957838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0026467282,0.00019200033,0.00020737023,0.00032208033,0.00039642528,0.000099251156,0.00006552795,0.0002442442,0.0005697256],"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":[0.000001206869,0.000024989356,0.000006515669,0.0030876878,0.000043417924,0.000014716882,0.0005652785,6.515607e-7,0.0000084811845,0.9106643,0.08036874,0.0052139685],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020922902,0.00002293207,0.000013665124,0.0050668716,0.0002612657,0.000053091233,0.0001220022,0.00008987761,0.00013820067,0.36020094,0.63344985,0.00037206148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.09629914,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9864681,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89016896,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038939522,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002664796,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99394995},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2950821204","doi":"","title":"L'INDEPENDANCE JUDICIAIRE : FONDEMENT DU PRINCIPE ET SON APPLICATION AUX TRIBUNAUX ADMINISTRATIFS","year":2004,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Constitutionality; Political science; Charter; Constitution; Judicial independence; Legislature; Independence (probability theory); Parliament; Supreme court; Politics","score_opus":0.052851209967884276,"score_gpt":0.35544119216988096,"score_spread":0.3025899822019967,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2950821204","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":[0.0011068339,0.28126347,0.00012598446,0.6896361,0.00044281443,0.001385027,0.000037815673,0.000025517447,0.025976436],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7812712,0.1888842,0.00009860392,0.025922416,0.00045046431,0.00016515474,0.000022126485,0.00002249786,0.0031633046],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9975414,0.000388336,0.00047675267,0.00039473816,0.0005112478,0.0006874935],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982576,0.00008324748,0.00023082414,0.000553098,0.00018804312,0.0006871856],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025406135,0.00024480396,0.0003771275,0.000028335317,0.0013123539,0.00012410132,0.00077967317,0.00013954737,0.000969199],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00033150485,0.0002083478,0.0001737902,0.0005129611,0.00053899095,0.00028514676,0.000042561576,0.0003492587,0.0016933263],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002511953,0.000029375859,0.00008918781,0.00077108934,0.000017759525,0.00002553747,0.0012129855,0.000015934678,0.0000018715906,0.88848597,0.014436793,0.09491102],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011059663,0.00006307151,0.0016402637,0.0039409655,0.00020349592,0.000025276797,0.00017063564,0.0000073892434,0.000008881871,0.00898658,0.98459923,0.00024362834],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63781714,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.967198,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9701624,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0017061234,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0074356915,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999878},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951104639","doi":"","title":"PRIVILEGE ATTACHING TO CLAIMS ADJUSTERS' REPORTS: THE QUEBEC EXCEPTION","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Law; Jurisdiction; Jurisprudence; Political science; Common law; Sociology","score_opus":0.032307947606621944,"score_gpt":0.2525454858468457,"score_spread":0.22023753824022377,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951104639","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":[0.016507698,0.02288429,0.0023897754,0.78218687,0.003892667,0.0038428318,0.000023901868,0.00022557261,0.16804641],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8865349,0.0009694702,0.000037378308,0.10894347,0.0017849025,0.000050248567,0.00003930435,0.000025014633,0.0016152605],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99897105,0.000019169625,0.0003237022,0.00019651499,0.00022511353,0.0002644831],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992573,0.000022328531,0.00015659886,0.0004219861,0.00009706832,0.000044696888],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007598105,0.0001327069,0.00016447215,0.000066364686,0.0004047427,0.00025802216,0.00041231484,0.000032967073,0.00048270973],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002741509,0.00007942765,0.00009912821,0.00021059877,0.00008644769,0.00032543627,0.000055328248,0.00015302363,0.0009213335],"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":[0.0000031483771,0.000018147666,0.0008863476,0.0010037953,0.00004978109,0.00008843735,0.00019237667,0.00038487843,0.000008045559,0.8365848,0.13411602,0.0266642],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005730116,0.0000031305347,0.005466155,0.0011013894,0.000068705995,0.000019184816,0.000027636195,0.000018603812,8.158721e-7,0.006086872,0.98701507,0.00013515679],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44178367,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.83097166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87002724,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003283166,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00015815199,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998566},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951336934","doi":"","title":"RECONNAISSANCE ET EXÉCUTION AU CANADA (QUÉBEC) DU NOUVEAU DIVORCE FRANÇAIS SANS JUGE","year":2019,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Migration, Identity, and Health","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Law; Context (archaeology); Order (exchange); Sociology; History; Business","score_opus":0.02344921683974185,"score_gpt":0.2747114593041498,"score_spread":0.251262242464408,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951336934","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018569324,0.39672703,0.0000047230574,0.49412215,0.0036845754,0.0011554995,0.00012037251,0.00001672379,0.08559962],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.623147,0.30176628,0.000007312974,0.045330435,0.0008079182,0.000025844774,0.000022989872,0.00002212317,0.028870093],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99717325,0.0007750676,0.00047494474,0.00033869693,0.00044720102,0.0007908613],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980943,0.00014776502,0.00022324653,0.0005429924,0.00019647123,0.0007952339],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022341155,0.00022477018,0.0004643306,0.000042048923,0.0017429331,0.00008558442,0.00061861007,0.00012831645,0.010120925],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00029783012,0.0001995893,0.00013406119,0.0005280987,0.00032699216,0.00029759432,0.000024431258,0.0003537254,0.0018291904],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000015988384,0.000011170431,0.041956685,0.0027261,0.000030743737,0.000008974023,0.010573424,0.000007652133,3.1987543e-7,0.19781461,0.74008524,0.0067834994],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000074813106,0.000018336303,0.04270309,0.0021938672,0.00008511092,0.0000066654266,0.0002976304,0.000015667578,3.2484508e-7,0.00032977102,0.95404583,0.00022886808],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99998415,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6045777,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004318953,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.036211938,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99955666},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951349879","doi":"","title":"The Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act and Quebec Trust Law: A New opportunity for Quebec Donors","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Donation; Trust law; Business; Authorization; Context (archaeology); Profit (economics); Blind trust; Law; Asset (computer security); Law and economics; Political science; Economics","score_opus":0.07197905959020684,"score_gpt":0.31012826669265336,"score_spread":0.23814920710244653,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951349879","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.002226352,0.006908907,0.00010659716,0.9712429,0.0001632943,0.0031784095,0.0005035569,0.000021483016,0.015648508],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.60337627,0.036099344,0.00023080637,0.06260464,0.0011095441,0.0015940317,0.00007658881,0.000058334364,0.2948504],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991249,0.00009423787,0.00019137021,0.00014334563,0.00012411209,0.00032206016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984327,0.0004073025,0.00010669696,0.00032182332,0.0001087442,0.0006227121],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008794697,0.00008962107,0.00014176585,0.000008988948,0.0025935748,0.0001279706,0.00039792762,0.00003806836,0.00011687539],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00044607327,0.00004604115,0.00005946463,0.000104963416,0.00028103203,0.000098304285,0.000016956365,0.00005967781,0.000009051378],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000010828398,3.0810978e-7,0.00012963876,0.000025190411,0.000008658323,1.8450726e-7,0.00012395025,7.7154084e-8,0.0000012077694,0.8373041,0.11302954,0.04937606],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007396526,0.0000036445886,0.0010236336,0.00010795513,0.00003319894,4.7630596e-7,0.000102019534,0.0000020983607,0.0000023980124,0.0030382378,0.99552476,0.00008761044],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9998325,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999934,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90863824,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006859362,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017157745,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987049},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951382998","doi":"","title":"RETURN OF THE UNDEAD: FUNDAMENTAL BREACH DISINTERRED","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Bad faith; Breach of contract; Law; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy; Sociology; Damages","score_opus":0.042202756622093496,"score_gpt":0.34220507746431306,"score_spread":0.30000232084221956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951382998","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":[0.017654972,0.035161443,0.000025568082,0.31678775,0.00036366485,0.001774591,0.0000841198,0.000026710488,0.62812114],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9904717,0.00195536,0.000011534837,0.0039663785,0.00008085096,0.000005963492,0.0000021348812,0.0000046554783,0.003501408],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9993222,0.00008732144,0.00015291841,0.00007282577,0.0001608988,0.0002038399],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99941665,0.000045040695,0.00006699958,0.00028925884,0.000031132146,0.00015094242],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010907303,0.00004615105,0.00008964057,0.000010896723,0.0005477475,0.000023728548,0.00049749983,0.000025320414,0.00040480986],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007146105,0.000025642961,0.00008279068,0.0002470856,0.00026328242,0.00003065352,0.000027283899,0.0001003904,0.000058115813],"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":[0.0000012080137,0.000014450921,0.0027830666,0.00013257549,0.000021369337,0.0000012708547,0.0032911715,2.078037e-7,0.000025383732,0.9161695,0.0380752,0.039484564],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019674408,0.0000020650407,0.0059446814,0.00022806715,0.000018522282,0.0000012299647,0.00028832103,5.7468975e-7,0.000008176951,0.00076131185,0.9926901,0.000037267488],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.38233015,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9284896,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97281677,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00025212788,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00040163693,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62178296},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951531909","doi":"","title":"THE ATTACHMENT OF CHARITABLE PROPERTY AT LAW AND IN EQUITY: OR, WHY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL IN RE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS OF IRELAND IN CANADA IS RIGHTS AND ITS CRITICS ARE WRONG","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Indemnity; Insolvency; Equity (law); Law and economics; Property rights; Property (philosophy); Political science; Business; Economics","score_opus":0.050197672895852516,"score_gpt":0.30455500081171716,"score_spread":0.25435732791586463,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951531909","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":[0.7080803,0.08478491,3.9399166e-7,0.18728541,0.0000456103,0.0031147788,0.00016547139,0.000002505641,0.016520632],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9897346,0.008162916,0.0000033023755,0.0017892342,0.000005771019,0.000024631068,9.3618e-7,0.0000032742978,0.00027535312],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99918157,0.00009379254,0.00025516097,0.000097005206,0.00016808246,0.00020441614],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99956244,0.000057111865,0.0000890838,0.00016443255,0.000037806738,0.00008911221],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007403419,0.000063353385,0.0002003954,0.000013759385,0.00027346416,0.0000134026,0.00024225467,0.000026633725,0.00004169603],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000027498805,0.000029099197,0.0000144610185,0.00016938525,0.00022541401,0.000036389276,0.00003786901,0.00011453117,3.579476e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000093581,0.00018185924,0.18121809,0.00639295,0.00013814219,0.000075248245,0.16205917,0.00021718306,0.000034503813,0.622505,0.020173838,0.006910448],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003541518,0.000020500576,0.024281431,0.0030250032,0.000029713892,0.000002306158,0.0016676424,0.000019126213,0.00003159511,0.001667473,0.96878046,0.00012058047],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99983436,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999934,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9486066,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010335707,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001982708,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3517239},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951726489","doi":"","title":"CARTOGRAPHIE DE LA MIXITE : LA COMMON LAW ET LA COMPLETUDE DU DROIT CIVIL AU QUEBEC","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Law; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Framing (construction); Humanities; Engineering; Public law; Philosophy; Civil engineering","score_opus":0.01509738438777682,"score_gpt":0.2939697133400309,"score_spread":0.2788723289522541,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951726489","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":[0.009001002,0.039468534,7.8195933e-7,0.24301013,0.0006887467,0.0005040349,0.00012166732,0.00003760603,0.7071675],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9269061,0.03149649,0.0000271974,0.035247702,0.0011980768,0.00003555555,0.000018181643,0.00004001036,0.005030701],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944335,0.0038424225,0.00033771477,0.00026793024,0.0003550185,0.0007633862],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975036,0.00084939285,0.0001411069,0.00045563656,0.00008940751,0.00096088875],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.005018896,0.0002719403,0.0005436605,0.00005167809,0.0015993482,0.0003024255,0.0009347496,0.00036862408,0.0008813945],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001899626,0.00023509888,0.0003810022,0.00064154214,0.004371466,0.00020489468,0.00006749572,0.0012173514,0.00036743874],"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":[9.734707e-7,0.000027971797,0.00085798994,0.0003208375,0.000046053166,0.000071653354,0.0060671964,3.132088e-7,0.0000030034028,0.9686797,0.01441194,0.009512338],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000108800734,0.000011330449,0.0033055865,0.0008694237,0.0001665789,0.000026494537,0.000087808825,0.0000019591228,3.9528376e-7,0.09635594,0.8988051,0.0002605927],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9884441,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9996254,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9179051,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00054001884,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0031385547,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997004},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951849717","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT, FEDERALISM AND METAPHORS OF MODERATION","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Political Systems and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":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; Metaphor; Supreme court; Political science; Adjudication; Law; Ideal (ethics); Constitution; Democracy; Judicial review; Charter; Dual federalism; Law and economics; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Philosophy; History; Politics; Linguistics","score_opus":0.028931209009326442,"score_gpt":0.2853290397411665,"score_spread":0.2563978307318401,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951849717","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":[0.023235176,0.3482653,0.000004127426,0.35809118,0.00016520105,0.0011632715,0.00005999427,0.000014903443,0.26900086],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8710325,0.114216484,0.000007192501,0.0043948856,0.00009301803,0.0000152085,8.4283056e-7,0.0000044326434,0.010235448],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99925095,0.00021528358,0.00013146986,0.00005981118,0.00015035158,0.00019216284],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995815,0.000069619666,0.000034919834,0.00012672364,0.000030429534,0.00015676823],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009113231,0.000041224866,0.00011174058,0.0000037676518,0.0008005129,0.000056997393,0.00014470155,0.000022863824,0.00028813418],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012117162,0.000022177277,0.000033230423,0.00006293027,0.00019319498,0.000047341742,0.0000033626911,0.00004702955,0.000027676597],"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":[5.416972e-7,0.0000011600279,0.00004660263,0.00006122473,0.000009144345,6.3061907e-7,0.00061969215,8.161527e-7,6.409462e-7,0.941862,0.021705123,0.035692416],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019082805,0.0000028594957,0.0008816395,0.00017973248,0.000013564093,8.8013286e-7,0.000020209538,0.000017424964,9.825121e-7,0.002685443,0.9961459,0.000032247794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8156655,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91625017,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9744408,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000072567054,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00024709414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6156979},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951920380","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW: INTERNATIONAL LAW CHIEFLY AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN CANADA, 8TH EDITION","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.016260050953258963,"score_gpt":0.2758640490587191,"score_spread":0.25960399810546014,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951920380","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00009841204,0.48354024,9.858728e-7,0.19811302,0.00044139242,0.00065274735,0.000018579423,0.000010210571,0.3171244],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.13581419,0.5156452,0.000006810992,0.34514427,0.00041427356,0.00008475176,0.000046060406,0.0000125351635,0.0028318954],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990858,0.00012467086,0.00019920462,0.0001249283,0.00027616494,0.0001892643],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993782,0.000027703452,0.00006606385,0.00013240166,0.00006873339,0.0003268917],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00088735647,0.00007501649,0.00017073844,0.000028030685,0.0001710143,0.00003522821,0.00021968494,0.000028149296,0.001097048],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013035476,0.000060725193,0.000022811839,0.0001316479,0.00009401774,0.000100676414,0.000018597008,0.00012474522,0.000048742215],"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":[0.0000026232005,0.0000024661306,0.000070735725,0.00019670703,0.000010757315,0.000006996632,0.00070081087,2.9965673e-7,3.129931e-7,0.0808441,0.8956542,0.022509998],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067409535,0.0000050860936,0.00039676862,0.0019083369,0.000017699853,0.0000034461514,0.00006573117,0.0000032426228,5.275489e-7,0.0003161554,0.99714196,0.0000736374],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9958961,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997607,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31429252,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001150384,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0027724097,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99981606},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951925628","doi":"","title":"L'HARMONISATION DU DROIT CANADIEN DE L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL ET LA COORDINATION DES DECISIONS ETATIQUES EN MATIERE D'ARBITRAGE DANS LE CONTEXTE FEDERAL CANADIEN","year":2002,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitrage; Arbitration; Commission; Legal certainty; International trade law; Law; Political science; International law; Convention; Business; Law and economics; Economics; Finance","score_opus":0.02520022101029761,"score_gpt":0.24968516365152565,"score_spread":0.22448494264122804,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951925628","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":[0.02890549,0.016832763,0.0007678768,0.33160886,0.0013305881,0.0013931785,0.00027887552,0.000081121565,0.61880124],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8554378,0.0109851025,0.00033387632,0.11798509,0.0007816825,0.0001252524,0.00047147207,0.00007310804,0.013806599],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9973376,0.00050213735,0.000697878,0.00036681074,0.0004460096,0.0006495712],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982598,0.00029188755,0.00035887386,0.00030509947,0.0005417677,0.00024260653],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019861215,0.0003820549,0.0003872366,0.00027025366,0.0015353833,0.0009927319,0.0008211127,0.00017896676,0.0036179808],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00089051283,0.0003725302,0.0002237218,0.0003722935,0.00041491454,0.0017183373,0.00007744665,0.00064059696,0.00048494144],"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":[0.0000052491614,0.00006212693,0.0021365588,0.00033056756,0.00013343981,0.000106166786,0.0012228356,0.000032073593,0.000009271713,0.90224737,0.08358522,0.010129132],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005798303,0.000023796323,0.02326123,0.0026156409,0.00017577787,0.00015561879,0.00025367405,0.011488948,0.000010435464,0.015695686,0.9452595,0.00047984274],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.78490204,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9726108,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8865517,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0024723185,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0008499172,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998727},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2951964635","doi":"","title":"LE PARTICULARISME JURIDIQUE DE LA REPRESSION DE LA CRIMINALITE ORGANISEE AU CANADA","year":2011,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Complicity; Culpability; Political science; Liability; Recklessness; Law; Criminal law; Conviction; Law and economics; Mens rea; Criminology; Sociology","score_opus":0.02535178951021999,"score_gpt":0.289389579199206,"score_spread":0.264037789688986,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2951964635","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.118412994,0.41819182,0.000314874,0.0915561,0.0011902574,0.0008067197,0.000059146474,0.000053288626,0.3694148],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9082023,0.079725705,0.00012538554,0.0072790077,0.00031251347,0.000036800608,0.000003902502,0.000024099414,0.0042903153],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9957934,0.0027917358,0.00029121176,0.00024161473,0.00022638428,0.00065567694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99822056,0.00032032,0.00012626986,0.00046559112,0.000106120184,0.00076114887],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030026447,0.0001702057,0.00030006832,0.00003982886,0.0013087618,0.000079355166,0.00046735315,0.00016561951,0.0019555911],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007258755,0.0001461468,0.00016659123,0.000562298,0.0005911567,0.00009340795,0.00003586148,0.0003904679,0.000085421954],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000011538775,0.00015038137,0.0034338695,0.0034034622,0.00034831907,0.0013013692,0.07886246,0.00004908911,0.000038346712,0.55245656,0.16490097,0.19504367],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040002073,0.000011485808,0.002170345,0.0016381701,0.0018059195,0.00010138144,0.0125623895,0.000026088519,0.00004753117,0.0006612114,0.9807255,0.00020992999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9998718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99988985,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81582457,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0019277639,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.037310034,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999914},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952086227","doi":"","title":"Judicial Review of International Arbitrations in Canada: Notes on Mexico v Cargill","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science","score_opus":0.02165973345813981,"score_gpt":0.2271045309624097,"score_spread":0.2054447975042699,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2952086227","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0013656345,0.029876865,0.000002443993,0.34441757,0.000687186,0.0013830411,0.000031963296,0.000013050955,0.62222224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.36134514,0.021595253,0.000015358191,0.6163498,0.00029687205,0.000108661676,0.00012349295,0.000012899701,0.00015250791],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99897444,0.00002145514,0.00040393166,0.00012426442,0.00031255302,0.00016336775],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99931353,0.000040348747,0.00017469912,0.00017997036,0.00026239397,0.000029075254],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00029173188,0.00011337499,0.00021008163,0.000102966595,0.0000875989,0.000042722113,0.00035093524,0.000017546326,0.005305732],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003401757,0.00008051144,0.00006459991,0.00025451047,0.000033844837,0.00029045533,0.00002127581,0.00012418833,0.0005235297],"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":[0.0000010016435,0.000013954967,0.0015755162,0.0017385428,0.000024120187,0.0000040365458,0.0000044110366,0.000011803848,0.00000476923,0.7936409,0.20154971,0.0014312143],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000096070056,0.0000030056353,0.01030741,0.009480125,0.000028887687,0.0000014867956,0.000005539042,0.00041882377,0.000010593293,0.0013990293,0.9781235,0.00012554685],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9900237,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99725693,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7922419,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043142613,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00084846857,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99560356},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952440936","doi":"","title":"LE RECOUVREMENT ET L’INDEMNISATION DES MEMBRES DANS L’ACTION COLLECTIVE","year":2016,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","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":"Class action; Damages; Civil procedure; Class (philosophy); Action (physics); Collective action; Political science; Business; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Law; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.08944713779012117,"score_gpt":0.24723951208053604,"score_spread":0.15779237429041487,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2952440936","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0032748613,0.36791682,0.0008975686,0.19121811,0.0043213307,0.001789561,0.0008290165,0.000026765556,0.42972594],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.55610657,0.40146998,0.00005259135,0.0066182455,0.0005879152,0.00015773994,0.000020391892,0.000061416744,0.03492516],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99788564,0.00023368605,0.00087943545,0.00042266402,0.000042288102,0.00053627323],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99846786,0.000116408686,0.0005655983,0.0004834199,0.00007866806,0.0002880477],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025399502,0.00019190804,0.0006185357,0.00013090101,0.00074067863,0.00012116058,0.00032094357,0.0001585459,0.0017058459],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021904013,0.00019672816,0.0002132115,0.00023663403,0.00042857765,0.0004091077,0.00002727601,0.0001362817,0.0022596114],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00000481824,0.00002583918,0.0037495568,0.00064561,0.00015924366,0.000002531471,0.00085766317,0.00000850791,0.0000035446058,0.90631104,0.051247083,0.036984544],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032180577,0.000057116373,0.0067723026,0.00238097,0.00004776516,0.000015592941,0.00011792904,0.000027593278,0.00002411871,0.064918734,0.92500913,0.0003069297],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44012335,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8982732,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8737621,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0040955003,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0013069579,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997276},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952501991","doi":"","title":"QUELQUES POINTS DE REPERE SUR L'EGALITE DANS UNE SOCIETE DIVERSIFIEE","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Sociology; Stereotype (UML); Multiculturalism; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.02249918376563116,"score_gpt":0.24256558864098818,"score_spread":0.220066404875357,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2952501991","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0014144961,0.4383597,5.398561e-7,0.2540011,0.0005255385,0.00038668912,0.00026047102,0.000026121124,0.30502534],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.003960924,0.52386665,0.000029106772,0.033453505,0.0004560218,0.000015117217,0.000016552685,0.000028096225,0.43817404],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99719495,0.00087610126,0.00033723487,0.00032800998,0.0003460648,0.00091763114],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979943,0.000061403094,0.00010342905,0.0005578356,0.00009668083,0.0011863348],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016881744,0.00020331283,0.00038870348,0.000096799,0.0030270847,0.00036697945,0.00080303906,0.00020528738,0.039445072],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015694604,0.00022632092,0.00037996055,0.0008408347,0.0019190094,0.00031888325,0.000020159747,0.00041209708,0.005545276],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000013134305,0.0000091805805,0.00006253689,0.0006503296,0.000054131327,0.00010845604,0.012144007,0.0000014790256,6.266157e-7,0.043048225,0.8038098,0.14010988],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007751043,0.0000132335,0.0010785857,0.0020781616,0.00024452817,0.000024279174,0.00037871444,0.000004191056,2.9654214e-7,0.0016024621,0.9942238,0.00027425576],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9987326,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998227,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.22054762,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0068902164,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0068795285,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99875057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2952789473","doi":"","title":"The New Law of Criminal Organizations in Canada","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Criminal code; Criminal law; Political science; Law; Convention; Criminology; Organised crime; Theory of criminal justice; Criminal justice; Sociology","score_opus":0.030980766265372914,"score_gpt":0.3077849890407311,"score_spread":0.27680422277535816,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2952789473","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":[0.0055814665,0.19280621,0.000017255454,0.5425027,0.0005950235,0.0010616183,0.000014758799,0.000012295904,0.25740865],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9746575,0.016498946,0.000016161763,0.0072772047,0.00008654655,0.000001731135,0.0000011428297,0.0000054017332,0.001455401],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991782,0.000095138945,0.00018684365,0.000061913845,0.0001997894,0.00027813224],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99922913,0.00021489986,0.000046074463,0.00017827723,0.000086132415,0.00024550082],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001278842,0.00004495512,0.00009806343,0.000011396666,0.00060473994,0.000019612457,0.0004028112,0.000015723717,0.00033302204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00051861105,0.000028231429,0.000018096265,0.0004438674,0.00015908938,0.00003988951,0.000010394649,0.00008229391,0.000021173259],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.187481e-7,0.0000011685459,0.0005120008,0.00008230798,0.0000030155918,0.000010699195,0.0013285636,0.0000017994204,8.030579e-7,0.91765815,0.06427351,0.016127177],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012832191,0.0000021828987,0.0018551542,0.00032221872,0.000021084745,0.000001576887,0.00092930975,3.7916655e-7,0.0000048560883,0.00045032636,0.9963604,0.000039641043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99993074,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999964,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.969076,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00070248096,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009816421,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.995797},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953029123","doi":"","title":"INTERRELATED POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND DISCLOSURE","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Political science; Legislature; Government (linguistics); Law; Interrogation; Work (physics); Business; Engineering","score_opus":0.1315689610285244,"score_gpt":0.32624042227241323,"score_spread":0.19467146124388884,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2953029123","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":[0.021952357,0.11829476,0.0000031535783,0.32224125,0.0002640636,0.0009374504,0.000018649182,0.00006048452,0.5362278],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96679664,0.02369599,0.000045409444,0.007519824,0.000054259108,0.000012388893,0.0000016519126,0.0000051614143,0.0018687008],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994533,0.00014231421,0.00008940848,0.000075352,0.00007309031,0.00016651393],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99945974,0.00003061341,0.000026577125,0.00013239932,0.00003097647,0.00031970866],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00049182255,0.00004627636,0.00007903221,0.000017216214,0.0005484863,0.000026599322,0.00019519971,0.000027888978,0.0006548854],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017463505,0.00003180875,0.000023726718,0.00015371044,0.000350499,0.00008861077,0.000013012328,0.00008569281,0.00016776976],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.1678695e-7,0.0000042639444,0.0029100059,0.0002531735,0.000017561846,0.0000054288676,0.04634812,2.9725639e-8,0.0000013884033,0.86490023,0.07037403,0.015184937],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012496946,0.0000059484473,0.0034685032,0.0008634833,0.000053002226,0.0000040316827,0.0005345352,6.5003456e-7,9.687566e-7,0.0023978532,0.99259424,0.0000643006],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89063805,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97808844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94484425,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006195061,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00033284642,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7170536},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953204865","doi":"","title":"ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR TENANTS - ONTARIO v. ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD: PUBLIC UTILITY RATE-RATE-MAKING: ECONOMIC REGULATION OR TAXATION?","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Climate Change Policy and Economics","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Public economics; Business; Public administration; Economics; Political science","score_opus":0.12115722226529521,"score_gpt":0.2697646143600565,"score_spread":0.1486073920947613,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2953204865","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":[0.1978286,0.055456646,0.000583251,0.48431224,0.0048629614,0.009106559,0.003796647,0.00028290082,0.24377018],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94577044,0.0056279446,0.0001651142,0.022292871,0.00034485408,0.000112113186,0.0005208483,0.000052768733,0.025113035],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9977416,0.000049940496,0.0009457145,0.0005271444,0.000021087146,0.0007145357],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99797904,0.00008696845,0.0008163961,0.00073284673,0.00004808368,0.0003366574],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013569649,0.0002847573,0.0006868758,0.00018261514,0.00048324428,0.000227598,0.00045752036,0.0001454527,0.008754316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002423356,0.00025186755,0.00023761687,0.00012958395,0.000053188152,0.00037752814,0.000027720727,0.00016443357,0.0006964298],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009733593,0.000082404884,0.031956606,0.00042765605,0.00017821982,0.00000589625,0.0025946556,0.0000694072,5.9844643e-7,0.7993469,0.14450401,0.020736294],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031888188,0.000036364756,0.06966431,0.00016528243,0.000025977692,0.0000046644077,0.000017733148,0.000488853,0.0000017498318,0.022707205,0.9062551,0.00031385984],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.87472034,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99901026,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7766397,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0042495597,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015838576,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999934},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953525916","doi":"","title":"THE JUDGES AND THE JOURNALS: CITATION OF PERIODICAL LITERATURE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, 1985-2004","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Listing (finance); Citation; Political science; Business","score_opus":0.029198872574553125,"score_gpt":0.33127587282036786,"score_spread":0.30207700024581474,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2953525916","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":[0.001618031,0.18588789,0.0000016784115,0.80381465,0.0001373697,0.00035529636,0.000033559474,0.0000016631293,0.008149853],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92207164,0.052965686,0.000014777098,0.023083465,0.00013474193,0.000026561327,0.000007559148,0.000006339134,0.0016892293],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985555,0.0006026446,0.0002663846,0.000062494,0.0003460283,0.00016695686],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99846977,0.00062509684,0.00021780019,0.00022122286,0.00035349862,0.000112629554],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037297807,0.00006070661,0.00012637637,0.000017475013,0.0020531313,0.0002621314,0.00039236344,0.00003416332,0.00019046647],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0030070338,0.00002505788,0.00004063095,0.00055276375,0.00086520985,0.00012804108,0.000008393292,0.0003295294,0.000002262324],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005689098,0.0000073865326,0.00012322293,0.000089720845,0.00004402415,6.344434e-7,0.027246654,0.0000035187684,0.0000032438663,0.53814846,0.42588097,0.008446442],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009388132,0.000004053705,0.00087546615,0.00029610118,0.00004005965,0.0000058445894,0.0027170263,9.994912e-7,0.0000022644708,0.0028337503,0.9930948,0.000035740522],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9251869,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99335855,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9204536,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020671691,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008663365,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99924606},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2953754178","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY IN CANADA - DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS IN CANADA: LAW AND PRACTICE","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Liability; Law; Political science; Accounting; Business; Management; Economics","score_opus":0.03665905153826144,"score_gpt":0.33799145454480234,"score_spread":0.3013324030065409,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2953754178","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0008796337,0.5494534,6.280577e-8,0.3570835,0.00024064339,0.00073452934,0.00001942752,0.0000048356887,0.09158398],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.10482772,0.49455503,0.000027561635,0.3996829,0.000060206847,0.000031789667,0.000012822467,0.000012559422,0.0007894203],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99772984,0.00089651137,0.0004573795,0.00021693479,0.00030004838,0.00039930854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997382,0.0016232635,0.00018137193,0.00025590239,0.00013185918,0.00042559215],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004926289,0.0001219373,0.00030675108,0.000046390567,0.0003974734,0.000048684065,0.00019405285,0.00003224747,0.00090712955],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0049712188,0.00010386574,0.000015692141,0.00086411095,0.00016239918,0.0003920823,0.00001687784,0.0004298276,0.000004394437],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007345381,0.000018599667,0.012534289,0.0018871725,0.0000248253,0.00006166297,0.0019279663,7.0215407e-7,3.1049464e-7,0.034137126,0.9209841,0.028415905],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043737607,0.0000021252715,0.025464378,0.0014697551,0.000032498712,0.000005510005,0.0005386065,5.075748e-7,2.345998e-7,0.000008963252,0.97231066,0.00012300476],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99999875,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99999994,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10394808,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0058243684,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.043207064,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9979921},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954211062","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - DROIT DES OBLIGATIONS, PAR DIDIER LLUELLES ET BENOIT MOORE, THEMIS, MONTREAL, 2006","year":2007,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Hume's philosophy and hair distribution","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science; Humanities; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03312550171718742,"score_gpt":0.302851914427605,"score_spread":0.2697264127104176,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954211062","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000033489938,0.7171845,0.000022120494,0.18863855,0.0002609068,0.0011176213,0.00053849805,0.00003308863,0.09217126],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.004537933,0.8948149,0.000037028774,0.08294096,0.00048042327,0.000054288677,0.00031051968,0.000032299336,0.016791655],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961746,0.0009015044,0.00087846565,0.00043972195,0.00053326826,0.0010724773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973383,0.00023589566,0.00037310392,0.00075173547,0.00027584756,0.0010250942],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0049034725,0.00039095868,0.0007424991,0.000060911476,0.0021298137,0.00011400457,0.00082454947,0.0002217117,0.0105600925],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00045617102,0.00033284287,0.0003890533,0.0009918732,0.0014751395,0.0004162623,0.000048308833,0.0005236731,0.0016582571],"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":[0.000001996516,0.000030447685,0.00004251163,0.0030096595,0.0000587667,0.000021629687,0.00034607484,8.526168e-7,5.293567e-7,0.1908988,0.75605524,0.0495335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000094062365,0.00002497947,0.0011380638,0.025212206,0.00053443096,0.000017219922,0.000046008776,0.000002254125,0.0000053239305,0.025480391,0.9470788,0.00036623358],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26307514,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.678944,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.41586882,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001163806,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012498752,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999124},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954472095","doi":"","title":"CANADA V CRAIG - THE COMMON LAW AS THE SERVANT OF SOCIETY","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science","score_opus":0.022211428900739433,"score_gpt":0.2741144784323228,"score_spread":0.2519030495315834,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954472095","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0052958988,0.03326448,2.3162882e-7,0.76681316,0.00024285933,0.0011147126,0.00002338364,0.000009615284,0.19323564],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8627928,0.023866963,0.0000031216564,0.10897571,0.00018200041,0.000051685285,0.00000339277,0.000009263264,0.004115071],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989023,0.0002853044,0.0001773504,0.00007836127,0.00029795794,0.00025870334],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991276,0.00014674825,0.000088317414,0.00037443708,0.00009910791,0.00016376935],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011151885,0.00007321081,0.0001494291,0.0000033620383,0.0014673249,0.000061245184,0.0006040768,0.00003251042,0.001571226],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004103855,0.000033493267,0.0001038695,0.00017645418,0.00038039588,0.00005777515,0.000024479605,0.00015555588,0.00006715498],"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":[3.0864263e-7,0.0000030514614,0.00014646525,0.000114914226,0.000038680526,0.0000010114353,0.004560514,9.924532e-7,0.0000020886723,0.44956017,0.52503186,0.020539923],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018034807,0.0000047352955,0.00150638,0.00017298832,0.00003270642,0.0000013703018,0.0005671551,0.0000064597966,0.0000017715603,0.00094768807,0.9966917,0.000049027312],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.999847,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99995786,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8574969,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024778757,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0023732032,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99983263},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954536585","doi":"","title":"CASE COMMENTS - COMMENTAIRES D'ARRET - TOWARDS MORE ENCOMPASSING RULES: GLOBALIZATION AND SECURITIES REGULATION IN CANADA","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Globalization; Accounting; Business; Political science; Economics; Law","score_opus":0.0349974117165884,"score_gpt":0.24977363075570627,"score_spread":0.21477621903911787,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954536585","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":[0.35780117,0.06737914,0.00042674228,0.51141226,0.0021475772,0.0032906572,0.0004347605,0.0001171953,0.05699053],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9656293,0.0012165622,0.000027190837,0.032799006,0.00015370212,0.000011667064,0.00013935276,0.000009754774,0.00001346117],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992615,0.000018385168,0.00024325878,0.00012170745,0.00016889973,0.00018627041],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996643,0.000014126861,0.00009899976,0.00013061233,0.000059434562,0.00003252848],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00020616148,0.00011193497,0.00015951751,0.000060604518,0.00025950515,0.00015037294,0.00014444027,0.0000213028,0.00011653097],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006860707,0.00009292127,0.000020926025,0.00013049123,0.00008799329,0.00031761863,0.00003346983,0.00006990479,0.0000074776335],"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":[0.0000061326737,0.000019508461,0.03607994,0.0030253888,0.000054963228,0.0006517532,0.00034802637,0.0005163391,6.254418e-7,0.8681646,0.07250822,0.018624505],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0012096474,0.000007672948,0.12515542,0.007447214,0.0001896042,0.00041060863,0.0010820598,0.003424803,0.0000052237087,0.027544245,0.83282465,0.0006988336],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9962257,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9985503,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84062034,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010369876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00050075934,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37892196},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2954662719","doi":"","title":"PRISONS OF CULTURE: JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND NEW ZEALAND","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Indigenous; Jurisprudence; Law; Indigenous rights; Subject (documents); Political science; Limiting; State (computer science); Human rights; Sociology; Engineering","score_opus":0.02362215636242978,"score_gpt":0.2865181886721692,"score_spread":0.26289603230973946,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2954662719","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":[0.5959647,0.23034368,8.229456e-7,0.11011648,0.0007749048,0.003881561,0.0004379836,0.000030180887,0.05844964],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95699084,0.029689614,0.00010532312,0.0023948187,0.0001721106,0.0000043242035,0.000009215158,0.0000035629132,0.010630215],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99928343,0.00009556103,0.00018442154,0.00007826281,0.00015684571,0.00020144694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99952924,0.000015751717,0.000084633444,0.00010281722,0.000048144193,0.00021943366],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00024583747,0.00006203996,0.00020610307,0.000005374791,0.00028295626,0.000008922979,0.00016852176,0.00007281511,0.00016488378],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004035276,0.000042617812,0.000038639577,0.00028016802,0.00024531773,0.00003640343,0.0000035403473,0.00012790618,0.0000013049207],"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":[0.0000038039198,0.000026382251,0.0075662816,0.00027043797,0.00007047679,0.000018031382,0.09230849,0.0000029448543,0.000017163056,0.24701011,0.63833606,0.01436982],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008779013,0.000014831295,0.009120563,0.00044614694,0.000047604033,0.0000052473233,0.00041079283,3.769765e-8,0.000008934486,0.009319921,0.9804602,0.00007789642],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9988097,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99994206,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.36102608,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00017198142,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0023653673,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.419606},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2955884829","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - LA FAILLITE ET L'INSOLVABILITE AU QUEBEC","year":2004,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"French Language Learning Methods","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Political science","score_opus":0.03059126464488253,"score_gpt":0.3375615744812826,"score_spread":0.30697030983640006,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2955884829","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00000481179,0.5566939,0.000025966032,0.37834865,0.0005227258,0.0009797399,0.00003351684,0.000038250764,0.06335244],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.00004167027,0.65343165,0.0007834641,0.24158232,0.00032463815,0.00005900053,0.000025675914,0.000042659598,0.10370891],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98830235,0.008479912,0.00080424553,0.00057995284,0.0006255245,0.0012079937],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9962975,0.00071980176,0.00037941415,0.0012837031,0.00017520205,0.0011444287],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0117950095,0.00045567128,0.0010352363,0.000075129414,0.0009351273,0.00016549297,0.001264751,0.0002565548,0.016112205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0025665183,0.00036370923,0.0004881473,0.0012603744,0.0018499848,0.0004208436,0.00008387561,0.0011508894,0.0033959523],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.4386734e-7,0.00001963876,0.000021480386,0.011100371,0.00006086911,0.00012036951,0.0043171924,0.000012987723,6.314489e-7,0.20915638,0.493639,0.28155044],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011916989,0.000025000449,0.00028567202,0.06803991,0.00036725675,0.00004579902,0.000052254443,9.739082e-7,7.531442e-7,0.00058240263,0.93008137,0.00039943916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9512533,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98121905,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.43644238,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004441318,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009788205,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998815},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2956195834","doi":"","title":"CASE COMMENTS - COMMENTAIRES D'ARRET - SAUVE V. CANADA: THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR WRONGDOERS?","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science","score_opus":0.03651461795572938,"score_gpt":0.3192425386169643,"score_spread":0.2827279206612349,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2956195834","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0065820105,0.017682223,0.00002981595,0.9543054,0.0007631546,0.0027804733,0.00018759504,0.000023184677,0.017646132],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8627372,0.0033155472,0.00005066643,0.13284753,0.00028064847,0.00015581302,0.00001575356,0.000017867138,0.00057902304],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987997,0.00017659554,0.00020230979,0.00014653016,0.00025338927,0.00042150263],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99898523,0.00013960381,0.00006768902,0.00031789846,0.00006978371,0.0004197719],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012943075,0.00011212544,0.00017739188,0.000022969782,0.0029796117,0.00012757177,0.0004423976,0.000035476365,0.0003632417],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001439086,0.00006906194,0.000075287855,0.00020478175,0.00010634465,0.00007511146,0.00002779435,0.00013372167,0.000020769423],"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":[0.0000043367545,0.000009231539,0.00024512698,0.00016700043,0.00007865924,0.00030653065,0.015416263,0.000018579305,3.4083973e-7,0.23132573,0.70960724,0.04282096],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010468884,0.000012680111,0.00014424518,0.00037795465,0.000058816153,0.00004308939,0.0010324713,0.0000012845129,0.000001510456,0.00050155964,0.99761724,0.00010443337],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9976953,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.85615516,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016539922,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022694427,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9983184},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2956540596","doi":"","title":"RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE STATE: CAN PUBLIC OFFICIALS REFUSE TO PERFORM SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Sexual orientation; State (computer science); Law; Supreme court; Religious freedom; Political science; Sociology; Religious belief; Gender studies","score_opus":0.029576106576955908,"score_gpt":0.315738557362676,"score_spread":0.28616245078572006,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2956540596","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":[0.074277826,0.035651565,0.000093548966,0.6151449,0.0006674555,0.0031716446,0.00023107175,0.000067705885,0.27069426],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9165441,0.011611916,0.000058665897,0.06426399,0.00038437638,0.000024590387,0.000018101204,0.000010381547,0.007083879],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99863344,0.00029232894,0.00023896855,0.00014337525,0.00027136234,0.00042051205],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99872833,0.00028232386,0.00007706178,0.000228769,0.00014517068,0.0005383558],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003701643,0.00008900189,0.00017816648,0.000045317873,0.0012674702,0.000095234594,0.0002609863,0.000032605232,0.00023688246],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010491243,0.00005486367,0.00003116251,0.00036022664,0.0009310785,0.000063552165,0.00002052762,0.00011687144,0.000064536325],"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":[0.0000027480264,0.0000015937627,0.00024788696,0.00002544576,0.00000805972,0.000002869158,0.0019774535,4.175859e-7,2.1233635e-7,0.9631032,0.015565307,0.019064816],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007581117,0.000011601816,0.00045746818,0.00006384501,0.000027061225,0.0000045635243,0.0008396853,5.927622e-7,6.625439e-7,0.0010784976,0.99735415,0.00008606083],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.68859637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9408703,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9817888,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00039620858,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0035848536,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9748484},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963003061","doi":"","title":"THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE PROVINCIAL COURT IN CANADA","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Original jurisdiction; Court of equity; Court of record; Majority opinion; Political science; Constitutionality; Certiorari; Concurring opinion; Jurisdiction; Law of the case; Remand (court procedure); Precedent; Constitution; Constitutional court","score_opus":0.014306860440836372,"score_gpt":0.22803156217914847,"score_spread":0.2137247017383121,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2963003061","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":[0.023151228,0.19055933,6.783476e-8,0.5939627,0.00029281544,0.0013190662,0.00009529954,0.0000037380473,0.1906157],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9375438,0.054947995,5.339822e-7,0.006653923,0.00009191233,0.000027503673,7.3795593e-7,0.00000254531,0.00073103927],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99885005,0.00024801318,0.00019078022,0.000077946665,0.00033828337,0.000294919],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994065,0.00024014665,0.000044975543,0.00012130942,0.0000611665,0.00012587279],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011278744,0.00006750355,0.00018335486,0.00000548286,0.0015092591,0.000018526005,0.00033070575,0.000013995501,0.00023211035],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002587784,0.000032453085,0.000024256145,0.0001711221,0.00082725805,0.000021501328,0.000013546637,0.00010677636,0.0000026241933],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000021930655,0.000003431163,0.0062092496,0.000079731915,0.000062175626,0.000024587627,0.0014182758,0.000009282269,7.508621e-8,0.65970486,0.25487268,0.077593684],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007872338,0.0000017277529,0.009042428,0.00016034178,0.000019645167,0.000001417329,0.00040226043,0.0000027752053,1.1119033e-7,0.0017227931,0.98851585,0.000051940897],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99999887,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":1,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9143926,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009384494,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03013687,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99979067},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963240845","doi":"","title":"LE