{"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06048393,0.06827505,0.17234156,0.25040033,0.0037732213,0.00022613262,0.0005573977,0.0003337402,0.44360867],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92060715,0.015975645,0.036610052,0.005138052,0.0014760479,0.0001818475,0.00014953816,0.0001173179,0.01974429],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.95232844,0.01602971,0.0013699207,0.0037104802,0.02373397,0.0028274427],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9343202,0.02517221,0.0044060936,0.003745233,0.029624049,0.0027322154],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.041389428,0.0008966313,0.00094502146,0.004794464,0.006461873,0.022885058,0.0040733707,0.004629648,0.0019293635],"category_scores_gemma":[0.060995806,0.0006980145,0.0006360242,0.004828191,0.045044977,0.011682252,0.00340023,0.007359096,0.00041702148],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000012219963,0.000005942315,0.0005665532,0.00005361954,0.0000062113836,0.000033571378,0.0023341668,0.0004195228,0.000066711706,0.98026305,0.0033676028,0.012870857],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005293879,0.000062576495,0.0066058543,0.0008725372,0.00006138998,0.00018549754,0.005111,0.0047807335,0.00062853575,0.6766767,0.30479756,0.00016462595],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6668742,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.53153235,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33312583,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.058300402,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10124457,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6701753},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.054269608,0.09243429,0.005630975,0.6164682,0.0039351373,0.00008164196,0.00014669214,0.000091436574,0.2269421],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8961486,0.023714144,0.002736947,0.045673084,0.000707203,0.000043771106,0.00005493678,0.00005879501,0.030862587],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.97148436,0.0118053295,0.0006833475,0.0016204349,0.009434347,0.0049721515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9760775,0.008427398,0.0031310301,0.0016007529,0.00838509,0.0023781918],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02020684,0.00042991358,0.00061522704,0.0025907664,0.012704453,0.018360732,0.0019924054,0.0045963675,0.002314951],"category_scores_gemma":[0.038374778,0.00030903082,0.00037932416,0.0036284903,0.05189193,0.0063366424,0.003848844,0.007039566,0.00040106368],"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":[0.0000316993,0.000018432116,0.0024037778,0.00045515219,0.000022196344,0.00026530187,0.053441126,0.00017365835,0.0004703362,0.816958,0.064223915,0.061536457],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015055705,0.00003761481,0.007343631,0.002274839,0.000034377703,0.00019595346,0.070732445,0.00020324175,0.00080699445,0.07388015,0.8443679,0.00010786268],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82673556,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86619157,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17326444,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.045780398,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10683884,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34856963},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.023555093,0.46538833,0.003926339,0.26011103,0.0038248987,0.000090283014,0.0006292228,0.00015667162,0.24231812],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49086875,0.3098836,0.006466041,0.04230479,0.0033467375,0.0000666346,0.00048126167,0.0001509783,0.14643127],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98820865,0.0011234393,0.00028899094,0.00074305234,0.00810494,0.001530973],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9816753,0.004403956,0.0010323485,0.00040548533,0.011347569,0.0011352823],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006333848,0.0004800819,0.0004296432,0.005387748,0.009530756,0.015369042,0.0016026474,0.003827724,0.0044584596],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01620066,0.0004392318,0.00045160326,0.0076020337,0.009215669,0.004470612,0.0015560833,0.0050738854,0.0005485383],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004547823,0.000037050384,0.004391789,0.001017434,0.00003089034,0.00035762053,0.0043256655,0.0010349071,0.00049928774,0.6736412,0.17310579,0.14151295],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008131657,0.000013545997,0.009428058,0.000950727,0.00002762927,0.000109233384,0.001126968,0.0004455177,0.00055263576,0.013520862,0.9737534,0.00006321075],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9758303,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98225594,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.105051324,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.105051324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2383743,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7622043},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024824472,0.015023774,0.003591304,0.3987441,0.016871888,0.0004132194,0.002498738,0.00040504424,0.5376274],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19909911,0.0043550087,0.00244957,0.108632185,0.005049081,0.00044834855,0.0007789195,0.00027446495,0.6789133],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9893246,0.0010289362,0.0004631622,0.0011995912,0.005224473,0.002759257],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98343176,0.006245441,0.0006301352,0.00073743373,0.0077654156,0.0011898729],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009265124,0.00055311405,0.0012345744,0.0020904555,0.023780672,0.011489369,0.0031824429,0.014728516,0.038328666],"category_scores_gemma":[0.031647995,0.0007666902,0.00068583054,0.0025031797,0.005525252,0.0051428354,0.0037475666,0.014100284,0.0075087324],"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":[0.00008464728,0.000052666775,0.0030543508,0.00019225942,0.000017566419,0.0010508873,0.004401095,0.00010027661,0.00046412557,0.3076286,0.66347736,0.019476289],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022793807,0.00001406795,0.002953603,0.00019379391,0.000013028457,0.00012023235,0.0018929025,0.0001389852,0.00027445497,0.0042162053,0.9901086,0.00005139854],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.68614745,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.72547126,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31385255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024629766,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05078251,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6314018},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.39154917,0.21869552,0.0010433719,0.25485986,0.003302247,0.00041545575,0.0009064873,0.00004891438,0.12917897],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9073468,0.054265104,0.0007232167,0.022818416,0.00039117667,0.00007198281,0.00018461389,0.000028449493,0.0141702425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98866105,0.002152514,0.00047946887,0.0005460375,0.0046478524,0.0035131203],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97864646,0.006022263,0.0012921272,0.00031718996,0.011685795,0.002036229],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010728971,0.00033677265,0.0006415604,0.0035735148,0.016621297,0.006354246,0.0027803907,0.003324535,0.0016238666],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036772538,0.00034665773,0.00045204046,0.0052645346,0.008345714,0.0013927269,0.0025120738,0.0065057334,0.00010904322],"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":[0.00033276938,0.00015724768,0.07130067,0.004727791,0.0003457635,0.0043341727,0.16198994,0.002042512,0.0009715996,0.26474923,0.22708127,0.26196703],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010441608,0.0002419809,0.31492734,0.010205304,0.0009786899,0.0011004142,0.1952784,0.0016291926,0.001276675,0.014046989,0.4596708,0.0005397612],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9957022,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9986003,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8507548,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14924522,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.33868504,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98675495},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016776742,0.09374682,0.0017727527,0.63436365,0.0047440166,0.000030195912,0.00018086525,0.000035956982,0.24834904],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6337021,0.06732604,0.0030393265,0.21917926,0.0051987157,0.00006296117,0.0001709172,0.00009324673,0.0712275],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99212074,0.0016110964,0.0001856228,0.0009273037,0.0029749994,0.0021803954],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9916775,0.0029138082,0.00057014136,0.000493623,0.0036708026,0.000674129],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009442501,0.00022936889,0.0006435654,0.0022320887,0.007960556,0.008470372,0.0020791742,0.00605652,0.0039479355],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015726693,0.00033317838,0.0007341086,0.0018487445,0.02074959,0.0067583756,0.0011669213,0.007936988,0.00043224028],"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":[0.000010442949,0.000009168917,0.0004030561,0.000104205516,0.000013082339,0.000058935835,0.0015826984,0.000104629326,0.000079419304,0.9536264,0.030181956,0.01382599],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032914355,0.000028226748,0.0060238373,0.0014109359,0.000053185126,0.00009258408,0.0036556565,0.00025481672,0.00026500638,0.18744119,0.80066043,0.000081280676],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8613986,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89213014,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93342733,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06657266,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.059008177,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48302072},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.055359602,0.13454168,0.008267022,0.114709914,0.0015697554,0.0002303182,0.0005392315,0.00010122771,0.68468124],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.899329,0.042163804,0.004408362,0.014512757,0.00035267023,0.000074735515,0.00021138148,0.00005433066,0.038892925],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9768604,0.003600038,0.0009324728,0.0012586433,0.013318523,0.0040299944],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9804977,0.005691717,0.0010054668,0.000574027,0.011108263,0.0011228924],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012517277,0.0003492804,0.0006812234,0.00637615,0.017295271,0.013606417,0.0029116992,0.004971311,0.0037287273],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027347906,0.0005084671,0.0006307708,0.008190555,0.020582456,0.0030665405,0.0035873745,0.0054976027,0.00025258353],"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":[0.0000062588715,0.000010510385,0.0010717593,0.00012795956,0.000015114558,0.00020651953,0.0048698587,0.00057736575,0.000069695794,0.9554046,0.021484986,0.016155418],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021430436,0.000028701004,0.013417323,0.0022172593,0.000103092265,0.00027879517,0.0136271985,0.0016501789,0.0004349923,0.21152078,0.75651425,0.00018602908],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9778496,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98515785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16139922,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16139922,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.29285917,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97265804},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0013649833,0.48535496,0.0007070076,0.4851821,0.006930836,0.000029027227,0.000077534045,0.000015904894,0.020337664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.11174623,0.68601704,0.004077557,0.17398474,0.012642746,0.0001145357,0.00015209576,0.000067095854,0.01119793],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.95807886,0.015163525,0.0016218448,0.0021697008,0.019171184,0.0037949523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.88979423,0.045926042,0.004939191,0.0024330977,0.05217205,0.0047354326],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04785032,0.000647046,0.001568188,0.0068773883,0.009824279,0.014942109,0.0046305684,0.009349418,0.0040448625],"category_scores_gemma":[0.098889634,0.0006250607,0.0010127134,0.0062314984,0.028487774,0.009245553,0.004018394,0.013669438,0.0010874687],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000100205085,0.000050034283,0.0045750486,0.004905503,0.00019877557,0.00036527385,0.008204873,0.00029885498,0.0002486921,0.4086146,0.33476496,0.23767318],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004881406,0.000047786987,0.008381968,0.015498556,0.00017200076,0.0004013373,0.0097684,0.00016508592,0.00020618548,0.03451532,0.9306574,0.00013704937],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.79356664,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8761589,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.79356664,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.069875024,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1658912,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50698113},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.049440164,0.02100765,0.38669845,0.14146855,0.0024399334,0.00018125397,0.00025177404,0.0002747354,0.3982374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93770957,0.0041201063,0.036175665,0.013167275,0.0016665166,0.00019214179,0.00008065279,0.00018326535,0.0067047547],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9362062,0.027342722,0.004239868,0.005144336,0.023514533,0.0035523346],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9224787,0.05684372,0.0038140216,0.007736885,0.008454691,0.0006720176],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.061944693,0.00072395214,0.0015561129,0.0041255434,0.008480109,0.01628719,0.008084268,0.0076951846,0.0021736338],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06645964,0.0014464877,0.001695666,0.0029733458,0.09653158,0.02132702,0.009422692,0.024976028,0.00067604514],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000025498903,0.0000017467372,0.000063949476,0.000026016025,0.0000030711442,0.00002587748,0.0024490145,0.00009929771,0.00004488346,0.99533904,0.00027760855,0.0016669185],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015160427,0.000015423302,0.00040205842,0.00043509214,0.000023977276,0.00008587247,0.0015255368,0.00063961634,0.00039153273,0.9636984,0.03273196,0.000035485285],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.047404967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.057702478,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95259506,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02051105,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030016173,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32759875},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008557051,0.08100491,0.021916917,0.13051063,0.0013584703,0.00027974436,0.00008673153,0.0001263226,0.7561593],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.72422767,0.12025773,0.036795266,0.023544952,0.0010898772,0.00028004168,0.00015228856,0.00011129317,0.09354097],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98394805,0.005421117,0.000531871,0.0010222441,0.006999562,0.0020772736],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9855226,0.004192221,0.0010536538,0.0009291646,0.0057666567,0.00253562],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01599976,0.0004981789,0.0003879594,0.0041400874,0.004520777,0.007658138,0.001975177,0.0027706786,0.0050363503],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01866622,0.00018468944,0.00038770764,0.0019138831,0.017292647,0.004015862,0.006907426,0.0031096144,0.001362799],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000060806783,0.000034547298,0.0006138284,0.0007533449,0.000016682705,0.00008345682,0.004302073,0.00029592623,0.0001990021,0.7884823,0.036969163,0.16824345],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012192566,0.000038780687,0.002743045,0.002547985,0.000017549979,0.0002451162,0.004060402,0.00029840498,0.0005101358,0.1570946,0.8324031,0.000028714396],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20111963,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.25365052,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20111963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02682163,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08287924,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.399898},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"editorial","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"editorial","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00031266254,0.42454928,0.00074425165,0.38947472,0.083711006,0.00038395045,0.0052268626,0.00020225995,0.09539506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.010095862,0.4787563,0.0049927454,0.32577318,0.049176093,0.0010424443,0.0055088745,0.00051004055,0.1241445],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.94350517,0.0028939808,0.0027380264,0.0018897805,0.045255158,0.0037178376],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8668747,0.020758266,0.005027385,0.0019538961,0.10031429,0.005071478],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028714895,0.0027344169,0.0027805376,0.034256443,0.00921953,0.019326596,0.0079223765,0.021016473,0.017373702],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07891344,0.0019962625,0.0021447334,0.043060627,0.00902482,0.0075004227,0.0047007254,0.015626455,0.00493237],"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":[0.0000049764367,0.0000074155614,0.000044693075,0.0006023795,0.0000047122608,0.000012829571,0.00009044934,0.000037561196,0.00002355299,0.0059961407,0.98409086,0.009084432],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008771268,0.0000051065444,0.0011963884,0.0023709552,0.000016424403,0.000016864338,0.00013065392,0.000024102397,0.00002445871,0.0012796989,0.99489045,0.000035965077],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9095387,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9626244,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.885304,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.114696056,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25753906,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83218205},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"editorial","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"editorial","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012109713,0.75688064,0.0011943756,0.07883517,0.024005895,0.00020085569,0.0061040944,0.00009374014,0.120575465],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2653269,0.54684424,0.004582433,0.020245492,0.015069944,0.0007997421,0.0063900007,0.00035452622,0.14038669],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9898009,0.0013497391,0.00061545306,0.0010435373,0.0058598104,0.0013306477],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9730601,0.008401459,0.0012317538,0.0007946183,0.015066075,0.0014460293],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014435757,0.00084223493,0.0013574648,0.024913596,0.008598516,0.013400305,0.002040035,0.003365229,0.014581689],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033098858,0.0010363306,0.00066509127,0.0325986,0.0060284226,0.004896671,0.0032933143,0.005487138,0.0017769134],"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":[0.00016913304,0.000035516237,0.005127065,0.00530177,0.000073776515,0.00015663041,0.0070416746,0.00045471668,0.00040332755,0.2226767,0.5524,0.2061597],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001095386,0.000015830357,0.016956624,0.0031565612,0.000029425162,0.000056682686,0.0020039387,0.00007055176,0.00015901389,0.002265966,0.97523606,0.00003846874],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82362163,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8623119,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.92573524,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07426477,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.092379026,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5388311},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5488035,0.01879287,0.0012665483,0.032459684,0.00040047814,0.00046767667,0.022347292,0.00014858742,0.37531337],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93031543,0.0072648767,0.0010910236,0.00270911,0.00007974569,0.00010453752,0.002735753,0.000043281132,0.05565613],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9913428,0.000428395,0.00019274116,0.00060874375,0.00595066,0.0014766138],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9842429,0.0022982485,0.0022982694,0.0004729838,0.008936831,0.0017506685],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029110378,0.00026771525,0.00037945292,0.0065105055,0.009289185,0.003958134,0.001227038,0.0011539381,0.0077063343],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014742971,0.0003008856,0.00044526492,0.011431389,0.0023133175,0.0009172301,0.0014781646,0.0015011801,0.0005942072],"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":[0.0002360838,0.00010291022,0.3506641,0.0009666732,0.00010746346,0.0013168777,0.06683667,0.0010420738,0.0014717919,0.09254231,0.24462149,0.24009155],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007637908,0.000025243433,0.5920873,0.0002683256,0.000034628683,0.00033319948,0.01815458,0.00030175934,0.00046642957,0.00081373344,0.3874194,0.00008781514],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99322456,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99586403,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.087375514,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.087375514,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10504204,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6339567},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.33416876,0.1542592,0.009638217,0.17761575,0.002730314,0.00027448672,0.004270473,0.00047585057,0.31656688],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83593094,0.06259394,0.004923958,0.010808895,0.0009712956,0.000060413044,0.0010687074,0.00011290216,0.08352897],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.992357,0.0010787079,0.0002349631,0.0004451071,0.0044824216,0.001401775],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9790693,0.0047036503,0.0016924018,0.0003929366,0.010213841,0.003927836],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0048016887,0.00035412476,0.00047705305,0.0028196294,0.0070598703,0.006043304,0.0017017145,0.0017828301,0.009832316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020598186,0.0003814806,0.0004105283,0.004094967,0.0031546105,0.0014262219,0.0014693666,0.003415615,0.0008198704],"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":[0.00048288712,0.00023774512,0.06892106,0.0016577422,0.00018855944,0.0031860569,0.007198923,0.004691401,0.0025798597,0.264853,0.21696497,0.42903784],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000120456054,0.0001557606,0.1633318,0.0016652314,0.00013809446,0.0021029008,0.006852751,0.003216562,0.0015718614,0.006245854,0.81441104,0.00018761422],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9785396,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9857244,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07306275,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07306275,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16160485,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5301098},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004746072,0.30854076,0.0010485344,0.5710973,0.0038318844,0.00003460274,0.000055183024,0.000026749969,0.11061885],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5867416,0.25011683,0.001998524,0.13779648,0.0040215203,0.00006948623,0.000068095345,0.000062841165,0.019124633],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9642575,0.014622533,0.0010378573,0.0015384025,0.011596436,0.0069472655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96487147,0.018181989,0.0016264233,0.0009742498,0.012610352,0.0017354959],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03360793,0.00057036977,0.0010646598,0.004752414,0.02229078,0.022857228,0.0045323307,0.012051128,0.0024240399],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03379254,0.0003998196,0.00070674665,0.0061335033,0.0628328,0.0075043347,0.004003857,0.016162265,0.000427545],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001572227,0.000009334879,0.0001991835,0.0006868159,0.000015047833,0.0002582042,0.019460024,0.00017855136,0.000065300825,0.90786594,0.051115133,0.020130664],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017616447,0.000018358727,0.00089226186,0.003946942,0.000045692585,0.000234393,0.029260382,0.00017260095,0.00021855417,0.055309884,0.90981567,0.0000676133],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8935658,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8952117,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.106434226,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.104031004,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24223997,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7548013},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.13825855,0.10275015,0.001332057,0.08248615,0.0010577799,0.000079442514,0.0010134471,0.000046742076,0.67297566],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89351153,0.05748243,0.0013644934,0.01188893,0.00024101188,0.000042257718,0.0003192359,0.00007880061,0.03507135],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9843009,0.0022111007,0.0004585006,0.0007356589,0.008076686,0.0042170407],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9806418,0.004789217,0.0009842792,0.00040802514,0.011721995,0.0014546677],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007762273,0.00041235253,0.0006935301,0.007680986,0.020298535,0.010754073,0.0024409238,0.0023817432,0.006768757],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020152936,0.0005246821,0.0005686675,0.011316287,0.014386736,0.002592498,0.002974047,0.004013372,0.00044523433],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00020861448,0.000062554034,0.013086954,0.00080823194,0.00008516188,0.00088429067,0.067255005,0.0005485002,0.0008738234,0.7928898,0.053708598,0.06958845],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008800538,0.000057679958,0.09980809,0.0023455,0.00027239783,0.00046388432,0.062595904,0.0004557735,0.00085237395,0.0204028,0.81237525,0.00028236752],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99498355,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9984439,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16240305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16240305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.127311,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9714937},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18032421,0.15432973,0.0017295938,0.30469057,0.0055872565,0.00010622717,0.0024744673,0.00008761531,0.35067046],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8598964,0.02677894,0.00070456666,0.028948465,0.0012258219,0.000040108283,0.00032511994,0.000058008576,0.082022466],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9875979,0.002143396,0.00032757976,0.0010354314,0.0060461443,0.0028495674],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9606779,0.010163306,0.0018134094,0.00047299344,0.02431426,0.0025580733],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008232706,0.00032079517,0.000652871,0.0031001642,0.011353977,0.009688468,0.0014492742,0.003529615,0.007752514],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027699286,0.000546503,0.0005632575,0.0039455513,0.005655442,0.0018449859,0.0013006452,0.005726317,0.00037601526],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.00029794296,0.00008000098,0.034307018,0.000869437,0.00039692043,0.0011187954,0.013021801,0.0020128074,0.0012969741,0.56003195,0.28101492,0.10555139],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000057103516,0.000064030224,0.08788485,0.00088227907,0.00021818091,0.00012876528,0.004486413,0.00073418586,0.00087945524,0.0050363126,0.89946705,0.00016130299],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9937651,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9962192,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16624872,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16624872,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16866641,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9670333},"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":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.038148098,0.05390107,0.78857857,0.040138405,0.0077426974,0.008463023,0.0019094504,0.0015536578,0.059565004],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2025483,0.01396392,0.72194505,0.011169089,0.0017170276,0.008612615,0.00080803083,0.0009276407,0.038308352],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.65767276,0.2602182,0.017053554,0.012462011,0.049845625,0.0027478368],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.670226,0.19847848,0.03453976,0.043059364,0.051814232,0.0018820958],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.15823185,0.0017513777,0.0023125252,0.0059715207,0.006272565,0.008366323,0.0052276934,0.0033107873,0.0074712154],"category_scores_gemma":[0.33962113,0.0017269752,0.0018047797,0.0060917474,0.012163666,0.0054585626,0.007879048,0.0054084,0.0035558091],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0011897866,0.00015098006,0.024835058,0.007789901,0.0011070397,0.00066867255,0.0473728,0.0011172711,0.004682549,0.18619092,0.05255996,0.6723351],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00037701448,0.00073809864,0.04860283,0.0074175787,0.00093101495,0.002462796,0.016019564,0.0059649027,0.0129452925,0.06689662,0.8366575,0.0009866689],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07372334,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.11363613,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15823185,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0080646,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.034059957,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83682},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.039679132,0.044146404,0.004247036,0.6247784,0.0074150474,0.000084721105,0.00076518377,0.00012377395,0.27876025],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5147966,0.016429547,0.002278506,0.2292329,0.008178828,0.00012517843,0.00021639766,0.00013826949,0.22860384],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.992004,0.0018833193,0.00032419307,0.0008106164,0.0029360598,0.0020418882],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9875144,0.0067181354,0.00040022083,0.00039687668,0.0045240056,0.0004463741],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007799064,0.0006388029,0.00089346303,0.0012547832,0.010272281,0.010028637,0.0028592166,0.018125659,0.008034742],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01860032,0.00062714383,0.0010780595,0.0015527325,0.007917079,0.0035569326,0.0015221606,0.016041532,0.0009462432],"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":[0.000098704746,0.000034617446,0.0022583562,0.00014806757,0.00004597667,0.0011022016,0.0046057487,0.000698698,0.00043219904,0.65141016,0.32865772,0.0105074765],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056962857,0.000027100392,0.006084483,0.0003827602,0.0000701452,0.0003014703,0.003054721,0.0010098559,0.0005529806,0.027335212,0.96098125,0.0001429883],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.88804877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90379906,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11195123,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.040608123,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032930553,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.29463392},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0013186657,0.002420846,0.00014046437,0.9693554,0.013539377,0.000037677946,0.0002905021,0.000056810295,0.012840187],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0046952637,0.0009207019,0.00010681097,0.97129613,0.003506251,0.000035117606,0.00004741833,0.000053311676,0.019339032],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9731024,0.0017265435,0.0016420975,0.0029953727,0.010659684,0.009873806],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95661294,0.014234777,0.0016853446,0.0011544935,0.019891826,0.0064206123],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01741131,0.0019928045,0.0029356622,0.0036117807,0.044813827,0.02043389,0.011411446,0.15889639,0.015718589],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06149853,0.003666963,0.003911209,0.0067419526,0.013727045,0.00892859,0.005918005,0.11410901,0.0046664383],"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":[0.000022151007,0.000009475871,0.0003522337,0.00005144869,0.000021504167,0.00017632583,0.0007737264,0.00005759233,0.00007282346,0.008060223,0.98886454,0.0015379302],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000051631843,0.000023179773,0.0045417743,0.000518196,0.00012519628,0.00015060075,0.0038176484,0.00019610727,0.00022200069,0.0039876793,0.9860622,0.00030373776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94702137,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.977251,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15889639,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07346218,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.21781757,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5330079},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016746316,0.21540673,0.011201092,0.3051187,0.0026571404,0.00016468464,0.00013224229,0.000017053753,0.44855613],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.80121493,0.078630954,0.0052692806,0.08287844,0.0056738616,0.00031909734,0.00014487484,0.000027065056,0.025841532],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97293437,0.01357016,0.0013107271,0.001601601,0.00828249,0.0023006632],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9742804,0.015804669,0.002988012,0.0007364043,0.004401446,0.0017889986],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015962679,0.0003871082,0.00052509084,0.005053293,0.0064948564,0.008744115,0.0020841546,0.0081151575,0.0038508542],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029708369,0.00034601387,0.00044120225,0.0036083488,0.048240263,0.0070844707,0.0054045236,0.008768054,0.00040803885],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000017727613,0.0000049807636,0.00030782173,0.000034701883,0.0000028868208,0.000071782495,0.0008456819,0.00003320761,0.000009944248,0.9903171,0.004041102,0.0043290323],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011101717,0.0000213603,0.0018755702,0.0010723106,0.000012096489,0.00071092875,0.0029591161,0.00023258198,0.00004503096,0.7995495,0.19347948,0.00003094782],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.031406537,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.034152262,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.031406537,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016439484,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02050688,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11927736},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2137258,0.018874755,0.024006208,0.26337555,0.00065049785,0.00015657186,0.00045531517,0.000059796137,0.47869548],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9838951,0.0017315891,0.0015705257,0.009661741,0.00017522002,0.000042864474,0.00003534217,0.000014249627,0.0028733888],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9865485,0.002968184,0.00042473018,0.0020017626,0.0047996184,0.0032572807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97646755,0.0150090335,0.0021070496,0.0015871456,0.0031972874,0.0016319653],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013023499,0.0002829061,0.00082005514,0.0038178167,0.008153198,0.00928082,0.0023025824,0.0066899043,0.0043372824],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03381141,0.00036322197,0.0007064113,0.002917331,0.05660107,0.009134809,0.007882839,0.010600434,0.00021147504],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000014230422,0.0000141726705,0.0042052055,0.000051917028,0.000012576376,0.00016713007,0.0028889799,0.00018537264,0.000064492604,0.98069674,0.0017693856,0.009929913],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020827481,0.000023639193,0.012382108,0.00039782355,0.000026563968,0.00016378755,0.0059315264,0.0006609606,0.00019919044,0.9527233,0.027433706,0.000036494017],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29859054,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3435249,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.29859054,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021853281,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02240503,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.59370506},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5088869,0.09901683,0.025349734,0.09837278,0.0023427673,0.0076514725,0.0017587454,0.00013623829,0.2564846],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97744036,0.003909878,0.0064102886,0.0052172793,0.0006167408,0.0010281326,0.00021017787,0.000018699906,0.0051485305],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.81362873,0.12100672,0.005477959,0.0038200344,0.04678484,0.009281758],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6561465,0.27148002,0.025080755,0.009339583,0.032863565,0.005089479],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.15276584,0.0006662282,0.0019354232,0.0055564023,0.005135122,0.006531021,0.0026768402,0.006929336,0.0041793496],"category_scores_gemma":[0.39909285,0.00079073803,0.0019552957,0.0069694268,0.013291593,0.0064375135,0.0041737747,0.005932956,0.00047009566],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.004174453,0.0007839179,0.092015766,0.0020378176,0.0015678566,0.0002744814,0.0049629477,0.020383194,0.0004750639,0.681532,0.04365021,0.14814234],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.005712387,0.008702711,0.35007688,0.0036687686,0.0044415984,0.00036130522,0.008517644,0.032469694,0.005531295,0.4099871,0.16989331,0.000637365],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1947332,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.36425513,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9508033,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0491967,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05826805,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.80791265},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.031975515,0.41837534,0.0070656,0.16897155,0.0118159335,0.000056605575,0.00051716104,0.00013659734,0.3610857],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6671383,0.18402398,0.0072746025,0.03797233,0.0084961485,0.0001223575,0.0005837911,0.00033104297,0.09