LIVRE X DU CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC : BILAN ET ENJEUX","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Civil code; Conflict of laws; Jurisdiction","score_opus":0.031406309937161064,"score_gpt":0.29141230250977135,"score_spread":0.26000599257261026,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2963240845","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0020011715,0.13971308,0.0000026486857,0.6624568,0.0019286209,0.00048046678,0.00006300227,0.00002799845,0.19332619],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5666645,0.36164606,0.000024566785,0.03988663,0.0022489824,0.000040103438,0.000022991013,0.00003949814,0.02942664],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981097,0.0005304062,0.0003041689,0.00025242026,0.00026832905,0.0005349738],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99839985,0.00012573056,0.00013490634,0.00048743852,0.00016258372,0.0006894775],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023717186,0.00018913964,0.00032687574,0.000042056497,0.001252162,0.0001714063,0.0005974713,0.00018281022,0.008183301],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034448263,0.00015586616,0.0001970977,0.00040384257,0.00060487015,0.00020368915,0.000039280887,0.00052550796,0.0010823385],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[7.2508533e-7,0.000019738525,0.00028435257,0.0003194276,0.000022761635,0.000017503595,0.0035399382,2.2126791e-7,0.000007444954,0.747114,0.14597617,0.10269773],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007984821,0.00001743998,0.0016311193,0.001217752,0.000097189535,0.0000221574,0.00019651325,0.000012155202,0.000001933038,0.00069502386,0.9958276,0.00020125828],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9691494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997512,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8498514,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002339184,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0051087867,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996954},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963329446","doi":"","title":"ETRE JURISTE AU FEMININ : UNE REALITE EMERGENTE OU UNE QUETE ILLUSOIRE?","year":2014,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Gender equality; Political science; Accountability; Humanities; Legal profession; Sociology; Gender studies; Law; Art","score_opus":0.06865302323928603,"score_gpt":0.37850059491814736,"score_spread":0.30984757167886134,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2963329446","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","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":[0.00014338145,0.06386135,0.000005896547,0.59800947,0.0022375586,0.00036885243,0.00005195844,0.000017682587,0.33530384],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.15530966,0.21913792,0.00016603904,0.13235725,0.00270134,0.000106201434,0.00013724387,0.00006839544,0.49001595],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99653345,0.0014277844,0.00062769634,0.00031588692,0.0003754994,0.0007196815],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9974167,0.00032442168,0.00039472303,0.00073858845,0.0003354816,0.0007900977],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.003924693,0.00024059205,0.00037618246,0.000087241155,0.001759016,0.00017045399,0.00066769257,0.00015930728,0.0060923067],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00166508,0.00020289833,0.00017326517,0.0026415314,0.0006159716,0.00040346975,0.000028331891,0.00068632053,0.005185837],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.6557976e-7,0.000012075422,0.00006074096,0.0003230367,0.000029308574,0.0000023518385,0.0041579553,7.687338e-7,3.165824e-7,0.46197262,0.40534842,0.12809172],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006962175,0.000017819037,0.0014315096,0.0014196939,0.00020977925,0.000009325206,0.0005735938,0.000012107346,4.590302e-7,0.0021943855,0.99381,0.000251723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9437014,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9792064,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5884616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009946002,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00642993,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99954057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963500614","doi":"","title":"\"DEBUNKING\" PARENTS' RIGHTS IN THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Context (archaeology); Fundamental rights; International human rights law; State (computer science); Embodied cognition; Human rights; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.07374014167730078,"score_gpt":0.31261404904336976,"score_spread":0.23887390736606898,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2963500614","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":[0.010109693,0.11744624,3.8091056e-7,0.4425399,0.0006105289,0.0025588863,0.000097098055,0.000034535344,0.42660275],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9732456,0.0062500923,0.000007255553,0.01937912,0.00016907528,0.00007145285,0.000011319001,0.0000030343733,0.0008630306],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99805725,0.00055809127,0.00022517345,0.00016660772,0.00040836458,0.0005845059],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99904805,0.00014890559,0.000058018297,0.00020623858,0.000120350494,0.00041842848],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011300135,0.0001343178,0.0002351351,0.000039992847,0.0057366686,0.000075858516,0.0006644626,0.00007370597,0.0007089425],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00040829217,0.00007169654,0.000094519855,0.00036951795,0.0023492756,0.000109331835,0.00001341227,0.0002746248,0.0005420538],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.333999e-7,0.000007286078,0.0059276097,0.000039462804,0.000027634209,0.00010763563,0.015940746,9.831726e-7,6.3884876e-8,0.83177036,0.1445251,0.0016525186],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000069983296,0.0000039042043,0.013340021,0.000308036,0.000018547074,0.00001354962,0.000557165,4.4721793e-7,1.1756361e-7,0.00053382997,0.98503536,0.00011906731],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99814945,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999665,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9631359,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016702219,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0027467685,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9955577},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2963833538","doi":"","title":"THE USES OF METAPHOR: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Metaphor; Philosophy","score_opus":0.023815089837339744,"score_gpt":0.2755645259190764,"score_spread":0.2517494360817366,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2963833538","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":[0.010700197,0.039581332,8.5329674e-7,0.24818823,0.0005573735,0.0006276663,0.000073523384,0.000004375158,0.7002664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9735974,0.013393472,0.000003512896,0.00471004,0.00008991819,0.000008059488,0.000002079903,0.0000032998412,0.008192231],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991195,0.00019529641,0.00017617799,0.000054270142,0.00032467485,0.00013007554],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99924856,0.00027126033,0.00009296216,0.00013935872,0.00017668738,0.000071156916],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012243803,0.000046572997,0.00012319679,0.000009662333,0.0006912799,0.000030300898,0.0005187894,0.000013561127,0.0004852037],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00013157236,0.000020516207,0.00004721258,0.000039913884,0.0007526719,0.000037844908,0.000015256069,0.000059304795,0.000002920666],"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":[0.0000025209972,9.005845e-7,0.000029215009,0.000010525076,0.00003359424,9.596915e-7,0.00022936765,2.9071066e-7,1.4016976e-7,0.9922267,0.0072834194,0.00018235747],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006049239,0.0000020444068,0.0002941816,0.000116562136,0.000027891532,0.0000023688956,0.000046163823,0.0000034323414,0.0000029855628,0.030475155,0.96894085,0.000027863232],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9892798,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998363,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9628972,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012471002,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010027727,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53168356},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2964194326","doi":"","title":"GIFTING CULTURAL PROPERTY IN CANADA: TESTING A TAX EXPENDITURE","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Constitutional 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":"Public economics; Cultural property; Property tax; Business; Incentive; Statutory law; Valuation (finance); Income tax; International taxation; Law and economics; Double taxation; Tax reform; Indirect tax; Accounting; Economics; Law; Cultural heritage; Market economy; Political science","score_opus":0.07746631787845992,"score_gpt":0.22097048995628793,"score_spread":0.143504172077828,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2964194326","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012702588,0.48572227,0.000009831798,0.046062227,0.00047661198,0.00080904755,0.00016004828,0.000016116259,0.45404127],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9880447,0.0026893034,0.00009036759,0.0077648642,0.00011134546,0.000021925533,0.0000055520627,0.0000067673736,0.0012652198],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99911535,0.000009734302,0.0003524067,0.00015679418,0.00003313148,0.00033260084],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958885,0.000036196154,0.000099939585,0.00012486045,0.000028556222,0.00012162485],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00061013194,0.00009554775,0.00024406987,0.000035131117,0.00029065993,0.000023131397,0.00019320208,0.000020680842,0.00017079762],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003539152,0.000057472575,0.000034616784,0.00024566083,0.0000484661,0.00007188756,0.000023304847,0.00016679263,0.00015564803],"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":[0.0000037056718,0.00001435806,0.34043565,0.0008644209,0.0000839293,0.00029009674,0.00052556396,0.000026218207,0.0000028247828,0.5055358,0.09889866,0.05331879],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000057625177,0.0000029850587,0.041365363,0.00043595975,0.0000033278202,0.000018126984,0.000055287113,0.000023075527,6.1131976e-7,0.0004249091,0.95748043,0.00013228467],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99858916,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9997889,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9753421,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0012902686,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00078914996,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33740073},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2964532162","doi":"","title":"CHANGES TO CANADA'S ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"World Trade Organization Law","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":"Tribunal; Duty; Dumping; Transparency (behavior); International trade; Law; Business; Cornerstone; Political science; Economics; Geography","score_opus":0.02490700006075173,"score_gpt":0.2726143632246213,"score_spread":0.24770736316386957,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2964532162","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0005134904,0.080986,0.0000064259307,0.9133542,0.00018298518,0.001151736,0.00003488824,0.000016446715,0.0037538144],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4942396,0.23675132,0.00016193705,0.24418938,0.0013219113,0.00008082847,0.000012626468,0.000062353174,0.023180034],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999135,0.00009319598,0.00012314257,0.00014304546,0.00017089746,0.0003347225],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991816,0.00014222911,0.000031767144,0.00021199584,0.000053288724,0.00037907137],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00065583736,0.00008753272,0.00015593809,0.000016740922,0.0012203424,0.00009625047,0.00035882744,0.000025010304,0.0011994428],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001734198,0.000058262118,0.00002366061,0.00032551977,0.0000823294,0.00003279954,0.000010079614,0.000066615925,0.000027683616],"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":[0.0000018522511,0.000002362124,0.00027014612,0.00032322097,0.000044730008,0.0000048233233,0.0037076694,0.000015061206,0.000004152146,0.045950696,0.8001387,0.14953656],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000038218637,0.0000033344509,0.0009130154,0.0003434701,0.000036963356,0.0000014854597,0.00012315324,0.000005716993,0.0000032967555,0.000017874348,0.9984286,0.000084896325],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9877288,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999395,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.66916484,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00027374004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0018877309,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997136},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2965103463","doi":"","title":"LES LIMITES DE LA BONNE FOI EN MATIERE DE VENTE: LE CAS DES VICES CACHES","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Warranty; Duty; Notice; Obligation; Liability; Business; Damages; Law; Civil code; Real estate; Quality (philosophy); Law and economics; Political science; Sociology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04779902939710829,"score_gpt":0.33278136753259063,"score_spread":0.28498233813548235,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2965103463","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.047061376,0.59102577,0.000005545684,0.18459363,0.000038104554,0.00046328836,0.00008267904,0.000025071286,0.17670453],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6317094,0.34006488,0.0004238331,0.003992591,0.0003076613,0.000080945996,0.00000762012,0.000022745799,0.023390299],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99819714,0.00078811066,0.0002088161,0.00016104282,0.000120348006,0.00052452646],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989131,0.0002758429,0.00006314817,0.000269993,0.000033449513,0.00044447527],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014167771,0.00013930677,0.00021127633,0.000019238114,0.0014202456,0.00014677709,0.0005456359,0.00012103333,0.0032102186],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012752482,0.000115386894,0.00012297095,0.00031877166,0.0007427832,0.00012482805,0.000019687814,0.00024070365,0.0005424932],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.4180925e-7,0.000029093106,0.0014766189,0.0009686615,0.00004175701,0.000016078306,0.010533208,0.000026942076,0.0000034607003,0.44760624,0.013057002,0.5262401],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003808546,0.000008326492,0.0059035844,0.0013577177,0.00011077835,0.000026233927,0.0005709032,0.000030982774,0.000007648941,0.0066901734,0.9851167,0.00013885873],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89010984,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9216919,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9720597,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008729038,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0015413859,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998798},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2965331472","doi":"","title":"LA PROCLAMATION DE L'EXISTENCE EN DROIT QUEBECOIS DE LA REGLE DE COMMON LAW DE L'ENGAGEMENT IMPLICIT","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"French Urban and Social Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Philosophy; Proclamation; Derecho; Political science; Humanities; Law","score_opus":0.027125627745519704,"score_gpt":0.2954165590306934,"score_spread":0.26829093128517373,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2965331472","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012365513,0.38223705,0.000016964093,0.059322204,0.0000987522,0.00084711716,0.000034909386,0.00004451533,0.545033],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47459748,0.4602949,0.00048686255,0.024893742,0.00058695686,0.00024268408,0.00000870268,0.000040850442,0.038847834],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99475604,0.003660115,0.0002951407,0.00020234977,0.00022398744,0.00086237804],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99861187,0.00048244803,0.00009940703,0.00025839597,0.00004509399,0.0005028098],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0053685904,0.00019002403,0.00035830255,0.00002213402,0.001573655,0.0001520434,0.0005586263,0.00021481143,0.001662032],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002747921,0.00017902371,0.00016118318,0.0003623705,0.00091094966,0.00011829166,0.00002846729,0.00047440114,0.00026261885],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000001336374,0.000022480572,0.00047629335,0.0006573669,0.000054939064,0.00004021712,0.02485417,0.000011541798,0.000001651211,0.76702183,0.050343663,0.15651454],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007236995,0.000019030686,0.0047822585,0.0017466934,0.00016782711,0.000022230543,0.00060804613,0.000038626986,0.0000028270088,0.036694016,0.9556478,0.00019824601],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9116428,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9655564,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9053042,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0066360896,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022568277,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997262},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2965541691","doi":"","title":"EXEMPTION CLAUSES AND FUNDAMENTAL BREACH IN CONTRACT: TERCON CONTRACTORS LTD. V. BRITISH COLUMBIA","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Breach of contract; Privity of contract; Business; Law; Contract management; Exclusion clause; Severability; Management; Political science; Economics; Damages","score_opus":0.030037166708875365,"score_gpt":0.2178877179218104,"score_spread":0.18785055121293504,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2965541691","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":[0.85643494,0.04917754,8.9718566e-7,0.0034246608,0.0003320934,0.0014551124,0.000019976405,0.00007433721,0.08908047],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9834455,0.0032930528,0.0000061395363,0.01216609,0.0001402548,0.000024877845,0.000023957946,0.000014024435,0.0008860991],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992813,0.000024445466,0.00022612266,0.00015364955,0.00008943621,0.00022508542],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996432,0.000014585528,0.0001249908,0.00013069554,0.000044651428,0.000041864252],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00038293473,0.000085799154,0.00020736734,0.000048011065,0.00017927578,0.00053621904,0.00013312756,0.000045604484,0.0035282024],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008334288,0.00009428686,0.000035491827,0.00014432847,0.00007103662,0.00055036874,0.00001933923,0.00012853186,0.00016595861],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008831411,0.00007744683,0.7142502,0.0016708229,0.000041550116,0.00014856162,0.00044701115,6.92532e-8,0.000030123801,0.018581042,0.07212705,0.19261725],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014890514,0.0000025721515,0.41470265,0.00065298466,0.000028109482,0.000009334061,0.000037677906,0.0000040367436,3.4860074e-7,0.00012627951,0.5841937,0.000093362796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9691473,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.993664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.51206666,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006874714,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000041379302,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9973827},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2965982429","doi":"","title":"What (is) a Nuisance? Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario (Minister of Transportation)","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Nuisance; Truck; Political science; Engineering; Law; Automotive engineering","score_opus":0.049560778947759204,"score_gpt":0.3123423020960813,"score_spread":0.26278152314832215,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2965982429","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.055482216,0.549288,0.0000021235282,0.33890966,0.0017261206,0.0016870473,0.00007696372,0.000028241815,0.052799664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9279778,0.051177222,0.000032164422,0.010570174,0.00015685165,0.000009178811,0.000009463806,0.000008643223,0.010058505],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989502,0.00011878292,0.000222125,0.00010030284,0.00023294243,0.00037565306],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99920434,0.00005339447,0.000086064974,0.00021993261,0.00007123687,0.00036502967],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00076137023,0.000084306164,0.00020839681,0.000018565646,0.00030899447,0.000046057332,0.0002837009,0.000043212833,0.005318932],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000032214615,0.000062249506,0.000106119725,0.0001474999,0.0001843985,0.0004505143,0.0000029663706,0.00009607884,0.0002566375],"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":[0.000016382259,0.00005771213,0.05110124,0.0023204435,0.00007378898,0.000023155304,0.32326415,3.1298669e-7,0.000004005486,0.3215239,0.21364036,0.08797452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031829444,0.00000492433,0.010020329,0.0014212158,0.00008857791,0.0000010985985,0.00096479227,3.9522817e-8,0.000006428921,0.00013040227,0.98724884,0.000081495506],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7802928,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99581116,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8724956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002738544,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00093797717,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9955903},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2966249197","doi":"","title":"HISTOIRE DE LA FOLIE EN DROIT PENAL ANGLAIS ET CANADIEN: ANALYSE CONSTRUCTIVISTE DES TROIS GRANDES F","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending","field":"Psychology","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legislator; Insanity; Law; The Imaginary; Phenomenon; Criminal law; Sociology; Political science; Humanities; Philosophy; Psychoanalysis; Psychology; Legislation; Epistemology","score_opus":0.017360059560388164,"score_gpt":0.30768758480048874,"score_spread":0.2903275252401006,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2966249197","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.039601013,0.5710957,0.00001780254,0.03826365,0.016185798,0.0010274933,0.0005911254,0.00006732664,0.33315012],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8110764,0.10315943,0.00083085627,0.03254942,0.0025288947,0.00018305429,0.00012107276,0.00030601825,0.04924486],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9929348,0.0034633316,0.0008203355,0.00076268346,0.00030667355,0.001712162],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99628615,0.0005245446,0.00027377458,0.0011953765,0.00008970093,0.0016304469],"candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.003085298,0.0006534113,0.0010688324,0.00027999777,0.001027331,0.00015593453,0.0009910853,0.00037963397,0.014949398],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00023325595,0.00060521916,0.00049158983,0.00090202724,0.0024272054,0.00018999711,0.000028436207,0.0010797853,0.0012892847],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000046890087,0.000065631815,0.004398002,0.0010594291,0.0005260406,0.00076319644,0.0046044607,0.000004361038,0.0000049669875,0.036527604,0.45930508,0.49269435],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009401671,0.00015566246,0.015978685,0.0043171714,0.0010432071,0.00516247,0.00039425812,0.00002541898,0.0000011437157,0.006229666,0.9650535,0.00069866836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.73664975,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9340804,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7714754,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038710514,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0021833926,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999529},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2966264975","doi":"","title":"LA COUR SUPREME ET LA REFORME DU CODE CIVIL","year":2000,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Comparative law; Precedent; Jurisprudence; Common law; Public law","score_opus":0.0326566559703614,"score_gpt":0.30285964922873015,"score_spread":0.2702029932583688,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2966264975","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0008047379,0.11410505,9.236905e-8,0.32721043,0.00021729428,0.00028588777,0.00009926316,0.000018016937,0.5572592],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.43261194,0.45932546,0.000008788121,0.053998634,0.0010797161,0.00002626255,0.000014260144,0.000032717886,0.052902225],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9961976,0.0022949188,0.00030491457,0.0002307655,0.00036703696,0.00060480495],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986346,0.00019266852,0.00007848734,0.00033523998,0.00007799963,0.0006810552],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.003268853,0.00021157823,0.00040088603,0.000023285631,0.001018507,0.00014738213,0.0007015683,0.00023689558,0.017183144],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001644494,0.00015783176,0.0002434682,0.0004943667,0.0009984269,0.00024536444,0.000022965749,0.0005346879,0.004349538],"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":[0.0000016716541,0.00001924144,0.000100849385,0.00040328654,0.000039133116,0.000069913964,0.0056094606,6.2415296e-7,1.5189923e-7,0.82970136,0.084652856,0.07940146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008659802,0.000013358115,0.00036193783,0.0016124806,0.000109495144,0.000019630968,0.00008909889,0.0000023467694,1.6559389e-7,0.015730951,0.98175895,0.00021501117],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.58906704,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9225545,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89710605,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00055461057,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002039836,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9964257},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2966852497","doi":"","title":"LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR ET LES SURETES MOBILIERES AU QUEBEC ET EN ONTARIO: SOLUTIONS DISTINCTES?","year":2001,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Migration, Identity, and Health","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":"Legislation; Political science; Geography; Ethnology; Law; Sociology","score_opus":0.05914425209172555,"score_gpt":0.3148749714608889,"score_spread":0.25573071936916336,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2966852497","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":[0.088463336,0.31110814,0.00008586546,0.5116007,0.0014420911,0.0035137022,0.00016426334,0.00008714105,0.08353481],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5975789,0.34288314,0.00002559207,0.0045120446,0.0004503512,0.00017043685,0.000048586826,0.000023913331,0.054307036],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99557513,0.0030130364,0.00037169777,0.00023350451,0.0002485226,0.0005581023],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99868494,0.000258815,0.00017223058,0.00028416264,0.0001631768,0.00043670106],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050166263,0.0001817138,0.0003137007,0.0000581132,0.002403452,0.00020462301,0.0003139696,0.00018761762,0.0035636746],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006793154,0.00015276395,0.000135438,0.00037469043,0.00066105183,0.00029365462,0.000028124863,0.0005094513,0.00037683512],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000003033265,0.0000530356,0.039946236,0.001604682,0.000046505626,0.000014377802,0.03383255,0.000009364947,7.3482136e-7,0.847153,0.051119488,0.026217],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056276527,0.000020283765,0.1176886,0.0014072007,0.000110229084,0.000026905778,0.00066003046,0.000010008772,1.02738866e-7,0.0022885918,0.87757987,0.00015189343],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9996785,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999998,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8448644,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0033440494,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012843186,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988953},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2967503102","doi":"","title":"REVISING CANADIAN DATABASE PROTECTION: WHAT LESSONS FROM EUROPE?","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Copyright and Intellectual Property","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Context (archaeology); Data Protection Act 1998; Doctrine; Political science; Database; Business; Law; Law and economics; Computer science; Economics","score_opus":0.12238120649417916,"score_gpt":0.24210264885815888,"score_spread":0.11972144236397972,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2967503102","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00027925597,0.29950878,0.00001564701,0.3763596,0.0009827878,0.0016702993,0.00003890411,0.00010118069,0.32104355],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47534487,0.19403811,0.00005795827,0.30948183,0.0053812093,0.00015241571,0.0003127835,0.00018767257,0.015043175],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986494,0.00005227725,0.00028075403,0.0003329226,0.00018445496,0.00050017243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988304,0.00002183332,0.000095630574,0.0007030312,0.00019892999,0.00015017478],"candidate_categories":["scholarly_communication","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.00048217527,0.0002202485,0.00027917398,0.00017308668,0.0009810354,0.0011154015,0.00058482785,0.00004805304,0.0529996],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00046417303,0.00014561033,0.000089875626,0.00080453436,0.00007303568,0.0016336881,0.00006554624,0.00031987333,0.015103784],"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":[0.0000010787649,0.0000045684096,0.000011776737,0.00039688632,0.000019401312,0.0000375969,0.000036358648,2.6359055e-7,0.0000067172427,0.0020147727,0.80377626,0.19369432],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005925167,0.000002809997,0.00007412809,0.003299198,0.00008944043,0.000007072965,0.000017176873,0.0018186553,0.0000026646162,0.00014092511,0.99425507,0.00023363436],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.947623,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98069006,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.47506562,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002244578,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00018747796,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99992156},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2967660575","doi":"","title":"LA REFONTE DU CODE CIVIL ROUMAIN ET LE CODE CIVIL DU QUEBEC","year":2010,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","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":"Civil code; Decree; Legislation; Law; Code (set theory); Statute; Political science; Romanian; Civil procedure; Politics; Civil law (Civil law); Commercial law; Computer science","score_opus":0.02155987300214066,"score_gpt":0.28327152944110456,"score_spread":0.2617116564389639,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2967660575","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":[0.0035991035,0.10621902,0.000009381484,0.5661068,0.0016061242,0.00058418786,0.00015346459,0.00004284467,0.32167906],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6831445,0.2558672,0.000030612657,0.026496008,0.0014212927,0.000058826234,0.000029169983,0.0000568997,0.032895435],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9968224,0.0013517345,0.00043139033,0.00034550042,0.00036623332,0.00068274536],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979662,0.00025067947,0.00020639603,0.0006284503,0.00016500714,0.00078332215],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0052727605,0.0002653389,0.00046354163,0.00005178246,0.0013189877,0.00023545674,0.00076841685,0.0002813307,0.0062061595],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00047193957,0.00022176649,0.00025672818,0.00045395613,0.0009518537,0.00028772393,0.00005978515,0.00081844226,0.00074198074],"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":[0.0000022615252,0.000030858264,0.0002397912,0.0003474777,0.00004241651,0.00004915091,0.004793037,4.4890734e-7,0.000020170808,0.74997807,0.14699899,0.097497314],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016494672,0.000018081202,0.0011526088,0.0015633467,0.00012767158,0.000043850738,0.0003408204,0.00003230272,0.000004227254,0.00056670175,0.99571145,0.00027398247],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9514914,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998692,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8487125,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005364586,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0039143744,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99998116},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2972200600","doi":"","title":"BOOK REVIEW - COMPTE RENDU - INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CANADIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF DAVID MULLAN","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Honour; Political science; Law; Sociology; Law and economics; Management; Economics","score_opus":0.056731998102242595,"score_gpt":0.35143427343593686,"score_spread":0.29470227533369425,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2972200600","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00012427529,0.6503359,0.0000010218656,0.10843599,0.000030766554,0.001111247,0.00008782012,0.000007913191,0.23986506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.29065546,0.5916518,0.000065939785,0.11541671,0.00008643149,0.000051838808,0.000025539903,0.000016926091,0.0020293733],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99856013,0.00024938048,0.00040221933,0.00018582845,0.00016674315,0.00043568475],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986139,0.00012394255,0.00013067824,0.0003131915,0.0000761534,0.00074212404],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023587605,0.00011898047,0.00034585973,0.000058282236,0.00054439245,0.000030116458,0.00036081535,0.000059161233,0.00059602177],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00022277566,0.000095873096,0.000058403795,0.000347914,0.00034831377,0.00008932492,0.000020131529,0.00023899897,0.000053110976],"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":[0.0000015247533,0.000012103033,0.0005021655,0.0016080654,0.000022380269,0.00006180773,0.002505723,3.7532453e-7,0.0000017871458,0.8221614,0.15826331,0.014859361],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047822054,0.000008029305,0.0017337813,0.0037512528,0.00003371852,0.0000058165906,0.00013407803,5.5076356e-7,0.0000023884645,0.00039770323,0.99377173,0.00011311592],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9751673,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9995492,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8355084,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004068756,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0020371445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6526021},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2978729991","doi":"","title":"Erga Omnes or Inter Partes? The Legal Effects of Federal Courts’ Constitutional Judgments","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisdiction; Law; Political science; Constitution; Deference; Federal jurisdiction; Jurisprudence; Res judicata; Exclusive jurisdiction; Statutory law; Supreme court","score_opus":0.02794251358819732,"score_gpt":0.2919764639386901,"score_spread":0.26403395035049276,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2978729991","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":[0.016749687,0.19173536,0.000024707186,0.24275112,0.0034412395,0.004055613,0.000091848735,0.00004669089,0.5411037],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97963697,0.0090470845,0.0000040623704,0.008908705,0.00017802643,0.000038571594,0.0000029479727,0.000002734261,0.002180897],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99899733,0.0001924219,0.00017150026,0.00010931492,0.00027506737,0.000254378],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993418,0.00022174849,0.00007225257,0.00013706657,0.0001103889,0.00011673405],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005257019,0.00009003733,0.00021409431,0.00001672965,0.0010354404,0.000046938523,0.00032407526,0.000031695366,0.0009433262],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00034306565,0.000044891676,0.00011083168,0.00014192365,0.0015993459,0.000084286614,0.000033118627,0.00010692211,0.00038691467],"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":[0.00000416122,0.000007078159,0.0016805121,0.00012394054,0.00006933992,0.0000061520195,0.00025356477,5.908383e-7,0.0000012052132,0.9622808,0.033406086,0.0021665285],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000098080316,0.000017737524,0.0017349444,0.0010762204,0.000056737714,0.000005221448,0.000115255396,5.766073e-7,0.0000031379602,0.0021719874,0.99464107,0.0000790131],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20063043,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5299492,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9628873,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016024044,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017270173,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99996996},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2979011158","doi":"","title":"LE CODE CIVIL QUEBECOIS ET LE CODE CIVIL CATALAN","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Family and Matrimonial Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Civil code; Law; Jurisdiction; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Legislature; Catalan; Civil procedure; Politics; Code (set theory); Property (philosophy); Realm; Sociology; Public law; Humanities; Computer science","score_opus":0.02405099371041299,"score_gpt":0.2894886555173142,"score_spread":0.2654376618069012,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2979011158","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":[0.0024377876,0.024916468,0.000003261064,0.2789273,0.00073382107,0.00077597966,0.00019269745,0.00008007731,0.6919326],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9490393,0.020440118,0.00004249194,0.024986789,0.00026959486,0.000043670534,0.000033973818,0.000028154729,0.0051159333],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9985572,0.00032718084,0.00020774905,0.00020733682,0.0002223511,0.00047817756],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987496,0.00010582876,0.00008113818,0.00047976468,0.00007136054,0.00051232206],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00192407,0.0001294317,0.00026366717,0.000032532425,0.0011678132,0.00010792423,0.0007069163,0.00011043963,0.0010346771],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00038560052,0.0001053063,0.000112680704,0.00025411227,0.0004124718,0.00015259345,0.0000350259,0.0003633765,0.0006716041],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.9855184e-7,0.000008890004,0.0000786729,0.00011988955,0.00001007011,0.000009393184,0.0012498284,1.16980466e-7,0.00004832469,0.85947394,0.1363809,0.0026192619],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007418882,0.000005702949,0.00022000023,0.00023825634,0.000026032236,0.0000036755096,0.00019162562,9.1098025e-7,0.000029176119,0.0013226592,0.99773526,0.00015248728],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9375563,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998377,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9466015,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00010256942,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0054337224,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998785},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2980448774","doi":"","title":"LA LIMITATION DE RESPONSABILITÉ EN DROIT MARITIME CANADIEN ET LES CRÉANCES DES PASSAGERS ET AUTRES ACTEURS MARITIMES","year":2019,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Scope (computer science); Liability; Tort; Legislation; Law; Crew; Business; Political science; Law and economics; Engineering; Sociology; Computer science; Aeronautics","score_opus":0.025656371579060526,"score_gpt":0.2618307743378505,"score_spread":0.23617440275878998,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2980448774","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":[0.026659528,0.2856927,0.000047081467,0.4078394,0.0010015698,0.0015149217,0.0003205201,0.00008391203,0.2768404],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7221911,0.1464921,0.000479723,0.044968735,0.0006694438,0.00008932743,0.00031389814,0.00010354002,0.08469216],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978273,0.00061749195,0.00039343402,0.0003235481,0.0002607325,0.00057749875],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99801135,0.00110207,0.00019076178,0.00034487084,0.00023150041,0.0001194591],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032292847,0.00026809573,0.0003773208,0.00015376476,0.0002932365,0.0004976424,0.00061064615,0.00016928402,0.003959043],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002438496,0.00024146489,0.0001738576,0.00026786435,0.00052662846,0.0008572808,0.00006612835,0.00041721552,0.000847133],"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":[0.000013137795,0.000028030374,0.029467681,0.0055538253,0.00012967666,0.000081330036,0.00029382017,0.000057998874,0.0000028248758,0.84533256,0.07528442,0.043754674],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014971546,0.000016976042,0.06991477,0.005201066,0.00020701103,0.00003114912,0.00019120247,0.00027182332,8.862735e-7,0.012867478,0.91085905,0.00028887024],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5777245,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.85044813,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8355746,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007448482,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007364827,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999308},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2980960846","doi":"","title":"SENIORS ON THE STAND: ACCOMMODATING OLDER WITNESSES IN ADVERSARIAL TRIALS","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Adversarial system; Witness; Psychology; Cognition; Cross-examination; Social psychology; Law; Political science; Psychiatry","score_opus":0.06516766666459298,"score_gpt":0.3504715508136412,"score_spread":0.28530388414904817,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2980960846","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":[0.0655335,0.09409259,0.0000027890817,0.34484708,0.0025053392,0.008002297,0.000059643993,0.000064505984,0.48489225],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98630726,0.0063126297,0.0000018313848,0.0058484604,0.00048409437,0.0000405516,0.0000017499294,0.00001098791,0.000992438],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974117,0.0013764754,0.0003779836,0.00015774056,0.0003300801,0.00034596698],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99845177,0.00088786264,0.00018174977,0.00027742784,0.00006351227,0.00013769478],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008040998,0.00010784596,0.00042910548,0.000040558833,0.00059099303,0.00012824559,0.0004972793,0.000063969004,0.0016922464],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0027584652,0.000055509354,0.0000935655,0.00045241546,0.00010491344,0.00012943026,0.000018696122,0.00020946182,0.00038456157],"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":[0.000029872279,0.00003045649,0.0040367497,0.0017313876,0.00009316303,0.000019806956,0.018617244,0.0000261719,0.000009694724,0.82525194,0.09847184,0.051681656],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015890707,0.000011977921,0.0004006424,0.0028950006,0.000026067675,4.770092e-7,0.001407429,0.0000017160188,0.000003367859,0.0010129422,0.9939653,0.00011616605],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6560168,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.82332027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92077374,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00027141225,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016112995,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992204},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3092059128","doi":"","title":"Erring in Law and in Fact: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Reproductive Health and Technologies","field":"Medicine","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal; McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Political science; Ultra vires; Appeal; Jurisdiction; Harm; Parliament; Original jurisdiction; Politics","score_opus":0.05867002577167658,"score_gpt":0.3032506123430663,"score_spread":0.2445805865713897,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3092059128","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":[0.47288686,0.22126937,9.623982e-7,0.2791489,0.00007646063,0.0014309868,0.000018306411,0.000008967468,0.025159188],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9702303,0.026150718,0.000036844864,0.003450602,0.000009648441,0.000018223664,0.0000048356856,0.000005065177,0.000093782684],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992961,0.00006410299,0.00020339093,0.00014384039,0.00010433367,0.0001882309],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99938655,0.000037611037,0.000045701006,0.0003844695,0.000065553315,0.000080119135],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00039304444,0.00006439928,0.00021698815,0.00003468573,0.000060796796,0.0000043300993,0.000093465176,0.000032592976,0.000038556886],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004484201,0.000038772185,0.000011926343,0.00018113245,0.00008847925,0.000018688193,0.000020358415,0.00020923233,9.694855e-7],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00010190956,0.00013034706,0.31784812,0.058435604,0.0001578947,0.0019434219,0.004513168,0.000047645055,0.0017427106,0.104527935,0.04842557,0.4621257],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00022374488,0.000029587247,0.83736485,0.005028055,0.00004378898,0.00007764277,0.00039884547,0.000021438544,0.0005765963,0.00058097934,0.15555857,0.0000958981],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9117503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9989885,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5195167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00028666327,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024108896,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42768145},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3112187591","doi":"","title":"RECONCILIATION AND ETHICAL LAWYERING","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Competence (human resources); Indigenous; Conversation; Accountability; Commission; Political science; Public relations; Legal education; Legal ethics; Sociology; Law; Engineering ethics; Social psychology; Psychology; Engineering","score_opus":0.061333698396253473,"score_gpt":0.3916847040508593,"score_spread":0.33035100565460584,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3112187591","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":[0.002693615,0.005600311,7.008533e-7,0.7518142,0.00022511926,0.00025849987,0.0000013755207,0.000009100967,0.23939711],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86252475,0.019578867,0.00007096549,0.108905084,0.00015017329,0.000016681915,0.000004631149,0.000005249702,0.008743631],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994929,0.00018017134,0.00008156417,0.000058376296,0.00008818588,0.00009881863],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99956363,0.00012482231,0.000034614626,0.00010110672,0.00007166966,0.000104134844],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015964216,0.000026327834,0.000053280186,0.000017319255,0.00036685955,0.000078486424,0.00008188731,0.000048562644,0.0024362314],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0009329306,0.00002025287,0.000011759059,0.00019255313,0.000049897164,0.000098447745,0.000004068321,0.00027765907,0.00066714775],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.7736429e-7,6.8621887e-7,0.00055965275,0.000070002,0.0000029418743,1.5763469e-7,0.0022610975,1.0865917e-7,0.0000015122512,0.9468995,0.02739674,0.022807475],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011295215,0.0000017000722,0.0011170764,0.000116783245,0.0000063234856,8.3672137e-7,0.00018547013,0.000001993684,3.0339564e-7,0.0006270824,0.99790037,0.000030750925],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29846308,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7012523,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9705036,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012235124,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012512453,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9984757},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3114367262","doi":"","title":"TECHNOLOGY-FACILITATED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & GIRLS: ASSESSING THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW RESPONSE","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Intimate Partner and Family Violence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Dignity; Criminal law; Autonomy; Domestic violence; Political science; Sexual violence; Criminology; Law; Sociology; Poison control; Human factors and ergonomics","score_opus":0.03251093502692979,"score_gpt":0.33319629003010215,"score_spread":0.30068535500317234,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3114367262","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":[0.3351053,0.053939357,0.000002007353,0.06726162,0.00081230403,0.0028891352,0.00010714682,0.00017128204,0.53971183],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.965709,0.007579609,0.00002563126,0.025443384,0.000047182883,0.00009617761,0.000004915293,0.000016925405,0.0010772179],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99683493,0.0010319012,0.00030061585,0.00031484768,0.00035664762,0.0011610476],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980763,0.00021186014,0.000092655704,0.000764342,0.00021960081,0.0006352412],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005705652,0.0001947876,0.0003002367,0.00014372288,0.0029634312,0.0002804629,0.0013366701,0.00016219536,0.0006825392],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006541572,0.00012801713,0.000081455575,0.00089178624,0.0011461824,0.00020487518,0.000041560525,0.0004968671,0.0021753286],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003244264,0.000023061828,0.0056780344,0.0009617142,0.00010608044,0.00018290743,0.020544033,0.000024140581,0.00014358199,0.82669246,0.015810028,0.1298015],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007178604,0.000023677429,0.007301374,0.0024106118,0.000034873752,0.0000073208416,0.0045380974,0.000020103767,0.0000060464913,0.0013782065,0.98393863,0.00026926165],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90284765,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96934754,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9681286,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002088527,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005673518,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999634},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3114618888","doi":"","title":"Judicial Independence and Judicial Place of Residence: A Tale of Two (or more) Cities?","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of New Brunswick","funders":"","keywords":"Judicial independence; Law; Judicial discretion; Political science; Prerogative; Judicial review; Judicial activism; Separation of powers; Veto; Independence (probability theory); Supreme court; Democracy; Constitutional law; Legislature; Politics","score_opus":0.05417441884891131,"score_gpt":0.3242715104905331,"score_spread":0.27009709164162177,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3114618888","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":[0.08582707,0.34203333,0.000023156199,0.38906357,0.0004937933,0.0025558325,0.0003406994,0.000054127337,0.17960842],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96184283,0.031851146,0.00002228917,0.005923354,0.000253796,0.000011250104,0.0000010551383,0.0000039315573,0.00009036215],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988167,0.00015358615,0.00026134678,0.00013840587,0.0004103917,0.00021955761],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992795,0.00012917654,0.00013111187,0.000091357324,0.00014406379,0.00022477805],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00065562845,0.000085129825,0.0003279123,0.000025733863,0.00053514185,0.000012687193,0.00029563243,0.00004225536,0.0003517933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0010206229,0.00006110372,0.000055802302,0.00038392888,0.0015771725,0.00007331029,0.000051844512,0.00012669485,0.000014688827],"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":[0.000057471174,0.000011102917,0.0045787864,0.00063015404,0.00008259608,0.0000413512,0.014550466,0.000004756174,0.000026151725,0.9411424,0.024475485,0.014399316],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011033091,0.0003643854,0.022810126,0.0107100615,0.0007609398,0.000024484352,0.011267756,0.00002354922,0.00012368333,0.054085046,0.89778113,0.0009455286],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.62259734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.79069185,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8870573,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007078655,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0022433712,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5811158},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3115152292","doi":"","title":"Moore v Sweet: Four Lessons in Unjust Enrichment from the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Unjust enrichment; Plaintiff; Law; Doctrine; Political science; Constructive trust; Element (criminal law); Statute; Constructive; Restitution; Computer science","score_opus":0.07967098125673334,"score_gpt":0.3047506684458837,"score_spread":0.2250796871891504,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3115152292","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0029375013,0.017738422,0.000003282482,0.95337266,0.000047825142,0.0006635063,0.00022118907,0.0000055811115,0.025010016],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96923316,0.008462845,0.000013298496,0.021827724,0.000129277,0.00003418734,0.000008790947,0.0000060890043,0.00028464192],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99906003,0.00016692,0.00018801677,0.000118080854,0.00023160172,0.00023537027],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992562,0.00011620225,0.00006598978,0.00024784874,0.000042183223,0.00027156944],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00045931496,0.00006614227,0.00015895939,0.000005907367,0.0003880366,0.000021844804,0.00062354177,0.000023769133,0.0005765553],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00018705515,0.000041284893,0.000041564927,0.00031455283,0.00009352659,0.00003135268,0.00002882884,0.0001409577,0.000026069456],"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":[0.0000016374474,0.000011071174,0.002957094,0.00016373057,0.000040015766,0.000012169163,0.0077202404,0.000045358207,0.000009578158,0.5286784,0.45180684,0.00855384],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003391435,0.0000023017665,0.00543244,0.00016241062,0.000021878981,1.15929254e-7,0.0005401,0.000017107754,0.0000015460607,0.0003565874,0.99337673,0.00005484638],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99784285,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998896,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96629566,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00036465935,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0036430259,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.64625716},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3115261604","doi":"","title":"Les cliniques juridiques communautaires de l’Ontario et l’accès à la justice en français","year":2020,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"French; Economic Justice; Population; Political science; Law; Corporate governance; Sociology; Humanities; Business; Demography","score_opus":0.06133969805013124,"score_gpt":0.31558436534516365,"score_spread":0.2542446672950324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3115261604","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0005229078,0.36521068,0.0000069047087,0.40268213,0.00032922567,0.00036943023,0.000104239574,0.000040518444,0.23073396],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08797478,0.6958549,0.00041146937,0.16856141,0.0010364125,0.000056053563,0.000026883441,0.0000686213,0.04600947],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9957074,0.0027243386,0.00041109082,0.00026322954,0.0002689598,0.0006249754],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976109,0.00050606014,0.0001389347,0.00037616128,0.00009881909,0.0012691036],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025317313,0.00021886504,0.00047955866,0.00009808381,0.0020495206,0.000519133,0.0010487641,0.00026978846,0.009238282],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00078099576,0.00023822843,0.00027804504,0.0003895708,0.0013968104,0.0002674104,0.0000657317,0.0010289318,0.0012908893],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002745438,0.000011901144,0.00032859636,0.0019803445,0.0000578508,0.00010730391,0.082543,0.0000017589208,3.0457218e-7,0.16848014,0.62753594,0.118950106],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005846518,0.000032648542,0.0033140562,0.0021189882,0.00054904865,0.00001316881,0.00043778494,0.0000058515925,3.482847e-7,0.0007825012,0.99241644,0.00027070392],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99981683,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999933,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3648805,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0037600484,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015256223,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99948674},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3116257363","doi":"","title":"Confinements, déplacements et urgence nationale:","year":2020,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Healthcare Systems and Practices","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Constitution; Supreme court; Political science; Parliament; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Power (physics); Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Diversity (politics); Public administration; Politics; Medicine","score_opus":0.3126814077108184,"score_gpt":0.5062595990332622,"score_spread":0.1935781913224438,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3116257363","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000019281631,0.35614312,0.000011198645,0.578547,0.0011452337,0.001728546,0.00031054014,0.000011971903,0.062083073],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.019580023,0.3218655,0.00009278729,0.5975314,0.0009223893,0.00018958829,0.00010893294,0.000041235933,0.059668195],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9917046,0.005957539,0.00087466615,0.00031427882,0.00041698726,0.0007319648],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963916,0.0008733118,0.00045135833,0.00041491707,0.00031154384,0.001557287],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.005327565,0.00022391923,0.0004543429,0.000035677127,0.0011150106,0.000039736693,0.00045901551,0.000203919,0.06538753],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002915142,0.00017507565,0.00009333901,0.00044056558,0.000083461426,0.00020342495,0.00006520876,0.0011918804,0.01472083],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000028838324,0.0000060668826,0.000313259,0.012629155,0.000052103693,0.0000252663,0.0018923336,7.45679e-7,3.3304977e-7,0.12297628,0.8345746,0.027527012],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015755164,0.000049703292,0.0005401519,0.010510409,0.000094922514,0.00001062325,0.00031675852,0.000045808876,1.5450047e-7,0.00008718058,0.9880201,0.0001666313],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.42762908,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.63480663,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20717753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00046554545,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007867653,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99775684},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3117032328","doi":"","title":"LA