405744],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9893539,0.0038662965,0.00036797722,0.0009522891,0.0044108913,0.0010487201],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9820947,0.008105719,0.0008269351,0.0007806622,0.0073668407,0.00082519883],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008190927,0.00071250985,0.0010364125,0.009770487,0.013100072,0.013091217,0.0016887133,0.0030958462,0.007846462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01376571,0.00054757425,0.0005978135,0.008677008,0.023156328,0.0060321754,0.003839975,0.0068185087,0.0014156328],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000042560536,0.000034526973,0.0029535051,0.000980111,0.00003315674,0.00043279797,0.032277998,0.00011980796,0.00048448727,0.7533508,0.12482372,0.08446653],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007625479,0.000008907508,0.0045128707,0.001138574,0.00003034058,0.0003269139,0.0072233095,0.000079496,0.00020132361,0.012697309,0.97373813,0.000035161134],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.72764987,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.701717,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.72764987,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044480167,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.056259964,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.54790807},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.003844799,0.8393114,0.0010378675,0.0753135,0.0032410526,0.000087190536,0.00011385984,0.000027769582,0.07702258],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.06128137,0.81516457,0.001709582,0.07505335,0.0032416375,0.000097323944,0.00019394627,0.000063548,0.04319464],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9828267,0.0029628552,0.0012562986,0.001344361,0.010313965,0.001295754],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9756162,0.010244934,0.001190832,0.00043408477,0.011423377,0.0010905623],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015734097,0.000549546,0.00092331256,0.009714984,0.004449047,0.006942407,0.0023756113,0.0065269996,0.0023038853],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025744695,0.000962788,0.0005679698,0.008456072,0.011414335,0.0056599993,0.0021202255,0.0072182133,0.0006720376],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000025356689,0.000089463654,0.0010389354,0.003876304,0.000035550904,0.0005919542,0.0043368335,0.0006767064,0.00049408386,0.41584638,0.33571327,0.23727514],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000035083792,0.000020026999,0.0028282814,0.0028568674,0.000014110913,0.00014110327,0.00044433854,0.000106547726,0.00008873357,0.0046462086,0.98881906,0.0000310769],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5486282,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6139522,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5486282,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033749443,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.066551074,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.90806},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.033783145,0.02086611,0.007383883,0.23374778,0.012496837,0.00016118166,0.0007848578,0.00029521,0.69048107],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3450815,0.0035652774,0.0043765754,0.08372898,0.002153279,0.00014182267,0.00025160713,0.00026175368,0.5604392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952577,0.00072583824,0.00011172972,0.00081000756,0.0021344135,0.00096030923],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99767584,0.00063369004,0.00011556796,0.00015170056,0.0011300453,0.00029311184],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025312942,0.00052820315,0.00041169793,0.00073633343,0.00887383,0.007356592,0.0011725985,0.0064918385,0.012744619],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0068499157,0.00042892114,0.0005544437,0.0006722148,0.005020004,0.0022659472,0.0013194581,0.010262284,0.0017790425],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000053291453,0.000024727206,0.0013788856,0.00007042728,0.00001592652,0.00042904294,0.005584545,0.00022427854,0.0008113827,0.7273598,0.24577531,0.018272396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000089105315,0.0000097157235,0.002150618,0.00008899919,0.000006065581,0.00007134713,0.0006314815,0.00012682167,0.0003623586,0.0059051965,0.99061275,0.000025785419],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8147332,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90208167,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1852668,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027000869,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.028383892,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3727157},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0070471913,0.012704877,0.010361372,0.8877961,0.0029696855,0.00029605985,0.00031917598,0.00021492933,0.07829058],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.23461004,0.01786583,0.07095116,0.63644826,0.004173885,0.00048137957,0.00039386484,0.00033648362,0.034739174],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.90600836,0.03622457,0.0077954787,0.0041570864,0.032303512,0.013510997],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6598393,0.24147272,0.0048538647,0.0076396684,0.07812947,0.008064997],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.11029657,0.0017211033,0.0028784,0.009477957,0.02059548,0.021838233,0.010963625,0.041169036,0.0047062077],"category_scores_gemma":[0.25877097,0.0019368432,0.0027669077,0.005378218,0.031842645,0.016349329,0.008761743,0.03609981,0.0014391204],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000086333814,0.00013388692,0.003526946,0.00061344646,0.00008967927,0.0020797981,0.01195779,0.0018287079,0.00060955156,0.5829052,0.3388633,0.05730537],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025489298,0.00007588037,0.0033327036,0.0054861517,0.00016866502,0.0007066521,0.008027026,0.0036907436,0.0013057167,0.31708696,0.65943444,0.00043021477],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7945406,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90704805,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7945406,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0646807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2372008,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58331096},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025691802,0.14763698,0.0035663256,0.52481925,0.0037792078,0.00003499745,0.00016410416,0.00006866179,0.2942387],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6885641,0.05060653,0.0025805174,0.076281495,0.0028202906,0.000053036914,0.000095613046,0.000075633405,0.17892273],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99441874,0.0016576361,0.00009888371,0.00047449968,0.0020142717,0.001335949],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9963135,0.0017556624,0.00025459545,0.00016855082,0.001058959,0.00044867356],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0066836234,0.00045943572,0.0006079687,0.0013246622,0.0072018364,0.009614668,0.0013498437,0.0069271317,0.0058410987],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010250391,0.00025192407,0.0005173018,0.00110639,0.021704147,0.004175331,0.0024194608,0.009114605,0.0006120828],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000020986758,0.000014104847,0.0007170739,0.000050969065,0.000009968448,0.00021565046,0.004243501,0.00009818484,0.00018667123,0.9485135,0.027519045,0.018410278],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017874152,0.000035022134,0.0036937818,0.0005351148,0.0000295199,0.00027568592,0.006284398,0.00021818017,0.0005440693,0.14330083,0.8450198,0.000045654044],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47977352,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5369752,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5202265,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023127068,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03634873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.95396185},"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":"editorial","genre_gemma":"editorial","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"editorial","genre_consensus":"editorial","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00011349268,0.055591736,0.00022115283,0.30323187,0.566045,0.0002643968,0.002030758,0.0002781811,0.07222336],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0028782147,0.041913748,0.00074486126,0.3064142,0.19817185,0.0004357649,0.0017840402,0.00038917776,0.4472682],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9792524,0.0010262984,0.001145852,0.0010235587,0.015829708,0.00172207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.92306316,0.005772454,0.002490709,0.0012037627,0.061186347,0.006283509],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009531336,0.002174123,0.003273477,0.0090801325,0.009111014,0.01628914,0.0046795346,0.018935984,0.052976932],"category_scores_gemma":[0.057250693,0.0014023434,0.0015672819,0.0069633173,0.0033511862,0.005286617,0.003075228,0.01578491,0.04326748],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000031102277,0.0000013704284,0.0000090687445,0.000034607456,9.001419e-7,0.0000036097786,0.0000042311476,0.000002422966,0.000005883674,0.00015858894,0.9986297,0.0011465488],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000071549043,0.0000035221922,0.0003388049,0.0002848403,0.0000060800244,0.000009206532,0.000028852557,0.0000099265835,0.000014694176,0.00019121468,0.9990897,0.000016026508],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46814892,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.73123884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46814892,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03105505,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07597909,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.930848},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032671873,0.46753508,0.0034967866,0.16577709,0.0034791469,0.000028296863,0.000091969596,0.000039952607,0.32687977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77388954,0.12741564,0.0013239271,0.029298361,0.00275681,0.00003726497,0.00011232096,0.000063061954,0.06510314],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99385273,0.0020363058,0.0001469242,0.00048443247,0.0025087118,0.0009709235],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99611485,0.0017892366,0.00025016445,0.0001619582,0.0014396436,0.00024401309],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036449027,0.00039912653,0.0005238985,0.0017466357,0.006962401,0.008000375,0.0010406184,0.0033806923,0.0025935462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008709762,0.00023612971,0.00035989922,0.0021196231,0.02201074,0.0038521127,0.0015720498,0.0064259195,0.0004913859],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018352282,0.000010002849,0.0006612508,0.00015991926,0.000019003792,0.00016528906,0.0071953037,0.00009842949,0.00016053629,0.9382755,0.026942361,0.02629409],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023234259,0.000025616275,0.008693724,0.001023807,0.000041460607,0.00033325164,0.010245329,0.00018468905,0.00030352458,0.09880517,0.88027716,0.00004308352],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5739576,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.58980817,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.42604238,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023446232,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032405816,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8571029},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.92187417,0.0024787092,0.00038867127,0.009920989,0.00003830093,0.00004332215,0.00007819322,0.000004459943,0.065173104],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9955397,0.0012208562,0.00012932601,0.00040764347,0.00000893764,0.000009538589,0.000022545619,0.0000051614206,0.00265627],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99713093,0.0012279594,0.00008393176,0.00015598514,0.00066340424,0.0007377994],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.989151,0.007337959,0.000974362,0.0002481501,0.0013382616,0.0009502774],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0066299518,0.00030507482,0.00033453206,0.0025287708,0.026329743,0.009814946,0.0013699346,0.0016621968,0.0021466876],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010429553,0.00028163666,0.00012645974,0.0035884038,0.025149949,0.0032321266,0.0040897415,0.0035023103,0.00012282253],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000017315751,0.000017949695,0.0067742085,0.00004588203,0.0000038069338,0.00033869714,0.9369321,0.000054293814,0.00011592582,0.048846707,0.001971627,0.004881465],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000025589877,0.0000042186193,0.0049661146,0.00011653799,0.0000044662884,0.000044701592,0.97179675,0.00007160536,0.00007264966,0.0021322137,0.02077808,0.000010079199],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.78827274,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.90483034,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21172726,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.034206245,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03758793,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42594832},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.039022278,0.02125032,0.031634554,0.3551515,0.0020673566,0.00013670087,0.00021794839,0.00009125194,0.5504281],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8711326,0.0054632165,0.009472751,0.041614674,0.0009561106,0.00006799938,0.000066542365,0.000043287557,0.07118277],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9911247,0.0015569746,0.00031512533,0.00089438865,0.0044980813,0.0016106552],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9950506,0.001991878,0.00048665376,0.00056109397,0.0015468945,0.00036286662],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007107609,0.00034980892,0.0005478311,0.0011838874,0.010207353,0.006512798,0.002408026,0.0074584824,0.0027392467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017204762,0.00033217773,0.00060176133,0.001063717,0.041812953,0.005153994,0.0024703625,0.0070410855,0.0005130527],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000003838402,0.000003319624,0.00025273985,0.000025659152,0.000003632324,0.00005998416,0.0015130709,0.00004958063,0.00009053106,0.98716915,0.0058936463,0.0049348874],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022361073,0.000027025362,0.002850049,0.0005092236,0.000042603682,0.0003084488,0.0036712016,0.0005977863,0.00086847466,0.6723141,0.3187141,0.00007461095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.44533283,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.46865585,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.44533283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016194262,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05072761,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8854814},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008499008,0.05058395,0.01947409,0.53736216,0.0056117773,0.00016876507,0.00027803858,0.0001954327,0.3778268],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.52734315,0.037334293,0.02485082,0.2951571,0.006407179,0.00030131626,0.0002204483,0.00019909331,0.10818657],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9266706,0.027039904,0.002797007,0.004935905,0.03315928,0.0053972267],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.92853266,0.038081896,0.0029481542,0.0058759237,0.022014678,0.002546823],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.049364783,0.00072311924,0.0012351742,0.0030448677,0.007995419,0.011235631,0.003696892,0.0185382,0.004809933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05473767,0.0007507678,0.0012265444,0.0020714495,0.04324324,0.0056883907,0.0040168026,0.016606115,0.0014319371],"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":[0.000011950998,0.000011293223,0.00043102977,0.00010258496,0.000015376134,0.00022770259,0.002556851,0.0002007796,0.00031883342,0.94716763,0.035041198,0.013914774],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026331287,0.000026759137,0.0018184554,0.0010577174,0.000029636421,0.00037138045,0.0009178781,0.0005211953,0.00052092236,0.09252031,0.90210706,0.000082326136],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6034579,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.46926278,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9492973,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.050702702,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07427303,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79775476},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19655475,0.14035058,0.0019008361,0.20828657,0.00181124,0.00018030073,0.0002586731,0.000038884074,0.45061824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87625307,0.058084328,0.0014455877,0.02610443,0.00058335357,0.00004112162,0.00008123544,0.000028469749,0.037378307],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9934831,0.0010252702,0.00012274338,0.0003358399,0.0019407759,0.0030923535],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99512744,0.0016936316,0.00031563218,0.00010706898,0.0020572532,0.00069897424],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005938699,0.000408326,0.0006027736,0.002955159,0.02576329,0.010183861,0.0025818394,0.0057248888,0.0018495946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008325619,0.00039976282,0.00048869493,0.004323766,0.0148464395,0.0020949147,0.0028055736,0.0061031133,0.00014825801],"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":[0.00004203936,0.00005246547,0.007844434,0.0005346102,0.00005479291,0.0036376189,0.05575403,0.0007764016,0.0004932731,0.7883569,0.07739492,0.065058485],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000054649034,0.00006090514,0.03509097,0.0028279782,0.0002814987,0.0014096664,0.11720963,0.0010914266,0.0007901742,0.04126922,0.7996781,0.00023576536],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9925647,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99740726,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.082467705,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.082467705,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19562374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5983479},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16037203,0.006738908,0.0035050113,0.14233015,0.0017805543,0.00031724488,0.0021190066,0.00016738736,0.68266964],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7909237,0.0066647874,0.0040465617,0.06969706,0.00057165616,0.00012241083,0.00095448416,0.000069270645,0.12695],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98918474,0.0005386318,0.00029462168,0.0006345947,0.006698218,0.0026492116],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97612506,0.0061181905,0.0014166639,0.0010192965,0.01376625,0.0015545305],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00589163,0.00039254795,0.0003266646,0.002798821,0.02316133,0.0072316886,0.0027370306,0.006797071,0.006128381],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022316549,0.0004975444,0.000905859,0.004803863,0.0057208952,0.0014382907,0.0021752228,0.0073929406,0.00054042117],"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":[0.000119132215,0.00009595595,0.02537559,0.0005071584,0.000106147825,0.0045206994,0.024400262,0.0012190515,0.0021711239,0.598741,0.29841337,0.04433053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008548428,0.000041746986,0.050954238,0.0003093927,0.00021545088,0.0010654373,0.0111944545,0.0010416888,0.0020444677,0.013264617,0.9195685,0.00021450962],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9772948,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99377596,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06161066,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06161066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.076871835,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44701874},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010318579,0.059566926,0.0065321135,0.57529366,0.0023076585,0.000037986592,0.00009656652,0.000056850873,0.34578973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6321645,0.04503252,0.003580009,0.20485322,0.00493462,0.00013835196,0.000117386095,0.000097950186,0.1090815],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9825613,0.0051568095,0.00051413383,0.0014982383,0.0069767437,0.0032928942],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98074627,0.0123645365,0.0008720703,0.0008503858,0.004232849,0.0009338958],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014250385,0.0003987367,0.00075988815,0.002098752,0.01595535,0.019390395,0.003596313,0.011903155,0.005351752],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029264197,0.00067025825,0.00076749496,0.0038627235,0.05362623,0.012642544,0.004044916,0.018098393,0.0006584768],"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":[0.0000021155975,0.000003773745,0.00008588496,0.0000174789,0.00000117497,0.00002807073,0.0009551624,0.000071866336,0.000011391333,0.9835321,0.01279764,0.002493493],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012764219,0.000015475049,0.0012164143,0.0006770226,0.000010647668,0.000089080786,0.005584843,0.0006440857,0.000098291166,0.5345233,0.4570786,0.00004947493],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63448656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6444686,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.36551344,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04391709,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.037357498,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.735332},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015046918,0.024637355,0.0011406764,0.6071191,0.002552555,0.000039564122,0.00049760303,0.00007325809,0.34889302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5603291,0.012451889,0.0024379746,0.30102053,0.0012727913,0.000058715195,0.000241364,0.00011106169,0.1220766],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9945372,0.0005512792,0.000101420665,0.0007364696,0.002285817,0.0017879162],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99655885,0.0011813346,0.00014384753,0.00011428892,0.0015744978,0.00042715654],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034036573,0.00029012075,0.00046149804,0.0013695277,0.0145625025,0.008962093,0.0022960037,0.0115305735,0.009307888],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011179691,0.0003390491,0.00043129877,0.0021960938,0.013155585,0.0041887905,0.0019602214,0.008851797,0.0008554641],"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":[0.000018019886,0.0000069790735,0.0009779306,0.00008356128,0.000010363692,0.00027505192,0.003301983,0.00005731374,0.00015816095,0.72634774,0.25516796,0.013594921],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027630755,0.0000088758925,0.005285713,0.0006061845,0.00003668644,0.00025278135,0.005368718,0.00021335037,0.0004427997,0.06744602,0.92022204,0.000089235284],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9712993,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98508227,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.071626134,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.071626134,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10552857,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5196864},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00017463624,0.88286734,0.000332648,0.04361744,0.021032097,0.000026777963,0.00023462545,0.000046512785,0.051668048],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0041861986,0.86114264,0.00034963092,0.016346527,0.01974877,0.00004114403,0.00030394975,0.00006658634,0.09781456],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99801815,0.00022631309,0.00007221876,0.00013115532,0.0014406127,0.0001115378],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99226344,0.0024225053,0.0004357161,0.00013740233,0.0044469605,0.00029388152],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012353249,0.00083760417,0.0011143469,0.0040990007,0.001331592,0.003760748,0.0012708113,0.002829193,0.034437854],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008815258,0.00041828954,0.00048010433,0.007445577,0.0019943016,0.0027198985,0.000837874,0.0030810002,0.012282337],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000033416727,0.0000032043974,0.00003278666,0.00037978115,0.000005141929,0.000011281868,0.000024312565,0.00004041387,0.000024634746,0.0027388562,0.96700937,0.029726954],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000035829303,0.00000528478,0.00026244397,0.0010315297,0.000008504522,0.00006206642,0.000047485926,0.00002979212,0.000024066532,0.0013369888,0.99718213,0.000006173374],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.047752216,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10855352,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.047752216,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0059009874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012690513,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11520612},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09818854,0.09202257,0.056085378,0.38570467,0.0022177326,0.006326185,0.00073379814,0.00078590476,0.3579353],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86736196,0.02914382,0.061639603,0.012257307,0.0002508306,0.003725437,0.00035409137,0.00020775995,0.025059178],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.89953536,0.07225794,0.0024783902,0.0033530411,0.014373216,0.008002059],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93795896,0.033251468,0.004326025,0.0056681475,0.01445534,0.0043400335],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09270441,0.00087028247,0.0008254436,0.005283729,0.020773618,0.018160067,0.0049800435,0.003090745,0.005064617],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07161659,0.0007810732,0.00052228407,0.006871297,0.02680243,0.007162806,0.0136181,0.0047599594,0.0005168001],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006682632,0.000106023734,0.0055655316,0.0055358717,0.00006910903,0.00047722307,0.39634925,0.0016498909,0.001318598,0.25598332,0.06395021,0.26892814],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039449267,0.000075770586,0.012876006,0.0048094466,0.000057980247,0.0001313479,0.1957347,0.0005611265,0.000736633,0.019558104,0.7653256,0.000093804345],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8354718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91913444,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8354718,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11174838,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.35336936,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.81079507},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018462475,0.0094178505,0.034424797,0.06785805,0.001378073,0.00021083793,0.00012649449,0.00018803566,0.8679335],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8899733,0.004274679,0.017902633,0.021411378,0.0006195473,0.0002649914,0.000055666544,0.00014138372,0.06535638],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9707772,0.015082378,0.0006197075,0.0025842963,0.0076399227,0.0032964924],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98531264,0.008150038,0.0011206535,0.001710046,0.0029876523,0.00071889826],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.034000263,0.00045158953,0.00056284294,0.0021693986,0.009437903,0.014735917,0.0020730707,0.0047289548,0.0069062156],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025791753,0.0004023567,0.00055214885,0.0021786503,0.0516344,0.0064416537,0.0062064575,0.0059291297,0.00066573056],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000018626891,0.0000017608362,0.000072851704,0.000013265232,0.0000011667287,0.000007942499,0.0014256124,0.000037072325,0.00004083065,0.99172395,0.0016701642,0.005003588],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001297156,0.00003301738,0.0015381216,0.00031387166,0.000027377822,0.0000758211,0.0042212093,0.0005152306,0.0006497488,0.4700478,0.52251077,0.000054035077],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.23431908,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.28795648,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7656809,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033702917,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045146257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46591038},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019171042,0.093600355,0.008980736,0.124748655,0.0032613026,0.00007352122,0.001111123,0.00019318498,0.74886],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.65280354,0.05778952,0.008403405,0.025073498,0.0015348323,0.00022280197,0.00094402797,0.00026934448,0.252959],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9899361,0.0020421667,0.00033426846,0.00061463914,0.005226455,0.0018462674],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9931722,0.0024564194,0.00043316992,0.0004683462,0.0030338087,0.00043605966],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0045620888,0.0005530445,0.00059386744,0.004560006,0.011550405,0.010814668,0.0014647286,0.0034925914,0.005997933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012956859,0.0004474647,0.00039669487,0.0066172453,0.017008629,0.0045639146,0.0023370907,0.0059466395,0.0011182474],"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":[0.0000073918804,0.0000030281358,0.0003245442,0.000049786846,0.0000025219017,0.00003441603,0.002595224,0.00007535319,0.00006641574,0.94705194,0.033707894,0.016081557],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006629761,0.0000048392276,0.0032880509,0.00038959846,0.000006076673,0.000101022255,0.002699268,0.00016130891,0.000112033646,0.048129927,0.9450723,0.00002909427],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93360084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9316199,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94120765,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05879236,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10897337,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42657042},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.22170511,0.012815096,0.006537195,0.17568913,0.00264151,0.00016432529,0.0004962795,0.0002497212,0.57970166],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78668934,0.0015722429,0.0016292521,0.021132266,0.00023337013,0.000045079913,0.000071086964,0.00008055877,0.1885468],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978896,0.0004483816,0.0000623001,0.0003274282,0.00061506656,0.00065729243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990062,0.0003414488,0.00008976905,0.00008750676,0.00037005814,0.000105084546],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0023979682,0.00031588197,0.00039129745,0.000596281,0.010983782,0.004337169,0.0013715324,0.00559325,0.0075141573],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0037312435,0.00027719987,0.0003817471,0.0005546641,0.008868291,0.0015464576,0.0018280622,0.0052959537,0.0009845237],"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":[0.00008218611,0.00002355035,0.0051041828,0.00015333811,0.00002423555,0.004252214,0.06664247,0.0002757029,0.0017429979,0.7410777,0.15131347,0.02930786],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015486656,0.00002307624,0.010271425,0.0002899477,0.000030305879,0.001937273,0.023607453,0.00025077787,0.0013879212,0.010509437,0.9515716,0.00010532453],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8416484,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.88619477,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1583516,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014889316,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016158413,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3185683},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.58863354,0.018236492,0.008389682,0.06577959,0.0011011896,0.00013013279,0.0006364763,0.00016892872,0.31692398],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96446836,0.001346139,0.00079451397,0.0021826748,0.00007141937,0.000015178704,0.00006637314,0.000020238998,0.031035187],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9905335,0.0019863106,0.00039858997,0.0009983911,0.0032185062,0.0028646414],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9926634,0.002315421,0.0007814344,0.0004282751,0.0028619715,0.00094953435],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007832824,0.0002739577,0.00052494975,0.0019803152,0.017202519,0.008977619,0.0014193633,0.0033794073,0.0068557966],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014412541,0.0004313896,0.00054604403,0.002094242,0.009652383,0.0028414098,0.0033062685,0.004390212,0.00024015305],"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":[0.0001263355,0.00006142292,0.045527454,0.00018485212,0.00008141662,0.003731373,0.049108565,0.002320148,0.0011507571,0.7348937,0.047902,0.114912],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000066486005,0.00009167686,0.11939729,0.00080690114,0.000121304634,0.0021685753,0.05370509,0.0040445374,0.0020952767,0.03314051,0.7840814,0.00028083526],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9699877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9804088,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07693022,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07693022,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07144401,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55817044},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0023694395,0.026333855,0.00656353,0.5824979,0.037987955,0.00024151265,0.0011235625,0.00020349791,0.34267876],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.24071847,0.03614068,0.012751523,0.48056015,0.03568138,0.00092959625,0.0013801708,0.00073956564,0.19109844],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.94487405,0.015026227,0.0034841811,0.005988539,0.024745766,0.005881264],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9298813,0.027655713,0.00161961,0.007407743,0.030053109,0.0033824483],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.046432,0.0006434771,0.0012777798,0.007983534,0.013789657,0.015436911,0.007824061,0.010834473,0.024707539],"category_scores_gemma":[0.12845826,0.0009437537,0.0009465967,0.0052015553,0.019555602,0.009046608,0.0077530383,0.010520585,0.0053796],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000014852492,0.000008975066,0.00020668477,0.00033118686,0.000012023443,0.00016951155,0.0027799548,0.000056190485,0.000081255785,0.70448434,0.26603252,0.02582255],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000053523468,0.0000065173067,0.00056127703,0.0014705479,0.00001641039,0.00020042725,0.0020199586,0.00007650606,0.00016719961,0.068287134,0.9271629,0.000025725516],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22897352,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2737487,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.22897352,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.040623114,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08084852,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4552815},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10268508,0.051275834,0.0005894858,0.29225415,0.0030556947,0.000044319906,0.00025454786,0.00002895305,0.54981196],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85851586,0.029506171,0.0005482266,0.04604266,0.00058966776,0.000014813145,0.00007612921,0.000039730596,0.06466675],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9940612,0.0008412179,0.00011774229,0.00047949573,0.0025032456,0.0019970762],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9942303,0.0014389948,0.00035374562,0.00016168386,0.0030457738,0.0007695039],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0046924935,0.00028456352,0.00035952782,0.0016674108,0.029021222,0.009192595,0.0015093136,0.005006589,0.008241116],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007772641,0.00024587978,0.00032365578,0.0031609475,0.018994173,0.001902264,0.003279292,0.006680044,0.00038266747],"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":[0.000049045088,0.000019254694,0.005218628,0.00043270297,0.000023701643,0.00083992566,0.053580202,0.00014324159,0.0004975588,0.80461,0.09283433,0.041751333],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001589127,0.00002070139,0.013241147,0.00086617307,0.000048114918,0.0003727297,0.07118982,0.00009738761,0.00047073053,0.015700959,0.8978942,0.00008216892],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97468114,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9858628,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.057906576,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.057906576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10047798,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4201436},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.18377334,0.005668334,0.015836354,0.1093047,0.0008879078,0.00024280786,0.00037896782,0.00016924553,0.68373823],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95475096,0.0016386409,0.0029823899,0.01008277,0.0001824289,0.00004171443,0.000090257876,0.00003988748,0.030191006],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9907224,0.0016577344,0.00031691138,0.00073130283,0.0042635025,0.0023082204],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.988257,0.0056023705,0.0012267595,0.0007770895,0.0033330696,0.0008037448],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0063392282,0.00019379659,0.00032832092,0.0016138179,0.012397894,0.01078088,0.002254346,0.003934596,0.0043849046],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022873487,0.00054677366,0.0005824893,0.0027201883,0.013113945,0.0038598091,0.00392824,0.00666607,0.00045153656],"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":[0.000014910165,0.000015732152,0.0030787138,0.00003065506,0.0000046344057,0.0001643661,0.0038418907,0.000341632,0.00019519962,0.97999907,0.0047305846,0.0075825136],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013450523,0.00012254143,0.035399005,0.0014766222,0.00015520751,0.000505017,0.010145782,0.0078024976,0.0026883876,0.30388433,0.6375101,0.00017596256],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7703151,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8475153,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.22968489,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05585024,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10049485,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46207505},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022512438,0.049361195,0.0110151395,0.69474244,0.0019054357,0.000094516225,0.0000755486,0.000037351077,0.22025587],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7549051,0.0248511,0.008809101,0.15404147,0.0019580137,0.0001576502,0.000070802555,0.000078024284,0.05512872],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99191225,0.0023302,0.00022157015,0.0009208806,0.0034158933,0.0011992223],