COMPÉTENCE INTERNATIONALE INDIRECTE ET LA SOUMISSION AU TRIBUNAL ÉTRANGER SELON LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA APRÈS L’ARRÊT BARER C KNIGHT BROTHERS","year":2019,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"CONTEST; Tribunal; Jurisdiction; Supreme court; Law; Plaintiff; Political science; Humanities; Knight; Philosophy","score_opus":0.022042963572016495,"score_gpt":0.2678361889028034,"score_spread":0.24579322533078693,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3117032328","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":[0.08864002,0.12496021,0.000014052144,0.37666038,0.0025168094,0.0018557108,0.00051287224,0.000053467098,0.40478647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8396479,0.077930585,0.000032687574,0.010616275,0.00051495247,0.00003707504,0.000060303475,0.000051895408,0.07110833],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962557,0.0019133593,0.00036157193,0.00031267776,0.00062685425,0.00052983756],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981898,0.00057932903,0.00017276908,0.00029257772,0.0001608272,0.00060468336],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030452423,0.00024995123,0.0003990714,0.00006332785,0.00058302836,0.00014806211,0.00057844585,0.00019840029,0.0060808603],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00015555881,0.00020405011,0.00016077935,0.00039530965,0.00033367757,0.00020008892,0.000034315326,0.0005048043,0.00031918223],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000035959896,0.00012177071,0.025878305,0.0024410177,0.00043925978,0.00034319994,0.021202521,0.000071612405,0.00004591369,0.45606315,0.2430604,0.2502969],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021924973,0.00001611538,0.014120582,0.0025822325,0.00008790325,0.00005714574,0.00016253181,0.000064553555,0.0000030124015,0.00011881054,0.9823119,0.0002559512],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9846161,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99699074,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.75100785,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0014362816,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0069129895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987169},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3117581872","doi":"","title":"SHOPKEEPER’S PRIVILEGE: COMING TO A STORE NEAR YOU?","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Dilemma; Privilege (computing); Law; Corporation; Political science; Business; Liability; Computer security","score_opus":0.04474109172410389,"score_gpt":0.33428936882677385,"score_spread":0.28954827710266995,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3117581872","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":[0.044234473,0.07340329,0.000004172076,0.6814727,0.0009551382,0.0028936418,0.000029688914,0.0000651649,0.19694173],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9331464,0.009423429,0.00013313946,0.041546844,0.00028036936,0.000041401872,0.000003174201,0.000021308277,0.015403886],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99884033,0.00018186477,0.00014167426,0.00017059402,0.0002578908,0.0004076565],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989464,0.00007195639,0.000034693112,0.00037496464,0.000062522166,0.00050946133],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013268626,0.00008724336,0.00019708124,0.000022574657,0.0007032684,0.00011140031,0.0005738694,0.00003987338,0.002685826],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00032591328,0.00006506263,0.00007468606,0.00026602575,0.00011231006,0.00010049801,0.00003257408,0.0001326524,0.0044582677],"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":[0.0000058687147,0.000010760279,0.0036841526,0.0012640539,0.000027174663,0.000038141443,0.01874077,0.000009211298,0.000012448596,0.3098623,0.55458844,0.11175672],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019140836,0.000012561585,0.0005776112,0.001187799,0.00002465649,0.0000022776364,0.00026352273,0.0000028729921,5.261357e-7,0.00009092932,0.99771506,0.00010303603],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.51483977,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9147558,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88891196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00036016575,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001006492,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99822587},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3119060674","doi":"","title":"Canada’s Unwritten Constitutional Order: Conventions and Structural Analysis","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constitution; Normative; Order (exchange); Law; Political science; State (computer science); Power (physics); Law and economics; Constitutional law; Constitutional economics; Constitutional theory; Sociology; Computer science; Economics; Physics","score_opus":0.034959858699764784,"score_gpt":0.27914292417899644,"score_spread":0.24418306547923166,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3119060674","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":[0.00068854913,0.094863914,0.000034848093,0.8187479,0.00012519502,0.0004078211,0.00028670084,0.000018297986,0.08482678],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9595167,0.00938878,0.000015711756,0.03080728,0.00012668388,0.000008545212,0.000019286648,0.0000014032167,0.00011558305],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992255,0.00010319808,0.00013251633,0.0001205048,0.00022128683,0.00019696784],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993691,0.000044671488,0.000036597292,0.000061081104,0.000126268,0.00036232182],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00019176585,0.00006802906,0.0001876351,0.000019876114,0.0018568669,0.00003462154,0.00015585471,0.000019939836,0.0010474208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003128402,0.00005009703,0.000056808796,0.00060879264,0.0012202887,0.000042328116,0.000019767513,0.00008337208,0.000021332224],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[3.9058114e-7,3.961685e-7,0.0033882712,0.000018794914,0.00016233264,0.0000063633047,0.00013409772,0.000004965619,6.2474406e-8,0.97113067,0.023918826,0.0012348156],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000323493,0.0000021799158,0.0089879,0.000048043854,0.00037392447,0.0000014825605,0.00022809491,0.000013143966,4.820532e-8,0.001306356,0.9889268,0.00007965348],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9970519,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9998911,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9698243,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00020353645,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007657443,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998658},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3120641221","doi":"","title":"A TROJAN HORSE: CAN INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT BE PROMOTED THROUGH THE INDIAN ACT?","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Treaty; Indigenous; Parliament; Political science; Interpretation (philosophy); Treaty of Waitangi; Law; Government (linguistics); Population; Legislation; Supreme court; Politics; Geography; Sociology","score_opus":0.025476564129801493,"score_gpt":0.29273182412458415,"score_spread":0.26725525999478267,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3120641221","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":[0.034598958,0.008434896,7.714924e-7,0.76228505,0.00021888182,0.005203209,0.00022431384,0.000079080026,0.18895483],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.961695,0.00878305,0.000041832056,0.024647098,0.00019148344,0.00013381556,0.000014286373,0.000021153814,0.004472255],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99821186,0.00031507105,0.00022169555,0.00022752247,0.00049383554,0.0005299961],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99870044,0.000064496926,0.00012810405,0.00070499745,0.0000435727,0.00035840465],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00098476,0.00014354776,0.00021000186,0.000013465132,0.0013047238,0.0001549803,0.0009785905,0.000076829354,0.0012207248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000093979375,0.000085186766,0.000109440814,0.0004868531,0.00016360772,0.000103414364,0.00004967641,0.00030164735,0.000551013],"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":[0.0000026050493,0.00006646792,0.0017506528,0.00067190605,0.0001883146,0.00002573621,0.12633885,0.0000025412535,0.000010051421,0.7566747,0.07607457,0.038193613],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006263959,0.000012852656,0.0010437383,0.00021226401,0.000045305973,0.0000035591063,0.0015485875,0.0000011527261,0.000004128928,0.00047003187,0.996462,0.0001337306],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4818176,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.910447,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92709607,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009035952,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0017554229,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99999547},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3120800865","doi":"","title":"A Comparative Look at Vicarious Liability for Intentional Wrongs and Abuses of Power in Canadian Law","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Vicarious liability; Wrongdoing; Delict; Law; Common law; Legal liability; Strict liability; Liability; Political science; Civil law (Civil law); Scope (computer science); Tort; Comparative law; Sociology; Public law; Private law; Black letter law","score_opus":0.056015194758792575,"score_gpt":0.24285554969351694,"score_spread":0.18684035493472437,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3120800865","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":[0.3042276,0.2894312,0.000033072134,0.101705834,0.0008415141,0.0067947484,0.0058688363,0.000026164555,0.291071],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98998696,0.0018983209,0.000019936595,0.007889432,0.000039823684,0.000050427207,0.00002320878,0.000010905641,0.000081002814],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9988133,0.000028104672,0.0005888553,0.00026014893,0.000016590162,0.0002930502],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99909246,0.0000565272,0.00018936585,0.00018964415,0.00003968738,0.00043228702],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006594891,0.00009773558,0.0006385225,0.000057124675,0.00013300311,0.000026274949,0.00019654904,0.000057038676,0.00046040653],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00011287032,0.000107692154,0.00010071045,0.00010451413,0.00023145677,0.00007364281,0.000020841298,0.00007826661,0.00014073533],"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":[0.0000066338757,0.000006008152,0.028925478,0.00043925396,0.000043681506,0.0000013353016,0.0011504353,0.0000047166086,3.6410856e-7,0.96418387,0.005154295,0.00008390627],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002721,0.0000502214,0.013655033,0.00024324599,0.000013072743,0.0000029791233,0.00006153589,0.00018177119,0.00000214703,0.014333719,0.97099805,0.0001861535],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9295067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9961114,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96584374,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00064294785,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00027421795,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5041129},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121300722","doi":"","title":"CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW DIALOGUES BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT AND CANADIAN LEGISLATURE","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Legislature; Political science; Statutory interpretation; Common law; Constitution; Separation of powers; Sociology","score_opus":0.0629178601273308,"score_gpt":0.3049347126187453,"score_spread":0.24201685249141447,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121300722","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":[0.010227826,0.22339803,3.1459388e-7,0.62085176,0.00019063009,0.00122759,0.0002140219,0.000026312327,0.14386351],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9284407,0.058717493,0.000008995065,0.012008035,0.00032015555,0.000019793895,0.000020237587,0.000004196282,0.0004604238],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99876666,0.0003057374,0.00014628949,0.00014966325,0.0002009281,0.0004307053],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989689,0.00020357032,0.00004384549,0.00014726276,0.00007660873,0.00055979297],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009042087,0.0001299567,0.00024936226,0.000012343403,0.003814529,0.00014350784,0.00027608286,0.000083598345,0.0001478259],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017882296,0.00007002367,0.000044236836,0.00015370114,0.0030089181,0.00011211,0.00002912122,0.00024232018,0.00003838795],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.1718986e-7,0.0000017644296,0.05565234,0.00007828718,0.00008577967,0.000021227133,0.0054111485,2.593829e-7,2.2505203e-7,0.87718666,0.05104803,0.01051345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045644294,0.0000042179313,0.038446277,0.00020820253,0.000070730384,0.0000075702724,0.00028757358,3.7695256e-7,7.7950716e-8,0.0010581248,0.9597644,0.000106779386],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98963803,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9996774,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91821283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00038253295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00049713766,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997043},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121400957","doi":"","title":"SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES AND JUDICIAL ROLE: THE SCAFFOLDING FOR EXPANDED THINKING ABOUT JUDICIAL ETHICS","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Mediation; Political science; Judicial opinion; Settlement (finance); Action (physics); Engineering ethics; Sociology; Law; Computer science; Engineering","score_opus":0.10485530194972174,"score_gpt":0.4058283538600859,"score_spread":0.30097305191036416,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121400957","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0012961719,0.017630693,0.00002144324,0.92993635,0.0005453412,0.0016921198,0.000022567341,0.000020129071,0.048835192],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8528147,0.028520744,0.00030084877,0.11606732,0.0010839149,0.00044450385,0.000023885354,0.0000138171545,0.0007303185],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99868965,0.00042266847,0.00021878238,0.00012279919,0.0002665022,0.00027962256],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984627,0.0007703637,0.00013786966,0.00015834135,0.00031612,0.0001546441],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0039283237,0.000080449485,0.00013090514,0.000034605375,0.003573519,0.0005336804,0.00034489544,0.000071235154,0.0013181152],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0019335835,0.00004984709,0.000038411537,0.00026738792,0.0002925447,0.00026264018,0.000017949891,0.00035658974,0.00006509528],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.027339e-7,0.0000034327993,0.00015781091,0.00006087651,0.000018028406,9.9434224e-8,0.018293507,1.5401763e-7,0.0000019097445,0.87150896,0.058862887,0.051091723],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004598895,0.0000068938734,0.0008793255,0.00030182162,0.000051670122,8.3726576e-7,0.0045738714,0.000009547186,0.0000015732179,0.026504291,0.9675453,0.000078910045],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5216202,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.76235074,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9086824,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000127505,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004175739,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995948},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121736214","doi":"","title":"THE IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION IN CANADA","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Arbitration; Convention; Enforcement; Law; Political science; International arbitration; Legislature; Compulsory arbitration","score_opus":0.01233547742167941,"score_gpt":0.2262935869157474,"score_spread":0.21395810949406802,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121736214","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":[0.041068457,0.020832328,0.000668855,0.6432919,0.0016151406,0.007238453,0.00002004428,0.00003740019,0.28522742],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95108,0.0003053497,0.000004824374,0.048289716,0.00012951808,0.000031892916,0.000026087131,0.0000049868795,0.00012757487],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994254,0.000031180327,0.00022445443,0.00007444164,0.00014945555,0.000095065334],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99958694,0.000024843568,0.00017650973,0.00014527747,0.00005289846,0.000013552549],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004535275,0.00005669273,0.00006772011,0.000021984028,0.00022475036,0.000058562964,0.00016905277,0.000010438448,0.000070259615],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000391839,0.000031262745,0.00002261929,0.00016964435,0.00003072401,0.00012585627,0.000013488993,0.00005579993,0.000013667101],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.85147e-7,0.0000010465102,0.0021784217,0.0000819649,0.000004045807,2.7471877e-8,0.000008775545,0.00000454275,0.00001347385,0.97148716,0.015723247,0.010496389],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011906321,0.0000015403336,0.02576826,0.00013222978,0.000021906983,5.4195203e-7,0.000044652334,0.0015370088,0.000027693763,0.007057392,0.9652401,0.000049581555],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98299515,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9994678,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9644298,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00016049999,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00039174664,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17286207},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121983015","doi":"","title":"A FLEX TIME JD: NEW APPROACHES TO THE ACCESSIBILITY OF LEGAL EDUCATION","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legal education; Context (archaeology); Legal profession; Legal research; FLEX; Political science; Inclusion (mineral); Law; Diversity (politics); Legal writing; Sociology; Public relations; Engineering; Social science","score_opus":0.30159413218450865,"score_gpt":0.4334399001458242,"score_spread":0.13184576796131553,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121983015","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":[0.00061257405,0.0032984826,0.0000031668098,0.7288293,0.00025697827,0.00058713113,0.000005269506,0.000005288609,0.2664018],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8799991,0.00179722,0.0003031888,0.03444455,0.00093222264,0.000094293944,0.000012410299,0.000011229458,0.082405776],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.999121,0.00026494433,0.00017856849,0.00011298744,0.00016895653,0.00015351214],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986142,0.0000819551,0.00019974248,0.0007677907,0.00010387032,0.00023243709],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00223699,0.000055949087,0.00010921702,0.000028304452,0.0016873433,0.00038333982,0.0009850721,0.000029610728,0.001735966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003026259,0.00003416807,0.000044286735,0.00025674928,0.00016599885,0.00045417537,0.000025746058,0.00015966018,0.0005291576],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[9.830862e-7,0.000015483276,0.00017627752,0.00005824926,0.000008966436,6.312544e-8,0.0037433922,2.8608585e-7,7.235047e-7,0.45979345,0.37328097,0.16292116],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012802583,0.0000028417412,0.0065197926,0.00013569972,0.000026251744,5.608302e-7,0.0002367194,0.0000012191837,0.0000020258888,0.0013284537,0.9916877,0.000045923178],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.73292327,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7874027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.87938654,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00018079556,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012541626,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99961233},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122184023","doi":"","title":"LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Impartiality; Commonwealth; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Subject (documents); Sociology","score_opus":0.07027222147544328,"score_gpt":0.3288787539213947,"score_spread":0.25860653244595144,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122184023","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":[0.0038241085,0.04961466,0.000041727206,0.1809408,0.00009058799,0.0012183789,0.000045713026,0.00002375566,0.76420027],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9783736,0.014683084,0.000046198234,0.0026512654,0.0000625593,0.000056945173,0.000004964791,0.000006987518,0.004114412],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990497,0.0003223395,0.00017875223,0.00008833382,0.00018351787,0.00017735297],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992687,0.00010403885,0.000111082314,0.00034343178,0.000060421116,0.00011232735],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017081753,0.000052493127,0.00009958069,0.000009857351,0.00087678444,0.000045111046,0.00039326242,0.000023750623,0.00040844665],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005856356,0.000029928817,0.00005786032,0.0002461032,0.00021868058,0.000058515627,0.000010650019,0.00009433006,0.00014486905],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[7.942533e-8,0.000002215157,0.0002587611,0.00003762745,0.000003937364,1.0115336e-7,0.0005260125,0.0000024518386,0.0000023973673,0.99410343,0.0029338975,0.0021291068],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001419262,0.0000017596772,0.0011533274,0.0000946715,0.00002289307,8.426442e-7,0.0003231736,0.000002542578,0.0000069140115,0.0005035215,0.9978329,0.00004327264],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.18834667,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6388166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.994899,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00014716161,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007563665,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8170582},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122623942","doi":"","title":"FITNESS FOR PURPOSE: MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL ETHICSEDUCATION FOR LAWYERS","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argument (complex analysis); Legal profession; Legal ethics; Law; Political science; Legal education; Sociology","score_opus":0.07790721303275834,"score_gpt":0.43330832610291975,"score_spread":0.3554011130701614,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122623942","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00019562173,0.00956357,0.0002548808,0.95322347,0.00075153407,0.0020445064,0.00003427014,0.000024718323,0.033907413],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6615027,0.0149121145,0.0024385694,0.2726082,0.0023223853,0.0011669376,0.00026570872,0.00003992134,0.04474347],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99918556,0.00014787096,0.00018555678,0.000116982555,0.00011788025,0.0002461734],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988352,0.00032444773,0.00011029363,0.00018019105,0.00038593097,0.00016395087],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0027333405,0.000064357184,0.00011461683,0.00004517204,0.0010710766,0.00020067686,0.00024633124,0.00006196101,0.0002884311],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0025651718,0.0000543253,0.00006453333,0.00027921758,0.00008901974,0.0003391639,0.0000019845168,0.00017999561,0.000036829595],"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":[0.0000014239481,0.000005924013,0.0000049218174,0.000085892956,0.000003984686,7.396164e-8,0.0026080622,3.0260836e-7,0.0000014554503,0.77003354,0.16091336,0.06634109],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067055844,0.000011085795,0.00014805436,0.00022938874,0.00004035545,8.179461e-7,0.0006364534,0.000002799939,0.0000028104855,0.0034727738,0.9953092,0.00007920328],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.063852705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.385159,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8343958,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002773263,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0032999997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9423812},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123116383","doi":"","title":"The Law Practice Program: Tackling Racial Inequality in the Legal Profession?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Inequality; Legal profession; Economic Justice; Face (sociological concept); Political science; Practice of law; Law; Sociology; Public relations; Social science","score_opus":0.13688249971330668,"score_gpt":0.4915060772265879,"score_spread":0.3546235775132812,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123116383","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00022479963,0.009274443,7.743009e-7,0.7450309,0.00048304794,0.0012097231,0.0000023927848,0.000016260079,0.24375765],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8141144,0.006891706,0.00020403386,0.17357148,0.0010417773,0.0006545802,0.000016778455,0.000015552892,0.0034896915],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954526,0.003353513,0.00030326322,0.00011474352,0.00044801825,0.0003278973],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977703,0.0010427538,0.00019615247,0.0003898541,0.00041100904,0.00018994501],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01696376,0.000077806115,0.00010765088,0.000021174368,0.0023065372,0.00058909395,0.0006704346,0.00005151988,0.000089672416],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012501252,0.000037782323,0.0000374338,0.0009737247,0.0003048318,0.0007079174,0.000019185169,0.0006819266,0.00020994518],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000029301586,0.000025558065,0.000039810053,0.000021084456,0.0000048790616,0.0000028301467,0.018534211,2.1872818e-7,3.1128064e-8,0.8952051,0.06467068,0.021492694],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048217466,0.0000088737925,0.000102149286,0.0001221395,0.000025055213,0.0000040827917,0.016085854,0.000001813467,9.49911e-8,0.0014966084,0.98204374,0.00006135816],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6667231,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9450999,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91737306,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00032808533,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006675641,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989923},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123407248","doi":"","title":"The Ultrahazardous Activity of Excluding Family Members in Canada’s Immigration System","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Family reunification; Immigration; Immigration law; Government (linguistics); Tort; Law; Family member; Political science; Refugee; Liability; Immigration policy; Medicine","score_opus":0.03402826484743648,"score_gpt":0.2806383058229981,"score_spread":0.2466100409755616,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123407248","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":[0.19206229,0.052157942,0.00005043007,0.5788322,0.00058470736,0.0034975833,0.00018032592,0.00003972492,0.17259476],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9832208,0.015908148,0.0000023170599,0.00037589506,0.00003613915,0.00004042593,3.8299171e-7,0.000004097349,0.00041178148],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990986,0.00023282573,0.00016616465,0.00008661114,0.00018814504,0.00022764548],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99928063,0.00021198166,0.000094532115,0.00023376971,0.000048738097,0.00013036896],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00109881,0.000052780815,0.0001230304,0.0000132413725,0.0005678165,0.00001881445,0.00031960045,0.000019919493,0.000021082042],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00012616867,0.000025912486,0.000036043035,0.00019496174,0.00009423618,0.00005646827,0.000008906663,0.00005723043,0.000012992435],"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":[0.000002678364,0.000004459078,0.0015660777,0.00034925144,0.000024528903,0.000004321289,0.0012699788,0.000006013095,0.00027779705,0.7398738,0.015727283,0.24089377],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034404242,0.0000017346894,0.0065346668,0.00071069074,0.000012889557,5.606149e-7,0.00081818213,0.000008349668,0.000021504804,0.000047501584,0.9917494,0.00006011164],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.999512,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999988,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9760221,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002012379,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0053932616,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.95674145},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123927232","doi":"","title":"REGULATING LAW FIRMS IN CANADA","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Public law; Law; Commercial law; Private law; Comparative law; Business; Municipal law; Audit; Political science; Law and economics; Economics; Accounting","score_opus":0.07193141210284187,"score_gpt":0.36025841307170736,"score_spread":0.2883270009688655,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123927232","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":[0.001911206,0.018595407,1.9054262e-7,0.49976113,0.00045786568,0.00027025054,0.000003997399,0.0000053977524,0.47899455],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9496097,0.0014045591,0.000027466584,0.04719535,0.00016967331,0.000015988799,0.0000035331987,0.0000038557773,0.0015698567],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99919116,0.00021879052,0.00013453033,0.000044873672,0.00013534061,0.00027530882],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99943054,0.00011896199,0.00005017512,0.00013893654,0.000044934197,0.00021644066],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001364989,0.000037605598,0.00007018953,0.000017035964,0.0005127171,0.000036925783,0.00015694402,0.000016308893,0.0016558033],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006164683,0.00002921848,0.00001255323,0.00042999373,0.000047185596,0.00025865837,0.000004680812,0.00016962975,0.0001041146],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.7564956e-8,0.0000021486453,0.00402523,0.000034655073,0.0000021752453,4.4846462e-7,0.0023395312,4.615531e-7,1.1397705e-7,0.90977883,0.07518537,0.008630968],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001086727,3.233582e-7,0.0041183173,0.00013149106,0.000004871896,8.62808e-7,0.00058310333,6.344553e-7,3.62882e-7,0.00019284233,0.99491304,0.00004327778],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9999549,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999976,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94769853,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001286295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009541536,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992568},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124036103","doi":"","title":"GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION: TOWARD AN INCLUSIVE AND CONTEXTUAL APPROACH","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Interpretation (philosophy); Legislation; Human rights; Judicial interpretation; Law; Charter; Political science; Disadvantaged; Sociology; Racism; Law and economics","score_opus":0.10928416546465862,"score_gpt":0.37409992679227416,"score_spread":0.26481576132761553,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124036103","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":[0.0067988243,0.012900403,0.000077927936,0.09508502,0.00010061235,0.0007286444,0.00002176894,0.000022170927,0.88426465],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9823766,0.011725645,0.00004369603,0.0043409946,0.00006801505,0.000014468793,0.000016682876,0.0000050314366,0.0014089139],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989837,0.000350418,0.00016519788,0.00011068539,0.00021393062,0.00017609324],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99939066,0.00003450321,0.00006229575,0.00015376696,0.00009703885,0.00026170374],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012295711,0.00006343749,0.00015979484,0.000033633674,0.00046407784,0.00005040351,0.0002468752,0.000037074045,0.00031407562],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00016946653,0.000046728786,0.000035161363,0.00018861162,0.0004102519,0.0001890948,0.000021132697,0.000060129303,0.000011649715],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.7693684e-7,0.000009800529,0.000100393176,0.00013780007,0.000004929879,0.0000010843889,0.015009871,6.854603e-8,2.4304347e-7,0.94399196,0.0010564391,0.03968653],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001104988,0.00002909243,0.0032828492,0.00026362605,0.00006375459,0.000005343713,0.008529433,0.000010835731,6.318761e-7,0.009270017,0.97830236,0.0001315346],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2890455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.709327,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9772459,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00012178526,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003235528,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7156888},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124132668","doi":"","title":"BANKRUPTCY, PROVINCIAL LAW, AND THE FAMILY FARM","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Bankruptcy; Insolvency; Statute; Family law; Reform Act; Political science; Estate; Damages; Legislative intent; Legislature","score_opus":0.030563315560485724,"score_gpt":0.2828547792924247,"score_spread":0.25229146373193895,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124132668","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":[0.0060046697,0.21235082,4.182175e-7,0.41416675,0.00025683764,0.0036270865,0.000013830948,0.000044737182,0.36353487],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8296604,0.081539705,0.000036281657,0.083194174,0.000557872,0.0003951703,0.0000026945797,0.000016108252,0.004597562],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986454,0.0004494906,0.0001621253,0.00013507898,0.00023686756,0.00037104095],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99930173,0.0001347278,0.00005888835,0.00017699979,0.00011183432,0.00021583246],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010817187,0.00011020895,0.00023547148,0.0000071757786,0.0023947044,0.00017279413,0.00039285232,0.000046798228,0.0002994013],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00040624358,0.000049977672,0.000078103105,0.00013625076,0.0014071241,0.0000920907,0.000049722308,0.00015853548,0.00045204026],"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":[0.000001512696,0.0000033650322,0.00012968652,0.00016855478,0.00004588235,0.0000021259302,0.01213433,7.916258e-8,0.0000019997262,0.838491,0.07974526,0.069276206],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000113841656,0.0000047427206,0.0028724293,0.00015860332,0.00004527206,7.5526464e-7,0.0009893464,0.0000016571092,2.3011698e-7,0.001308169,0.9944104,0.00009452916],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9646568,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9710135,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91466516,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024501333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002579285,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99890405},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124248368","doi":"","title":"The Loyalty of Lawyers: A Comment on 3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Loyalty; Business; Political science; Management; Law; Economics","score_opus":0.0363073417879423,"score_gpt":0.2781827264901342,"score_spread":0.2418753847021919,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124248368","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":[0.001977468,0.113602534,8.2377056e-7,0.54689956,0.00051382487,0.0016170986,0.00007318843,0.000017620865,0.3352979],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9324045,0.027120097,0.0000019230176,0.038126063,0.00019691975,0.000031322274,0.0000017662252,0.000010625165,0.002106793],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987448,0.0002846881,0.00021176392,0.00008983643,0.0003717359,0.00029720212],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991858,0.0001357018,0.000107054395,0.0002472471,0.00010091892,0.00022325962],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008788779,0.00007894808,0.00019186013,0.000010721766,0.0015310518,0.00002217437,0.00044745623,0.000028639464,0.00025079376],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00021545436,0.000043022505,0.000041451716,0.00019764053,0.00027303584,0.000029737796,0.000011767804,0.00011460312,0.000036318797],"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":[0.0000021846424,0.0000058609826,0.00042036077,0.00016848052,0.00002587748,0.00000975346,0.001067069,0.0000013988658,1.9020543e-7,0.12030969,0.8716938,0.006295328],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003419096,0.0000129829195,0.0002403305,0.000426354,0.000010181484,0.0000010365878,0.00021274615,4.2384872e-7,0.000002029386,0.00012826695,0.998874,0.00005745519],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99950564,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99990594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.930427,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00047768795,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0045850137,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997688},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124263827","doi":"","title":"STRIP-SEARCHING OF WOMEN IN CANADA: WRONGS AND RIGHTS","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Policing Practices and Perceptions","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Supreme court; Prison; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.047385164392172135,"score_gpt":0.3330070039080665,"score_spread":0.28562183951589437,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124263827","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":[0.8136217,0.008610334,6.749301e-7,0.13067484,0.00009430253,0.00045861644,0.00004952874,0.000004995706,0.046484977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97720987,0.020830164,0.0000039607535,0.0011108269,0.00002998306,0.0000070935644,2.333153e-7,0.0000022121608,0.00080568215],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99914265,0.00024600135,0.00010404551,0.00005976796,0.00011319198,0.00033436334],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99934804,0.00017158747,0.00003892176,0.0001069587,0.00001738528,0.00031709453],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013776023,0.00003504535,0.00011511291,0.000027155224,0.00024548548,0.000010305549,0.00014775006,0.000013519372,0.000658975],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00019281187,0.000019364643,0.000011164988,0.000119290205,0.0001007665,0.000074104726,0.000009149121,0.000057905312,0.0000120799405],"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":[0.000005924289,0.00001439991,0.044956464,0.00075430766,0.000056886318,0.000020962025,0.086746335,0.0000012754729,0.00003640759,0.234098,0.035778213,0.59753084],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039341903,0.0000036856495,0.038677007,0.00060108636,0.000005445409,8.0401867e-7,0.00040689684,5.0327264e-7,2.9876531e-7,0.0006765866,0.95954573,0.000042600062],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.999969,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999978,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9237675,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0016400516,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0038705508,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7215314},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124894602","doi":"","title":"SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FOR ETHICS COUNSEL: LESSONS FOR CANADA FROM THE UNITED STATES","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Privilege (computing); Jurisprudence; Law; Context (archaeology); Political science; Legal ethics; Subject (documents); Position (finance); Sociology; Business; Library science; History","score_opus":0.14173140897240344,"score_gpt":0.4145599334617979,"score_spread":0.2728285244893945,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124894602","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000631437,0.003801466,0.00006062773,0.99011576,0.0006706967,0.0020993412,0.0005064908,0.000012252197,0.0021019229],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.12412835,0.04599434,0.00052343355,0.8145162,0.0016587317,0.0026260025,0.0012960115,0.000054733693,0.009202188],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987804,0.00034338617,0.0002124917,0.00011661294,0.0002253849,0.00032168694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9952725,0.0033479654,0.00013438013,0.00028839684,0.0007307099,0.0002260392],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018018172,0.00008346904,0.00012274906,0.000021505983,0.0022366007,0.00022671606,0.0004732069,0.000059850077,0.00083765324],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003647466,0.000052021227,0.00004550684,0.00040878187,0.0001430124,0.00013508838,0.0000068593677,0.00032793064,0.00004410053],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[3.5848024e-7,0.0000028439567,0.000015591688,0.000040429328,0.000015076825,4.659616e-8,0.0045673144,0.0000024219794,2.2232865e-7,0.18478318,0.80909103,0.0014814725],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043444066,0.000004202028,0.00025868654,0.00015250695,0.00004729781,1.7169012e-7,0.0023463783,0.000047728652,6.7492596e-7,0.003498729,0.99351853,0.00008167223],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9993944,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999084,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18442747,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004989107,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014146167,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99906236},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125461684","doi":"","title":"LOST IN TRANSITION: ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA’S NEW APPROACH TO JURISDICTION","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Law; Jurisprudence; Original jurisdiction; Political science; Divergence (linguistics)","score_opus":0.020994341459550578,"score_gpt":0.26034756498327005,"score_spread":0.23935322352371946,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125461684","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":[0.0030009397,0.027763827,0.00029568476,0.7069251,0.00028316886,0.0019956552,0.00008442686,0.000019688898,0.25963154],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.980963,0.0050803036,0.000020994727,0.0075870743,0.00037561974,0.000050071263,0.000022423064,0.000014458092,0.0058860644],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987905,0.0002787284,0.00024438155,0.00012314944,0.00029393513,0.00026931538],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993998,0.00006240778,0.00005702945,0.00025209383,0.000060018774,0.00016868913],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012686157,0.00008471715,0.00015022208,0.00002946433,0.0007407742,0.00004189387,0.00032932134,0.000033383767,0.00026185735],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000048503698,0.000051216328,0.000053276304,0.00044168177,0.00011529222,0.000058535254,0.000006319778,0.00014584458,0.0000099337985],"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":[0.000004804191,0.000022664894,0.00014025702,0.000118832824,0.000019578914,0.0000021202754,0.0072749243,0.00041682334,0.000024205021,0.07153533,0.91075784,0.009682607],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005853582,0.000004862136,0.0026582472,0.0002255629,0.000027595168,0.0000022986555,0.00028319738,0.000030679003,0.0000037344346,0.00014438076,0.996494,0.000066908324],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.995981,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9994441,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9779621,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00048239934,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.002819424,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.56975114},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125491159","doi":"","title":"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A Preliminary Assessment of whether the Vavilov Framework Adequately Addresses Concerns of Marginalized Communities in the Immigration Law Context","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"European and International Law Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Statutory law; Supreme court; Appeal; Immigration; Context (archaeology); Law; Refugee; Standard of review; Immigration law; Political science; Confusion; Judicial review; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Psychology","score_opus":0.09172307802223045,"score_gpt":0.35440384551819426,"score_spread":0.2626807674959638,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125491159","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":[0.0028275587,0.24672522,0.00000979782,0.6278453,0.00011080289,0.0020542196,0.000069247566,0.000008038983,0.120349824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85770905,0.11923986,0.0000060708835,0.022637155,0.00008291054,0.000091086054,0.000003077788,0.000008235616,0.00022258317],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9949994,0.0039652917,0.0003579777,0.00008899052,0.00039326417,0.00019506305],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9951029,0.004036707,0.0002569863,0.0004071446,0.00015061286,0.00004567825],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":["sts"],"category_scores_codex":[0.004026296,0.0001221008,0.00026428376,0.000008496524,0.0015476784,0.00012142366,0.0013490729,0.00003027212,0.00015445908],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005280383,0.000040219948,0.00010841492,0.0002087785,0.0028526706,0.00006687043,0.00009441945,0.0003804904,0.000007337345],"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":[0.00002303374,0.0000052753667,0.00016495268,0.000067270885,0.000062117084,5.8537154e-7,0.03536493,0.0000019733952,3.0750684e-7,0.956527,0.005527596,0.0022549785],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00017609705,0.000057760553,0.0023840014,0.00094222766,0.00009921859,0.0000010988741,0.042352464,0.00005089595,0.0000011997748,0.004089571,0.949781,0.0000644522],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.25030297,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.69498193,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9524374,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005194468,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00025739503,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999861},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125582096","doi":"","title":"ERRING ON THE SIDE OF IGNORANCE: CHALLENGES FOR CAUSER TWENTY YEARS AFTER PARKS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Jury Decision Making Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Racism; Ignorance; Prejudice (legal term); Criminology; Harm; Context (archaeology); Appeal; Criminal justice; Sociology; Subconscious; Political science; Law; History","score_opus":0.07487653158287644,"score_gpt":0.3409196910011336,"score_spread":0.2660431594182572,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125582096","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":[0.025427064,0.4111485,0.000060525737,0.42015427,0.001082604,0.0042579216,0.000078152516,0.00007462054,0.13771635],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9586889,0.033538386,0.000037557653,0.0069390135,0.00015392566,0.00011237748,5.1856733e-7,0.000013900798,0.00051538384],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99890506,0.00027037092,0.00017140686,0.00014117699,0.00025051335,0.00026147102],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987513,0.0005727555,0.000091390735,0.0003723266,0.00009176608,0.00012048702],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024405487,0.000078491474,0.00018840455,0.000028643544,0.00027208726,0.000032469405,0.000497309,0.000043172076,0.00023571754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013565809,0.000046253448,0.000080910126,0.00014081225,0.00015846414,0.000042081676,0.000016530294,0.00009631245,0.000086950444],"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":[0.000011959916,0.0000115121875,0.00017463608,0.0010895759,0.000037997106,0.0000033587821,0.0047723926,0.000011357493,0.0000010172018,0.33036393,0.031045293,0.632477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000337346,0.0000127491085,0.0031470775,0.0012934038,0.00002553004,2.653028e-7,0.00013403891,0.0000018205685,0.0000036036993,0.0044898414,0.9907899,0.00006806829],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.011164034,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.56966156,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9597446,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007401851,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00028259456,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9954207},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125616118","doi":"","title":"ACCESS TO JUSTICE LOOKING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL HOME: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SYSTEM","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Jurisprudence; Economic Justice; Political science; Law; Constitution; Constitutional law; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.14398722032429034,"score_gpt":0.4063718441865333,"score_spread":0.262384623862243,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125616118","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":[0.000036187204,0.026435653,0.018974874,0.89941186,0.00067141623,0.004758689,0.0011943233,0.000035587265,0.048481412],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9815858,0.00406183,0.00007558756,0.01096183,0.00072420074,0.0020206403,0.000004759442,0.0000045867037,0.0005607759],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992429,0.0000632628,0.00016202021,0.00013982029,0.00011549334,0.00027648077],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99843556,0.00087040523,0.00006112978,0.00013562072,0.00031402227,0.00018323914],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00078289857,0.00007645762,0.00014386479,0.000019262134,0.0038690357,0.000099184836,0.00049008045,0.00002531465,0.000035586774],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00087940815,0.000037252474,0.00008979562,0.00018934898,0.0009058583,0.00010882399,0.00002422388,0.000032277712,0.00004115322],"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":[0.0000027264,0.0000015689947,0.000048815356,0.00007570891,0.000026690965,2.0360808e-7,0.00008150048,4.679938e-7,7.699502e-7,0.97241044,0.020119201,0.0072319126],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000065412525,0.000010050345,0.00095234765,0.00078653736,0.00019125117,0.0000035200371,0.00033101038,4.6693856e-7,7.8737884e-7,0.0047099786,0.99287015,0.00007850574],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.033693444,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5155004,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9815496,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004428749,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0030707393,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9974278},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125727772","doi":"","title":"THE “ILLUSION OF COMPENSATION”: CY PRÈS DISTRIBUTIONS IN CANADIAN CLASS ACTIONS","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Dispute Resolution and Class Actions","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Settlement (finance); Class action; Class (philosophy); Jurisprudence; Compensation (psychology); Dispose pattern; Law and economics; Law; Political science; Sociology; Economics; Computer science; Finance; Psychology; Social psychology; Artificial intelligence","score_opus":0.027909516866580775,"score_gpt":0.24963464977016406,"score_spread":0.22172513290358328,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125727772","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":[0.0032427374,0.0069945767,0.00012977586,0.37179744,0.00082210475,0.0014624111,0.000088268345,0.000053019,0.6154097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99162483,0.0022110255,0.000004882789,0.005275675,0.00017273269,0.000050845516,0.00009580492,0.00001165948,0.00055251486],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989896,0.00005484719,0.00029576942,0.00012584886,0.00014616172,0.00038781393],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999148,0.00007099708,0.00013362724,0.00039649318,0.00015762656,0.00009327255],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008231547,0.00010745306,0.00016608593,0.00015529424,0.0012247162,0.00016139286,0.00035036576,0.000044639266,0.00043908096],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00039044343,0.00007118009,0.000089337074,0.00074754027,0.0001239519,0.0002557278,0.000031416694,0.00017652338,0.00046325088],"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":[5.625805e-7,0.0000071971326,0.00062956044,0.000120011115,0.000008484083,5.432553e-7,0.0000058709084,0.000016749977,0.0000030257343,0.95850086,0.029449398,0.011257746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006991949,0.0000016624878,0.027671073,0.00031162627,0.00004194153,0.0000020222312,0.0000361143,0.0010499839,4.3230872e-7,0.0007950741,0.9699364,0.000083782266],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9018552,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99808043,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9883821,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00043048512,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005012777,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9419651},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3127248751","doi":"","title":"Droit de la famille—19845","year":2020,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Social Policies and Family","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Political science","score_opus":0.04079555130749868,"score_gpt":0.30585181245441406,"score_spread":0.2650562611469154,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3127248751","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00021353326,0.38724357,0.0000020730765,0.4082509,0.00027744946,0.00027046233,0.000054461063,0.000015519714,0.20367204],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.037346993,0.60000783,0.000025586069,0.3507079,0.00172572,0.000018117136,0.0000039667725,0.000026956028,0.010136904],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99778754,0.000919231,0.00021890801,0.00016984405,0.00022766211,0.0006768388],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99837244,0.00019083191,0.00007800328,0.00019863129,0.000046637502,0.001113474],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011996154,0.00014641158,0.00031777244,0.000012974716,0.0008778787,0.00009371527,0.00062941073,0.00016635336,0.0023855767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00059059105,0.00012845884,0.00020910858,0.00066476845,0.0009762721,0.000060364964,0.000033623954,0.0003502192,0.0021372628],"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":[3.7793845e-7,0.0000028940037,0.000080568505,0.00031617866,0.00002253649,0.000018563476,0.0051859226,9.12315e-7,3.8175725e-7,0.37210095,0.544624,0.07764674],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000049153547,0.000015122993,0.001105019,0.00067735603,0.00011911985,0.0000032685114,0.00091768964,0.00001656195,1.4885802e-7,0.0051569254,0.99178195,0.00015769947],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7382761,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.59129685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.44715795,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006892263,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0020287791,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9986397},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3127605035","doi":"","title":"La litispendance internationale et la révocation des donations entre époux en droit international privé québécois après l'arrêt RS c PR","year":2020,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Dissenting opinion; Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Political science; Jurisdiction; Legislation; Revocation; Impossibility; Philosophy","score_opus":0.04673601920653227,"score_gpt":0.31111832381255056,"score_spread":0.2643823046060183,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3127605035","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003238635,0.083699204,0.00034843318,0.6658882,0.00087199686,0.00079394225,0.00027458326,0.000054378874,0.24483065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6132019,0.3325129,0.00039420841,0.023818687,0.0013383953,0.00012156349,0.00021511661,0.000045727786,0.028351504],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997555,0.0009791879,0.00039070062,0.0002989433,0.00047312013,0.00030302],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985076,0.00039531905,0.0001986696,0.0001913628,0.00026611242,0.00044094468],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014528234,0.00018131244,0.00022614143,0.0000659578,0.00047751004,0.00023177877,0.00071174355,0.00013527567,0.0038696767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008149485,0.00017794233,0.00017070348,0.00045847092,0.00048365848,0.00046372172,0.000058720456,0.00037791257,0.0005720886],"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":[0.0000019742797,0.000021429874,0.0006734835,0.00026788484,0.000072233095,0.00001225299,0.015093691,0.000012257129,0.0000025011543,0.70557994,0.0076996945,0.27056265],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001277396,0.000016528327,0.008714383,0.0017029189,0.000091247246,0.00002285891,0.00045362473,0.00019105153,0.0000020410548,0.0035372626,0.9849619,0.0001784125],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.34108105,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8862889,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97726226,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010492096,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019046272,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9970409},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3127660618","doi":"","title":"Wounded Feelings: Litigating Emotions in Quebec, 1870-1950","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","funders":"","keywords":"Feeling; Psychology; Social psychology; Political science","score_opus":0.05120299995632245,"score_gpt":0.2298737142306162,"score_spread":0.17867071427429376,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3127660618","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005404845,0.043329667,9.773763e-7,0.9395456,0.00008839895,0.00027111705,0.000020492518,0.000029217097,0.011309703],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76880616,0.059951942,0.000053703145,0.1340908,0.0016623596,0.000102406106,0.00006015178,0.00004013462,0.035232324],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9992156,0.00007818116,0.00022482364,0.00013814656,0.00010777376,0.00023549344],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99951524,0.000031578355,0.00005295944,0.00011032006,0.000070112364,0.00021976582],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00014895038,0.000105203704,0.000281457,0.000017494567,0.0020123448,0.000105878666,0.0001953101,0.000021682976,0.0023106604],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00017191212,0.00006491082,0.00013304988,0.00014735691,0.00012180902,0.00006896518,0.000020816777,0.00018691974,0.00036849096],"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":[0.0000010781779,0.000012728082,0.00010472071,0.0010742852,0.00012266802,0.000021295742,0.21630731,0.000008097469,0.000002113643,0.42902187,0.33544764,0.01787621],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035848218,0.0000066259327,0.00003832238,0.0003658136,0.00005947452,2.27831e-7,0.0017542415,0.000012968113,3.6957648e-8,0.0003886181,0.99723446,0.00010336435],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.74928945,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99375266,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8054548,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0010590288,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00010642547,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992869},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3150390098","doi":"","title":"OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CANADA’S NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Military and Defense Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Accountability; Transparency (behavior); Mandate; National security; Political science; Public relations; Public administration; Critical security studies; Security studies; Sociology; Business; Cloud computing security; Law; Network security policy","score_opus":0.030054817462902103,"score_gpt":0.31107423684598035,"score_spread":0.28101941938307823,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3150390098","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":[0.012209967,0.18348636,0.00018549533,0.4391046,0.0009627987,0.0039531663,0.000905507,0.00003247036,0.35915968],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9876325,0.006517173,0.00011915755,0.0052154786,0.00012419176,0.00002204338,0.0000037868595,0.0000033429487,0.00036229208],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99920464,0.00017178507,0.00012311227,0.000102060534,0.00022714894,0.00017125186],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919975,0.0003727105,0.000043390428,0.00011483175,0.00012553888,0.00014376378],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0016260793,0.000054355824,0.00015446977,0.000010725507,0.0008019645,0.00000767152,0.00012706104,0.00003107725,0.00020685054],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0024032027,0.000030382424,0.00004003771,0.000090142734,0.00021547354,0.00004377285,0.000014952023,0.00005996855,0.0000011629966],"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":[0.0000027527642,0.000002551412,0.00045828178,0.0006034806,0.000014548708,1.2934589e-7,0.005758429,3.2024835e-7,1.2159076e-7,0.90483004,0.08689139,0.0014379526],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023503666,0.0000062568506,0.0010906305,0.00030091207,0.00001635986,1.7290766e-7,0.0009648571,0.0000059904955,3.7513368e-7,0.09116285,0.90637785,0.0000502406],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93457776,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9993276,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97542256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00030442694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0024327054,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6168144},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3163644874","doi":"","title":"LE DROIT A L'INFORMATION GOUVERNEMENTALE: L'INTERPRETATION RESTRICTIVE DES EXCEPTIONS S'IMPOSE-T-ELLE TOUJOURS COMME LA BONNE?","year":2003,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Law; Political science; Government (linguistics); Access to information; Information access; Philosophy; Computer science","score_opus":0.04539991461337515,"score_gpt":0.31120393074152175,"score_spread":0.2658040161281466,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3163644874","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":[0.003511729,0.23800984,0.00087176636,0.16389693,0.0011005142,0.0020615368,0.00016928567,0.0000485403,0.5903299],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85250694,0.13291992,0.00017872767,0.0070809475,0.0000936186,0.00008190563,0.00003556708,0.00001684298,0.0070855087],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99755055,0.0010917542,0.0004027396,0.00015811957,0.00029769336,0.0004991497],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99868435,0.00022760873,0.00019692551,0.00028886422,0.00016270042,0.00043954962],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018235501,0.00017242985,0.00024639344,0.00006430881,0.0018903796,0.00019612051,0.00038868995,0.000104334074,0.0026192584],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00064587995,0.00016413315,0.00016248305,0.0006083579,0.0008532865,0.0010856002,0.000021185444,0.00026182222,0.0011909419],"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":[0.0000035020817,0.000024665505,0.00019395731,0.0006919876,0.000032777123,0.000007455035,0.010982794,0.000017950348,5.6654017e-7,0.83078766,0.0843161,0.072940566],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010311543,0.000040337913,0.001235596,0.0033301096,0.00019397883,0.000033160843,0.005716056,0.00004281068,0.0000018465205,0.010968804,0.9781377,0.00019649458],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.57192534,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.840125,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8938216,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0013721702,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0019946499,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99958676},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3167020393","doi":"","title":"A Jurisprudential “House of Cards”: The Power to Exclude Improperly Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Law; Nothing; Jurisprudence; Political science; Power (physics); Common law; Civil law (Civil law); Epistemology; Public law; Philosophy","score_opus":0.061878701009776646,"score_gpt":0.3434289064114926,"score_spread":0.28155020540171594,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3167020393","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":[0.15802152,0.24638966,0.0000030946665,0.55846983,0.00055450626,0.0028816368,0.000021606935,0.000059070342,0.033599064],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9666471,0.026234465,0.000022341053,0.006155463,0.00010152625,0.000060046415,2.7374972e-7,0.000014471812,0.0007643096],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9982942,0.00022756451,0.00030521833,0.00023430852,0.00046474452,0.00047401243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988272,0.00013425425,0.00007739421,0.0003181774,0.00033494036,0.00030799015],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002869565,0.00011251987,0.0002783911,0.000042128584,0.0004892144,0.00011694747,0.00082030526,0.00004898326,0.0005093798],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0022512802,0.00006988992,0.00011319437,0.0008558301,0.00021571683,0.00018903452,0.00007934854,0.00018868381,0.00013122833],"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":[0.00009008373,0.00011305515,0.007840122,0.006666153,0.00012657975,0.00042574623,0.16930605,0.000009827644,0.0021917447,0.3593804,0.3885527,0.06529754],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005057825,0.000037912636,0.0044883983,0.0061752805,0.000082331484,0.0000113523365,0.0023490903,0.0000010445435,0.00005802441,0.00018551125,0.9863953,0.00016516788],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.37167633,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93859714,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8086256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00031507947,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0021000148,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.63250774},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3167294251","doi":"","title":"Portrait-robot de la responsabilité du robot","year":2021,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Ethics and Social Impacts of AI","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Parliament; Robot; Perspective (graphical); Law; Liability; Legal liability; Robotics; Political science; Artificial intelligence; Sociology; Computer science; Politics","score_opus":0.04518976310216998,"score_gpt":0.3700093596611382,"score_spread":0.3248195965589682,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3167294251","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0004941973,0.31763217,0.0000036951928,0.53673,0.000507193,0.00024461263,0.000039210205,0.000012765102,0.1443362],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.122756205,0.69063365,0.0003818455,0.120338425,0.001385705,0.000024056137,0.0000150760525,0.00005174127,0.06441331],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9935451,0.004529015,0.00037328477,0.00028223553,0.00039883048,0.00087149325],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965295,0.0012289635,0.000121309895,0.00051527674,0.00041058127,0.001194355],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009758465,0.00020320392,0.0004354198,0.000029467665,0.0016170479,0.00033228745,0.0006022847,0.00039020475,0.0054458706],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008028191,0.00017968175,0.00031280937,0.00078534894,0.0017698056,0.00020072372,0.00005052348,0.00084729964,0.0005125931],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000016242143,0.000027142474,0.00016405604,0.0005588707,0.000066591805,0.0002981601,0.0055547813,0.0000066921593,0.0000065011213,0.8563995,0.08907336,0.047842737],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000060242288,0.000018716148,0.0022015658,0.0018249317,0.0001798766,0.000054536296,0.0005523002,0.000003389627,0.0000033644394,0.022419922,0.9724644,0.00021679838],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.60320365,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8982151,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.883391,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0011537287,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016509773,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996827},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3171307291","doi":"","title":"International Law Matures within the Canadian Legal System: Araya et al. v Nevsun Resources Ltd","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Political science; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.0170627731928185,"score_gpt":0.23410413369796376,"score_spread":0.21704136050514528,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3171307291","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00018877062,0.004014798,8.889568e-7,0.35501435,0.0007266481,0.00024803713,0.000020189269,0.000026284572,0.63976],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2825814,0.0003349643,0.000023186607,0.7126054,0.0005216753,0.00003716751,0.00016075812,0.000020416674,0.0037149985],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987334,0.00007450047,0.00031750472,0.00021518582,0.00039463444,0.00026474966],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99905366,0.000028223816,0.00016492268,0.00034468356,0.00032989113,0.000078635545],"candidate_categories":["scholarly_communication","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.000910122,0.00016616462,0.00016984371,0.00009382927,0.000834407,0.0011862807,0.0006645393,0.00004303799,0.0014334439],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00014116171,0.00010452153,0.00011119263,0.00026084768,0.00011437525,0.0004957509,0.000055384742,0.00028951265,0.0010411729],"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":[0.0000010224413,0.0000023988825,0.000031034782,0.0001066911,0.000034740337,0.00003749924,0.000019555984,0.000009733398,0.0000021310987,0.79931605,0.20037834,0.000060777056],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007905025,0.0000013530849,0.00040002968,0.0007606377,0.000046335903,0.0000446202,0.000060762588,0.000336376,0.0000065610716,0.00091033295,0.9972174,0.00013652685],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8616646,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99343705,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7984057,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003585157,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005775787,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998506},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3171380287","doi":"","title":"Pierringer Settlement Agreements: Proceeding with Eyes Wide Open","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Settlement (finance); Settling; Human settlement; Liability; Compensation (psychology); Law; Business; Joint and several liability; Law and economics; Legal liability; Political science; Economics; Engineering; Finance; Psychology; Payment; Social psychology; Waste management; Environmental engineering","score_opus":0.06510914411240587,"score_gpt":0.35793885905732664,"score_spread":0.29282971494492077,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3171380287","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":[0.00089577615,0.020108083,0.000017011727,0.43497387,0.000060602208,0.0017797109,0.000047356403,0.00001944664,0.54209816],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.76317376,0.052264664,0.0016509335,0.11129755,0.0006246223,0.0011763627,0.00010563093,0.000059368962,0.069647074],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99924624,0.0000611756,0.000119295895,0.00014726006,0.0001770932,0.00024894485],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993702,0.000019084751,0.00004938162,0.00021648883,0.00011153707,0.00023328276],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00064549345,0.00006282655,0.00011490538,0.000010461279,0.0009466834,0.0002265975,0.0005205279,0.000013966188,0.0019524059],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00008318279,0.00004177639,0.000025778529,0.00029504768,0.000075508644,0.00012239694,0.00007643371,0.00007972291,0.00018440728],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.097122e-7,0.000019589803,0.0060531106,0.00028543675,0.00007227417,0.0000140973425,0.0028934972,0.0000016501091,0.0000041421,0.8339293,0.124864474,0.031861622],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004372205,0.0000032744138,0.0007943007,0.0006112183,0.00003501321,9.392444e-7,0.0005632718,7.2699487e-7,0.0000046510036,0.00046010446,0.99740905,0.00007371734],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17153302,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8150708,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8725446,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00022699233,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014754602,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99895996},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3171970382","doi":"","title":"La rédaction inclusive en droit: Pourquoi les objections ratent-elles la cible?","year":2021,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Translation Studies and Practices","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Nothing; Feminization (sociology); Sociology; Linguistics; Gender studies; Philosophy; Epistemology","score_opus":0.03945363401033263,"score_gpt":0.2992544497589654,"score_spread":0.2598008157486328,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3171970382","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000116991905,0.5203018,0.000008644307,0.2112246,0.0005818941,0.00022103098,0.00019848447,0.00001664056,0.26732993],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.052096482,0.8666733,0.000040829724,0.0043895645,0.0009854541,0.000047853217,0.000057004087,0.000038190472,0.07567135],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9976823,0.0012656619,0.00033530607,0.00023237566,0.00016701368,0.00031737552],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981204,0.0010206508,0.00015245228,0.00029392773,0.00021756582,0.00019498463],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008014821,0.00021085216,0.00033187092,0.00006478898,0.0025834227,0.0003937771,0.00016421944,0.000115986055,0.0118969865],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001419404,0.00017439514,0.00021340496,0.00016591941,0.0003550837,0.00027030244,0.000041731855,0.00051912066,0.00071646913],"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":[0.0000037638524,0.000032377156,0.000044646313,0.0014788661,0.00031115342,0.00009626384,0.005717853,0.000013634821,0.0000018951848,0.7047907,0.06670703,0.2208018],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012444433,0.000013141729,0.00029836164,0.0020901884,0.00059214246,0.00016177226,0.0037677116,0.000008950422,0.0000025966713,0.0016923657,0.99104077,0.00020758393],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.25849104,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91164845,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9243337,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002964616,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010066524,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987151},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3183808766","doi":"","title":"Innocence Compensation: The Success Rate of Actions for Negligent Investigation","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Algoma University","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Damages; Tort; Law; Mistake; Punitive damages; Political science; Tort reform; Compensation (psychology); Criminology; Business; Psychology; Liability; Social psychology","score_opus":0.24044514039966616,"score_gpt":0.37750581917824655,"score_spread":0.13706067877858039,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3183808766","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0037395686,0.0125161465,0.0000707479,0.97876483,0.00013177977,0.0010725866,0.00001927674,0.000011662716,0.0036733986],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9629995,0.009785432,0.00003837302,0.026798047,0.00016072791,0.00005061753,0.000005842612,0.0000041458015,0.00015726415],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99930674,0.00022486207,0.00015320003,0.000080434555,0.00010321937,0.00013151993],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99927783,0.00018918465,0.000087450615,0.00012940625,0.00014412068,0.00017203117],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009038901,0.00004493951,0.00010128497,0.000008553939,0.0007727006,0.000037130758,0.00033979162,0.00001808553,0.00017417829],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007138951,0.000028052176,0.00004557475,0.00031273975,0.00025925154,0.00009520875,0.000009397661,0.00006186937,0.000034371147],"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":[0.0000039761235,0.000002454601,0.00066344225,0.0008639938,0.000015256866,7.42267e-7,0.008811483,0.000023956032,0.00003626135,0.89039904,0.085823216,0.013356173],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018766294,0.0000102943695,0.0010923931,0.0003435779,0.000047224064,3.4390374e-7,0.00038967095,0.000031652136,0.000038899154,0.0013215333,0.9966613,0.000044324654],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17786169,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.56700796,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95926,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000778453,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00078615925,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.827613},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3184497846","doi":"","title":"JUDGING SEXUAL ASSAULT: THE SHIFTING LANDSCAPE OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION IN CANADA","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia; University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Accountability; Parliament; Judicial discretion; Law; Judicial independence; Political science; Politics; Judicial activism; Economic Justice; Judicial review; Sexual assault; Judicial opinion; Sociology; Poison control; Suicide prevention; Medicine","score_opus":0.025505157438826056,"score_gpt":0.3330110142190754,"score_spread":0.3075058567802494,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3184497846","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":[0.14652333,0.011814389,3.7430317e-7,0.58470744,0.0011829005,0.0008814886,0.000010240766,0.000005930883,0.25487387],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98253644,0.00080102094,0.000009077213,0.015097376,0.00014553135,0.000013708151,0.0000072318317,0.000004367102,0.0013852464],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990225,0.00030037333,0.00020202935,0.00007577535,0.00022464937,0.0001746646],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992514,0.00022521534,0.00012846665,0.00018577295,0.00013246527,0.000076647426],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017997395,0.00004579194,0.00010148438,0.000040790346,0.00031750242,0.000041062856,0.0002759762,0.000023202645,0.0013787589],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008833179,0.000031078685,0.000014208706,0.00062548125,0.000037492206,0.00013661844,0.0000073176648,0.0002635786,0.000059357924],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000021184737,0.000023918696,0.15028584,0.00040258118,0.00002492079,0.0000010936748,0.017447516,0.000021569878,0.0000052189266,0.37093592,0.26731125,0.19353808],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002338372,0.000001908037,0.022053288,0.00023416652,0.000012192111,7.0373403e-7,0.0071560615,0.000007641,4.863373e-7,0.00014118198,0.9703179,0.00005109019],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9995844,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83601314,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005696759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.053213418,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99953413},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3186320685","doi":"","title":"JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED? A LOOK AT THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THERATECHNOLOGIES ON SECONDARY MARKET LIABILITY IN CANADA","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"National Bank of Canada; Université de Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Statutory law; Enforcement; Issuer; Law; Liability; Test (biology); Business; Statutory interpretation; Economics; Political science; Law and economics; Finance","score_opus":0.010795502939284492,"score_gpt":0.19070755526369973,"score_spread":0.17991205232441523,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3186320685","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":[0.7187762,0.1516756,1.20639e-7,0.09325279,0.00088027207,0.0028642886,0.000024716499,0.000022861637,0.03250313],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9503589,0.0190793,6.9923215e-7,0.028405927,0.000069820315,0.00007556318,0.000005198767,0.000017123211,0.001987428],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989353,0.000075966775,0.0002711829,0.00021199595,0.00020599991,0.000299593],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984587,0.00033818933,0.00024519346,0.0008813723,0.00006162922,0.000014947501],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007435665,0.00017502594,0.00029281652,0.00003190239,0.00019102989,0.000094525254,0.0007521454,0.00004070597,0.001108059],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00030263496,0.00008251014,0.0000702535,0.00044912065,0.000116386596,0.00026689115,0.00012201901,0.00029759965,0.00016926505],"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":[0.0001204856,0.00006564254,0.05277938,0.027998926,0.00016903576,0.00014117692,0.00019176684,0.00012788443,0.00006939064,0.047668956,0.46837455,0.40229282],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00016068456,0.000008824992,0.067622684,0.0035333359,0.000040724648,0.0000015763212,0.00016072369,0.00005076711,0.000040845258,0.000840453,0.9273784,0.00016097046],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9695134,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99928206,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45900387,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00051455776,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00095816987,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998051},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3187821050","doi":"","title":"THE OPPRESSION REMEDY:: CLARIFYING PART II OF THE BCE TEST","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Oppression; Plaintiff; Law; CLARITY; Corporation; Political science; Statutory law; Harm; Statute; Sociology; Law and economics","score_opus":0.057691719167339464,"score_gpt":0.3375791675816374,"score_spread":0.27988744841429797,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3187821050","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":[0.0026597867,0.04914843,0.0000024789797,0.62608653,0.0004286622,0.0015151645,0.000034542434,0.000023071243,0.32010135],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94298834,0.03532033,0.000022392618,0.009098149,0.00059764326,0.000061825725,0.0000014207172,0.000010983648,0.011898942],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991248,0.00019733758,0.00016579764,0.000091403956,0.00019298994,0.00022762886],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99897724,0.00015964029,0.00010374108,0.00052905874,0.00009836081,0.00013193875],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014810298,0.000053113607,0.00008849081,0.0000058110354,0.0042916946,0.00004263899,0.0008525593,0.0000383264,0.00023197115],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007674144,0.000023205655,0.00006501468,0.00027779792,0.00057396176,0.000038148046,0.00007823221,0.00014919929,0.00008850933],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[6.1800915e-7,0.000010460386,0.00076263066,0.000096253934,0.000012051905,2.7805103e-7,0.0025360398,3.1150435e-7,0.0000403174,0.6440283,0.2945995,0.057913233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013726785,0.000004685486,0.00091229565,0.00049651973,0.000019339035,3.9649046e-7,0.00009005272,0.0000027906829,0.000021416954,0.00096989045,0.9974323,0.000036594396],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10562838,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7651761,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94032854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000914105,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006589812,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99700457},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3188768298","doi":"","title":"PREDICTIVE CODING: ADOPTING AND ADAPTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CIVIL LITIGATION","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Artificial Intelligence in Law","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 Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Civil procedure; Law; Coding (social sciences); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Legal ethics; Competence (human resources); Computer science; Civil litigation; Artificial intelligence; Political science; Sociology; Psychology; Social psychology","score_opus":0.0762323097118776,"score_gpt":0.33695518851806605,"score_spread":0.26072287880618844,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3188768298","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":[0.12922662,0.08200559,0.0018094087,0.19420294,0.0021485284,0.010501659,0.000053397005,0.00027476824,0.57977706],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9903595,0.00781932,0.000111499336,0.0013590347,0.00012948587,0.000023055085,0.0000021639573,0.000010342946,0.00018558458],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984244,0.0003551401,0.00035279998,0.00022262786,0.0002388788,0.00040615266],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990956,0.00030463905,0.000108537904,0.00018679623,0.00009259092,0.00021182711],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002815023,0.00009901693,0.00019055283,0.000066259265,0.0005236875,0.0000986728,0.00028551897,0.00007160764,0.0006458629],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001151572,0.00008590581,0.000037700804,0.00045109083,0.0003331988,0.0002095133,0.000029942565,0.00023375361,0.00030147808],"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":[0.0000023157672,0.0000041244202,0.0013805913,0.0001392951,0.0000049869363,0.000004122332,0.0071338397,0.00006601796,0.000008127722,0.8657977,0.00012528508,0.12533358],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048143353,0.00014188333,0.002464664,0.015507026,0.00010635043,0.000011764179,0.02990901,0.009979126,0.00022891739,0.07170963,0.86885726,0.0010361922],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20731725,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8660042,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86873204,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003880226,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00058286404,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7979613},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3190928646","doi":"","title":"LOI SUR LE RECOUVREMENT DE CERTAINES CRÉANCES:: LOI D’ORDRE PUBLIC, À TEMPS PARTIEL","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Public order; Jurisprudence; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.11506761240559056,"score_gpt":0.3032179840966003,"score_spread":0.18815037169100973,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3190928646","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009818329,0.21629989,0.00000315754,0.57966727,0.0016227717,0.00068623817,0.000051929394,0.000030507634,0.2006564],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6482104,0.18376109,0.00006643423,0.07476794,0.007855368,0.00012204419,0.00001922461,0.00006281036,0.0851347],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963857,0.0010235603,0.0004893599,0.0003816509,0.00046520706,0.0012545568],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99757797,0.00010447611,0.0002142627,0.00051679875,0.00046021587,0.0011263076],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002647648,0.00029519098,0.0005172401,0.00005193645,0.0024842073,0.00032167384,0.0010232674,0.00021825082,0.004310184],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00059046375,0.00023513855,0.0002738547,0.00094907946,0.0015846591,0.0005256928,0.000061007497,0.0003600222,0.002169889],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000021781811,0.00004408879,0.0004112767,0.00063316006,0.000078640165,0.000014163222,0.0043742754,3.3536057e-7,0.0000010422481,0.59687907,0.3304528,0.06710899],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001189376,0.000054036915,0.00020027345,0.0013819138,0.00010012382,0.0000037094749,0.00034341682,0.00000991766,0.0000035535604,0.02155017,0.9759242,0.00030978007],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.79455644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9644799,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.64722854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0012666066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0078981705,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9988144},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3192879709","doi":"","title":"THE