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953484,0.0026346124,0.00030348255,0.0003225005,0.00081899046,0.0005720878],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011568341,0.000282136,0.00066116854,0.001090725,0.007738071,0.010039455,0.0027318073,0.010949653,0.002560296],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011915791,0.00053621555,0.00048598688,0.0012443169,0.044242404,0.00930817,0.0053503895,0.016750615,0.00042088606],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000040676723,0.0000047124486,0.00008533309,0.000017577431,0.0000013879421,0.000061259125,0.001224282,0.00003850958,0.00004542863,0.9867879,0.0074574254,0.0042721415],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000299621,0.000026184527,0.0011993571,0.00063300517,0.000009391613,0.00019998247,0.0033563839,0.00046333842,0.0001886466,0.760289,0.2335378,0.00006691608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46047387,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.51523995,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5395261,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024695642,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.041095212,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9155872},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024941098,0.010002129,0.020738274,0.026295586,0.001121392,0.00015485212,0.00016854337,0.000088924004,0.9164892],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9217104,0.0032948067,0.0039336537,0.005996879,0.0005348491,0.00016865571,0.00013564514,0.00007028813,0.06415481],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99275476,0.0016757424,0.00032157334,0.00078694505,0.002854111,0.0016068367],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99572384,0.001354135,0.00063317374,0.0004658805,0.0014001149,0.00042298465],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033658734,0.00028412841,0.00038273184,0.0032116706,0.006967038,0.011081996,0.0023587102,0.0035533346,0.0060834815],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00773876,0.00029016915,0.0003076715,0.004978659,0.040065087,0.0052487636,0.004259517,0.0049142726,0.0007544696],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000029178439,0.0000028717686,0.00016379035,0.000016919144,0.0000013559971,0.00003993653,0.0015175772,0.00004141387,0.00007631188,0.99167645,0.0038520887,0.002608377],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017267475,0.000025293803,0.0043251063,0.0004215574,0.000019349814,0.00053815835,0.010846663,0.00059182406,0.00040843588,0.28358513,0.6991662,0.000054981734],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11465255,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1665849,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11465255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014924783,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025529329,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22797036},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020307634,0.41424128,0.0025134634,0.37634027,0.007383036,0.0000307152,0.000166695,0.000065474786,0.17895143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69158,0.14476688,0.0027101778,0.05870244,0.006804636,0.000045137396,0.00013597996,0.00008445693,0.095170304],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98991126,0.0035978558,0.00021625706,0.00078656856,0.003825944,0.0016620656],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97515035,0.014062385,0.0011745737,0.0007737063,0.0068923766,0.0019465839],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0074750492,0.00044713955,0.0006576518,0.004803496,0.011332683,0.014697169,0.0012835481,0.005344602,0.005396361],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022127151,0.00042166476,0.0004201627,0.0037676536,0.01662426,0.003908217,0.0025094012,0.0071356203,0.0006569486],"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":[0.000052257197,0.000025238956,0.004477594,0.0006481962,0.00005368933,0.0005123079,0.010037268,0.0003989314,0.00026864154,0.75418204,0.13240446,0.09693941],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011228622,0.000026237218,0.012185782,0.0016995996,0.000041723088,0.00028211568,0.0041261828,0.00035098012,0.00022107578,0.028167736,0.95283055,0.000056756657],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.81212616,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8986837,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18787384,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05793375,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.076619945,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42034072},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011448016,0.069507875,0.015495299,0.14469174,0.0027266948,0.0000677041,0.0002964965,0.000119857345,0.7556463],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7288393,0.056556545,0.010674798,0.0638361,0.0023310867,0.00010341807,0.00018833605,0.00017201227,0.13729832],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98801464,0.0017662101,0.00033996796,0.0015184456,0.006814365,0.0015464699],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9925793,0.003311623,0.00036586175,0.0006142811,0.0027708963,0.00035799478],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0068739853,0.000322889,0.00063065626,0.0029355742,0.013254653,0.008966642,0.002488753,0.004398325,0.004943077],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014980429,0.0004547169,0.0005062647,0.003926326,0.043168884,0.0038504442,0.0031599428,0.009861299,0.0005079584],"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":[0.0000020450568,0.0000019785657,0.000101314945,0.000044747652,0.0000027247086,0.000021753342,0.001095796,0.00005794914,0.000033801432,0.9842613,0.006888144,0.0074885422],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000056615104,0.00001425715,0.0019979212,0.00047745678,0.000019909141,0.00012332565,0.001122979,0.00025680114,0.00028219924,0.21775113,0.7779024,0.00004590179],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8435283,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89611685,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9368052,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06319479,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07481524,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.45851243},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03076675,0.018019259,0.041399527,0.05512518,0.001131341,0.00014323313,0.00027279218,0.000091256974,0.8530507],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87251395,0.007241352,0.009417436,0.008105777,0.00047617086,0.000246444,0.00015527902,0.00008979416,0.10175376],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99672467,0.001253265,0.00006745674,0.0004356105,0.00085765216,0.0006614138],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983015,0.0007504563,0.0001575568,0.00013756064,0.0004729062,0.00017998426],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022023993,0.0006997662,0.00044535298,0.0029951078,0.009618255,0.012518951,0.0024282455,0.0075057736,0.0067806067],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0025873026,0.00042715154,0.0006717853,0.002921496,0.03970678,0.0072965166,0.0023091172,0.00703575,0.0005793665],"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":[0.0000012549322,0.0000024505862,0.00007640379,0.000007889141,8.0088034e-7,0.000038939994,0.0020026888,0.00009539896,0.000025517706,0.9958711,0.0010088157,0.00086862856],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018884839,0.000031795535,0.0036449507,0.00048573324,0.000017894936,0.0004089812,0.009182077,0.003734277,0.00026306222,0.48399028,0.4981528,0.00006927076],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5657044,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5136936,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4342956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044243533,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.024164215,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.87370646},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.044632215,0.08953933,0.05838145,0.037311886,0.0015896916,0.0004945095,0.00086289,0.00010880081,0.76707923],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94545,0.017557656,0.015738403,0.005192865,0.0013315482,0.00045544482,0.00025216874,0.00004122234,0.013980827],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9454613,0.012842377,0.003385321,0.00291607,0.033320695,0.0020742828],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96107525,0.02672691,0.003315562,0.0018596941,0.0063556787,0.00066684064],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02907895,0.0010085016,0.0015747577,0.025905121,0.0041619022,0.00996492,0.0040681046,0.005064857,0.004600881],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07682953,0.00058899063,0.0013713007,0.013736597,0.023338279,0.0078054015,0.004097323,0.0041459505,0.00050700404],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009748939,0.000010828916,0.0009780229,0.00012546348,0.000039980445,0.000090634305,0.00040562186,0.000620779,0.0001014728,0.98590106,0.0030859069,0.008630574],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020355123,0.00009643111,0.013631193,0.0017768883,0.0001399408,0.0005943989,0.0010406388,0.0029617844,0.0005649395,0.9139411,0.065141134,0.00009118358],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.06303824,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.08010928,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.93696177,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022781968,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010096,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16529554},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013865965,0.06605596,0.008579088,0.16525905,0.0090772025,0.00021794272,0.002701492,0.0003291995,0.7339141],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.25808015,0.025842033,0.010100462,0.03306525,0.0016587083,0.00029438245,0.0011868847,0.0002762416,0.669496],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9930896,0.0009423652,0.00016065977,0.00052291504,0.0041294564,0.0011550628],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99045944,0.00208564,0.00029675817,0.00041827004,0.006097075,0.0006428357],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044639106,0.0007255607,0.000497291,0.0027231912,0.010062871,0.006247594,0.001612153,0.004430464,0.020920455],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011067525,0.00036708318,0.00057863304,0.003912136,0.0052684266,0.0019593057,0.0012035564,0.0048172884,0.001804395],"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":[0.000021797177,0.000017035341,0.0009917518,0.00012113384,0.000010484346,0.00014696989,0.00168624,0.00031834203,0.00027514604,0.6444246,0.31097704,0.04100942],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000052263135,0.0000059224203,0.0022751966,0.00016067082,0.0000054250295,0.000040754014,0.00047118333,0.00016938659,0.000114765935,0.0040319515,0.9926986,0.000020892398],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9798948,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9782291,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06546776,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06546776,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11986726,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.47500408},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03926353,0.02621211,0.123549655,0.17181541,0.003814832,0.00018439119,0.0002983022,0.00020696218,0.63465476],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90710866,0.010236645,0.03971558,0.016715985,0.0015526472,0.00017993631,0.00016375296,0.00008295788,0.024243938],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99136716,0.003221613,0.00034461915,0.0008491535,0.0030953153,0.0011222304],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9898427,0.0022642503,0.0009632934,0.0008101234,0.0042652003,0.0018544536],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010748159,0.0006273758,0.00073708815,0.0073126885,0.0077410126,0.010355703,0.0028020886,0.0028164096,0.0024726607],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011321384,0.00035132255,0.000584373,0.0033841112,0.059890278,0.008922012,0.0054770717,0.007003033,0.000493417],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000020546572,0.000002790411,0.00025199866,0.000019479288,0.0000015730812,0.000018495653,0.0011672119,0.000035420315,0.000016087275,0.9940386,0.0012506989,0.0031955282],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009586376,0.000015998281,0.0018907677,0.0003248482,0.00001107823,0.000117204145,0.003843733,0.0005125065,0.0000619967,0.8936855,0.099501595,0.000025151794],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13626058,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.116840586,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86373943,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014788694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026065182,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.27093488},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030900598,0.073820956,0.015325196,0.15655734,0.0076420256,0.00022988922,0.00042352677,0.0002789212,0.7148216],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.52758944,0.014849561,0.005683483,0.050748724,0.001648694,0.00014596203,0.00011908746,0.00007947763,0.39913565],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98513526,0.004015615,0.00058959646,0.0017581388,0.006068474,0.0024329333],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9890786,0.004052822,0.00078086706,0.0008077208,0.004675833,0.0006040542],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0121348,0.00057787634,0.00057802175,0.0016958961,0.010400096,0.007990621,0.0017619395,0.0073528257,0.0073464173],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019727577,0.00062034954,0.0006822512,0.0014583333,0.013851249,0.0036082717,0.0022380394,0.008439974,0.0013237334],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003225792,0.000013777496,0.0010765779,0.00018378407,0.000014140529,0.00033130983,0.004530851,0.00019904532,0.00039592324,0.888593,0.07354175,0.031087449],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015678808,0.000037842856,0.0036102366,0.00032747543,0.000020362113,0.000265998,0.0010806707,0.00021700643,0.00038702757,0.019443406,0.97453636,0.00005796722],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8462431,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8781743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8462431,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.047954902,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.062874906,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34793878},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9951298,0.00033066788,0.00010934031,0.0015360243,0.000007589323,0.000054107408,0.000022486187,0.0000022922854,0.0028076898],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9968231,0.00052103045,0.00019675995,0.0007558436,0.00001138498,0.000027005837,0.000032108353,0.000006909674,0.0016258144],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9881054,0.0042275996,0.00030981074,0.0009923032,0.0030062227,0.0033586128],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9577661,0.0203016,0.007400117,0.00077405735,0.005828461,0.007929618],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006870646,0.00024198813,0.00069079816,0.0048207436,0.02291332,0.010284277,0.0033469794,0.002913249,0.004164982],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032117497,0.0009514467,0.00018138973,0.006879704,0.014964838,0.004504568,0.005515579,0.0046189525,0.0003558889],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002331711,0.00020611421,0.05075205,0.000052526077,0.000006724915,0.0007220756,0.9367646,0.00003400938,0.0003897862,0.0011613214,0.00078941084,0.009098042],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000041196763,0.000035379984,0.051471177,0.000051450967,0.0000036871954,0.00009837366,0.94354194,0.00006212152,0.000044366538,0.0001041524,0.004570664,0.0000125061515],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.71958137,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9114966,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.71958137,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03661324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03869851,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.56414014},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16608138,0.12708203,0.0026344748,0.40634203,0.0062656733,0.00047997353,0.002955603,0.0001740419,0.28798473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6820482,0.076143645,0.005646246,0.13298126,0.0024128254,0.0006206729,0.0017719188,0.00024359829,0.098131575],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9781366,0.0047959364,0.0012140926,0.0014262535,0.00898193,0.00544525],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9541973,0.022410838,0.0049574813,0.0015407262,0.014319647,0.0025739316],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.021054087,0.00045174945,0.0009542138,0.0037586153,0.0072502466,0.0139119,0.002749359,0.005076652,0.007367328],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05122904,0.000632227,0.0013661322,0.004074824,0.006887967,0.0034356397,0.005011071,0.0071777585,0.0008162961],"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":[0.0005580096,0.0002683992,0.06401829,0.006297207,0.0006035954,0.0018373323,0.05007647,0.0017233618,0.002210536,0.44393265,0.23673894,0.1917353],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007920816,0.0001298451,0.072499536,0.005968393,0.0005185647,0.00023836632,0.01039105,0.00020243514,0.0013807135,0.005999729,0.9024644,0.00012781325],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.74691564,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8601129,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.25308436,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03506664,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13035043,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5091496},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.043357078,0.057351228,0.0153589705,0.112236924,0.00355837,0.00033757204,0.0006201887,0.00013945965,0.7670403],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84009993,0.043348115,0.0060892245,0.048443608,0.0021138936,0.0001867825,0.00042419063,0.00008086067,0.05921339],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9871969,0.0033309392,0.0011106525,0.0013270464,0.005148846,0.0018855702],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98010457,0.009524403,0.002664425,0.0021532376,0.004504475,0.00104884],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007877374,0.00025119493,0.00041509848,0.0021728592,0.005697692,0.008226113,0.0014422718,0.005202029,0.0075769722],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033913676,0.00036217173,0.0005103523,0.0021675476,0.01980276,0.009194902,0.0058331266,0.006059911,0.0011301925],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003453263,0.000024569059,0.0032775511,0.00045858277,0.000018177056,0.00070135796,0.011383491,0.00008475982,0.00027224468,0.87297416,0.026688825,0.084081635],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002073593,0.000110696245,0.017510941,0.0029315802,0.000088407214,0.0023659328,0.009217349,0.00013370941,0.00094272074,0.16428174,0.8023298,0.000066458015],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.11011808,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.17100023,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11011808,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008815291,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.023415022,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.21895427},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013659443,0.008479421,0.004213357,0.87986773,0.0025535326,0.00031504987,0.00025132712,0.00008034284,0.09057973],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3925348,0.0038259027,0.010272854,0.5580897,0.002939739,0.0006718693,0.00021249166,0.00013909307,0.031313542],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.6785396,0.14845523,0.021341186,0.021614183,0.0838086,0.046241183],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.5244159,0.33362627,0.020121768,0.022213386,0.07966523,0.019957399],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.2581261,0.0010912457,0.002425896,0.005404849,0.030658027,0.031115066,0.010621674,0.05524292,0.0042379475],"category_scores_gemma":[0.4517671,0.0029617795,0.0021722473,0.00487539,0.049146984,0.013666731,0.010332223,0.04338418,0.00086595415],"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":[0.00020137508,0.00006478839,0.004981724,0.00041234927,0.00032573563,0.00055732415,0.009061158,0.00061407586,0.00029231605,0.63466614,0.32955462,0.019268401],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000953352,0.0001576645,0.030625528,0.006173604,0.001141106,0.00058110803,0.01188549,0.002264972,0.0015677518,0.30916154,0.63446623,0.0010217074],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.87760705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9480847,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2581261,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12590192,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.36618274,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9148626},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.13293506,0.0409359,0.007500534,0.13792704,0.0013800607,0.00017786876,0.00060922524,0.00016705928,0.67836726],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7070998,0.00877959,0.003389991,0.010160425,0.0003424522,0.000114880255,0.00020996995,0.000059272716,0.26984358],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9953696,0.0011984637,0.00007181695,0.00035965364,0.0019723594,0.0010281511],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965634,0.0010855896,0.00012620803,0.00020123835,0.0013395109,0.000684137],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004099937,0.0006578398,0.00039320768,0.0015457981,0.0061259884,0.007789188,0.0010652706,0.0033958831,0.010955511],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006234531,0.00033003313,0.00073734566,0.0012878604,0.0061764773,0.0018239521,0.0014724364,0.004978111,0.00068484846],"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":[0.000052353975,0.0000656614,0.0021184534,0.00010661679,0.00003052103,0.00047963898,0.005198489,0.0019353606,0.00084656914,0.911868,0.04073013,0.0365683],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050589268,0.000054550317,0.016716821,0.00035358654,0.000022237859,0.00017498671,0.0034853057,0.0016747161,0.000764073,0.015627768,0.9610014,0.00007403449],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96510226,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95465946,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09527398,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09527398,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08118252,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.69126433},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09828406,0.12768805,0.003517882,0.26847667,0.0014668189,0.00008779842,0.00040923207,0.00006999694,0.49999952],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8607211,0.09053846,0.0018918524,0.018613582,0.00085360627,0.000028179687,0.000106922904,0.00005127434,0.027195035],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99258995,0.0006002901,0.00014564503,0.00062375783,0.003723005,0.0023172807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9889846,0.002835929,0.0013946043,0.00030263411,0.005246179,0.0012360531],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0048261224,0.00048642856,0.0007862067,0.006908669,0.01580445,0.017364189,0.0025727372,0.0050409543,0.007432294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015760489,0.0005988277,0.00065117516,0.007119837,0.038474217,0.008472651,0.002898685,0.004516318,0.0005612088],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000025171506,0.000035043497,0.009885307,0.0004439854,0.000036039983,0.00061067566,0.014678619,0.00047506994,0.00026051592,0.89269876,0.02794942,0.052901503],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003552451,0.000044192337,0.06363494,0.0027468067,0.00019084456,0.00118269,0.04155604,0.0010715435,0.00043527974,0.16564964,0.72317094,0.00028151277],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9853183,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9911924,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14833377,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14833377,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12313783,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9878121},"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":"editorial","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"editorial","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00529189,0.17778973,0.00086420024,0.67775583,0.06009344,0.00007612585,0.001116339,0.0001502477,0.0768622],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.16458483,0.10849459,0.004075694,0.36794734,0.020276198,0.0003000114,0.0012396798,0.0004298764,0.33265173],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9813762,0.0021571852,0.0006058137,0.0013360989,0.009929763,0.004595044],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9777939,0.004351595,0.0010580182,0.0006300227,0.010534121,0.0056324704],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017008454,0.00082926796,0.0012685601,0.0040449947,0.009498804,0.013141292,0.0027484598,0.010320206,0.015621123],"category_scores_gemma":[0.044573408,0.00068257377,0.00086434424,0.004847942,0.0058140503,0.00549371,0.004987816,0.0128550865,0.0022200265],"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":[0.00008157953,0.000028370145,0.0011971373,0.00042358055,0.00002677336,0.000116021336,0.0013539066,0.00009243537,0.00011555004,0.088757895,0.8673131,0.040493544],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023792058,0.0000111380305,0.0032156184,0.0007581394,0.000019286736,0.000035088386,0.00080766884,0.000042139167,0.00009458418,0.0022628587,0.9927031,0.00002663126],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7689617,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.86566794,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.23103827,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05131953,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16442469,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4647978},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.22841416,0.58246845,0.0005233773,0.05491266,0.0011122987,0.00011008082,0.00084922754,0.000025896617,0.13158393],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7245028,0.23205528,0.0004972567,0.0067833248,0.00037037392,0.00004792988,0.00038440598,0.000018535111,0.035340115],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.996021,0.0011359424,0.000105867126,0.00018222257,0.002024844,0.0005301414],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9890426,0.003769181,0.00095648685,0.00016182708,0.0054269424,0.0006430481],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005965558,0.00046610634,0.00055720384,0.003134992,0.004644495,0.0047594965,0.0012959483,0.001716068,0.0073771263],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015507862,0.00027903184,0.00057737506,0.0039717113,0.003762331,0.0011375747,0.00076997944,0.0020410216,0.0003934109],"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":[0.0005096552,0.00045029487,0.09266506,0.0046419487,0.00083975744,0.0014655879,0.029752113,0.0018425328,0.0009814483,0.13005476,0.16771422,0.5690826],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011899295,0.00027199602,0.41405904,0.007812602,0.0006442816,0.0007117035,0.03149116,0.00067848363,0.0006439235,0.005601768,0.5378021,0.00016399211],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9814317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9898498,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07192331,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07192331,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.065896824,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5218426},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.041083228,0.13227165,0.0059598656,0.15318547,0.0016455646,0.00009425458,0.00022124419,0.000054757234,0.66548395],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8969737,0.04035696,0.0025887021,0.03061411,0.0006477584,0.000052672305,0.000093191535,0.000027731032,0.028645169],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9782219,0.004675542,0.00087735284,0.0012206234,0.010757864,0.0042466554],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98107105,0.009084363,0.0018699548,0.0006213812,0.0059534046,0.0013999172],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012097507,0.00024485672,0.00050886464,0.003708461,0.010717989,0.012249921,0.0021526918,0.004599475,0.004593288],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027710848,0.00034119567,0.00045915094,0.004032882,0.022590712,0.0037047756,0.003138757,0.0051046107,0.00028550677],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000050365106,0.0000049629543,0.0009135647,0.000095197254,0.000006883818,0.0001495749,0.0021480906,0.00008798909,0.00007638984,0.97439945,0.010589373,0.011523445],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023744115,0.00002768499,0.01526843,0.0027609086,0.00008375266,0.00050205283,0.009851588,0.00049104233,0.00039639094,0.23963258,0.73086065,0.00010121324],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8297287,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9121794,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17027128,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.054848284,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10824836,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.397954},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.13051988,0.025055736,0.013015659,0.29898337,0.0017806535,0.000118541146,0.00025134443,0.00008949355,0.53018534],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.92916065,0.005106026,0.0015069564,0.043011054,0.0015385833,0.000063370244,0.00005325029,0.00005884183,0.019501187],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99248624,0.00097615784,0.00021872864,0.001127617,0.0034134057,0.0017778113],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99347454,0.0044100527,0.00044144667,0.00036408674,0.00088960293,0.00042029115],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006303265,0.000217516,0.0006888218,0.0018133586,0.006261723,0.008491893,0.002742565,0.01077354,0.005285792],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01653065,0.00037337234,0.0007317237,0.0017359374,0.020608352,0.008228919,0.0030635041,0.014558924,0.0003172392],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009069905,0.0000066428006,0.00042137844,0.000021702857,0.000004384698,0.0002774151,0.00089969503,0.000116039984,0.000035352485,0.98353666,0.0070295716,0.0076420233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045025725,0.000029766603,0.0042731017,0.0004916108,0.000044583227,0.00072314776,0.0021028912,0.0013268853,0.00037538316,0.86075383,0.12974587,0.00008790942],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2770256,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.37957942,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7229744,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027031919,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.020602766,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5508263},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14495285,0.023303151,0.0023859157,0.12608016,0.0018762789,0.00021007025,0.001264825,0.000059358797,0.6998674],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8366393,0.004955304,0.0009590016,0.036566176,0.00029975575,0.00007706304,0.00021021134,0.000024093,0.12026904],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99456173,0.0005942807,0.00018164732,0.00067048677,0.001987643,0.0020042423],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9972187,0.00096961495,0.00027929014,0.00019705085,0.00085615437,0.00047923834],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002834428,0.00043130576,0.0004056374,0.0011986312,0.014381343,0.007685633,0.0020971578,0.011026084,0.0038978243],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0062813363,0.0005038941,0.0005144748,0.0016615647,0.010109265,0.0017702997,0.0024906027,0.006745002,0.00042134325],"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":[0.000060255476,0.000023026067,0.00597189,0.00012212043,0.000031593794,0.0020626287,0.009596511,0.0003268957,0.0006002623,0.89492166,0.077626534,0.00865673],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010318828,0.00005683836,0.061413415,0.0010475396,0.00015678973,0.0016935471,0.012431658,0.0008931092,0.0012911576,0.06808996,0.85256493,0.0002578914],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.968876,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9855576,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.046389565,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.046389565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06904596,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3365814},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03349458,0.027609164,0.0025163756,0.36801735,0.0020174154,0.000036125293,0.00007323681,0.000040262606,0.5661955],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90464497,0.01733701,0.00060975336,0.04775593,0.004194268,0.00007821899,0.00004563935,0.00007138497,0.02526287],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96978,0.01018559,0.0011349597,0.0033526877,0.0101454845,0.0054012835],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97474784,0.01258705,0.0022704047,0.0011990716,0.0065601803,0.0026354166],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018937526,0.00033244703,0.0005567741,0.0029479014,0.014110813,0.01858315,0.0023716637,0.010412829,0.006894318],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045872252,0.00048177116,0.0002932031,0.0040766024,0.057515815,0.008280916,0.006160172,0.01387749,0.0006904454],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000071842724,0.0000074729987,0.0002731212,0.00002963008,0.0000021051317,0.00005940091,0.005357985,0.000044155306,0.000042869662,0.97433996,0.013134252,0.006701989],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004051075,0.000019347743,0.0041091866,0.0005854823,0.000010989372,0.00015455263,0.019813808,0.0001817333,0.00021767717,0.39128664,0.58353245,0.00004753821],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10818509,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.13341837,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96627307,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0337269,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02504799,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24470693},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008127849,0.051476225,0.018291494,0.58634764,0.0034838778,0.00021490452,0.00013821316,0.00007399668,0.33184585],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7433722,0.022889623,0.020951068,0.16198449,0.0060397494,0.00044764808,0.00017572012,0.000115333205,0.04402418],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.8743099,0.040978134,0.004943512,0.008169017,0.06145051,0.010148886],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93146855,0.028776454,0.0056517757,0.0058730203,0.023618283,0.004611925],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.054432392,0.00044649237,0.000939519,0.0027969556,0.005528512,0.012141741,0.004093136,0.01216684,0.003429645],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10615054,0.00050442154,0.0006615915,0.0021125807,0.036601745,0.0050292467,0.0051762373,0.011304642,0.00076700293],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010011113,0.000011528723,0.0003579945,0.000060187725,0.000008767051,0.000030581814,0.00064155745,0.00040985402,0.00007193649,0.9611564,0.023202656,0.0140384715],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000063252955,0.00007774818,0.0057214196,0.0014871515,0.000029346818,0.00016637794,0.0011583747,0.0009983606,0.0003172505,0.50843513,0.4814391,0.00010644615],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26981473,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.26050702,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.26981473,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.043093335,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09105733,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5364885},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.47678062,0.016807763,0.002303861,0.09319417,0.00049221853,0.0002399989,0.0002384594,0.000037971316,0.40990502],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9820577,0.0037353148,0.00060757186,0.0056942194,0.00004264116,0.000027254475,0.000042659583,0.0000109696675,0.007781809],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97200304,0.007016006,0.0008876483,0.0016547742,0.011342157,0.007096309],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9451743,0.032888934,0.0040213633,0.002091458,0.013109485,0.0027146002],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01868805,0.0002884711,0.0006663914,0.0032934474,0.024574049,0.014622478,0.0036361816,0.006777251,0.003235997],"category_scores_gemma":[0.053509876,0.0007555773,0.00043363625,0.0051732375,0.0212318,0.0031747585,0.0059985323,0.0088584935,0.00018659563],"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":[0.00016996384,0.00018006816,0.045324452,0.0008826674,0.00018544057,0.004490423,0.15225095,0.0022082834,0.0009510048,0.6462271,0.056543197,0.09058647],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00020996964,0.00012187788,0.10482544,0.0033993258,0.0004791345,0.0010792341,0.17602202,0.0037994508,0.0034310909,0.059517346,0.6466914,0.00042389942],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98787224,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99563134,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14714502,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14714502,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23718601,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9891909},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025109884,0.30518153,0.016303629,0.033542622,0.0010697083,0.00016591216,0.00066996523,0.00011430108,0.6404414],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.18418914,0.5903583,0.021501508,0.019953636,0.0047505475,0.0004033404,0.0010225584,0.00017786025,0.17764316],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9938169,0.0009037403,0.00023002012,0.00041962668,0.0038955833,0.000734016],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975374,0.00082639337,0.00016791745,0.00012853833,0.0011604418,0.00017931557],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00365032,0.0007554726,0.00072758744,0.007936522,0.0055041793,0.008987764,0