CANADIAN DEFAMATION ACTION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","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":"Punitive damages; Plaintiff; Damages; Tort; Liability; Law; Cause of action; Political science; Quarter (Canadian coin); Business; History","score_opus":0.2110663506590466,"score_gpt":0.46872107221914083,"score_spread":0.2576547215600942,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3192879709","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":[0.01555234,0.0056724073,0.0000018119413,0.7386121,0.0003613915,0.0024006958,0.00002383142,0.00003090213,0.23734447],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9895141,0.0035549595,0.0000060562297,0.0040911343,0.00030339946,0.00010372857,0.0000037680736,0.0000071036416,0.0024157541],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989059,0.00029569826,0.00013829661,0.00013207804,0.0002089081,0.00031911716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982927,0.000043664033,0.00008896964,0.0008445171,0.00010018582,0.00063000346],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0018764484,0.00006715822,0.000095396295,0.00001774849,0.016961694,0.0007771187,0.0010310267,0.000041451174,0.00023799174],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000353819,0.00004051439,0.000043182055,0.00010262548,0.00025296328,0.00018885439,0.000019715473,0.0001639873,0.0004100745],"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":[0.0000016820603,0.000041092804,0.027573716,0.00006169718,0.000055144756,0.000013119887,0.009943577,0.0000025294805,3.8972362e-7,0.5607389,0.12737449,0.27419364],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024617968,0.000007473298,0.06472664,0.000031986237,0.000024694962,8.047637e-7,0.0005505265,0.0000065521144,8.030849e-8,0.00066827465,0.9338999,0.000058473168],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9922758,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99997944,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9739618,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006503102,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0028510126,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9843181},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3194370719","doi":"","title":"LA NOTION DE DOMMAGE DANS LE CADRE DU DÉLIT DE NÉGLIGENCE (COMMON LAW) ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EXTRACONTRACTUELLE DU FAIT PERSONNEL (DROIT CIVIL) AU CANADA","year":2018,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Law; Context (archaeology); Common law; Legal liability; Civil law (Civil law); Political science; Liability; Personal injury; Public law; Geography","score_opus":0.02632624558370034,"score_gpt":0.3574665316465828,"score_spread":0.3311402860628825,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3194370719","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":[0.20242639,0.048068818,0.00035402933,0.6186806,0.00092747604,0.0020950295,0.00034633605,0.000056605444,0.1270447],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91759324,0.021451999,0.0002923631,0.054054145,0.0014259384,0.00015956898,0.000025466796,0.00007156817,0.004925723],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9759297,0.020538293,0.00088359613,0.0005193336,0.00043625155,0.0016928256],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9876775,0.008457212,0.00035386655,0.0011897737,0.00021983255,0.0021018279],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","metaepi_narrow","sts","research_integrity","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02407004,0.00040608287,0.0007435462,0.00005383275,0.0024542608,0.00007574626,0.00094282645,0.0006750499,0.0066549033],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013650181,0.00035827895,0.00019330806,0.00033128497,0.0014717692,0.00030138396,0.0001069935,0.0024411837,0.00038774198],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00012917632,0.00028085883,0.019442953,0.014400443,0.00015252511,0.0010614151,0.06416772,0.000013776872,0.000069903595,0.64747405,0.23133115,0.021476004],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029676984,0.00007510188,0.027979143,0.007251082,0.00030195055,0.00024463353,0.0062164953,0.00021505424,0.000014786596,0.0024926115,0.9545529,0.00035945972],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9983304,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99979156,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7232218,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0072252876,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.039185196,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99988693},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3195113965","doi":"","title":"CASE COMMENT - COMMENTAIRE D'ARRET - THE INTERPRETATION OF BIJURAL OR HARMONIZED FEDERAL LEGISLATION: SCHREIBER V. CANADA (A.G.)","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Legislation; Interpretation (philosophy); Political science; Statutory interpretation; Law; Supreme court; Philosophy; Linguistics","score_opus":0.036913904005488204,"score_gpt":0.2618630038610211,"score_spread":0.2249490998555329,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3195113965","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010638178,0.019159129,0.00004063231,0.92531025,0.00059477024,0.0019466601,0.000039860228,0.000050665323,0.04221984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8678541,0.00024462974,0.000024504274,0.13076277,0.00029806874,0.000028998795,0.00004601118,0.000012593251,0.00072827796],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990698,0.000059776925,0.00034799534,0.00011459428,0.00020049472,0.00020732346],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992191,0.000051777613,0.00026582225,0.0002925062,0.00013364448,0.000037112844],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00040952905,0.00014005066,0.00021504692,0.000045426328,0.00055384886,0.0001934925,0.00027228906,0.000023330016,0.0021740291],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000106047,0.00007685112,0.00006240909,0.0002625211,0.000062096704,0.000427148,0.000039595994,0.00014097332,0.00008150153],"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":[0.00002526547,0.000014679236,0.000656453,0.0005664562,0.000068188405,0.00010586662,0.0003214418,0.00006994833,0.0000011075077,0.03445772,0.8784287,0.085284166],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020696722,0.0000032644225,0.0002756043,0.00039275122,0.000069922746,0.000052712334,0.00018345866,0.0020065727,0.000002958157,0.000022515907,0.9966726,0.00011071446],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9799416,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9983759,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.85721594,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00024608197,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003378743,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9987381},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3195225025","doi":"","title":"Confinements, déplacements et urgence nationale: le partage des compétences en temps de crise sanitaire","year":2020,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Healthcare Systems and Practices","field":"Health Professions","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Federalism; Political science; Supreme court; Constitution; Parliament; Interpretation (philosophy); Public administration; Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Power (physics); Law; Politics; Medicine","score_opus":0.2224457576693982,"score_gpt":0.46791437617655796,"score_spread":0.24546861850715976,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3195225025","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00056853436,0.3998151,0.00005638354,0.5786627,0.0004911861,0.0016878145,0.00030564945,0.0000192824,0.018393302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.31436405,0.41081324,0.00072447606,0.25654384,0.0008292383,0.00035596592,0.00010756785,0.00006136438,0.016200244],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9886993,0.00889172,0.00085872156,0.0003283458,0.00036195235,0.00085993146],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961006,0.0013625151,0.00042564768,0.0003579394,0.0002816903,0.0014716157],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0062990016,0.00025723202,0.0005095358,0.000041402298,0.0018954086,0.000062073246,0.0005530835,0.00020598366,0.010934812],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0029461905,0.00020876025,0.00009746588,0.00039759057,0.00019835365,0.00028907912,0.000072729614,0.001014882,0.0023536647],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008326935,0.000026050846,0.0049826293,0.027695341,0.00011256197,0.00007874177,0.017000774,0.000006931944,0.0000026322803,0.09574401,0.8126128,0.041729223],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00018052344,0.00006675403,0.0021799807,0.012591112,0.00009927251,0.00001830871,0.0036706254,0.00009042146,7.146261e-7,0.00039640028,0.9805048,0.00020105134],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6604536,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.82938653,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.32211888,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00057346886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010474603,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999404},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3196175286","doi":"","title":"LAWYERS’ MONOPOLY? THINK AGAIN::","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Monopoly; Statute; Legal profession; Law; Practice of law; Legal ethics; Privilege (computing); Public interest; Duty; Political science; Quality (philosophy); Law and economics; Business; Economics","score_opus":0.08242331306526648,"score_gpt":0.3999953027688611,"score_spread":0.31757198970359457,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3196175286","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00010808887,0.006378292,0.0000021438318,0.51050174,0.00039611684,0.00021961593,0.0000033083352,0.000018134275,0.48237255],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5371313,0.027358023,0.00028418037,0.37374538,0.0021904223,0.000049149672,0.000015539417,0.00002220913,0.05920377],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991332,0.00026468292,0.00012933507,0.00009073543,0.00015224442,0.00022980163],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991358,0.00008765012,0.00006330785,0.00027306846,0.000207285,0.00023291587],"candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015232615,0.000052610725,0.000079850084,0.000035605266,0.0014926398,0.00013751826,0.00033605896,0.00003756966,0.0076979916],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0011524465,0.000038657112,0.000033864657,0.00056043203,0.00031279566,0.00022752793,0.000007648224,0.00018509952,0.0039211246],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[1.7389833e-7,0.0000024009112,0.000028074983,0.000014050491,0.0000052225223,4.6406103e-7,0.005120329,9.845805e-9,3.3640174e-7,0.5195611,0.4612455,0.014022298],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000148919735,0.000004380292,0.00018589922,0.000107738175,0.000016206002,0.0000010289491,0.00052890397,7.0837723e-7,0.0000011434543,0.0019200423,0.9971621,0.000056961548],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.60218143,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90497434,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.53702325,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00021705595,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0031031717,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998073},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3196891202","doi":"","title":"WHERE ARE WE GOING? THE PAST AND FUTURE OF CANADIAN SCHOLARSHIP ON LEGAL ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT LAWYERS","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"Dalhousie University","funders":"","keywords":"Government (linguistics); Scholarship; Order (exchange); Strengths and weaknesses; Political science; Legal ethics; Work (physics); Legal profession; Law; Engineering ethics; Sociology; Public relations; Psychology; Engineering; Business; Social psychology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.12446722641475487,"score_gpt":0.38671459773525396,"score_spread":0.2622473713204991,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3196891202","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00017091862,0.04153325,3.170467e-7,0.90205723,0.00032752144,0.00037673253,0.000105832834,0.0000031843267,0.055425014],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.20274049,0.4869434,0.00021734631,0.2892063,0.001864658,0.00015039893,0.00002803866,0.00003670763,0.018812688],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99878263,0.00045321384,0.00015039774,0.000114312614,0.00027833672,0.0002211047],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986833,0.00041328848,0.000114228525,0.0002494255,0.00025365874,0.00028614266],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0021422626,0.000070335045,0.0001153171,0.000032760025,0.0014005211,0.00018976678,0.00023106244,0.00008444635,0.00048109208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0012765422,0.00004753872,0.000046331254,0.0006202768,0.0001446784,0.00015068261,0.000007280885,0.00057526503,0.000019556845],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000010695856,0.000004483634,0.0003462205,0.00030297623,0.000017901812,0.0000022425954,0.0037604938,2.7672093e-7,4.6563702e-7,0.8110251,0.17355242,0.010986386],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000035048648,0.0000060675034,0.00083591434,0.00059522304,0.000038384664,0.0000024642018,0.0050444272,2.9121335e-7,0.0000014757466,0.0003325511,0.9930475,0.000060676306],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.68050724,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9986635,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8194951,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00045379737,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.006974283,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998995},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3197502058","doi":"","title":"THE LENGTH OF CIVIL TRIALS AND TIME TO JUDGMENT IN CANADA: A CASE FOR TIME-LIMITED TRIALS","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","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":"Civil procedure; Economic Justice; Jurisdiction; Jury; Political science; Legitimacy; Context (archaeology); Law; Trial court; Dilemma; Jury trial; Supreme court; Politics; Geography","score_opus":0.08944784066769994,"score_gpt":0.25397640823777407,"score_spread":0.1645285675700741,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3197502058","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024943216,0.7700346,0.00002622113,0.13829917,0.0014106279,0.010608624,0.0066837235,0.000013986186,0.04797984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86982155,0.10087453,0.000093754024,0.020358237,0.0007677746,0.0009325995,0.000098778844,0.00011044188,0.006942318],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.997148,0.00033855397,0.0018664117,0.00027436455,0.000030130615,0.00034255415],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99736637,0.0012377668,0.00063796627,0.00044812745,0.000054069846,0.00025567645],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0113148745,0.00012678096,0.0016910686,0.000072855815,0.00020011011,0.00006193485,0.00021642762,0.000050256094,0.0008459184],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004002942,0.00010746726,0.00018439256,0.00019962766,0.00004482048,0.00003929209,0.0000315091,0.00007201879,0.00015681212],"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":[0.000100434816,0.0000485641,0.0013063832,0.0022009902,0.001112745,0.00025644005,0.00077315926,0.00007456541,0.000015037398,0.30668765,0.62077487,0.06664916],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005602218,0.000028576937,0.00017399453,0.00044071957,0.000059475686,0.000047604324,0.0000453478,0.00019520527,0.000011489662,0.0038128695,0.9944338,0.00019064562],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.951483,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9982101,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8448784,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000880474,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0014750208,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92622125},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3197624574","doi":"","title":"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Statutory law; Appeal; Confusion; Context (archaeology); Political science; Law; Refugee; Immigration; Standard of review; Judicial review; Law and economics; Sociology; History; Psychology","score_opus":0.041277510750622096,"score_gpt":0.27882771498471887,"score_spread":0.23755020423409678,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3197624574","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.000059560618,0.25465915,5.268094e-7,0.62112826,0.000080095546,0.00038704064,0.0000048580246,0.0000061090595,0.123674415],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5869306,0.30935276,0.0000013022902,0.10233713,0.0005792253,0.00006192726,5.50891e-7,0.000004124285,0.00073238416],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9989927,0.00040524435,0.000109071705,0.00008376948,0.00019277059,0.00021647483],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99924415,0.00039879218,0.00003937749,0.00013555435,0.0000437336,0.00013840084],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014381326,0.00006381798,0.00012308426,0.0000026615137,0.0052312086,0.000099847515,0.000496738,0.000016852322,0.00010071943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007386441,0.000021261707,0.000064704785,0.0002131838,0.0021447407,0.000026583328,0.000047816196,0.00013792141,0.00017216033],"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":[0.0000013276352,3.0015713e-7,0.00006215679,0.0000070198785,0.000018123123,8.1523257e-7,0.0014077653,7.2147266e-8,2.7646212e-8,0.9466449,0.034539785,0.01731773],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004314298,0.0000028022328,0.0005953247,0.00007364727,0.000048782444,9.50394e-7,0.0007776663,0.0000015360026,5.191299e-8,0.011920573,0.9864976,0.00003796413],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3545604,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.82867664,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95195776,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000047416503,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005307769,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9960638},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3197885765","doi":"","title":"LA CRISE DES SURDOSES D’OPIOÏDES AU CANADA: QUAND LA DÉCRIMINALISATION DES DROGUES DEVIENT UNE QUESTION DE DROIT À LA VIE","year":2021,"lang":"fr","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Criminalization; Constitutionality; Criminology; Possession (linguistics); Political science; Constitution; Human rights; Criminal law; Legislature; Law; Decriminalization; Sociology","score_opus":0.05065885566143195,"score_gpt":0.31593532141134045,"score_spread":0.2652764657499085,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3197885765","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.27226275,0.66234124,0.00032147835,0.022751315,0.000585142,0.0003798412,0.00008255695,0.000032176304,0.04124352],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63390785,0.36194488,0.00012673992,0.0012456324,0.00024157636,0.000037834267,0.00003386488,0.000020161617,0.002441455],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9943035,0.00393919,0.00042349103,0.00031740856,0.00037584713,0.0006405191],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99763024,0.0008309801,0.00015989256,0.00033863282,0.00043651153,0.00060372014],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032698626,0.00024358339,0.00044094175,0.000078403486,0.0017563249,0.00024565036,0.00030861128,0.00015204368,0.0005775969],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0016358806,0.00022832831,0.00022257306,0.0013744019,0.0011513783,0.0002272578,0.00003122669,0.00030530954,0.000048389626],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000039336164,0.000060762213,0.0033270828,0.004367607,0.00015758337,0.00036237773,0.016158126,0.00009637458,0.0000046416103,0.12837939,0.0061821043,0.8409],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007366614,0.000027730954,0.0076428405,0.008917351,0.0035529027,0.00024856228,0.058649242,0.00006440218,0.000021958142,0.0028328502,0.91760933,0.0003591311],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99903697,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9999751,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91142726,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004509263,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014963926,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99954325},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3198677971","doi":"","title":"RACIAL PROFILING AND THE PERILS OF ANCILLARY POLICE POWERS","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Racial profiling; Harm; Distrust; Supreme court; Proportionality (law); Political science; Law; Accountability; Profiling (computer programming); Criminology; Sociology; Computer science; Race (biology)","score_opus":0.0399597694476228,"score_gpt":0.3306205285925329,"score_spread":0.2906607591449101,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3198677971","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02719897,0.54021484,0.0000013868138,0.31252423,0.00025772824,0.0007978074,0.00001927616,0.000011750174,0.118974],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.869815,0.11912692,0.000039852403,0.0098926965,0.00017812845,0.000010551715,0.0000015617109,0.0000054469533,0.0009298231],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990798,0.0003492231,0.00012693512,0.000086645035,0.00016663228,0.0001907482],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99939704,0.00014217156,0.0000454478,0.00017392468,0.00009732442,0.00014410925],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015661748,0.0000489884,0.00016139162,0.000009446857,0.00054634595,0.000036248963,0.00019341856,0.00002454477,0.00024173675],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006147786,0.000028706825,0.00005804285,0.0001968116,0.00050359324,0.00005107762,0.000021167702,0.00007887541,0.00001583195],"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":[0.000011408011,0.000004511359,0.00050661666,0.0010814127,0.000030955816,0.000020092366,0.030638294,5.531431e-7,0.00002886941,0.9126282,0.012427206,0.042621907],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055542903,0.000004277844,0.00028144245,0.0006481824,0.000062642655,0.000008726143,0.00214298,0.0000012996763,0.000017070428,0.00045729303,0.9962646,0.00005595627],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4527458,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8397759,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98383737,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006517705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0012097497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55089843},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3198759962","doi":"","title":"Reinventing Bankruptcy Law: A History of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Corporate Insolvency and Governance","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"route_ca_aff":true,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"Lakehead University","funders":"","keywords":"Bankruptcy; Creditor; Law; Business; Receivership; Law and economics; Political science; Economics; Debt; Finance","score_opus":0.04010014847666176,"score_gpt":0.20743013692368223,"score_spread":0.16732998844702046,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3198759962","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012066447,0.445174,0.000006450139,0.08783525,0.009770934,0.0013155835,0.000027247164,0.0000655096,0.44373858],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9052393,0.0058936626,0.000030206558,0.07670126,0.0030483096,0.000047785852,0.00002851194,0.000050825725,0.008960153],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99900675,0.000040433242,0.00029932777,0.00016842746,0.00024887544,0.00023621671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988577,0.000024290424,0.00035469435,0.000571929,0.00016806861,0.000023349063],"candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00051110703,0.00012811215,0.00024396024,0.000023691191,0.0002206297,0.000044513235,0.00048412316,0.000029019764,0.0010705222],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001732657,0.00008408911,0.00017746168,0.0003084518,0.00011378103,0.00020408671,0.00010663416,0.00016407309,0.00013614297],"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":[0.000002440195,0.000020803676,0.0014960133,0.0031589824,0.000049539154,0.000029165576,0.000079921134,0.000008729407,0.000047949932,0.19661438,0.79252785,0.0059641902],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007152433,0.0000011850777,0.0033646734,0.0021085532,0.00009980521,0.000002446002,0.00001648646,0.00004059661,0.00000793357,0.0006736594,0.99350804,0.00010512273],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10605957,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.40294427,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.89317286,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00034468892,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004995574,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99984264},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3199050573","doi":"","title":"GENDER DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN: FROM THE GLENS OF ANGUS TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Denial; Charter; Context (archaeology); Law; Relation (database); Labour law; Sexual orientation; Political science; Sociology; Gender studies; History; Psychology","score_opus":0.08696858760603318,"score_gpt":0.34978628546165436,"score_spread":0.26281769785562115,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3199050573","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":[0.1431216,0.24937354,0.00003716038,0.48072645,0.0007265386,0.004233226,0.00018001096,0.000057364363,0.12154411],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98041344,0.009307862,0.00017562309,0.008647154,0.00031177845,0.000025930838,0.000008911768,0.000010098363,0.0010991979],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987971,0.00019422192,0.00020171354,0.00012931185,0.00033370106,0.000343928],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99916345,0.00018576343,0.00007278591,0.00022228804,0.00013717116,0.00021855866],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015202546,0.00009061647,0.00018443698,0.000011443856,0.0011140052,0.000046235415,0.00043698068,0.000044684646,0.0005075483],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007618995,0.000047510377,0.00009278992,0.000301239,0.00027509982,0.00005897199,0.000036835685,0.00010959994,0.0001562628],"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":[0.000010303771,0.000028336464,0.0063932044,0.00041456637,0.00022108018,0.00001490838,0.35017416,0.0000034296202,0.00006549763,0.08835805,0.2924654,0.26185107],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003748087,0.000007636642,0.08493044,0.00025601397,0.00007029334,2.7610236e-7,0.0049719815,8.49916e-7,0.000005468464,0.00024765913,0.9093847,0.00008718085],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7814613,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9385106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83729184,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00039591326,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00023044425,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.856814},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3207358157","doi":"","title":"BIASED IMPARTIALITY: A SURVEY OF POST-RDS CASELAW ON BIAS, RACE AND INDIGENEITY","year":2021,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Canadian Bar Review","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","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 Windsor","funders":"","keywords":"Impartiality; Argument (complex analysis); Law; Jurisprudence; Judicial opinion; Political science; Sociology; Adjudication; Race (biology); Gender studies","score_opus":0.19485387012084068,"score_gpt":0.42243951402520047,"score_spread":0.22758564390435979,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3207358157","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":[0.23395823,0.037470575,0.000001434125,0.68773574,0.00046746532,0.0007664392,0.00041555526,0.000018062154,0.039166532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.960098,0.013566009,0.00001721816,0.025043959,0.000051954947,0.0000104843375,0.00006372816,0.0000058831038,0.0011427514],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99783456,0.0015019667,0.00020628158,0.000113248665,0.00017374479,0.00017019619],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982942,0.000591583,0.00012235768,0.00025938475,0.0005130493,0.00021942603],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004002471,0.00005847914,0.00016432341,0.00003783273,0.0005556869,0.00008966905,0.00012856057,0.000041757474,0.0012456144],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008811098,0.00004619397,0.00003030712,0.00084973505,0.00014706957,0.00011703185,0.000009745516,0.00017580503,0.000059092265],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024147015,0.00021922386,0.04979199,0.0011130999,0.00020886004,0.00005617225,0.0322576,0.0000021000974,0.0000461267,0.5657709,0.22147666,0.1290331],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041777654,0.000009889912,0.06545233,0.00018755316,0.000030003775,0.000003778132,0.00032750567,5.4984787e-7,0.00002276514,0.00007250181,0.9337848,0.0000665501],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9046206,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9873974,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7261398,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001288686,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0076035447,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996674},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}