.0020542499,0.003782127,0.00843502],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004760438,0.00087801105,0.0006377487,0.010756072,0.011154734,0.0042697643,0.0013448335,0.004760723,0.001997974],"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":[0.0000036318456,0.000012819526,0.00016754876,0.0001971913,0.000003143358,0.000055842153,0.00030301252,0.00048174124,0.000064250016,0.94847697,0.027390294,0.022843637],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004013183,0.00001149185,0.001404774,0.00072145596,0.0000065292584,0.00009719567,0.00021611647,0.00060115627,0.00007283584,0.17773597,0.8191007,0.000027862246],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69803154,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6218449,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30196846,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05065469,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045933183,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.60749364},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.079660796,0.042995367,0.02339191,0.13679,0.00081228215,0.00016277854,0.00022284247,0.0001400971,0.7158239],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96182567,0.0050316597,0.0045709284,0.009969431,0.00036311548,0.00005965621,0.000033959914,0.0000159953,0.018129464],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97682536,0.005791261,0.0009625365,0.002178139,0.009081806,0.005160946],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98997295,0.0045375205,0.0009866611,0.00077090587,0.003125932,0.00060599565],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013873555,0.00039771743,0.0008662467,0.0047679576,0.01453521,0.010607863,0.0027117066,0.011050269,0.0030031663],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018464874,0.0008233108,0.00092125364,0.0036533233,0.03304115,0.0040075895,0.0041804234,0.0072550084,0.00033228702],"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":[0.0000026211824,0.0000043312875,0.00020646802,0.000017800394,0.0000040350596,0.00004416186,0.0005899484,0.00013238486,0.00006238306,0.9943815,0.0017628116,0.0027915228],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003227599,0.00003282525,0.0050665936,0.00052594853,0.000075810945,0.00013989481,0.0020826668,0.0010664103,0.0004015014,0.8646233,0.12586443,0.00008838921],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.66741645,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7824043,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33258355,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05865448,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.074766956,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66908437},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.048006766,0.1395588,0.0059148814,0.13563444,0.0039875833,0.0002756078,0.0016291478,0.00045335208,0.66453934],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71498865,0.08290582,0.0065748026,0.050126955,0.0024304464,0.00015107608,0.001127907,0.00019253575,0.14150183],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97696996,0.0011809543,0.0004728845,0.00090329733,0.01598456,0.004488446],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97932875,0.0044237482,0.001501431,0.00088531553,0.011741458,0.002119345],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011253954,0.00048297056,0.0007277018,0.0041156732,0.0073108743,0.008566977,0.00285901,0.0049091196,0.005484804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02571406,0.0003895745,0.0009698024,0.0036459195,0.006676969,0.0029256258,0.00170104,0.004334561,0.00078175403],"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":[0.0000835234,0.000048532813,0.0041062078,0.0004895063,0.000041828764,0.00031827745,0.0015083716,0.0011708809,0.00055757223,0.68714714,0.17805357,0.1264747],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031848274,0.000038541853,0.016992172,0.0013353942,0.000074042466,0.00015099952,0.0010470095,0.0005429261,0.0007202445,0.016221492,0.9627158,0.00012945652],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94206816,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.958283,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.0665674,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0665674,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13965924,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48298252},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9820186,0.0025968626,0.0002138157,0.003763677,0.000073557494,0.00008859892,0.00021574233,0.000011581818,0.011017664],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9913015,0.002832691,0.00035090325,0.0015623025,0.00005142038,0.000056139917,0.00016555323,0.00001608469,0.0036634053],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.98131436,0.005160423,0.0008101087,0.0011957384,0.008472379,0.0030469224],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95269585,0.012059091,0.010466688,0.0008429568,0.016890116,0.007045247],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011322831,0.00038741756,0.0006665673,0.0037547234,0.014451628,0.0049389554,0.002117476,0.0017841647,0.0024750035],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04264816,0.00075937854,0.00035314992,0.005266837,0.0065678516,0.0013041252,0.0032151865,0.0030203736,0.0002658503],"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":[0.000059285634,0.000035224737,0.09921781,0.0001992312,0.000022561251,0.0013815849,0.87188727,0.000035520035,0.0016767099,0.00094406947,0.0057346206,0.018806182],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000066741036,0.00006792372,0.18666284,0.00027259026,0.000013976006,0.0006517195,0.769883,0.000059927203,0.00020584161,0.00009298887,0.04200116,0.000081355465],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9073836,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.960639,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09261638,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03779685,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04443773,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.27423668},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013029011,0.2529475,0.0009217536,0.37654832,0.010075057,0.000120693476,0.0028116575,0.00009854671,0.3434474],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44017068,0.24472603,0.0035325438,0.107832395,0.009638504,0.00033992992,0.0015475259,0.00048207326,0.19173034],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.985666,0.001770079,0.0004075163,0.00092336227,0.008469883,0.0027632043],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95400393,0.014050169,0.0012358596,0.0011515755,0.026751418,0.002807019],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011740058,0.0010773502,0.0011066361,0.027853513,0.038217694,0.024738204,0.003184758,0.005528683,0.013745811],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0444118,0.0007478826,0.0006093813,0.047207184,0.028729709,0.006294601,0.003932468,0.0057354597,0.0009951356],"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":[0.000022331653,0.000016883443,0.00088194665,0.0005052456,0.000022730814,0.00012395954,0.027609017,0.00012632067,0.00011533999,0.23450181,0.7054925,0.030581847],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004245314,0.0000023837526,0.0033732108,0.001011067,0.000018180182,0.000035563855,0.011298064,0.00003941973,0.00007100243,0.006904189,0.9772059,0.00003668599],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9849541,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9937016,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2509392,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.2509392,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31801394,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86880434},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0069551086,0.023501385,0.16101915,0.17760845,0.0077783107,0.00013180333,0.00031256946,0.00036244348,0.6223308],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7554862,0.021046916,0.060618367,0.06699159,0.010632674,0.0003963401,0.00062769314,0.0010658223,0.083134405],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97368705,0.009397412,0.0009586036,0.0024864997,0.011419523,0.0020508068],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9902992,0.003906437,0.0006316435,0.0013828201,0.0034364897,0.0003432317],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019349111,0.0010970498,0.0017999721,0.0072605023,0.010301214,0.019359319,0.0054885247,0.0070395325,0.0049070586],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024247842,0.0007348774,0.0014076447,0.0056272224,0.07124575,0.018987201,0.0069430456,0.019648297,0.0014850328],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000019645463,0.0000015816178,0.000034851186,0.000015055081,0.0000018168251,0.000012483326,0.0011137723,0.00007362428,0.000016847502,0.9945609,0.0023826053,0.0017846139],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008836742,0.000007075782,0.00016865945,0.0003100717,0.000010361511,0.00006356766,0.0013275262,0.0004315142,0.000111464324,0.70734525,0.29018232,0.0000333479],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1638402,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.15519051,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1638402,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030358396,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.033360012,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32577312},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.23704663,0.016852614,0.0012248154,0.20203607,0.0036946703,0.00018585863,0.0007840433,0.000077611105,0.5380977],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7540633,0.023406401,0.0009752511,0.13475114,0.0027286836,0.0001614028,0.00067766407,0.0000908738,0.08314537],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9958514,0.00054147677,0.0002500809,0.00041743755,0.0016668935,0.0012726525],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9839526,0.00877426,0.0023617041,0.00068709854,0.0027404896,0.001483738],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00625545,0.00027415706,0.00029372436,0.0021645795,0.01143072,0.0062815296,0.0023797692,0.010918618,0.005090541],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022148442,0.00047469634,0.0006204217,0.0046553863,0.0076811532,0.004515516,0.0022398513,0.008481634,0.0005966489],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000116383824,0.00028575768,0.03275065,0.0002827222,0.000045692497,0.006719694,0.031291097,0.0005878652,0.00045902602,0.594975,0.28883955,0.043646555],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004131622,0.000046667497,0.024751706,0.00066671014,0.000059074882,0.0018480243,0.021752514,0.0004119954,0.0005043419,0.011485439,0.93834144,0.00009080043],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.37672108,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.51795006,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.37672108,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018039381,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015205598,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.74905664},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05824579,0.065518394,0.0142996395,0.046650484,0.000836296,0.00007747093,0.00012617213,0.00008768358,0.8141581],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8879776,0.024780735,0.0047767577,0.0028130924,0.00033187575,0.00005276669,0.00006311553,0.00005557234,0.07914846],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99855834,0.0002096101,0.000028662396,0.00012541711,0.00052978756,0.00054812443],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99862695,0.000558359,0.00014668661,0.00011615259,0.00043334044,0.00011861339],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015407505,0.00035098943,0.00029063207,0.0048482316,0.0062337965,0.008895516,0.0013218297,0.003975603,0.005203816],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003974793,0.00034461985,0.0004146494,0.0025066957,0.037346166,0.004029465,0.0025697825,0.003421031,0.0007482522],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009699316,0.0000029814498,0.00087232975,0.000054453314,0.0000045468364,0.0008449235,0.0066273664,0.0001501342,0.00018223867,0.9740034,0.0031903079,0.014057584],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013557429,0.00003122689,0.0128707625,0.0010918112,0.00003391063,0.0048596654,0.016637603,0.000658828,0.0007305829,0.3471439,0.6158768,0.00005130035],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.42687133,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.48896995,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5731287,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018547576,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02085477,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84877336},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.68114245,0.03301306,0.0014551226,0.17889155,0.00060811534,0.00026021092,0.00008960698,0.000021653437,0.10451824],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9487081,0.010561657,0.0005742276,0.03192163,0.00044358883,0.00018417563,0.00005905871,0.000015374022,0.0075322133],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9917618,0.0032359553,0.0004331727,0.00041745446,0.0021028747,0.00204867],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9893036,0.0061139464,0.0017028264,0.0002229706,0.0011661885,0.0014905015],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006351657,0.00023525604,0.00046216196,0.004121639,0.012482921,0.0050326576,0.002536713,0.009896657,0.0027593304],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025139628,0.00067289383,0.0005440849,0.0028724596,0.018124538,0.005440952,0.0061719334,0.011132013,0.00025342975],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016970579,0.00095724064,0.071966484,0.0006896534,0.00006466186,0.010645865,0.43416977,0.000310314,0.0019950818,0.3264333,0.028343812,0.12425405],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000078157434,0.00078769575,0.2956367,0.0043283235,0.00013656351,0.009181532,0.47427323,0.0009388205,0.0009540959,0.0584843,0.15500695,0.00019365914],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08021448,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19191577,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9197855,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011933489,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019354606,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15949512},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.052669976,0.09515605,0.004296091,0.121817105,0.007734328,0.00014820827,0.0009776552,0.0004683738,0.71673226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42761788,0.032324664,0.0020247381,0.019226527,0.003087507,0.00007191132,0.00054501975,0.00025874714,0.51484305],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98699504,0.002363336,0.00037302118,0.0013310917,0.006540376,0.0023971398],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9860517,0.0038826845,0.0017211391,0.0013274373,0.006113513,0.00090359314],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007848467,0.00046537316,0.0004889253,0.0033601185,0.009900811,0.007317702,0.0016053483,0.0037584442,0.011705729],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033425584,0.00047296556,0.0005805743,0.002393774,0.008130578,0.0029886616,0.0023697477,0.0067704017,0.002189068],"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":[0.0001080518,0.00003901921,0.005232394,0.00041314465,0.000054102078,0.0015289197,0.015555951,0.0002457769,0.0017570339,0.61178845,0.25853255,0.104744606],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000040189025,0.000012054151,0.0042183385,0.00013917226,0.000010090867,0.00017054849,0.0011122675,0.00003646998,0.00048961473,0.002100017,0.9916881,0.000019195433],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.63455576,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7224419,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.36544424,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01682307,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.025384005,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73519284},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.031516697,0.047747027,0.0062417835,0.33759582,0.0039989953,0.00008303925,0.00025029524,0.00011785767,0.5724485],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7528505,0.012877811,0.0025328293,0.088595495,0.0014377502,0.00009752423,0.00010941828,0.00008787571,0.14141083],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99141836,0.0019075117,0.000240689,0.0009603699,0.0029658761,0.0025070827],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99504614,0.0019046549,0.0004210452,0.00030034233,0.0020565828,0.00027114502],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007809964,0.0003599804,0.0005636874,0.0010081452,0.009369538,0.009443365,0.0025181856,0.0070081283,0.008892603],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013216086,0.0003203902,0.00046706683,0.0016653839,0.021567142,0.00563172,0.0014083635,0.007892358,0.0014988112],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010016934,0.000009374282,0.000541492,0.000060699163,0.000005020032,0.000087526496,0.003010282,0.000041650226,0.00015567524,0.9482149,0.03521829,0.012645099],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024780158,0.000021575148,0.007051143,0.00096860476,0.00002382055,0.0002191312,0.009704795,0.00033269002,0.0005351863,0.06812843,0.9129019,0.000087928296],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8410404,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8444281,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15895963,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03203885,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.043148957,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3197915},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09974515,0.3411743,0.004665923,0.08627727,0.0019942445,0.00016726293,0.004286787,0.00007717349,0.46161184],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86992687,0.074158385,0.0021600418,0.008585349,0.00059776386,0.00010394228,0.001333777,0.000074184936,0.04305975],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9847884,0.0027930818,0.0005171331,0.0010865817,0.008731966,0.0020828699],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9691094,0.009812082,0.0017214599,0.00088273623,0.017378803,0.0010954972],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011570511,0.0006033823,0.001210867,0.024443015,0.011506322,0.018056137,0.002044883,0.0029420643,0.011063006],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032386266,0.0005271263,0.00087139057,0.043085206,0.009645078,0.005609568,0.002351428,0.004140597,0.00043036364],"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":[0.00008899095,0.000045823952,0.015688824,0.0013962515,0.00024459924,0.0002443894,0.012122054,0.0010879587,0.0002150836,0.8107149,0.07763195,0.08051915],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030899875,0.000055656226,0.13533048,0.0046197437,0.00037008966,0.00021299861,0.021620208,0.0009034625,0.00027642908,0.04737293,0.78906816,0.00013900576],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9827535,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9894215,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14386058,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14386058,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15694089,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9930004},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0064930976,0.0038707387,0.03357497,0.029302167,0.0025914619,0.0003043326,0.00021473535,0.0004141517,0.92323434],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3899158,0.0072670076,0.035012383,0.07094641,0.0024396784,0.00080202933,0.00038280286,0.00036990372,0.49286392],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9834843,0.0029770294,0.0010296584,0.0023623572,0.008283592,0.0018630183],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935777,0.0018805485,0.000663492,0.0017089717,0.0017157407,0.0004533985],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006595102,0.00091935747,0.0009860571,0.001950434,0.006247976,0.008279964,0.003073417,0.011330504,0.023412617],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015983215,0.0006348753,0.0012167316,0.00081989804,0.016431168,0.00743076,0.010694081,0.013517402,0.007230662],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009491328,0.000026983358,0.00020580538,0.00006751816,0.0000096616695,0.00025552558,0.00050995155,0.00013068903,0.00050328876,0.9568751,0.020812012,0.020593943],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026131182,0.00010190418,0.0006720608,0.0006688023,0.0000415752,0.0012925003,0.0007590842,0.00042890746,0.0021848304,0.30577105,0.68798727,0.000065950146],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0040411665,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0050161877,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9959588,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0030515478,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0101366155,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07832301},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09566962,0.022427138,0.0025713763,0.5554386,0.00090467016,0.00005490428,0.00035034976,0.00006554771,0.32251787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.922665,0.009107887,0.0011711409,0.040365256,0.00022568316,0.000023403403,0.000050394192,0.00003736495,0.02635389],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9936348,0.0009344412,0.00013680091,0.0004407188,0.0020274098,0.0028258546],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933449,0.0025197715,0.00033430464,0.0002999604,0.002476957,0.0010241187],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004448386,0.00022016991,0.00057962164,0.0017307056,0.025071228,0.012228263,0.0017405635,0.0045496067,0.004289039],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014511665,0.00033442426,0.0002670822,0.001796256,0.025867475,0.0044755894,0.0029266928,0.0064823087,0.00028186955],"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":[0.000018541263,0.000013052203,0.0024028688,0.00010966269,0.0000140918155,0.000324718,0.013949376,0.0002752451,0.00024312522,0.9278984,0.038751982,0.015998935],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000037303067,0.000021678175,0.012961092,0.001098175,0.000064711676,0.0002670532,0.03715856,0.00066570245,0.00066442194,0.24046615,0.70642924,0.00016591264],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9847906,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99005705,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9284516,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.071548425,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1783249,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5191226},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06382846,0.057065144,0.00096558355,0.74169266,0.001082145,0.00006695529,0.00058023195,0.00004770417,0.13467109],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8492574,0.036544368,0.0013560128,0.09271793,0.0007110852,0.000039063205,0.00021088631,0.00006410011,0.019099126],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9886197,0.001288454,0.00025819323,0.0010199711,0.0053610224,0.0034527392],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9777323,0.0055148564,0.001572741,0.0004734774,0.0104474835,0.0042590257],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006432968,0.00024454226,0.00077453104,0.0027143734,0.017729182,0.013091519,0.003295746,0.0052383095,0.0067569385],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024878573,0.00042050108,0.00043905477,0.004839116,0.014682351,0.0042764475,0.0025372645,0.006887733,0.0003968242],"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":[0.000070136986,0.00007338337,0.018275,0.0009638485,0.00011611606,0.00096263085,0.024012506,0.0006460232,0.00048321308,0.6403641,0.23403603,0.07999707],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009507678,0.000056501143,0.063557684,0.0034213085,0.00024157521,0.0004231746,0.044385258,0.0012774076,0.0005270211,0.046132278,0.8396341,0.00024859482],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9956558,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9974112,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.81973433,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.18026565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31923857,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9507756},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011344496,0.71934974,0.00074291363,0.18590657,0.0028521258,0.000027269783,0.000057703433,0.000018861343,0.079700306],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44512662,0.47789687,0.0012390778,0.04503651,0.0026077875,0.000050468592,0.00008844413,0.000033489378,0.027920669],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9897397,0.0038353316,0.00034114538,0.00044199688,0.0043639923,0.0012779321],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98650175,0.0055956077,0.0012246291,0.00025578192,0.005211608,0.0012107238],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010341501,0.00027417328,0.00076649216,0.0021339545,0.00459889,0.006148223,0.0021000626,0.0044351416,0.003340658],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026111104,0.0003027967,0.00038860456,0.002821561,0.011287121,0.0026405186,0.001623858,0.005435941,0.0004226507],"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":[0.00013956519,0.000065182416,0.005526893,0.002494902,0.000070546375,0.00113507,0.016509648,0.00048221933,0.00029849104,0.380241,0.20010681,0.39292964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003814707,0.00006625236,0.01506871,0.007270363,0.0000853836,0.0009793008,0.011756034,0.00016235645,0.00019559679,0.023695853,0.9405841,0.00009796964],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.84678084,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.92028785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15321916,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.044014066,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.114872396,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3193459},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013589264,0.0149078695,0.008512159,0.27071145,0.0016008058,0.00006641677,0.00016449064,0.000068655485,0.6903789],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77821165,0.009893487,0.0044806004,0.08136589,0.0024626786,0.00014254951,0.0001431806,0.000096980395,0.123202965],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9724973,0.0073247096,0.00082569284,0.0028641496,0.012568107,0.003920032],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9882569,0.006032393,0.00069132017,0.0014868719,0.0028095108,0.000723085],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012014248,0.0004090144,0.0006409892,0.0014466046,0.015930548,0.017022299,0.0020154926,0.015457501,0.0060579493],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020210553,0.0005422423,0.0007051734,0.0017591999,0.05427266,0.008521389,0.0033985788,0.012265445,0.0012487248],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000024582835,0.0000026094574,0.00006684835,0.000010755973,0.0000017887924,0.000027436965,0.000573394,0.000036942663,0.000022855702,0.9890219,0.008298034,0.0019349015],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001888151,0.000012210717,0.0009816767,0.00029575976,0.000020723643,0.0000963868,0.0022166567,0.00035859633,0.00021147702,0.46040952,0.53533375,0.000044361932],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.45908245,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.41168454,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5409175,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027676472,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05815281,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9128206},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.26775712,0.007403963,0.0015705179,0.027810996,0.0026017127,0.00015921683,0.051757436,0.0015682967,0.63937074],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7503839,0.0062163,0.0029322256,0.0024298723,0.00096759386,0.000055447093,0.015815893,0.00051298446,0.2206857],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99878424,0.00008660538,0.000036172456,0.000056910354,0.00078219257,0.00025397612],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9894762,0.0012062255,0.00063386554,0.0003339631,0.0076938793,0.0006558969],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012639668,0.00022702865,0.00022648339,0.0062869936,0.0025983935,0.003904764,0.00062902016,0.0006938008,0.02922946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008949557,0.00021525644,0.00017290938,0.010362253,0.0008798682,0.0009684196,0.0007116375,0.0008710648,0.0036741756],"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":[0.00027029673,0.000039911833,0.018098757,0.00021662067,0.000013030997,0.00026635753,0.003494637,0.00039895525,0.0006766495,0.012445163,0.85896736,0.10511233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030914794,0.000022043656,0.1464392,0.00028026407,0.000030740513,0.00013127284,0.0070791845,0.0018348887,0.0008271205,0.0007650854,0.842498,0.00006129016],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93686324,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9766599,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06313676,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014166698,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014502128,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12701714},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0011396828,0.49036446,0.00024224578,0.28021905,0.03278578,0.00005274154,0.0006700528,0.0000599211,0.19446608],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.047161754,0.46703193,0.00053898897,0.14781773,0.030230297,0.00009985252,0.0006534664,0.00016520634,0.30630073],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99641645,0.00034501642,0.0000872681,0.00026701464,0.0024139346,0.00047036252],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.984602,0.0039127567,0.00042666876,0.0002707814,0.010028037,0.0007598001],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030686858,0.0006763245,0.0010702652,0.007169415,0.007228372,0.010290277,0.0027484167,0.0071433196,0.021860426],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011720572,0.00048446425,0.00049456646,0.014346757,0.00741937,0.002655991,0.0011326338,0.005364983,0.0034248792],"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":[0.000004171068,0.0000039972315,0.000111753034,0.00022971997,0.0000054303796,0.000020897747,0.000182237,0.00005961833,0.000021395424,0.022529822,0.96523386,0.011597173],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000042431043,0.000002803542,0.00092254655,0.0006435749,0.000012141538,0.000022522292,0.00041718653,0.000032204025,0.000024368761,0.0027288832,0.9951786,0.000010928223],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90075016,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9730319,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09924984,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.055316534,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0857892,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40135145},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0011904814,0.19109648,0.008213475,0.17897937,0.006396743,0.00058143283,0.0047931834,0.000595772,0.60815305],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.033889517,0.24218635,0.024066683,0.068041846,0.0024359482,0.00053601776,0.0035418256,0.0005825691,0.6247192],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99351865,0.0007260305,0.00023275978,0.00029254484,0.004354453,0.0008756176],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9924905,0.0015205062,0.00020562914,0.00021309902,0.004878958,0.0006913046],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0037946955,0.0012161857,0.00081563444,0.009351679,0.011885692,0.0073495233,0.002517507,0.0053890897,0.01896801],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010323061,0.0010106721,0.0005445643,0.014359885,0.00742244,0.0032817568,0.0017101421,0.006919811,0.007833236],"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":[0.00000434703,0.0000163312,0.00033118168,0.00019153136,0.000001757416,0.0001627446,0.0015269375,0.00019006696,0.00007924741,0.08715034,0.86621994,0.044125587],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000015797999,0.0000026767766,0.0007697653,0.0004359011,0.0000016311268,0.000057555273,0.00058009144,0.000055600925,0.000020505491,0.00329536,0.9947659,0.000013497632],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9687583,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9861812,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07749103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07749103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16846846,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5622394},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030480362,0.05208258,0.068567865,0.32431102,0.0031082828,0.0001825291,0.00043744966,0.00022192688,0.520608],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7554459,0.031093158,0.021386443,0.091162406,0.0030966008,0.0001723457,0.00033028942,0.00023152093,0.097081386],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.986893,0.0025026412,0.0005036711,0.0016902434,0.006664278,0.0017462457],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.985314,0.0073944363,0.0011031224,0.0018358165,0.0038317936,0.0005206701],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012004069,0.00037667574,0.00076092326,0.0018716484,0.007062835,0.010718863,0.004629727,0.0074380757,0.006191608],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024114886,0.0005752641,0.0006957136,0.0025861016,0.04121692,0.018556654,0.0041898647,0.011467532,0.0009951276],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000036580439,0.0000024201725,0.00013439942,0.00003520063,0.000004175801,0.000045216864,0.0013221428,0.000048548754,0.00003532135,0.97900003,0.009957939,0.009411017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010678272,0.000010825555,0.00075748883,0.0005471627,0.00002680879,0.00031157176,0.0036314449,0.0003548855,0.00023388852,0.5629355,0.43114367,0.000036058245],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.31260064,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.40923652,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31260064,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014607926,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030788453,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62156224},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021636749,0.5643522,0.015072084,0.15098353,0.009621905,0.0005014425,0.00085100316,0.00015564736,0.23682536],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.42285788,0.29347748,0.035001107,0.044236183,0.0029834048,0.00030177648,0.0005411449,0.00015628284,0.20044482],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9831266,0.0022982475,0.00058684085,0.0005975185,0.012167228,0.001223639],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9844899,0.0024465525,0.0007041137,0.00038935913,0.011617728,0.0003522711],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010376629,0.00058286864,0.00073339004,0.0041725896,0.005635957,0.0074344645,0.0020489898,0.0031877204,0.0016222106],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01787021,0.0003888115,0.0005809083,0.004004894,0.0067718676,0.0021251775,0.00096348947,0.0021891918,0.00040808474],"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":[0.00008133757,0.000047465954,0.010986776,0.0028306833,0.0001184751,0.0006255524,0.0064099333,0.002133519,0.0018274348,0.35882193,0.3192375,0.2968793],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007837073,0.000045893055,0.013042795,0.0016691718,0.000099896475,0.0002319369,0.0024503611,0.00044738184,0.0010146865,0.013920528,0.96699166,0.00007785704],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9421232,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97191894,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.057876825,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.041196074,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09505734,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2988999},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.020800427,0.039249685,0.07088772,0.17498823,0.0017386845,0.00015725916,0.00025910547,0.0001312568,0.6917877],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8547152,0.016313002,0.029087571,0.03132419,0.0027203385,0.00034504983,0.000112480644,0.0001759969,0.06520609],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9727596,0.010682266,0.00096453744,0.003034774,0.009557102,0.003001687],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9711929,0.01802002,0.0013703643,0.0021058028,0.006453369,0.0008575062],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.029576937,0.0006233485,0.0010160054,0.0039025818,0.01336115,0.012567617,0.0033998438,0.0084929615,0.005066919],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030715229,0.0007410135,0.0011303062,0.003599609,0.07299889,0.009324357,0.0023431045,0.019206451,0.00069622666],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000014475289,0.0000019730167,0.000038126745,0.000010228191,0.0000017627442,0.000012074281,0.0008853384,0.00008046001,0.000019124365,0.9967014,0.0015634865,0.00068446243],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029013872,0.000013687744,0.0013581556,0.00030610114,0.000009881956,0.000086622065,0.0015122825,0.0009261768,0.00025028377,0.80360174,0.19185103,0.00005508003],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5450854,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.43719453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45491463,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.057442307,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0402524,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9151874},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.039519567,0.011407813,0.04563593,0.22906512,0.0014938808,0.0001537755,0.00035749513,0.00010178306,0.6722647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89442843,0.00302019,0.012008922,0.039966304,0.0015927749,0.00015502013,0.000112096815,0.00007565287,0.04864068],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96443903,0.006746852,0.0011500524,0.0036010107,0.018534396,0.0055285757],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.965817,0.018893287,0.002158235,0.003204999,0.008466634,0.00145997],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023498695,0.00032362435,0.0010022894,0.0020388307,0.011667194,0.013342117,0.003548575,0.00850272,0.0028579454],"category_scores_gemma":[0.042402685,0.0007649875,0.0007577766,0.0015700258,0.04334875,0.0081835585,0.004882655,0.02015853,0.0007133649],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000049559494,0.000005773011,0.00020909715,0.00001940512,0.0000048998268,0.000029305189,0.0010238515,0.00006211829,0.00010094812,0.99098116,0.0037034138,0.003855064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000053391985,0.00003975702,0.004725536,0.00041972307,0.000059928236,0.0001399,0.0014412998,0.00066384097,0.0008388368,0.74254733,0.2489636,0.000106921485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.28384727,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.39280906,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9784984,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021501584,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.062188648,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5643902},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0010862025,0.78681636,0.00022730141,0.1794969,0.0033691693,0.0000074322074,0.000023617296,0.000005314751,0.028967693],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07597857,0.77051336,0.0005983599,0.12776841,0.0072867638,0.0000235377,0.000039274215,0.000027030228,0.017764747],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9918601,0.0025837286,0.00027525533,0.000590286,0.0031391708,0.0015515122],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9874642,0.006074082,0.00055809517,0.00021957795,0.004658515,0.0010254971],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008515743,0.00039723996,0.0009101541,0.0029666203,0.0050663855,0.007974388,0.0018301177,0.007177962,0.0040986678],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015466987,0.00029203805,0.0005769743,0.0038150973,0.010555049,0.004538257,0.0017534147,0.008394128,0.00057438883],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009472128,0.00004251524,0.0007931922,0.003136014,0.000067726076,0.00040852974,0.0046533784,0.00029387514,0.00033078322,0.63676435,0.25371596,0.09969898],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016442924,0.0000309764,0.0012741212,0.002779132,0.000036376696,0.00015406263,0.0023160926,0.00005499919,0.00011022882,0.011535271,0.9816653,0.000026897289],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.66388166,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7738917,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33611834,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.031020727,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.065608755,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6761956},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10236827,0.047564905,0.009861144,0.28435218,0.00094307214,0.000036597456,0.000065089196,0.000049779414,0.554759],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96572447,0.005961787,0.0012107047,0.011232011,0.0004729667,0.000013305983,0.000013082315,0.000021548673,0.01535021],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9899996,0.0036114778,0.00031931952,0.0011897845,0.0031150614,0.0017647209],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98838544,0.007794207,0.0008261541,0.0005061485,0.00185521,0.00063279766],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011289101,0.00018822803,0.00039629178,0.0018481814,0.010985626,0.016229495,0.0015686352,0.009362884,0.0015687712],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02188975,0.00039253858,0.00026574693,0.0025590821,0.049850926,0.0062777,0.0035843279,0.010119056,0.00024422863],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000025556747,0.0000035227931,0.00036130214,0.000008475868,0.0000015825849,0.00006794019,0.0030448842,0.00006437155,0.000046155266,0.9884355,0.0034029451,0.004560691],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023796174,0.000027175358,0.00786422,0.00055049715,0.000023719052,0.00029471074,0.0112441685,0.0010241962,0.00032733867,0.69444114,0.28410748,0.00007161153],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.29157197,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.36978304,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.708428,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024881693,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.038246613,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5797497},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.071681455,0.40046212,0.0005110458,0.30763465,0.0061135483,0.0001408145,0.0013529072,0.00006743946,0.21203603],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63576174,0.22973505,0.0010632605,0.053287994,0.0015163219,0.000082554405,0.00050119986,0.00008652123,0.07796538],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99588376,0.0004662147,0.00013612089,0.00022582865,0.0015264193,0.0017615763],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99308807,0.0009814412,0.00035797304,0.000104819184,0.004169175,0.00129852],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032445337,0.0005259023,0.000701656,0.003954367,0.016368756,0.010423014,0.0021488124,0.0045933663,0.005652407],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008525793,0.00043496772,0.0005537001,0.008597244,0.0062032733,0.002034183,0.0021444173,0.005762836,0.00029355806],"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":[0.00025159752,0.000105979154,0.017418424,0.0028305477,0.00020699331,0.0011159283,0.014590859,0.00255933,0.0005638985,0.43118516,0.4008903,0.12828095],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006830239,0.000033065848,0.052793857,0.002635915,0.00024023991,0.00014335164,0.02217779,0.0006536766,0.00027511612,0.013462462,0.9073676,0.00014850988],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99777395,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.999106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16667193,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16667193,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.45275047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9665424},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009074575,0.21290235,0.006171755,0.5186566,0.0038798058,0.000053690037,0.0001274441,0.000060638937,0.2490731],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4914132,0.1894684,0.011704148,0.19733384,0.0052712588,0.0001276418,0.0001557289,0.00012030974,0.10440545],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9883383,0.0025422524,0.00023056951,0.00075806875,0.00679697,0.0013338379],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99244267,0.00376279,0.00041514568,0.00026676845,0.0024202405,0.00069235207],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007876807,0.00035290056,0.0004801631,0.0017044328,0.012189676,0.0073877703,0.0014306061,0.006350438,0.004169003],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009860735,0.00028910273,0.0003867303,0.0018245832,0.025495097,0.003506888,0.0023192435,0.008393584,0.0004942152],"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":[0.0000150347305,0.000010852849,0.0008293847,0.00025511373,0.000009943038,0.00039256742,0.003723658,0.0001427238,0.00032350371,0.8567731,0.06962389,0.06790029],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012636731,0.000019726223,0.0039125313,0.0011896555,0.000018742825,0.0005297154,0.0026253755,0.00016925312,0.00019833434,0.05237125,0.9388966,0.000056165423],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8000844,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8481202,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19991559,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.038724817,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08268259,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40218586},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015957866,0.008297908,0.0002885022,0.021693848,0.0029285355,0.00011933494,0.000540096,0.000051000843,0.95012283],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.10338375,0.0036566195,0.0004494293,0.018918203,0.0005580171,0.00007269625,0.0002105368,0.000035983066,0.8727147],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99897027,0.00008624498,0.000032288674,0.00015354053,0.00038143466,0.00037625272],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991874,0.00014493651,0.000053043863,0.000047283273,0.00043681866,0.00013052653],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0008115167,0.00030099176,0.00023806252,0.0006030497,0.00723735,0.0027121736,0.0008134158,0.0024880462,0.02658442],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0017363045,0.00029594582,0.00021025604,0.0006239777,0.0018181249,0.00056449743,0.001330773,0.0036986857,0.0035816145],"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":[0.00009659852,0.000038129212,0.0030593027,0.0005360507,0.000023302406,0.0015380536,0.016824594,0.000095917356,0.0020747236,0.2942255,0.65019274,0.031295158],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000064133524,0.00001946946,0.0060669524,0.00011653236,0.000010710589,0.00017545157,0.0017124771,0.000020641026,0.00033738944,0.0009325679,0.990589,0.000012377478],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.66417366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84626406,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.33582634,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007946192,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017289722,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67560816},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.023578001,0.06331743,0.0019252884,0.12941752,0.003831008,0.00019965958,0.0007098591,0.000079088124,0.7769421],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.54914266,0.044053894,0.0015146609,0.11859949,0.002297377,0.00015077928,0.00096350914,0.00006833954,0.28320932],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99259067,0.0009335607,0.00029778012,0.0005901323,0.0038244715,0.0017634402],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946149,0.0011940767,0.00041397248,0.00046799934,0.002622043,0.0006870732],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0042352015,0.0002613966,0.00046049242,0.0008715172,0.00447628,0.002598491,0.0018722847,0.0044915923,0.010488724],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012925916,0.00031371452,0.0005310673,0.0011371255,0.0038330513,0.0010223653,0.0013900105,0.004876232,0.0011615792],"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":[0.00007138677,0.000044414,0.004443476,0.00032842267,0.00005032415,0.0009813065,0.0016898786,0.00024134626,0.00044392337,0.5776845,0.32280672,0.09121422],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005651863,0.000031434174,0.0055445083,0.0004788011,0.00004819054,0.0006020369,0.00050350156,0.00014544085,0.00022910119,0.011053103,0.9812757,0.000031706404],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8157555,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.900603,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18424451,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030856814,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07752097,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3706591},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03361193,0.37008154,0.0022302738,0.07667283,0.0013680462,0.00003134551,0.00019013128,0.00006780038,0.51574606],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78512496,0.09248262,0.0010641227,0.005840966,0.0012419398,0.000026179998,0.0000969863,0.000033665674,0.11408859],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9960014,0.000970128,0.00014198906,0.0002408339,0.0018396273,0.0008058948],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9962057,0.0012860837,0.00036182976,0.00015641544,0.0016257289,0.00036418487],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041325334,0.00021560666,0.00039330573,0.0023200843,0.0063328245,0.0074611725,0.0009213932,0.002511073,0.0057826694],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00956889,0.00023616261,0.00023720767,0.0022183468,0.008046247,0.002090786,0.00089922966,0.0026200574,0.0006564757],"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":[0.00001236138,0.00000640001,0.00155447,0.00014582869,0.000009398644,0.0001884171,0.004732949,0.00019229698,0.0001547195,0.894086,0.04808943,0.050827738],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000059248,0.000018475184,0.013705677,0.00072893285,0.000016552109,0.0002494552,0.0042153015,0.0002497913,0.0002395528,0.032037906,0.94850904,0.000023524799],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6913243,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7432182,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3086757,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029595904,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.034400273,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62098706},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02640919,0.041586377,0.005997584,0.58872545,0.004477823,0.00011831209,0.0004457908,0.00017169218,0.33206776],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8099839,0.026279716,0.0066483743,0.06833791,0.0023139156,0.0000653438,0.00016199512,0.00015170666,0.086057164],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9865389,0.0022754641,0.0002908522,0.0011181677,0.0062670014,0.0035096172],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97622013,0.004370377,0.0007285598,0.000622945,0.0118040135,0.0062539894],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010031138,0.0004025896,0.0005270937,0.0046104407,0.02329121,0.019073334,0.002369803,0.0047095213,0.005795022],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026546268,0.00065405644,0.00032276928,0.0042328774,0.027806759,0.0032811172,0.0052551758,0.007911924,0.0005943508],"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":[0.00002687987,0.00003619994,0.0022706543,0.00012569437,0.000020860465,0.00024235711,0.005808109,0.0006328248,0.00038077688,0.81976056,0.11557521,0.055119894],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002779577,0.00001923837,0.0076897284,0.00037346035,0.000019366693,0.000057767615,0.0034393137,0.00066067633,0.00023707791,0.055339746,0.93205863,0.00007724111],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98717725,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99416465,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.764225,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.23577498,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3632062,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8863927},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.06640249,0.006008647,0.0036406368,0.67888594,0.0012709502,0.000053027154,0.00013900583,0.000088881134,0.24351043],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8272028,0.0042430316,0.002388414,0.09087614,0.00045215298,0.000036739497,0.00008618108,0.00006896058,0.07464564],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99204355,0.000806439,0.00009468708,0.0006962847,0.002734462,0.0036245347],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99363214,0.00096270343,0.00036441893,0.00021766467,0.001925876,0.0028972058],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035625987,0.0002828435,0.00036761918,0.0011663941,0.0275615,0.014919891,0.0021385858,0.0076893033,0.0077248258],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009053904,0.00034593965,0.00056281156,0.0015466352,0.02986045,0.0049388874,0.0043773195,0.010365642,0.0008122157],"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":[0.000021443706,0.00003363529,0.0036769565,0.000068521695,0.0000109523835,0.0004154365,0.024161045,0.00019247997,0.00038755138,0.8880418,0.058894716,0.024095468],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040945568,0.000038098155,0.017410288,0.00054313097,0.000037395883,0.00030958772,0.05399607,0.0012744379,0.0006526534,0.110416435,0.8151205,0.00016042814],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9861951,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99190795,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.86603063,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13396937,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.32606286,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9720203},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.050733227,0.018152043,0.014666806,0.095561564,0.0021764468,0.0006311683,0.00067973085,0.00028344127,0.81711555],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7975157,0.013361842,0.01332905,0.04398839,0.00096787454,0.0009499393,0.0005400432,0.00032633988,0.12902078],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96924275,0.014617803,0.0009504799,0.0018828172,0.0072245216,0.006081673],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97436166,0.010501119,0.0009725451,0.00375137,0.00928052,0.0011327843],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03090371,0.00058041466,0.00079031126,0.004058314,0.024125263,0.008648886,0.0029822206,0.0070255045,0.01099087],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04410449,0.000648292,0.0013291866,0.008500111,0.018044753,0.0048752255,0.006249655,0.009205025,0.0009258624],"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":[0.00002365,0.000025102725,0.0008073272,0.00012447215,0.000026653654,0.00034258666,0.009222978,0.0004130741,0.00015411137,0.94147855,0.03317952,0.014202051],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007477944,0.000036050376,0.0033328356,0.00039856555,0.000060417773,0.00023849434,0.006456254,0.00046958128,0.0007012379,0.05270184,0.93544513,0.0000848457],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6782038,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.73318803,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9564473,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.043552693,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.052232537,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6473826},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.004838623,0.016255965,0.0052314447,0.8406816,0.010452577,0.00038907133,0.001913051,0.000749974,0.11948771],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19583696,0.05975654,0.15087798,0.34435347,0.0049058637,0.0010797749,0.008391098,0.0008829494,0.23391537],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9863579,0.002087737,0.00033705728,0.0008871719,0.0051210574,0.0052089747],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9510144,0.002223038,0.00053585053,0.00077819795,0.016268462,0.029179996],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0139823165,0.0013477427,0.00086789625,0.0038343116,0.015646242,0.01233107,0.003908742,0.00911894,0.06564501],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015163635,0.0006578605,0.0018592434,0.0029585906,0.005402094,0.0063176383,0.010456961,0.010194335,0.008827244],"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":[0.000097289165,0.00024721184,0.0028106405,0.0010083448,0.000028055481,0.00036627994,0.0016090302,0.00063209207,0.00083858945,0.12854761,0.7527467,0.11106812],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040932075,0.000056607325,0.004398347,0.0007558477,0.000017552695,0.00007834275,0.0031404053,0.00039060303,0.00018401236,0.007399171,0.98348874,0.000049584996],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9255672,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9421348,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.90823394,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.091766074,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.4543505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6658126},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0103645325,0.013536922,0.0020517246,0.6108026,0.010514701,0.00012385906,0.00041612634,0.00012162373,0.35206795],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1976942,0.018737009,0.0014989153,0.17900881,0.002582066,0.00009309271,0.00028026907,0.00011267045,0.59999293],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99497885,0.0014684378,0.00015382134,0.00048084414,0.0018155724,0.001102406],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99084115,0.0017970256,0.00082390854,0.00041448406,0.0032165442,0.002906923],"candidate_categories":["research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041751484,0.00018464595,0.00027784257,0.0007064046,0.0076873894,0.0036954524,0.0012040236,0.0027804475,0.028581765],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021522988,0.000242122,0.00023117781,0.000879372,0.0031157667,0.002881103,0.0018775852,0.003951603,0.008558031],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001685318,0.000015733569,0.0030408355,0.00013908968,0.000007836597,0.0005650371,0.0113726165,0.000021250196,0.00026915295,0.029930932,0.9107183,0.0439023],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000033005185,0.000011912371,0.0021421155,0.00021256451,0.0000047969534,0.0003528121,0.00908141,0.00002050016,0.0000885403,0.0010306516,0.98703706,0.000014400985],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.42420036,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6281714,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99721956,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01165094,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02581132,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84346247},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012221972,0.070862725,0.0009904698,0.38548872,0.0013826565,0.000019382955,0.00010760501,0.000029350711,0.52889717],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.620156,0.037880152,0.0010578998,0.13725248,0.002826262,0.00005375233,0.000119798824,0.000098735174,0.20055497],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99605995,0.0007647937,0.000065446286,0.00032239236,0.0018822087,0.0009051795],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99640745,0.0015335387,0.000128179,0.00016760812,0.0012452864,0.00051794504],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030740206,0.00021855797,0.00042728957,0.0012574417,0.016404795,0.015091533,0.0013604615,0.009990986,0.009439424],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008170719,0.00028947808,0.00021029354,0.0024293396,0.02327122,0.004582922,0.0020468233,0.0060556503,0.00084757863],"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":[0.000008805143,0.000009724067,0.0006425972,0.00003072503,0.0000049118053,0.0001746363,0.002998961,0.00007955273,0.0000704563,0.8338822,0.14705564,0.015041733],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013608376,0.0000065857357,0.0021165658,0.00044482836,0.000010538991,0.000081297665,0.0063883364,0.00011583746,0.00011076966,0.14790398,0.84278303,0.000024597472],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.71442574,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8339836,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.28557426,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02623938,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.044638757,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5745121},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.047003344,0.03138848,0.0020747057,0.5245806,0.0019397313,0.00008074814,0.00018278351,0.000050635623,0.392699],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.71428853,0.01005428,0.00095328316,0.22196944,0.0011486717,0.000052376356,0.00007627782,0.00005981339,0.051397342],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9871674,0.002276152,0.0003019306,0.0010304609,0.004970918,0.004253117],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.988032,0.005686593,0.0005600422,0.0003561597,0.003519294,0.0018458089],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00851745,0.000321965,0.00063443376,0.0019421469,0.015361828,0.011746854,0.002934472,0.0135192145,0.0032863985],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02540685,0.00046526385,0.00062031945,0.001773883,0.021183131,0.004867311,0.003655092,0.016640333,0.0003815146],"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":[0.00003325881,0.000019403837,0.0014644082,0.00010991136,0.000013959143,0.00037395867,0.009063602,0.00013738067,0.00017338198,0.9159072,0.054962445,0.01774112],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007512311,0.00006896781,0.014099075,0.0014163045,0.00015142268,0.0004051369,0.014515444,0.0006171747,0.0008598209,0.20923755,0.75833154,0.00022250603],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9169647,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9625129,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08303529,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059779815,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11899858,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.43373495},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032041363,0.018968971,0.0040677413,0.22912763,0.0010676679,0.00008920558,0.00006840059,0.000042987966,0.714526],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8939887,0.0066544563,0.0013814651,0.042936977,0.0019784414,0.00009947553,0.000059512393,0.000039103692,0.052861907],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98000425,0.0068786945,0.00042684685,0.0021488585,0.0064510247,0.004090327],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97722715,0.014848027,0.001322297,0.0013356606,0.0031452782,0.0021215254],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02039021,0.00026502833,0.0006277311,0.0029984526,0.013777659,0.014019252,0.0013648662,0.009746666,0.0063419887],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02808913,0.00047193922,0.0004553645,0.002029169,0.03261781,0.004190207,0.0065193176,0.009972128,0.0004986616],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005088467,0.000015854435,0.000371048,0.000038722777,0.000006282561,0.00005903376,0.0031384258,0.00010547174,0.00014408032,0.9639999,0.021097438,0.011018534],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048205842,0.000020594402,0.0035993743,0.0005738262,0.000022791837,0.00007036206,0.003463089,0.00052195747,0.0005071651,0.43618047,0.554964,0.000028137561],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.17609134,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.26406556,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17609134,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023133533,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040708534,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35013276},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12630548,0.095830016,0.0026676664,0.4294095,0.0014393815,0.00004537717,0.0005468434,0.000085318075,0.34367037],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9402525,0.015309681,0.0005573981,0.018301101,0.00063883944,0.000012580856,0.00008505204,0.000040094517,0.024802726],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9903529,0.0014585125,0.00016500663,0.0009557846,0.0041749002,0.0028928716],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9863193,0.00479347,0.0013157383,0.0005603274,0.004945822,0.0020653442],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0049363286,0.0002356381,0.0005697509,0.0035072411,0.023790114,0.019738281,0.0026291008,0.005153532,0.0043126317],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02274945,0.000402538,0.0002864925,0.008677187,0.0458256,0.0046907235,0.0025686156,0.0065464834,0.00028250748],"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":[0.000019677509,0.000016586977,0.004008808,0.000100574944,0.000017056023,0.00022046793,0.022666352,0.00017247292,0.00015820788,0.9181441,0.03186265,0.022613017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000027916829,0.000030111798,0.045802724,0.00088430353,0.000053828546,0.00024759545,0.029951157,0.0005229987,0.0003806784,0.102112226,0.81982833,0.00015807876],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98953795,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9944022,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14429618,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14429618,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18228602,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9924951},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.103292,0.057680145,0.0018595682,0.16998443,0.0027613523,0.000108153385,0.0017122856,0.00009004998,0.662512],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82363874,0.01208915,0.0012384276,0.0341425,0.00083225063,0.00003718315,0.00028179682,0.00005187346,0.12768818],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9932405,0.0004430962,0.00010831877,0.000581463,0.0036121907,0.0020145483],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99403703,0.0012045081,0.00025504438,0.00012811576,0.0035076395,0.0008676864],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003921877,0.0003033902,0.00036012303,0.003838308,0.018741045,0.011116801,0.0015575011,0.005730758,0.004390316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0134090455,0.00068667385,0.00031915703,0.0052098744,0.011206913,0.0019290356,0.002445311,0.0065816296,0.00025698415],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.000030650222,0.000016028866,0.0028079564,0.000090153386,0.000021510732,0.00039065766,0.009235682,0.0005025272,0.00027558065,0.81351334,0.14396124,0.02915477],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018854116,0.000013640726,0.022023818,0.00037982242,0.000029825189,0.00009521877,0.002887563,0.00037527873,0.0005051788,0.03173925,0.9418362,0.000095432224],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9928402,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9960783,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21599635,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.21599635,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18132861,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9093331},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9239653,0.001652932,0.0005155843,0.016932424,0.000033153385,0.000033988024,0.00005365568,0.000007636202,0.056805324],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99783474,0.0007255439,0.00014187093,0.00041762355,0.0000064100805,0.000004794889,0.00001595984,0.000002625481,0.00085042114],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954454,0.0013705032,0.00009321834,0.00029901217,0.0013119573,0.0014799233],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992804,0.0017290508,0.0012792785,0.00015013237,0.0018390446,0.0021985401],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033577909,0.00024333305,0.00039587563,0.0041715633,0.016875613,0.009057527,0.001538259,0.0013443475,0.0024073445],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012813829,0.00026790932,0.00021583209,0.0033090932,0.017510073,0.0042775115,0.0056720967,0.002349622,0.000117788055],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000020010797,0.00008943379,0.16335154,0.00013514975,0.00004329176,0.00066249183,0.7390308,0.00043140256,0.00039927772,0.045325376,0.0028889426,0.047622327],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000067320657,0.00002543443,0.24862275,0.00028009122,0.000035294262,0.00011131435,0.71429574,0.00048306014,0.00013826594,0.007754449,0.0282081,0.0000387642],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9762379,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98914427,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9762379,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06645742,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10147022,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4821846},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.077513486,0.24533017,0.002366536,0.07196414,0.001200262,0.000029798462,0.0004621797,0.00006603743,0.60106736],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87178206,0.058180105,0.0008322854,0.0052615833,0.0004717845,0.0000148438485,0.00014033631,0.00004124369,0.06327569],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995514,0.00075634546,0.000071262,0.0003419014,0.0021958232,0.0011207447],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9946708,0.0017306226,0.00042920027,0.00012161126,0.002405937,0.00064171205],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001949429,0.00026974134,0.0003775744,0.0034822458,0.013508351,0.009547763,0.0009508785,0.0018381202,0.0077730557],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0075393156,0.00024091559,0.00020101528,0.005898555,0.010721999,0.0020014837,0.0013159215,0.0028648516,0.0003683427],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000022335775,0.000011251502,0.0036074824,0.00019327819,0.000019966707,0.00032723605,0.011164615,0.00034519008,0.00018810268,0.90958107,0.027617801,0.04692158],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013446936,0.000017379487,0.0265417,0.0008101578,0.000041157513,0.00022209345,0.009986689,0.0003133836,0.00027335214,0.03262388,0.9291032,0.00005355986],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98608685,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927735,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91571826,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08428175,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11604429,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0087523265,0.10048346,0.0055708135,0.33253196,0.005166267,0.00012985089,0.0005148295,0.000078260935,0.54677224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33536178,0.110116504,0.011354923,0.28120813,0.011765256,0.00026598506,0.0005051656,0.00018166304,0.24924058],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9802244,0.0027694951,0.0013269922,0.0018643647,0.011467351,0.0023475054],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98739946,0.004310515,0.0005574604,0.00062546285,0.0065733306,0.00053379417],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015098127,0.0006329013,0.00063034194,0.0039514154,0.01234901,0.0096999025,0.0038722851,0.011286824,0.0042208154],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018604424,0.0008943127,0.0009866882,0.003931794,0.020644378,0.0046438402,0.0022595536,0.012642276,0.00067160034],"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":[0.000004770424,0.000008651791,0.00019429188,0.000091312,0.0000049227365,0.00009362881,0.0014245143,0.000099626865,0.00016087374,0.9432925,0.0456119,0.009012907],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009888129,0.000013123025,0.0021849214,0.0004661183,0.000023501345,0.00009557631,0.0005901685,0.00014994034,0.0002882452,0.10522842,0.89088887,0.00006121961],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.74921197,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.83768284,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.25078803,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059857238,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.038344454,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50452995},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.037343767,0.018244257,0.01863385,0.4851593,0.0020042034,0.00008537658,0.000092806826,0.00006569689,0.43837082],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82780045,0.00828493,0.0061975764,0.11209886,0.0023995035,0.00012675971,0.000042440155,0.00008003362,0.042969357],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9870688,0.0033039725,0.00035428215,0.0010855695,0.005843572,0.0023438183],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9929547,0.004033019,0.00047591864,0.00045309387,0.0013278186,0.00075536786],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010275239,0.0003472031,0.0005233904,0.0025799815,0.010907475,0.0117452815,0.0022467375,0.00993118,0.0024138235],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01623827,0.0004696652,0.0007460596,0.0020060274,0.064291894,0.00591043,0.004376875,0.012867963,0.0002783455],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000040738482,0.0000071748404,0.00036231193,0.00001000975,0.000003162735,0.000052005907,0.0015544437,0.0000672195,0.000057158017,0.99108374,0.0024698623,0.004328838],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005100312,0.00004005194,0.0034414176,0.00037409336,0.000033384225,0.00021111415,0.0031581414,0.00051686907,0.00024983953,0.77486944,0.21698938,0.00006527257],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4269313,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5252379,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.57306874,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0242718,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.034823216,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84889257},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.048172507,0.008269745,0.007342504,0.013691158,0.00018225679,0.000045375346,0.00016527482,0.000039637514,0.92209154],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9231092,0.0045450237,0.0026849455,0.0022138099,0.00015880454,0.000063554326,0.00007820156,0.00008390387,0.06706248],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.994856,0.0020946073,0.000091892485,0.000416705,0.0014103047,0.0011304539],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979069,0.0012930577,0.00015717371,0.00008903525,0.00032136575,0.00023260205],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036547277,0.000542537,0.00056745444,0.0028525465,0.011483018,0.024059497,0.0013199389,0.0029271494,0.015258248],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0039506573,0.00039643876,0.0006497177,0.00509954,0.02329683,0.011452531,0.0079153795,0.0043893866,0.00081150903],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000008228894,0.0000051209645,0.0006455467,0.000024214063,0.0000041987623,0.000107091764,0.022011442,0.00008338071,0.00006455236,0.97186035,0.0011764859,0.004009392],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021726664,0.000026135549,0.00860918,0.0006526128,0.00003938271,0.0004097101,0.12506768,0.00051720126,0.0004929484,0.20482612,0.6592729,0.00006439639],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4126805,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5599311,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5873195,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02894128,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02021052,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8205569},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12364951,0.108592734,0.009609888,0.54330325,0.004786356,0.0005356347,0.0017977031,0.00026628582,0.20745869],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85997325,0.039559525,0.01822203,0.0579168,0.00071462244,0.00010428027,0.00044265363,0.000116506475,0.022950372],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.945862,0.007013186,0.0030942077,0.002407688,0.036273535,0.0053493613],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.85648924,0.03117957,0.0064230436,0.0022866274,0.09875917,0.0048623723],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.036221147,0.00064022176,0.0009970336,0.009825452,0.016543446,0.0103196995,0.005795401,0.0043816753,0.0024713343],"category_scores_gemma":[0.13771829,0.00076054374,0.00078874006,0.009660235,0.00805075,0.002603346,0.0033960312,0.0057891514,0.0003330631],"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":[0.00018118236,0.0001077282,0.12382439,0.0024865828,0.00030242524,0.0024247249,0.030277083,0.0025085746,0.0014049448,0.14629205,0.24888086,0.44130945],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009367021,0.00019261458,0.3821364,0.0077003855,0.00070866855,0.0013627805,0.04046123,0.0057403855,0.0039071413,0.03321441,0.5237564,0.0007259157],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99480045,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9981858,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14409883,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14409883,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.35627562,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99272406},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.43364036,0.33677834,0.009532874,0.07621581,0.0009820999,0.00011748845,0.00039252237,0.000040244016,0.14230022],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91893,0.064169206,0.0027200119,0.0035645291,0.00025876446,0.000028394534,0.00009194925,0.000023349023,0.010213862],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98917633,0.0017998482,0.00036270623,0.0009208295,0.006432547,0.0013076771],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9798552,0.00821582,0.0034371929,0.00050171965,0.0069852993,0.0010047619],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007900131,0.00056145596,0.0009125772,0.008251676,0.010226193,0.014286386,0.002649674,0.0030840586,0.0026532086],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01931677,0.00048737397,0.0006656808,0.010628691,0.027929533,0.0051141465,0.0040346906,0.004240556,0.00019250996],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000087951696,0.00011000916,0.07450158,0.0016504521,0.0000902952,0.0011147615,0.113787495,0.0010451941,0.0009805028,0.6346807,0.00802571,0.16392529],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031462267,0.0001414634,0.34786037,0.004624211,0.0002495638,0.0024625713,0.16167298,0.0017085979,0.0010587681,0.046055134,0.43381393,0.00032096304],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9761041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9840162,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10969057,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10969057,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12880829,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7958645},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0022216355,0.078458905,0.0114430105,0.6591115,0.03379566,0.00012455456,0.00020814313,0.00032375654,0.21431293],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.15942201,0.062425733,0.01886562,0.4387595,0.0510314,0.00019896819,0.0004193371,0.00043910037,0.2684383],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9235337,0.02346995,0.0029127502,0.009356143,0.034840483,0.005886906],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8559459,0.05374598,0.005579991,0.019302865,0.054186042,0.0112392055],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.034308556,0.00084076443,0.0016474592,0.0050827563,0.010246067,0.0147961425,0.002632991,0.014923871,0.03435755],"category_scores_gemma":[0.13381214,0.0008458457,0.0010092186,0.003228124,0.019712437,0.013953243,0.0054899645,0.017613348,0.008300013],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003519346,0.000031609074,0.000534757,0.00032287545,0.00003982883,0.00018372151,0.0011339439,0.00015750204,0.00034738015,0.5115973,0.3678838,0.11773215],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023045672,0.000033995628,0.00089471997,0.00076785986,0.000021403916,0.00013582826,0.00048221616,0.00018735258,0.00019466784,0.064336546,0.9328828,0.0000396384],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.119079284,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.26064745,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8809207,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.021299824,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05516991,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23677236},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.73819786,0.040528838,0.0014210981,0.055481855,0.00062469015,0.00024457375,0.0011010034,0.000023387174,0.16237672],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9854715,0.0064751245,0.0007433547,0.0032744296,0.0001254921,0.000034722594,0.00017194892,0.000007235992,0.0036962805],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.990422,0.0016744137,0.0005052392,0.00048499907,0.0039932355,0.0029200355],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96641755,0.013482858,0.0073320656,0.0006667653,0.010763207,0.0013375491],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009641266,0.00021653416,0.00048680376,0.0021289487,0.00411318,0.0043978826,0.0014314334,0.0019517711,0.0015537123],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0613615,0.00022945987,0.00035523638,0.0028610972,0.003204557,0.0015371946,0.0009893238,0.0022115074,0.0002041031],"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":[0.00033770746,0.00015643114,0.3575182,0.0019239396,0.00025327998,0.0010914917,0.030135421,0.0009531461,0.00088407873,0.3623973,0.037476912,0.20687205],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003856546,0.0001486863,0.8181426,0.0020365058,0.00038399303,0.00056347693,0.03600632,0.0007129071,0.00075775787,0.0139005445,0.12722422,0.00008443836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8956997,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9545971,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.97676283,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023237178,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.088953674,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20982909},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03434734,0.020525495,0.0013960736,0.033326726,0.0014770661,0.00014046888,0.0009005279,0.00009505108,0.9077913],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.41039026,0.017143715,0.0040962705,0.03471155,0.0006143758,0.00024132447,0.0012855581,0.00006460743,0.5314524],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9954419,0.0004562448,0.00017036377,0.00036254883,0.0023268803,0.00124192],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978309,0.0006460312,0.00009809556,0.000105998435,0.0011823847,0.00013656457],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024003764,0.000269915,0.00032227577,0.0013696321,0.009681283,0.0042506577,0.0011072978,0.0033833121,0.0045927693],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0047418857,0.00046794722,0.0003080002,0.001695256,0.005370212,0.0011932345,0.001290576,0.0036001892,0.0009425136],"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":[0.00002510453,0.000024352712,0.0018902335,0.00018823604,0.000012023296,0.0004572324,0.017131763,0.00022563587,0.001088164,0.8043248,0.15140043,0.023232017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008698029,0.000017486087,0.01431597,0.0002977215,0.000021164866,0.00008685418,0.0023974625,0.0000793804,0.00029683526,0.010013659,0.9724204,0.000044342545],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9083101,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94859093,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.091689885,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025765732,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.067302,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18694437},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013274019,0.097462796,0.0024353415,0.24066702,0.007898251,0.00014624135,0.00046439475,0.00010538776,0.63754654],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4419267,0.05443926,0.0034721508,0.2809314,0.0030539222,0.00028253903,0.00042668547,0.0001487986,0.21531855],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9806942,0.0025161724,0.0006456647,0.0017853753,0.008836197,0.0055223573],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9898365,0.0031657924,0.0006275728,0.00064490637,0.004739473,0.00098563],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009494965,0.00047004188,0.0005940036,0.0025884495,0.02051094,0.007904509,0.0033643367,0.011338588,0.007393857],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017605305,0.00044823057,0.0007509313,0.0025315003,0.017368201,0.0031277195,0.0036211917,0.009531385,0.00076145027],"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":[0.0000059800363,0.000007829754,0.0007049008,0.00011162801,0.000005284878,0.00030228787,0.006931453,0.0000675701,0.00008389585,0.8695176,0.105118,0.017143564],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000051993293,0.0000082204115,0.0025001578,0.0008611029,0.0000121441635,0.00028335553,0.0033443286,0.000039991613,0.0000996789,0.014450622,0.9783564,0.000038727023],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95023954,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94147485,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.054827016,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.054827016,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13631178,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39779973},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04531108,0.0144962445,0.12784018,0.025741782,0.0010260791,0.0011592694,0.00054093986,0.00041100231,0.78347355],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8231067,0.005978932,0.096587054,0.0065005007,0.0006666461,0.00045206194,0.00032377624,0.000119953096,0.06626443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95218545,0.009739486,0.00468298,0.0027043303,0.025722653,0.004965143],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9670623,0.015648736,0.0038539188,0.005184163,0.0073685227,0.0008823765],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.030349305,0.00039016138,0.00083264895,0.0046018683,0.007095542,0.01782555,0.0041207247,0.0067343093,0.0048018117],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04323245,0.0011716718,0.0008683078,0.007018492,0.013526854,0.006800819,0.0042119045,0.0065293657,0.00078587333],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000108864015,0.000015927872,0.00038899892,0.000060767838,0.000005718895,0.0001388192,0.0009927985,0.000676768,0.0003020249,0.9749444,0.003913929,0.018548962],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011223343,0.00008802492,0.006681066,0.0012898482,0.00009714429,0.0008170082,0.0016868514,0.010431503,0.0040066103,0.58612704,0.38842112,0.00024155602],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26105574,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3551758,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.26105574,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022905273,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03083999,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5190724},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012658566,0.010525664,0.08885077,0.47376847,0.002133876,0.00021707013,0.0001019913,0.00011713831,0.4116265],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75745535,0.0073467754,0.05311541,0.122839555,0.006494556,0.00051649695,0.00010463243,0.00016967414,0.051957604],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9392804,0.01738219,0.0020806256,0.0042698933,0.031928103,0.005058807],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9543827,0.027081557,0.0024942183,0.002984036,0.011084797,0.0019725868],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.037216894,0.0007533069,0.0011355733,0.0052002994,0.012964912,0.024964511,0.0057182456,0.02657265,0.0034189294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.053241868,0.0010664724,0.0014872277,0.0029316759,0.07306968,0.018801136,0.008200625,0.032421872,0.00076591206],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[8.3774927e-7,0.000004548663,0.000032007272,0.0000070809683,0.0000010911483,0.0000122404645,0.00016413556,0.00011214987,0.0000140294005,0.99731916,0.00141463,0.0009180328],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014472184,0.000009204978,0.00023038313,0.00014100186,0.000007590519,0.00002931491,0.0005599955,0.00061092945,0.0001163195,0.946539,0.051718675,0.00002301577],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16543196,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.16361842,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.834568,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04156042,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06855542,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32893813},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.019846652,0.014310526,0.006541634,0.82463706,0.0008980691,0.000054691733,0.000030303905,0.000024557752,0.1336565],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8381792,0.008214919,0.0066810576,0.08836007,0.0010080446,0.00009880382,0.00002659695,0.0000711998,0.057360042],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97959626,0.013022307,0.00042971835,0.00093527435,0.0026730376,0.003343407],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9857422,0.006496505,0.00065183867,0.00037908848,0.0032722352,0.0034580468],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019786755,0.00045314876,0.00058600225,0.0013459054,0.026195707,0.017361455,0.0023058983,0.01393188,0.0043894015],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021464085,0.0005207133,0.0004168671,0.0011185543,0.060356084,0.008603342,0.0042190123,0.015875863,0.000961544],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009440752,0.000027576703,0.0005382304,0.000047647773,0.0000032026182,0.00033157028,0.03561104,0.00013357759,0.00009945377,0.9175517,0.03612983,0.009516777],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023770752,0.000029374412,0.0019556347,0.0005921335,0.00000823044,0.00047625072,0.07155728,0.0006913391,0.00021718717,0.55733496,0.36703125,0.00008266574],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3288261,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4605527,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3288261,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.041601967,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.058405604,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6538242},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.057716377,0.17435415,0.0012119005,0.35806304,0.0022125405,0.0000353667,0.0003649011,0.000048907288,0.4059928],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7714066,0.047506806,0.000810021,0.025797963,0.00072580046,0.000031517113,0.0001591378,0.000028314846,0.15353386],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99726045,0.0006037949,0.00004708119,0.00015544091,0.0011520206,0.0007812443],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99686337,0.0007280882,0.00028229575,0.00011723513,0.0015332552,0.0004757642],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0020621272,0.0002269832,0.0003077099,0.0014139694,0.00929425,0.006369754,0.0010537273,0.002717167,0.008507271],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0054978584,0.00019744296,0.0001653356,0.0026029686,0.008066565,0.0021639904,0.00082983624,0.0024758454,0.0005099103],"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":[0.00003172615,0.00004171899,0.0055104587,0.00025253763,0.000015225249,0.00032477695,0.017631305,0.00025810022,0.0002305013,0.6840529,0.17306826,0.11858251],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011335356,0.000018920417,0.026714956,0.0008582701,0.000016717795,0.00015316546,0.017159566,0.00024735273,0.0001466298,0.015204701,0.93942565,0.000042782045],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9865649,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9917453,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.054451317,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.054451317,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0948287,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39507383},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009705272,0.014217414,0.0023156593,0.93799245,0.0019454577,0.000022492777,0.000033491935,0.000023247512,0.033744473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5498586,0.015761955,0.0053097536,0.40583622,0.0055878395,0.00007332443,0.000048999358,0.00012819022,0.017394993],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.96444106,0.011888517,0.0011474742,0.0034388495,0.011820618,0.007263442],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9393907,0.040600304,0.0015189346,0.0025996952,0.011166976,0.0047233948],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06463709,0.0005426084,0.0019405613,0.0017916834,0.019777717,0.024184378,0.0064704963,0.023618419,0.0030768143],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06525381,0.00052701,0.0010487455,0.001898854,0.09238958,0.022721093,0.008677552,0.052378256,0.00040090314],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002593742,0.000023714692,0.0003969663,0.000083025,0.00002231674,0.00015332301,0.008964114,0.00023746886,0.00012679362,0.9390389,0.04000318,0.010924218],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047955935,0.000025342075,0.0015302376,0.0012848737,0.000044746244,0.0001540079,0.032898143,0.00057475246,0.00042162984,0.67106396,0.29178634,0.00016803216],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5406718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6798665,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.45932817,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.043500613,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11149386,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9240665},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0002817608,0.46843237,0.00024135456,0.42679155,0.06272371,0.00009760882,0.00040168737,0.000046266057,0.040983718],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.008865678,0.35664263,0.0008609987,0.5057187,0.045333114,0.0002293622,0.00032313514,0.00011445799,0.081911914],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98771733,0.0018545899,0.0005195399,0.00074753194,0.00840988,0.0007512311],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94755375,0.020709664,0.0017826773,0.00077554025,0.027453147,0.0017251872],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012114192,0.00092527556,0.0025114133,0.008654391,0.006162929,0.01216221,0.0035968772,0.014074138,0.009570602],"category_scores_gemma":[0.046757165,0.0009412778,0.0010292688,0.014269038,0.007769408,0.0036544811,0.0016907527,0.010334944,0.00368199],"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":[0.0000054777593,0.0000030563956,0.00004227658,0.00033053444,0.000011801814,0.000017802491,0.000053225674,0.000031183918,0.000024620069,0.0058637206,0.9858122,0.0078039947],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014588728,0.0000056876083,0.0005793717,0.0019878494,0.000040377345,0.000029977064,0.00013813339,0.000040574905,0.000036704154,0.0042673056,0.99283534,0.00002405869],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.52969366,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.85504085,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94756246,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.052437536,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08124633,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94615215},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.042942636,0.18115634,0.010809198,0.3739226,0.0036642805,0.000034877423,0.0000912052,0.0000623522,0.38731655],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8739021,0.03702059,0.002109533,0.03649552,0.002128383,0.00003904103,0.00003826981,0.000036106532,0.048230574],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99307984,0.0020051247,0.00018187657,0.00059200695,0.003014041,0.001127148],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9943638,0.002700151,0.00052238395,0.0003026895,0.0013382583,0.00077265874],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004636808,0.0002060245,0.0003986953,0.0016739044,0.008749027,0.008137276,0.00095220894,0.0048744786,0.0023490028],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010659307,0.00025156164,0.00024468917,0.0018104359,0.05419417,0.0064403294,0.0029739677,0.0069586895,0.00032385674],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000003820099,0.0000047146655,0.00020768036,0.000036206882,0.000002145327,0.00005687892,0.0017444731,0.000054163847,0.000048140613,0.9816042,0.007203151,0.009034452],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006884025,0.000026887557,0.0028593556,0.00060207065,0.00001175111,0.00015516298,0.0044788592,0.00015749164,0.00012702969,0.5396138,0.45192462,0.000036088808],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.22608706,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.29380608,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7739129,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024378559,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.031175371,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.44954216},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011907696,0.0051000537,0.002115082,0.88208526,0.0039721453,0.00015404932,0.0007504962,0.00019788176,0.09371735],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08174941,0.0025835524,0.0019875288,0.86679465,0.0022361928,0.00015596395,0.00013327917,0.00010028216,0.044259097],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98116803,0.0016451163,0.0009362213,0.0028582383,0.009114524,0.004277813],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97337127,0.015375411,0.0009334337,0.0006601549,0.008472107,0.001187671],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012734147,0.0012613984,0.0013901064,0.0023964047,0.029413389,0.0131958155,0.008017449,0.08120061,0.004100344],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033980105,0.001983522,0.0030830998,0.0034623293,0.020761471,0.005818382,0.0027437012,0.04339456,0.0013848633],"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":[0.00007575281,0.000065146756,0.0017970151,0.00019825985,0.000067216664,0.0014653654,0.011466043,0.00047761286,0.0013027482,0.41653195,0.5592636,0.007289348],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002455026,0.00008770636,0.0056686383,0.00072005513,0.0003352293,0.00062856334,0.006805474,0.0012635927,0.0033847953,0.03439723,0.9459033,0.0005598598],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9318573,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9487848,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08120061,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059170116,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08946318,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42931122},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.13856629,0.353673,0.00025364303,0.23652801,0.00260799,0.00006628048,0.00045506645,0.000018793893,0.26783088],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.762777,0.1881625,0.00030450465,0.016278008,0.0006771405,0.000029504326,0.00016561916,0.000022130094,0.0315836],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99408203,0.0013663707,0.00014164328,0.00027511895,0.0026298303,0.0015050073],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9912758,0.002198378,0.00044107623,0.000082940605,0.005176126,0.00082561525],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005715427,0.00036456523,0.00042763044,0.003940912,0.022550317,0.0069268,0.0019843054,0.0030613684,0.0031728998],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015465912,0.00034207996,0.00024645176,0.007482571,0.009390683,0.001958365,0.0015237993,0.0035569817,0.00031128284],"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":[0.00009990466,0.00007391716,0.015183999,0.0014560261,0.000051329058,0.0020075003,0.20149247,0.00046367408,0.00041850194,0.26167533,0.36024937,0.15682797],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014587128,0.00005107408,0.059423324,0.0022127123,0.00008559158,0.00041135392,0.20866325,0.0001931085,0.00023496384,0.0056446795,0.72296053,0.000104763225],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9907459,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99691844,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8866525,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.113347486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17372555,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8223974},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07664818,0.27740765,0.091001526,0.21035427,0.0022622687,0.00039922315,0.00061469624,0.000093552626,0.34121865],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8746714,0.06388841,0.032836538,0.0095271235,0.0014002142,0.0001313489,0.0001449652,0.000060789444,0.017339189],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9804174,0.005250068,0.0010558607,0.001185226,0.010902139,0.0011893798],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98322195,0.007473682,0.0021991117,0.0006452189,0.0059868908,0.00047306262],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018772138,0.00093974825,0.0013988428,0.016610904,0.0074459687,0.015753087,0.002769286,0.0038607933,0.003898204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03275431,0.0005578689,0.0009984091,0.00890796,0.029441034,0.009955943,0.005481442,0.004723307,0.00026580266],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000014419197,0.000031875123,0.0071972176,0.00046137074,0.000079209225,0.00023764615,0.002712352,0.0027789585,0.00018957339,0.9017392,0.008729135,0.075829014],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010622759,0.00003551742,0.016594898,0.0028815656,0.000093549446,0.00034265986,0.009108398,0.004633284,0.00040559983,0.8609505,0.104843855,0.00009956577],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.392579,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5767368,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.392579,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03444795,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0381928,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78058785},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4143143,0.0729602,0.0035776794,0.075917564,0.0006814258,0.00010372221,0.00087978516,0.00007854821,0.4314868],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9165687,0.015773147,0.0014725681,0.0019201641,0.00024257031,0.000019055611,0.00013673995,0.000018077071,0.06384897],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99788815,0.00028407155,0.000044801698,0.0001276004,0.0010017292,0.00065361854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982786,0.0006103547,0.0001814824,0.000048715716,0.0006331967,0.00024766393],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024355901,0.00021155228,0.00027175766,0.002454772,0.0055537866,0.004344733,0.0008550659,0.0011421519,0.0072118356],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006779152,0.0002733571,0.00024472232,0.0021121597,0.004225468,0.0010741123,0.0009000063,0.0024080228,0.00037555065],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007344735,0.00005236665,0.048876952,0.00019449966,0.00003241797,0.0010240971,0.014803572,0.0014317994,0.00083011057,0.76897186,0.04810228,0.115606636],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039619368,0.00007369458,0.23559754,0.0009994834,0.000090901696,0.0013278119,0.020653868,0.0019006591,0.0012887612,0.029389849,0.708514,0.00012378898],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94290406,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9706915,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.057095945,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.040590078,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05145396,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.29450303},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013109384,0.106604874,0.009821983,0.21639004,0.0055011907,0.00011908499,0.00054749683,0.00019250592,0.64771336],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5232209,0.047074676,0.012842956,0.056120504,0.004663263,0.00029978427,0.000458076,0.00019806725,0.35512176],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.986527,0.0021179186,0.00041309558,0.0015850916,0.006527656,0.0028291272],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970976,0.0008956743,0.00022083377,0.0003097996,0.0011070928,0.00036903677],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007007839,0.00078145467,0.0010166067,0.0024840792,0.0098888995,0.020661846,0.0027196633,0.007995502,0.008126961],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007752184,0.0006912602,0.00062689226,0.0038506472,0.018941274,0.0076117706,0.003739939,0.009038763,0.0018853642],"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":[0.000014093815,0.000010749724,0.00020321987,0.00008639587,0.000004344545,0.00004136682,0.0019187076,0.000091585265,0.00015724143,0.94925153,0.025421971,0.022798741],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023116607,0.00001912155,0.0026821515,0.00043267076,0.000018949273,0.00008879291,0.0015500284,0.00023440893,0.00021911312,0.07310896,0.9215806,0.00004209287],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82771045,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7926514,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17228955,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04753099,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06682645,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34660834},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.24888177,0.26959032,0.0017401909,0.06570961,0.0015614578,0.000047597252,0.0011694528,0.000096660915,0.41120288],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8849648,0.051397502,0.00073597586,0.0018708482,0.00016915888,0.0000162104,0.00019203233,0.000034642693,0.0606189],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984681,0.00019254326,0.000035311954,0.00013166509,0.00066501554,0.0005072931],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99783224,0.00040085398,0.00013201377,0.00004545375,0.0013640848,0.00022528025],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012344227,0.00025843826,0.00032713427,0.0026316463,0.009190523,0.007090528,0.0011163449,0.0010517039,0.0038331917],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0029525862,0.00026514486,0.00020003825,0.0045189066,0.005283609,0.0012322699,0.0009518897,0.0014636974,0.00022076859],"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":[0.000089515146,0.00003531812,0.021555651,0.0007369441,0.000056343382,0.0010948193,0.05126659,0.0011350398,0.0007770335,0.6931711,0.09055859,0.13952322],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010624486,0.00001854591,0.053575557,0.0010075005,0.000070210015,0.00027436425,0.030989347,0.00073266856,0.00049978116,0.0076770443,0.9050741,0.00007028169],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9975643,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99814034,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10651373,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10651373,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14197859,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7728148},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0026960475,0.262907,0.0020609526,0.032278255,0.016853055,0.00009318486,0.0015105151,0.0002696468,0.6813314],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.040120482,0.11115476,0.0021774173,0.010245976,0.0037196458,0.00008574842,0.001171976,0.00034849936,0.83097553],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99788314,0.0001773635,0.00005496399,0.00023482264,0.0013632453,0.00028644723],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99873084,0.0002566456,0.000051963998,0.00007503918,0.0007803462,0.00010526448],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0014709682,0.0005944451,0.0005520086,0.003918263,0.0051705707,0.0057831826,0.0012912897,0.0018622909,0.04604176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004428635,0.00029598616,0.0005121561,0.0051015825,0.0031397003,0.0019049486,0.00138681,0.0029763668,0.00720699],"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":[0.000032062733,0.00001179179,0.00027550172,0.00049126445,0.0000136213475,0.00011745388,0.0015937763,0.00019245587,0.0003095845,0.20390369,0.69417727,0.09888157],"study_design_scores_gemma":[9.666743e-7,0.000001831019,0.000313609,0.00009134457,0.0000020519565,0.000021077121,0.00009932565,0.0000113877795,0.000046622572,0.0009267714,0.99848026,0.0000048072334],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.81952107,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.84832615,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.18047893,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022318086,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026888164,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3630836},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.029738752,0.013638545,0.00031601958,0.9021715,0.002820458,0.00006314891,0.00009468443,0.000033132736,0.05112376],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33792087,0.017972635,0.0015802154,0.5715512,0.0018741584,0.000078749734,0.000072704046,0.00006640733,0.06888308],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9981797,0.00039012832,0.000072568495,0.00009853881,0.00050178764,0.0007573033],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99580944,0.000884951,0.00018852965,0.00006329422,0.0011371691,0.0019167023],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003095406,0.00036160694,0.00027069717,0.00039465987,0.018325327,0.0029803908,0.0014153105,0.008660305,0.002962036],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0075062667,0.00045855824,0.00036469905,0.00052406685,0.0039769304,0.0010747336,0.0016499159,0.010951383,0.00027635915],"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":[0.000057058143,0.000100393365,0.026424518,0.00016631372,0.00003437332,0.0075887563,0.014487919,0.00035086842,0.0015602125,0.07761198,0.8262546,0.045363016],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007157853,0.000093730494,0.063697755,0.0011786345,0.00009057836,0.0044666734,0.025055096,0.00052337686,0.0011838103,0.010234272,0.8932321,0.00017240466],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.87912786,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97568524,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12087214,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022695033,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.120387435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24316794},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.032917995,0.016309116,0.0017453883,0.8760047,0.0030453848,0.00012930874,0.00032821437,0.00006279549,0.069457114],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2912378,0.008156019,0.0016245601,0.6573599,0.004655153,0.00014174712,0.00007283912,0.00012595774,0.036626022],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98798466,0.002007331,0.0007020808,0.0016715064,0.003498758,0.004135671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9676051,0.024087522,0.0014531228,0.0003696392,0.004519483,0.001965164],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.018432308,0.00063362764,0.0011727482,0.001725442,0.03208308,0.015946425,0.005081129,0.052972794,0.0037221895],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03179661,0.0018253217,0.0013788857,0.003452754,0.02113424,0.0070293704,0.003818448,0.034470577,0.0006880813],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001450271,0.000034636465,0.0026065013,0.00026845705,0.00004474088,0.002757235,0.04089659,0.00047872297,0.0013955968,0.6923652,0.24885546,0.010151721],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015001438,0.000118883065,0.008184131,0.0013928488,0.00023665844,0.00091478205,0.025671277,0.000918372,0.002339168,0.06393623,0.8955924,0.0005452301],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8581939,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91309863,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8581939,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04748342,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07686104,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34451795},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.043216716,0.0069233086,0.0021948274,0.39592278,0.001160015,0.00015036475,0.0003197821,0.00013453694,0.54997766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7500411,0.00351685,0.0039374703,0.09741761,0.00060409884,0.00014229964,0.00017096456,0.000096242446,0.14407328],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.978079,0.003088912,0.0004504514,0.001782089,0.009101169,0.007498483],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98696923,0.0036943369,0.0006508159,0.00090750377,0.005744041,0.002033917],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009607279,0.0004376904,0.0005418734,0.0015699952,0.018245678,0.014230469,0.0040493542,0.013021183,0.007052223],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02834611,0.00055973174,0.0007178694,0.0014401732,0.016134014,0.0044546053,0.0037094567,0.009481306,0.00077278004],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000024695955,0.000019050189,0.0013435348,0.000042488213,0.000011778,0.00038586385,0.002643872,0.00054483255,0.00023437843,0.91766775,0.06489336,0.012188535],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000829702,0.00007736742,0.014191657,0.00046065834,0.0000872127,0.00034563895,0.013162003,0.0024468028,0.0011357571,0.11797229,0.84974253,0.00029515836],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9527724,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97654426,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9527724,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0871233,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12849411,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6321267},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08859632,0.041216325,0.003699004,0.39899623,0.002218032,0.00014057379,0.00064165465,0.00010739136,0.4643845],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8648353,0.010728855,0.001103188,0.071909636,0.00057972677,0.0000313787,0.00011519391,0.000045182696,0.050651427],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99269766,0.00096210354,0.00020504948,0.0007879977,0.0036191847,0.0017279574],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9926887,0.0033032,0.0005735964,0.00023702566,0.0024700738,0.00072733866],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005471192,0.00035942093,0.00046508914,0.002963457,0.014291973,0.011416245,0.0019941053,0.009744765,0.0041243737],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016761221,0.00033657058,0.0004884241,0.0030464719,0.021483975,0.0040256316,0.0021183356,0.0068884566,0.00031532266],"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":[0.000028237508,0.000014440666,0.0034029977,0.00012056789,0.000022728673,0.0005640568,0.008477427,0.00025241368,0.00023201005,0.83540046,0.13539207,0.016092554],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006228906,0.000053240663,0.027920725,0.0019175651,0.00024647644,0.00047875123,0.03715608,0.0011078041,0.0012559256,0.17517538,0.75429606,0.00032969646],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9591637,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9810259,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.043419715,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.043419715,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09293352,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31503356},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03399099,0.2357855,0.0023093866,0.33317357,0.0058667045,0.00006085607,0.00021092455,0.000042144442,0.38855994],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5595099,0.17001076,0.0029996452,0.19037898,0.0017131761,0.000050210172,0.00021772149,0.000042860658,0.07507687],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9905979,0.0017956363,0.00023782066,0.0008163139,0.00487246,0.0016798913],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99301624,0.00088112324,0.00038516597,0.00023139057,0.004549284,0.00093665475],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005710508,0.00017342751,0.00052096,0.002429558,0.007985048,0.0048342273,0.0015406418,0.0033099,0.003792704],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0073428787,0.00020908256,0.0003310914,0.002625662,0.012337506,0.0028476717,0.002400752,0.0053820475,0.00050714373],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018723957,0.000021609632,0.0023711629,0.00044787282,0.00001147205,0.00021169557,0.011934412,0.000110750094,0.0002889818,0.7997309,0.0754397,0.1094126],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009438985,0.000018942865,0.0069867447,0.00081175094,0.000015342695,0.00022598215,0.006556708,0.000052012485,0.00020913909,0.02196199,0.96313196,0.000019987496],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8455277,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9233377,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8455277,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.037417788,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0843832,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31076396},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0050328635,0.030349663,0.0013531998,0.18912198,0.0019427228,0.00010136119,0.00017741512,0.000102791986,0.77181804],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.46715963,0.028739883,0.0015365378,0.06598187,0.0026376056,0.00021152546,0.0003421003,0.00013347132,0.43325737],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98301536,0.0032497903,0.00037800916,0.001352793,0.0076507265,0.0043532867],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98717916,0.0015899255,0.0005557011,0.00077473006,0.0070585734,0.0028419383],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009458346,0.00038983233,0.00076891476,0.0041667866,0.017452998,0.02150653,0.0019034143,0.0061439998,0.017101685],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025389995,0.00041342012,0.00042188182,0.006167936,0.021986766,0.004964996,0.005105117,0.007714474,0.0015518544],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000058128803,0.00001631521,0.00030379905,0.00004047812,0.0000044672943,0.00001980503,0.0011128718,0.000085530104,0.00002636409,0.91245055,0.06846231,0.01747165],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011259359,0.000009661051,0.0011569874,0.00020733902,0.000008445047,0.000016508679,0.0014121417,0.00009515431,0.000040431325,0.035929814,0.961103,0.000009277776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8453503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.81019527,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.908392,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09160799,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19436507,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6646656},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.2028455,0.0629487,0.0153059345,0.101121515,0.0022550335,0.00011408184,0.00055705226,0.00013703588,0.61471516],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69952583,0.012418881,0.0026840877,0.0044954643,0.00029539736,0.00004767786,0.00013595415,0.00005115521,0.28034565],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9978249,0.0007374326,0.000040912077,0.00021073244,0.00072450616,0.00046155317],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9970041,0.0012256594,0.0002109148,0.00010685992,0.0011267519,0.00032566898],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0022444797,0.00044456465,0.00045175094,0.0013158908,0.009898699,0.00700563,0.000948221,0.0029667318,0.013441427],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0057313307,0.00035748657,0.0005295239,0.001570111,0.0046289363,0.0029574304,0.001464034,0.003805955,0.0008679839],"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":[0.00007241919,0.000043029315,0.00642742,0.00014299086,0.000042617936,0.0009928013,0.013655114,0.0009959829,0.0003747656,0.9012545,0.037224416,0.038773872],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000042409185,0.000038739894,0.023077045,0.00042978348,0.000045374578,0.00053081784,0.011197651,0.0014508812,0.00043334087,0.034236733,0.9284406,0.00007665498],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8956879,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93915534,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10431212,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.043562323,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.037182838,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.31606823},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.23838791,0.09272323,0.0050115683,0.2238026,0.002127657,0.0002960046,0.00060393807,0.0001465417,0.43690056],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9078124,0.039907932,0.004071585,0.016512305,0.00031599574,0.00006612484,0.00023948343,0.000047234767,0.031026902],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.971484,0.0027683778,0.0010155031,0.0009236999,0.017981442,0.0058269133],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94289935,0.014239003,0.0035353294,0.00081787753,0.035846908,0.0026615078],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013418258,0.00022557523,0.0005687044,0.005848347,0.018693047,0.0128046395,0.002772314,0.0026756998,0.003215182],"category_scores_gemma":[0.039836932,0.0005087548,0.00051844626,0.0090016,0.005790949,0.0030490335,0.0038409198,0.003711641,0.00022300392],"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":[0.00011498777,0.000110596695,0.03282314,0.0016203556,0.00008559472,0.0016184275,0.027130261,0.003739665,0.0007849704,0.516205,0.13728476,0.27848232],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000037446658,0.00005842832,0.052912902,0.0014102623,0.00011835535,0.0004424006,0.027820619,0.0026027078,0.0008742599,0.012833564,0.9006733,0.00021573225],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98874474,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9946089,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.122109964,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.122109964,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2299834,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.88597393},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.024179999,0.01568683,0.0075583383,0.07423179,0.0017679996,0.00014036101,0.00038720487,0.00017399709,0.87587345],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.41069525,0.0046360902,0.005257436,0.016822435,0.00037232248,0.00010077405,0.00011349755,0.0000948929,0.5619073],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9898009,0.0018578996,0.000347543,0.0009963567,0.0049501103,0.0020472729],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99308634,0.0022910507,0.00039338908,0.00045534424,0.003250334,0.0005235575],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005716899,0.00056517014,0.0005705424,0.0016258461,0.0109568685,0.010391496,0.0017683053,0.0058587776,0.013230701],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011675395,0.0005207919,0.00075788854,0.0016077827,0.0061718724,0.0023168295,0.0020182924,0.0053130067,0.0016084105],"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":[0.000031397933,0.000022646418,0.0017927423,0.00014087153,0.000030751962,0.00030975248,0.002863987,0.00026690227,0.00061460567,0.89793795,0.065956,0.030032301],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026092785,0.0000331443,0.0063770474,0.00024799813,0.00003885723,0.00018245421,0.0011650623,0.0005796249,0.000977282,0.024009198,0.96628946,0.00007378723],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92709553,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95957285,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07290447,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.037054177,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.056990907,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26884818},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03329244,0.023961361,0.020434808,0.5811044,0.011205593,0.00025540806,0.00020443997,0.0003247575,0.32921687],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.63172853,0.011380171,0.014532078,0.13437401,0.0059017506,0.00016368451,0.00017214412,0.00024059103,0.20150709],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9297358,0.02394432,0.0027195846,0.0033896558,0.033870388,0.006340234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.88432753,0.061528258,0.005589582,0.0038878082,0.03874515,0.0059217066],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.046039514,0.00058263645,0.0008692991,0.0023526328,0.01353003,0.010176884,0.0026274945,0.014661471,0.0073045655],"category_scores_gemma":[0.14978431,0.00075448904,0.0006016151,0.0017380923,0.012952298,0.0036652144,0.0044242386,0.016983924,0.0025539305],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000110492954,0.0000624885,0.003811022,0.0004899251,0.00004974218,0.0020771588,0.022137003,0.00072730565,0.0025223726,0.6241883,0.23569436,0.108129844],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005666864,0.000102978825,0.0064940597,0.0009501781,0.00003016042,0.00084745936,0.0057134563,0.0006165506,0.0014493295,0.021689104,0.96192664,0.00012346198],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.39956233,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.47118884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.60043764,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.030981334,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09156082,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.79447323},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17977764,0.059234567,0.021108046,0.37189263,0.0040106694,0.0050079757,0.014658994,0.00035980306,0.34394974],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.84395295,0.014890341,0.010940429,0.053378616,0.0005775783,0.0015841654,0.0022127489,0.00007542653,0.072387725],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9497013,0.0269861,0.0033023257,0.0026279332,0.013241092,0.0041412343],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.78355885,0.1006866,0.0142316595,0.010172159,0.08080335,0.010547319],"candidate_categories":["research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.062225938,0.00025569418,0.00067316036,0.0030750043,0.00909358,0.0071502966,0.002285222,0.002033368,0.0051901564],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07343219,0.00043323028,0.00041783843,0.006296256,0.0049240314,0.0013513912,0.0020893468,0.0019426423,0.0003617157],"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":[0.00069040124,0.00021127886,0.07705432,0.0042422153,0.00023930271,0.0034584748,0.041425645,0.0011822523,0.0033661064,0.34554586,0.3129222,0.20966195],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014441469,0.00023325773,0.15703505,0.0036165668,0.00014425033,0.00068784424,0.0123791965,0.0013912,0.0019483102,0.0071036406,0.8151724,0.00014392068],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96738493,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97817767,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99796665,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.085952505,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25040746,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62363195},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.049488194,0.029138664,0.0015796967,0.82106614,0.0023037526,0.00006384042,0.00009032303,0.00001728362,0.096252],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8294351,0.026534809,0.0015253746,0.11670065,0.0022350783,0.00004156418,0.00007590143,0.000025720732,0.023425825],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9953322,0.0015393562,0.00024214781,0.00026963736,0.0012827297,0.0013338571],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897585,0.0038298306,0.0009837798,0.00019666244,0.0027501401,0.002481095],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050090626,0.0001348362,0.00034134273,0.00079832546,0.0069633243,0.0039518527,0.0008625318,0.003653955,0.0026592554],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021406224,0.00021545704,0.00026164044,0.000472671,0.010707246,0.0027686805,0.0022042498,0.005463862,0.00033328257],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000040062772,0.00005146812,0.017594682,0.00031144003,0.000018212739,0.003273902,0.038402382,0.00013226044,0.00069976837,0.6752144,0.15919086,0.10507052],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021424547,0.000071644085,0.021756861,0.0025550409,0.000036956033,0.0037286726,0.07970858,0.00017143176,0.0005034183,0.1007272,0.79061675,0.00010196214],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.36300275,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5447837,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6369972,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014300002,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.04885266,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7217797},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12725589,0.006171403,0.0017180176,0.5428143,0.0034292834,0.00012762676,0.00023826702,0.00017411633,0.31807104],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6911021,0.0012867625,0.0008711841,0.21213667,0.0006252056,0.00007028333,0.00006712798,0.00012847185,0.09371229],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98027223,0.0028138254,0.0008292458,0.0032730019,0.006578236,0.0062334905],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9815092,0.007831055,0.0010549298,0.0008318563,0.004620408,0.0041525876],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007627855,0.00037329565,0.0006046209,0.0013140899,0.018343946,0.01231138,0.0029282852,0.017056793,0.0071064103],"category_scores_gemma":[0.03480479,0.00093467266,0.0006872978,0.0013044986,0.014778388,0.004608179,0.0048686205,0.018968856,0.00089074986],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016629796,0.000070852504,0.010257331,0.00015488765,0.00007778071,0.005431152,0.018631112,0.00037807305,0.0014047505,0.68835026,0.23427235,0.040805154],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015415852,0.00013683764,0.021371668,0.00080462376,0.00015430518,0.001063062,0.013186834,0.0010687012,0.0021150142,0.05545795,0.9040321,0.00045471778],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.84022766,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9262463,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.84022766,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05679842,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.052284032,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4121033},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12135584,0.32254338,0.0012004093,0.23041967,0.0037673945,0.0000320714,0.00024288974,0.0000781072,0.32036027],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8075761,0.09593908,0.0007960963,0.019829698,0.00068933255,0.000016303022,0.00008511289,0.000047014473,0.07502134],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.998708,0.0003763671,0.000026270234,0.0001323122,0.00038731826,0.00036968107],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992423,0.00020776599,0.00009280259,0.000056154706,0.00025006046,0.00015092711],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013437504,0.00025046218,0.00033134874,0.000828903,0.006592129,0.004389991,0.0008759988,0.0013851469,0.0052581904],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0034302494,0.00014592391,0.00017140983,0.0012121577,0.009172955,0.0021688815,0.0013670003,0.0026282656,0.00061294826],"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":[0.000070595066,0.000030940508,0.010687417,0.00046844207,0.00004229413,0.0009720574,0.061430737,0.00013503256,0.0005417532,0.613577,0.11762698,0.19441673],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009630907,0.000019588453,0.01691122,0.00075990177,0.00002903856,0.0006765661,0.03389482,0.00009187409,0.0003111949,0.010209879,0.9370547,0.00003162265],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8328942,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.89092374,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1671058,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014585565,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01990451,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3361798},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.028529469,0.003260557,0.10504465,0.02337072,0.0010377516,0.000676779,0.00012408881,0.000299662,0.83765644],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7917053,0.0016116957,0.022231258,0.013215198,0.00078011316,0.0008229731,0.000076472425,0.00013591403,0.16942105],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.96844494,0.009345624,0.0022183922,0.0048193205,0.010902785,0.0042689587],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97590864,0.01205931,0.0025597152,0.0055056857,0.002531628,0.0014350214],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022199051,0.0008071393,0.0013170118,0.0026057258,0.0073075807,0.008364297,0.0038174214,0.009459722,0.010345352],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036292396,0.0009968893,0.0013368642,0.0010302833,0.030502843,0.01002336,0.013487836,0.008164492,0.0027982474],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007878757,0.00002163579,0.0003158208,0.000029191926,0.00000947209,0.00011361485,0.00069984834,0.000103409715,0.000297863,0.9907747,0.00145572,0.006170962],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006972159,0.00014748635,0.0013555668,0.00035551956,0.000055948713,0.0004923597,0.00095524365,0.0006116808,0.001550685,0.8221969,0.1721296,0.00007925991],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008533221,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0108264275,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99146676,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0034052671,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011340407,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.11740118},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.049862724,0.022098772,0.016165286,0.16655116,0.0013233366,0.000070569506,0.0004815213,0.00011130935,0.74333525],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8307738,0.011647629,0.006539426,0.015330092,0.0009933888,0.00010289008,0.00023455727,0.000112529044,0.13426575],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98810005,0.0032089464,0.0003988317,0.0010631953,0.0047572237,0.0024717273],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98575103,0.0040895604,0.0009589763,0.0015931487,0.006928305,0.00067897816],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009245479,0.00062318664,0.0009821207,0.0024700759,0.006082836,0.01372436,0.0025461728,0.0059783575,0.0138014965],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02496664,0.0007276693,0.0006742294,0.0028934127,0.020917285,0.008607764,0.0015912357,0.00676978,0.0027381529],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000146870025,0.000018957842,0.0011994638,0.000046574176,0.000018291383,0.0001061268,0.001045464,0.00024771653,0.00019062459,0.9731521,0.008417247,0.015542806],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000050957973,0.00003199628,0.016404502,0.0007396928,0.000055237655,0.00042421566,0.0039377077,0.0016157588,0.0007757102,0.47292435,0.5029111,0.0001287603],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7341409,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.7532973,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7341409,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03507456,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.041419335,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53484964},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.036452036,0.122686006,0.0014136763,0.17840888,0.0033184313,0.000030413587,0.00023955699,0.00006423121,0.6573868],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7259372,0.02678415,0.000917526,0.020048855,0.0014219957,0.00002878554,0.00008677349,0.00007584725,0.22469881],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964573,0.0008428533,0.00007757256,0.0002590093,0.0016794957,0.0006837804],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9971852,0.0010212712,0.00017127451,0.00009691991,0.0012267521,0.00029859954],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025153703,0.0003217953,0.00043069976,0.001577007,0.010570519,0.009752839,0.0008987281,0.0032753104,0.0067479555],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00753429,0.00025866256,0.0002283551,0.0015270908,0.013692228,0.0026820747,0.0013787767,0.0044759507,0.00060977926],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000018453631,0.000008987845,0.0009958701,0.00007325469,0.0000073822375,0.00028070735,0.00873161,0.00011680931,0.00012257234,0.8701519,0.09147765,0.028014777],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008487916,0.00001432562,0.003623772,0.0003449577,0.0000099406,0.0002255974,0.0068874056,0.00010360081,0.00016461592,0.031006696,0.95757556,0.000035051296],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8473318,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9152492,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15266818,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0342431,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032089166,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3071345},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10379998,0.04879603,0.0042699827,0.0899078,0.0011826657,0.00013131298,0.0026715582,0.000092891154,0.74914783],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8907097,0.020644072,0.0029943695,0.006982497,0.00026615016,0.00009272722,0.0008966717,0.00010628684,0.07730756],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99202394,0.0011911491,0.00017679507,0.0004293319,0.0047531663,0.0014256542],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9865209,0.0027398977,0.0006048519,0.0003840039,0.008819107,0.0009312205],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033256602,0.00041410525,0.00062193646,0.011656614,0.014694442,0.013433922,0.0020026737,0.0031929337,0.020557454],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015417428,0.0004720004,0.00064532476,0.021036683,0.00861813,0.0040863054,0.0021645257,0.0032915995,0.0007035891],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004184767,0.000035262736,0.00638043,0.00024947987,0.00004890454,0.000158596,0.008387101,0.0010527474,0.00013119902,0.86864597,0.069488786,0.045379568],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034597,0.000043759905,0.12021051,0.0014883094,0.00011753846,0.0001662258,0.019249266,0.001718702,0.00030553577,0.070022464,0.78647,0.00017295449],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99249375,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9964412,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14522442,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14522442,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14755845,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9914185},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07648874,0.2118044,0.0005273748,0.34255186,0.001663698,0.000023036606,0.00020546358,0.000040355848,0.3666951],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90023464,0.044366214,0.0003679902,0.023157591,0.00046533628,0.000016715034,0.00006599673,0.000029616454,0.03129592],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9937627,0.0012463534,0.00012135051,0.0005204133,0.0024790338,0.0018701989],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9926523,0.0027832729,0.0005273831,0.00014085657,0.002752571,0.0011436186],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035688707,0.00024911328,0.00042406682,0.0030546044,0.028437994,0.013381028,0.0019047599,0.004875959,0.0035005982],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010520947,0.00027588263,0.00022433336,0.004999767,0.029373338,0.0035106526,0.00219285,0.00432721,0.00023128207],"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":[0.000011857156,0.000015451953,0.0020171741,0.00013371193,0.000010301576,0.00032289498,0.020932028,0.00028005004,0.00010917341,0.88837904,0.061467644,0.026320662],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001941022,0.0000190304,0.026422469,0.0012857789,0.000043127486,0.00019531335,0.03984339,0.00047969044,0.00020220147,0.0710267,0.86036175,0.00010109597],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9912486,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99348795,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82213175,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17786823,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17810717,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9535563},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.59538853,0.06573333,0.0011928672,0.104594655,0.0003673508,0.00016882477,0.0019477115,0.000054955723,0.23055172],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9795831,0.008905601,0.0004984026,0.0036164622,0.00008307526,0.000034852837,0.00023079077,0.000038018807,0.007009846],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.98536056,0.0018035438,0.00030792938,0.0010218599,0.007746222,0.0037599832],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94836384,0.021897413,0.0022031986,0.001015227,0.022654405,0.0038659452],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008833284,0.00040993327,0.0014315766,0.01286686,0.04056366,0.019812161,0.0034023423,0.0040719765,0.00485433],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04856268,0.0007506183,0.00062744634,0.029294237,0.018461496,0.004698854,0.0039151604,0.0046945806,0.00028348548],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.00012468555,0.00020240355,0.076375276,0.00084249204,0.00025837516,0.0009920155,0.08510495,0.0028290562,0.00046195806,0.68771553,0.073370636,0.071722716],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000086916414,0.000072090326,0.42744756,0.0029518737,0.0005418417,0.00029451208,0.14142141,0.0040755714,0.00057027926,0.066097714,0.3561003,0.00034003163],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9973821,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9991027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.95943636,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.2744714,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.46043018,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84151036},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01863068,0.0037264514,0.01253783,0.059909035,0.00064457615,0.0004982215,0.0029328607,0.00015576833,0.90096456],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6657463,0.0042277747,0.013973801,0.056868706,0.0012060355,0.0016993558,0.0015656052,0.00017395627,0.2545385],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9853652,0.002425554,0.00040025747,0.0023065847,0.006120669,0.0033818732],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98711306,0.004927419,0.00041832819,0.0011488737,0.0057663512,0.0006260264],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012952902,0.0007086185,0.0011954574,0.0045443317,0.014513398,0.014896166,0.004071116,0.008669127,0.01591648],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023039095,0.00096577476,0.0014412729,0.0050249463,0.015024144,0.005565635,0.0038691284,0.009714448,0.0015996242],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000062086397,0.0000053791596,0.0001956098,0.000016701208,0.0000037296682,0.00004952677,0.00034646768,0.00014973043,0.00005526106,0.987176,0.010340049,0.001655279],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00010233029,0.00006252343,0.004256052,0.0006665154,0.00013928297,0.00017459023,0.002139754,0.0030874563,0.0007426212,0.33274066,0.6557402,0.00014802776],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8273351,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8140061,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17266488,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07105103,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.097876325,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5155137},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.21901156,0.29148257,0.0009870715,0.1885706,0.0013117135,0.00032068542,0.00079840596,0.00006103217,0.29745647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8174045,0.10956034,0.001798162,0.018609539,0.00024917387,0.00018640434,0.00029886837,0.0000347858,0.05185828],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927228,0.0016210907,0.00030008948,0.0004182479,0.0021727686,0.0027649375],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9937874,0.0023914701,0.0007823469,0.000221566,0.0020947412,0.00072250067],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0098736165,0.0002443376,0.00037431947,0.002915603,0.0071247066,0.0062530497,0.0012332962,0.0018429952,0.0037851804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0104013225,0.00050101,0.00026402957,0.0056593665,0.0044773957,0.0015952445,0.0020163024,0.0021492867,0.0002006855],"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":[0.00010002453,0.00011627718,0.026491797,0.0017410743,0.00005646172,0.00069548015,0.033563122,0.000784345,0.00093399576,0.6484738,0.064048275,0.22299531],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004993838,0.00006832398,0.14478734,0.0026117007,0.000077110766,0.00021807529,0.024098061,0.0004024276,0.0011777331,0.009276045,0.81713945,0.00009384572],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9386311,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9742701,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09378723,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09378723,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1420218,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.68047714},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.011928574,0.17774384,0.01153351,0.10899569,0.023597363,0.00031671664,0.001016859,0.0008114567,0.664056],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.16712551,0.105100304,0.023262814,0.025936509,0.007423961,0.00073370204,0.0010478733,0.0008589728,0.6685103],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9756639,0.0046027754,0.0013018232,0.0023407266,0.014210561,0.0018802348],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97576547,0.007965434,0.001367805,0.0021653473,0.010448581,0.0022873327],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022684883,0.0013651118,0.0015034396,0.004405127,0.006999582,0.018283958,0.0019316053,0.008615177,0.02088561],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021104032,0.00074693497,0.0016090523,0.0033139798,0.0070242197,0.0038327966,0.0031514184,0.012462364,0.00695528],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00013602262,0.000094689334,0.0015148387,0.00057903875,0.000074147996,0.00074541784,0.0024036637,0.0011822612,0.0032803249,0.72446126,0.15809195,0.10743641],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001542679,0.000018971981,0.0014685403,0.00034489628,0.0000061909363,0.00011381072,0.00018646142,0.00014957883,0.00057030725,0.0037311993,0.9933729,0.00002166999],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.36956483,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19110689,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63043517,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033679523,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.089342825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73482746},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0106702605,0.0058513135,0.016875014,0.23103687,0.0016248132,0.00009038864,0.0005876719,0.00018065723,0.73308295],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7698396,0.006726978,0.017605865,0.07973861,0.0013624899,0.00014554612,0.00052910164,0.00020013774,0.1238517],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9841971,0.0014829874,0.00037166075,0.0019655519,0.008403564,0.0035791027],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9845803,0.0033188567,0.00086858444,0.0013400707,0.008304211,0.0015879956],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009556804,0.00043148422,0.0011551798,0.00260349,0.015856743,0.012722217,0.004049543,0.008866116,0.013358912],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030963808,0.0005844808,0.0009587557,0.003640223,0.024562396,0.008186578,0.0030172952,0.0075570126,0.0021409763],"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":[0.000004629638,0.0000033018414,0.00023921323,0.000021907657,0.0000030181761,0.000029462268,0.00041573925,0.00006373708,0.00004061584,0.98282444,0.011995623,0.0043583997],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000031045358,0.000012699489,0.0025362454,0.00041299133,0.000035196615,0.00013344263,0.0012469363,0.000954723,0.0002761334,0.49705157,0.49721467,0.00009446332],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9002245,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8899156,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09977549,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07313483,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13165058,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.53063285},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030241728,0.041869663,0.052080672,0.11855377,0.0010084602,0.00016190004,0.0001393131,0.000056410157,0.7558881],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.91019505,0.010043866,0.0150658935,0.008402065,0.00047888508,0.00016873199,0.000046812216,0.00003736494,0.05556125],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.981417,0.00772056,0.0005350926,0.0011428305,0.006370465,0.0028139711],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930032,0.0037104113,0.00039505956,0.0005303534,0.0019956348,0.00036535782],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.016147198,0.0005573457,0.00078047125,0.0036448403,0.015058505,0.017571697,0.006282214,0.00985301,0.007883883],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01941013,0.00041095726,0.0011993959,0.0040350775,0.029795354,0.0058192755,0.0050809165,0.0073496355,0.0005027151],"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":[0.0000031886473,0.000004065806,0.000079963036,0.000014174624,0.000002060914,0.00008625197,0.00074521377,0.00021800271,0.000027978422,0.9930478,0.0016186555,0.0041526393],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043207492,0.00003558625,0.002208705,0.0008750519,0.000034639845,0.0006546034,0.0065632123,0.010026207,0.00040607437,0.5886961,0.3903231,0.00013354972],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.72848535,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.77372956,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.27151465,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.060671087,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02770689,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.54622734},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07208363,0.10893358,0.012184254,0.19276401,0.0015977313,0.000057961788,0.00018148184,0.00009158803,0.6121058],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8650384,0.020773187,0.0032657257,0.015594674,0.000774459,0.000045079883,0.000064374,0.00010274288,0.09434135],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.989725,0.003111757,0.00016883426,0.0009850068,0.0038236482,0.0021857833],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9945188,0.002712973,0.0002904546,0.00025829425,0.0014878537,0.0007315996],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008461555,0.00041617698,0.00061486766,0.0025116785,0.015771454,0.01863983,0.0015973685,0.0049100956,0.0033755791],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011031692,0.000459411,0.00044540537,0.0031144146,0.051160008,0.0056620343,0.0040338244,0.010200443,0.00044271283],"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":[0.000009714163,0.000005156271,0.00051807583,0.000026785418,0.000004198084,0.000100808116,0.006869968,0.000101508114,0.00006982688,0.98068994,0.004988242,0.0066159107],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024374514,0.00002519597,0.0056265,0.00058547227,0.000018335022,0.00021668695,0.010101627,0.0004380692,0.00037193915,0.20271412,0.77980316,0.00007443473],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7953095,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8298634,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20469052,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.060463853,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06422974,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.438698},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05496328,0.024148362,0.012157419,0.51582164,0.0038717638,0.0007840135,0.00071557827,0.00022501622,0.38731292],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.68281734,0.019637017,0.014643988,0.19160531,0.0016550113,0.00044173384,0.00039386196,0.00018037095,0.08862533],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.89852357,0.02043552,0.004716237,0.005504341,0.05626292,0.014557364],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.89997977,0.061785113,0.0037013036,0.002581452,0.029350964,0.002601395],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06409014,0.0007445719,0.0010468669,0.004717984,0.024595268,0.023758197,0.0059330375,0.021568164,0.0035912436],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1294234,0.0019895353,0.0014872184,0.0057566403,0.02499186,0.011658103,0.0069859433,0.017458476,0.00071131845],"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":[0.000073469506,0.00003052302,0.002191935,0.0002078019,0.00004293088,0.0008484129,0.00826107,0.0006247833,0.000598974,0.8854716,0.07646868,0.025179775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00032163918,0.00016314117,0.013543067,0.0013714492,0.00035943915,0.0005374151,0.012558372,0.002635583,0.0035060714,0.14708143,0.81725365,0.00066865556],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9722402,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9792324,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15633269,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15633269,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31961486,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9785345},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010872525,0.004898664,0.0069924025,0.51198196,0.0017462111,0.00017498234,0.000109478184,0.00010236361,0.4631215],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6192682,0.0058928225,0.010270748,0.28041384,0.0024333384,0.00032353855,0.000145866,0.00012768203,0.08112397],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9477502,0.014268938,0.0012654279,0.0060346164,0.020237166,0.01044365],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9255207,0.028855309,0.003639291,0.008403094,0.02456795,0.009013617],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05157,0.00055490364,0.00083261164,0.0028556404,0.01605192,0.0220165,0.004545637,0.01844499,0.011543663],"category_scores_gemma":[0.10092641,0.00057451177,0.0009093341,0.0016435895,0.03631432,0.012414206,0.010589912,0.01962387,0.0019411766],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007609757,0.000026948434,0.0007950331,0.00006042634,0.0000124295975,0.00006565144,0.002575819,0.00019400597,0.00020778421,0.93963456,0.03935067,0.017069044],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003711268,0.000041631276,0.0032027492,0.00084284524,0.00004176453,0.00008143177,0.0040351995,0.00048488035,0.00062957377,0.21924628,0.7712777,0.000078771765],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46344876,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4871832,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.53655124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.047503483,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.20648257,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92150235},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.026432952,0.016577989,0.08939303,0.038597193,0.0015848768,0.00046837787,0.00016920094,0.00015138432,0.8266251],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.81601405,0.009875276,0.03353723,0.01642488,0.0040055714,0.0010031224,0.00009222298,0.0001207658,0.11892684],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98197454,0.0035646048,0.00065941195,0.0018120571,0.009643948,0.0023454179],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9910614,0.004351223,0.0006143392,0.0012344917,0.0023108036,0.00042779784],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011028451,0.0008334844,0.00089426077,0.004002707,0.0046066395,0.012845516,0.0056808465,0.01697163,0.0062717325],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0192402,0.0010423368,0.0015955232,0.001492573,0.022077166,0.008375826,0.005138926,0.010745361,0.0009956079],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00000477279,0.000014252615,0.000042070085,0.000015213919,0.0000022003912,0.000041221803,0.00040278348,0.00018218796,0.000071129456,0.9957397,0.00073695864,0.0027475685],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007264813,0.000098810786,0.001205631,0.0005351369,0.000046944722,0.00029542638,0.0009233584,0.004814636,0.0009875398,0.9061839,0.08472406,0.000111746245],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03006426,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.036129653,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9699357,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022951448,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.019845938,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.16652519},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009954638,0.079940885,0.00208731,0.061674237,0.006444687,0.00017859269,0.01873372,0.00040818876,0.82057786],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.101582736,0.03110223,0.0018831936,0.008243607,0.00062439096,0.00016138476,0.004229378,0.0001617544,0.8520113],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9967907,0.00023598541,0.00011762212,0.0002949607,0.0018686473,0.0006920008],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.991067,0.000713905,0.00035962468,0.0002848126,0.007132684,0.00044192385],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0015916184,0.0006619826,0.0007039258,0.005551054,0.007639086,0.0064719315,0.0015532537,0.0035200703,0.06425447],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0079020485,0.0005359248,0.0006242361,0.008883838,0.0019521002,0.002050001,0.0009021982,0.0033997775,0.004828915],"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":[0.000041161587,0.000026784333,0.0030475126,0.00027252253,0.000031814856,0.00011155584,0.0003458104,0.00048816032,0.00012271975,0.20992404,0.737347,0.04824092],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008338027,0.0000057410357,0.010533197,0.00028337646,0.000014907298,0.000034375662,0.00023353768,0.00018422502,0.00006812525,0.002336083,0.98627,0.00002817245],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9897843,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99057823,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06600558,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06600558,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11401363,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.47890627},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009256604,0.14003178,0.056797996,0.12335336,0.0024170128,0.00009352955,0.00025411116,0.00011281493,0.66768277],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7467603,0.07357121,0.03957259,0.022018323,0.006252749,0.00036703178,0.0001739677,0.00021893436,0.11106486],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.985091,0.0051030517,0.00047240636,0.0018173788,0.0060107666,0.0015054764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99061006,0.005890349,0.00045118804,0.00084964436,0.0017912831,0.0004073603],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013403407,0.00077824685,0.0010686604,0.0036192841,0.008415706,0.012049526,0.0021883275,0.0054646004,0.0036764962],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016963508,0.00086692924,0.00089184195,0.0038961305,0.042273164,0.0059514754,0.0032943992,0.011319611,0.0009678584],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000033318834,0.0000021034498,0.000101759746,0.000022389835,0.0000050616595,0.000026132371,0.0006342819,0.00009568838,0.000021269409,0.9905861,0.004113913,0.004387975],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001835171,0.000013889769,0.0015786353,0.00028160942,0.000018243607,0.000113141374,0.0004887563,0.0004650707,0.0001249711,0.7133398,0.28352663,0.00003082415],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.31881297,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.314771,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31881297,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025077159,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.021603579,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.63391453},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.11106821,0.03974983,0.0093825795,0.20695056,0.0024824697,0.00026706568,0.0014517499,0.00046520436,0.62818235],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82035315,0.012844485,0.0035091504,0.057272125,0.00080497906,0.00010294782,0.00036338688,0.00010454319,0.104645304],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97947145,0.0018338545,0.0008882309,0.0015786457,0.0129618915,0.003265941],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96159726,0.015882589,0.0026648552,0.0021440461,0.015435612,0.002275727],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011326119,0.00041944755,0.00046899685,0.003250422,0.011910689,0.012322844,0.0032862958,0.007555568,0.0047584055],"category_scores_gemma":[0.032113407,0.0006848416,0.00065201934,0.003630142,0.011047887,0.0025724166,0.0029580675,0.005085409,0.0005057824],"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":[0.000074133946,0.000055395863,0.017301332,0.00020881274,0.000054328197,0.0027595097,0.009365132,0.0009048204,0.0012959206,0.7274599,0.18231139,0.05820929],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000056067314,0.000048321937,0.046869572,0.00090695627,0.00011563631,0.0008927798,0.0045207115,0.0011408972,0.00091224856,0.016854068,0.92744833,0.00023445749],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98731834,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9912068,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08415267,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08415267,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12366849,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6105732},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035622593,0.5561088,0.0018645774,0.115894824,0.004970049,0.00010381247,0.0013895361,0.00007852807,0.28396735],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5059961,0.28129733,0.0024260988,0.032152742,0.0010570205,0.0000770601,0.00078464986,0.000056106594,0.17615283],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963082,0.00048167855,0.00015756373,0.00030557028,0.0020145457,0.0007324164],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.995516,0.0008030429,0.00027635976,0.000082273866,0.0030023798,0.00031991073],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0032202965,0.0002955063,0.00037496255,0.0021907068,0.008211682,0.0043603447,0.001287127,0.0021632821,0.004797609],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006886132,0.00024399027,0.0003743075,0.0030665465,0.0033471624,0.00092103163,0.00084426696,0.003109431,0.00039709613],"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":[0.00006470356,0.00004108877,0.008890838,0.00086415437,0.00006193838,0.00076939026,0.007679607,0.0007538558,0.00037902905,0.4535699,0.36747748,0.15944809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012213007,0.000018860523,0.018220639,0.00075797475,0.000034619843,0.00016690217,0.0027692441,0.00016103385,0.00023139965,0.001782065,0.9758019,0.000043186537],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99457127,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99636674,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.069751255,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.069751255,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15100129,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50608313},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008921633,0.067657456,0.0020275856,0.64573425,0.006233378,0.000121471036,0.0011406987,0.00012868905,0.26803488],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.29157084,0.0414036,0.006312637,0.2994813,0.0023720434,0.00020134449,0.0008239173,0.00016580272,0.35766855],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98811847,0.0018232312,0.00038990745,0.0006981755,0.005772241,0.003197982],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9784822,0.0052452898,0.0009644004,0.00066970557,0.011884358,0.0027540354],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007766138,0.0005202264,0.0006169275,0.0025661378,0.014309214,0.013029176,0.0036218541,0.011972171,0.01130339],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018836223,0.000624453,0.00093391066,0.0035101874,0.008433903,0.0037618487,0.0022633688,0.009440806,0.0009995264],"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":[0.000024050405,0.000022551505,0.0016105926,0.00020582463,0.000020221478,0.0002912144,0.0018158704,0.00026953116,0.00013660287,0.43767092,0.53573346,0.022199199],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000016746948,0.000009358304,0.0036885322,0.00064555794,0.000029623945,0.00007088613,0.0015147271,0.0002911266,0.000103105565,0.007937777,0.98562,0.000072589566],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9945385,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9968849,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1583694,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1583694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.32397628,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9761722},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.09924804,0.011147144,0.02599696,0.2628648,0.0020769837,0.000120590616,0.00011560425,0.00014524977,0.59828466],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9124251,0.0025351823,0.0028096612,0.029747652,0.00038402947,0.00003021908,0.000044900484,0.0000621482,0.051961146],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97684073,0.0056070234,0.0007989497,0.0022865233,0.010170111,0.0042966846],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97631365,0.009522372,0.0014870536,0.0028764948,0.008302988,0.0014975037],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022176942,0.00024786612,0.0006301467,0.0017031854,0.013433088,0.011143694,0.0025781475,0.0084309485,0.005442165],"category_scores_gemma":[0.056669787,0.00037037194,0.0005240863,0.0013395196,0.032168496,0.007391072,0.006822052,0.014862105,0.00061876356],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009531397,0.000006233193,0.0005912741,0.000025676965,0.0000044018357,0.00017686366,0.00404988,0.00008525441,0.00012275454,0.9694529,0.009624636,0.015850654],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001863432,0.000054006905,0.004697917,0.0005730348,0.000030619543,0.000775166,0.0155738825,0.00087498454,0.0010824057,0.60907954,0.36715236,0.0000875226],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21383376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.29664385,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.21383376,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.019180039,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.041992825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42517817},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.023715887,0.0087593,0.0031968388,0.6569881,0.0028430289,0.000058443642,0.00023750692,0.00007108891,0.30412987],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.62409544,0.0033441787,0.0015079821,0.20543106,0.0013703123,0.0000695246,0.00010214328,0.00017519118,0.16390412],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9862834,0.0019152914,0.00034041118,0.0017932063,0.0056157187,0.0040519275],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930339,0.0020641251,0.00032705406,0.0005430383,0.0029262928,0.0011055595],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007565192,0.00050991535,0.0006592847,0.0009411249,0.020828294,0.017786978,0.0030803797,0.017238455,0.0051110494],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019067673,0.000551315,0.0007562451,0.0010985417,0.04859681,0.00830094,0.0040590367,0.016898112,0.00072437176],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000019410141,0.0000116676,0.0006768711,0.000028733528,0.000010915278,0.00026274132,0.005198063,0.00010627631,0.0001565694,0.9208737,0.06837544,0.004279606],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007869472,0.000021240188,0.0037731396,0.00040660775,0.00005397412,0.00018502778,0.011655448,0.0006813693,0.0006722869,0.23922917,0.7430615,0.00018169213],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95046973,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9524194,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1010314,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1010314,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.086759,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.73303753},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07714712,0.19112357,0.005751024,0.07316929,0.0015322416,0.00008986318,0.0027394611,0.0001498792,0.64829755],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8096439,0.044819456,0.0018217465,0.0043166773,0.00030650693,0.00005306533,0.0006227764,0.000079808786,0.13833609],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99832875,0.00037810893,0.000036905727,0.0001841519,0.0007793769,0.00029275872],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99743265,0.00090595585,0.00014321133,0.000091068774,0.0012751621,0.00015204345],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0012660857,0.0003589809,0.0003532188,0.0042647235,0.00767711,0.006469249,0.00076101173,0.0014393546,0.014817518],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0035309421,0.00029904928,0.00032962026,0.006143569,0.0048965667,0.0021718421,0.0008812786,0.0024166992,0.00046586318],"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":[0.000032534695,0.000013782141,0.0039525437,0.00036660783,0.000036994454,0.00038000185,0.009778637,0.0011801381,0.00032058728,0.8501713,0.08749583,0.046271138],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014844315,0.000013796131,0.024054825,0.0006640382,0.00003077175,0.00019461797,0.0057366933,0.0008357015,0.00023134037,0.015765147,0.9524027,0.000055556644],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99014306,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99140036,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.091286205,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.091286205,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06477488,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66233087},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.045772355,0.058915764,0.018541278,0.1136353,0.0009969625,0.000042140866,0.00015824715,0.00011085911,0.76182705],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97683537,0.004834048,0.0011830528,0.003507003,0.00025927642,0.00004057278,0.000024603098,0.000022523673,0.013293431],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9962829,0.0020018087,0.000052665993,0.00026885272,0.00075056375,0.0006432352],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983986,0.00092935027,0.00014168711,0.000089531364,0.00029375643,0.00014711253],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003337045,0.00035011285,0.00038940113,0.0023319388,0.009286969,0.007266141,0.0010659391,0.001927117,0.0028648337],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005086056,0.00020684784,0.0002535547,0.0027392728,0.035470374,0.0037778227,0.0021997425,0.003056288,0.00021244024],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002244619,7.2964457e-7,0.000043924236,0.000007861315,9.0119795e-7,0.000008661485,0.0009572554,0.00007250194,0.00002699487,0.99622065,0.0016774588,0.0009808826],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021065505,0.000009364286,0.0011317644,0.00013143999,0.000011541447,0.000031449203,0.0024740244,0.0003935395,0.000101852675,0.76273304,0.23294552,0.00001534597],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.39015293,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4354789,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.96786916,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032130826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.021424552,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.775764},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00019695668,0.81292003,0.00037637673,0.053704344,0.04611361,0.00013401671,0.0026123931,0.00020534701,0.0837369],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.004309056,0.65459716,0.00080851023,0.030344462,0.019534282,0.00023507794,0.0023633237,0.00020926238,0.28759885],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9958864,0.00022161427,0.00017101,0.00019618028,0.0031148258,0.00040999523],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.985285,0.0016417577,0.0004911359,0.00020116415,0.0117067695,0.0006742916],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002979728,0.0018325556,0.0025098359,0.015173834,0.0043570935,0.0092169745,0.0037953425,0.005240487,0.040103056],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013562047,0.0011033714,0.0008612669,0.028670084,0.0035128468,0.0029658224,0.0014651979,0.004298914,0.01325118],"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":[0.0000020014181,0.0000023397452,0.000023972658,0.00017738788,0.0000023630735,0.0000060976704,0.000019105215,0.0000309626,0.00000735302,0.00088076474,0.9899741,0.00887357],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000028950574,0.0000023198347,0.0003724147,0.000726786,0.000008449055,0.000020131762,0.000054908287,0.000018763272,0.000010445546,0.0007035597,0.9980704,0.000008973556],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8923923,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.96422833,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10760772,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.056740537,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.15678374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.41168332},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.025403418,0.03726549,0.022315225,0.07095715,0.0015348565,0.00029499302,0.0003125595,0.00013915321,0.8417772],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.666736,0.014390203,0.014331709,0.012847832,0.0008028622,0.00023547436,0.00030334803,0.000113764734,0.2902388],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9643609,0.006252342,0.0010811298,0.002926847,0.019296404,0.006082428],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9899907,0.002288596,0.0006856565,0.0012152247,0.0048705256,0.0009493233],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017937576,0.0005682917,0.0009739093,0.004387316,0.011710535,0.025604673,0.0031472624,0.0071767224,0.008972513],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025171435,0.00075062754,0.0007866495,0.005238434,0.013565665,0.005480457,0.005062563,0.0064501003,0.0009532306],"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":[0.000013581636,0.000010083471,0.00032467674,0.0000454886,0.000012465694,0.00008279615,0.00176337,0.00076283864,0.00012524973,0.96786714,0.013993194,0.014999083],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000034075056,0.000028152124,0.0058305925,0.00036363507,0.00003105497,0.00014690854,0.0023718216,0.0016002882,0.0005046181,0.1614624,0.8275224,0.0001039919],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.87941206,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.88598734,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.120587945,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08755119,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14776401,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6352313},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6503643,0.006375384,0.0028020167,0.04916524,0.00039421982,0.00006655979,0.000765246,0.000119502365,0.28994748],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9476609,0.0012766899,0.0003115286,0.00097519025,0.00006308893,0.000010941237,0.00007147317,0.000020805197,0.049609523],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99793434,0.00018911545,0.000037903326,0.00021851582,0.0007409806,0.00087903463],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99784935,0.0003450858,0.0002480556,0.00009526502,0.0008671324,0.0005951231],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009296812,0.00022193212,0.00035518117,0.001284642,0.013565659,0.0055598314,0.0010404255,0.0012601244,0.009495445],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0036024305,0.0003445026,0.00026498133,0.0018571961,0.007976965,0.0008168813,0.0016541642,0.002823907,0.00038473489],"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":[0.00019229997,0.00007004442,0.09634639,0.00021150091,0.00006767296,0.0011855739,0.043982696,0.0018845963,0.0034682904,0.7315233,0.04232056,0.07874718],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061666695,0.00006487933,0.2756366,0.00022735975,0.00006754823,0.0006903541,0.037082974,0.0018868912,0.0015251568,0.015402413,0.66717494,0.00017925192],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99190485,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99576265,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.092969,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.092969,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11407763,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67454046},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.1067265,0.034867033,0.0015435888,0.56719226,0.0027876154,0.00052366353,0.0017891238,0.00017847466,0.2843917],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6801612,0.01694447,0.0025277173,0.19786164,0.0025461807,0.00040873853,0.0005973024,0.00017365473,0.098779134],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.970454,0.0029350435,0.0009531722,0.0024659557,0.011399549,0.011792269],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94722515,0.018344285,0.0025216695,0.0013809026,0.026013337,0.0045145727],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.02117962,0.0008061539,0.0014918646,0.0059424327,0.04506048,0.022264605,0.0070345476,0.034358114,0.005226513],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0709662,0.0016199921,0.0014470821,0.008622062,0.012847645,0.0036061327,0.004109067,0.021628212,0.00045264605],"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":[0.0001917651,0.00013221819,0.009754017,0.0003319701,0.00019812938,0.0012478417,0.010165256,0.0013502497,0.0006423403,0.43930203,0.5121343,0.02454982],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003054479,0.00010700277,0.07896828,0.0013624573,0.00068527606,0.00031216463,0.011236057,0.002665703,0.0017113695,0.03555254,0.86633515,0.0007585929],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9892441,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9953407,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.15422678,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.15422678,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31269062,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98097706},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5065356,0.004869149,0.03770653,0.09277105,0.0021325483,0.00039544678,0.00011591518,0.0002265491,0.35524723],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8582416,0.0010715048,0.0042085913,0.003354895,0.0005451635,0.00018401435,0.000040571358,0.00006331076,0.13229029],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9834757,0.005867775,0.00050048565,0.0016757745,0.005241652,0.00323859],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9892173,0.0037205333,0.0028824974,0.0011248154,0.0013840295,0.0016708003],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012213906,0.00046348988,0.00046512706,0.0014793426,0.012649992,0.007564898,0.0025114696,0.005659348,0.01163608],"category_scores_gemma":[0.040641386,0.00040656823,0.0006694031,0.0008764911,0.015702773,0.0050084805,0.0085303215,0.0061998293,0.002587476],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007880592,0.00013335477,0.022204973,0.0001999772,0.000054774315,0.0034039484,0.29441756,0.00075308117,0.0028037978,0.52357227,0.024163589,0.12821378],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020932705,0.00025256778,0.030905573,0.00077438063,0.000039203896,0.0019821327,0.16872914,0.00079797406,0.0018124647,0.030121287,0.76439315,0.00017124473],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04640067,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07866663,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9923577,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0076423115,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011410252,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.092261195},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03084206,0.11076923,0.0020330485,0.43212733,0.0020708065,0.00001852847,0.0001435675,0.000062006955,0.42193335],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7822882,0.04779682,0.0015758566,0.034782507,0.0011884316,0.000019941543,0.00008302228,0.0000623145,0.13220286],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9937382,0.0013927323,0.00008926076,0.00042223372,0.0022370208,0.0021205717],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99404633,0.0015877526,0.00042515312,0.0002530354,0.0024113592,0.0012763726],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0051226765,0.00039615406,0.00044454247,0.0023101994,0.0175447,0.016269606,0.0014456697,0.0036002041,0.0060770903],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0075655533,0.00019992843,0.000258633,0.0037209538,0.030768381,0.006130737,0.003286088,0.0043649506,0.0005444361],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013492378,0.000009752278,0.0011442831,0.000096241245,0.000009642936,0.00016356424,0.019483652,0.00010333946,0.00014074404,0.8952759,0.047676146,0.035883274],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000057703387,0.000008886528,0.0070987516,0.00035341174,0.00001656657,0.0001216248,0.022366578,0.00007634574,0.0001799124,0.06545222,0.9042847,0.000035177214],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9218456,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9554112,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.078154385,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06370444,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.073400415,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.46221024},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.027535206,0.14743447,0.0022597476,0.12534639,0.002534013,0.00022149108,0.0029859066,0.0000851621,0.69159764],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6525722,0.12283668,0.004546768,0.040532187,0.0007440368,0.00021214431,0.0018772132,0.00009169268,0.17658709],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9899913,0.00080561545,0.0003044816,0.00065559935,0.00644579,0.0017972582],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878293,0.001562273,0.00059846824,0.0003282583,0.0085264845,0.0011551519],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003100979,0.00041665335,0.0005680751,0.006226395,0.013509686,0.009529013,0.002087553,0.0029089276,0.0067565194],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013817686,0.00067693385,0.0004690156,0.009284938,0.0072122184,0.0031792917,0.0020125303,0.0039046358,0.00052700273],"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":[0.000022497397,0.000017217042,0.0037219466,0.00040585228,0.000026787297,0.00022026405,0.0032688226,0.00050874386,0.000104960156,0.75121975,0.1941692,0.04631392],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000021904525,0.000012385539,0.014692161,0.00096186367,0.000055502518,0.00009373677,0.0028359245,0.00040062476,0.00011872287,0.029558381,0.9511846,0.00006425928],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99748385,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99843675,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19432764,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.19432764,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.34309787,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.93446577},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.27346003,0.05352959,0.025314767,0.05192951,0.00154063,0.000813886,0.000290774,0.00010494892,0.59301585],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9460793,0.01846641,0.006150037,0.005878873,0.00082996406,0.00019507468,0.00009384839,0.000032331754,0.02227415],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9552613,0.023115281,0.002542435,0.0029582367,0.012419972,0.003702814],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9339798,0.037978888,0.014630236,0.00395596,0.0075841546,0.001870824],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0140017895,0.00044707372,0.0005173343,0.008301053,0.010305061,0.009768486,0.0017378234,0.0041436986,0.0072885044],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07903202,0.0006884811,0.0005372912,0.009045467,0.012602233,0.0073184646,0.011648651,0.0055702473,0.00077562715],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00018543984,0.00022613237,0.047057215,0.0006206519,0.00010148849,0.007894267,0.067141764,0.000922613,0.0010155438,0.5996023,0.016175974,0.25905663],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000664812,0.00031978625,0.11181998,0.004133297,0.00015721677,0.009714235,0.10176521,0.0017334458,0.0021389178,0.269881,0.49805713,0.00021331853],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.025065994,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.034216784,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.974934,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009673039,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.011468905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.07404941},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.01301041,0.019526808,0.0013158912,0.51517904,0.007002312,0.00028862798,0.0046599186,0.00019597907,0.43882102],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.21977565,0.01296007,0.0025946423,0.21787877,0.0020812242,0.0002304717,0.0014750237,0.00021192257,0.54279226],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99436545,0.00038904583,0.00023023532,0.0003526153,0.003358951,0.0013036667],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9890393,0.0024098305,0.0005576973,0.00023269688,0.006748921,0.0010116119],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00531247,0.00045793186,0.00054771936,0.0011144844,0.010062111,0.005354106,0.0022649493,0.011750319,0.01814515],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01712647,0.0007127662,0.00064406334,0.0025802352,0.0025631362,0.0022615446,0.0011347828,0.008501305,0.0020693385],"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":[0.00010509576,0.000018710747,0.0030552018,0.00017391164,0.000026966047,0.00017448977,0.0009470285,0.00009471251,0.00037599055,0.091647774,0.8919116,0.011468469],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000048987822,0.000011460949,0.008496486,0.00022663885,0.000056449582,0.00003828417,0.00058845856,0.00017176096,0.0004224108,0.0027940548,0.9870809,0.00006409148],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9738185,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9897461,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04673217,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04673217,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13234879,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.33906722},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.29136318,0.4409255,0.0005859169,0.056791022,0.0043053525,0.00022302529,0.037521414,0.0002252481,0.16805926],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7971535,0.15451156,0.0009431651,0.0033880468,0.0013889302,0.00006904039,0.007688439,0.00009426799,0.034763083],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9846918,0.00084686367,0.0010103903,0.00073542417,0.011283943,0.0014315809],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8592282,0.015500118,0.024314746,0.0014109506,0.093349285,0.006196666],"candidate_categories":["bibliometrics"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005508114,0.00043037182,0.00066505297,0.06840774,0.007057961,0.009045693,0.0017292406,0.0012143962,0.0037515587],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08129661,0.00043620818,0.00034455498,0.1310228,0.0039009617,0.0019079635,0.0019218058,0.0010157204,0.0005380238],"study_design_candidate":"observational","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":[0.00034754572,0.00007691646,0.19950803,0.00675761,0.00033215503,0.0014786111,0.030638732,0.0008227905,0.0013519105,0.033621404,0.41017658,0.3148877],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002569489,0.000034698576,0.5408939,0.0029397556,0.00022800469,0.00040384688,0.012715258,0.00034315838,0.00068123004,0.0012942697,0.4403326,0.00010754065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98006517,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99200505,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9315923,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1150703,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19380313,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.83489734},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"review","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0037234244,0.2964915,0.00060840446,0.28572097,0.061828464,0.00031993724,0.003019397,0.00029164323,0.34799618],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.043970224,0.16110124,0.0009780446,0.09802383,0.014670725,0.00019149337,0.0017802983,0.00018903296,0.6790951],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9938065,0.00037790538,0.00025467778,0.00031146748,0.004454054,0.00079536764],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9709774,0.004108145,0.00084740843,0.00046656805,0.022027725,0.0015727762],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0045015924,0.00063722313,0.0011218244,0.0063388916,0.005667806,0.008216557,0.0031840904,0.00984869,0.025547033],"category_scores_gemma":[0.018133746,0.00078500813,0.0007379327,0.009669865,0.0032741202,0.001866417,0.0009832624,0.0046221297,0.004651548],"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":[0.0000032835749,0.0000042026086,0.00018458665,0.00014010425,0.0000039797546,0.000020180065,0.000058714544,0.000051497456,0.00002338017,0.0037565236,0.9870588,0.008694735],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000005956473,0.000005722572,0.0024225817,0.00054027216,0.000015628784,0.000034930297,0.00015972205,0.000058529884,0.00003980922,0.0006426889,0.9960582,0.000015888865],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.91149503,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9797285,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.08850497,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.054975986,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12720272,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.39888054},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00016311048,0.88700515,0.00025141577,0.036301043,0.01566095,0.000025749341,0.0009859422,0.00008472582,0.059521887],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.005037434,0.73340213,0.00060467195,0.016292144,0.010387696,0.000055474502,0.0009863776,0.00011325706,0.2331208],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987723,0.00010481156,0.000050460978,0.000099613615,0.0008549439,0.000117712174],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9956599,0.00077805354,0.00018095938,0.000113685564,0.0029758506,0.00029149948],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001667683,0.00088514003,0.0011641723,0.006196093,0.0018736031,0.004604055,0.001805437,0.0020956416,0.05048141],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0058042104,0.00062100205,0.0004034246,0.011753298,0.0025006689,0.0023959626,0.00087764184,0.0024697126,0.015183572],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000033381698,0.000002358815,0.000026381562,0.00017924584,0.0000024825256,0.000006083403,0.000021568523,0.0000229153,0.00001644966,0.0021026286,0.9792047,0.018411769],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000028034892,0.0000018074468,0.00031423444,0.00027935902,0.0000040044088,0.000023227263,0.00003198647,0.0000064615706,0.000011649444,0.00040561176,0.9989147,0.0000040451255],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5468688,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.80075234,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5468688,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020522986,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.032565445,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9115996},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018406335,0.029014902,0.0017295134,0.37340203,0.0048690927,0.00014873287,0.0012564061,0.00013490682,0.5710382],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.44229287,0.016090201,0.0025981271,0.25958583,0.0016971356,0.00014913552,0.00050427933,0.0002079143,0.27687457],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98731947,0.0012237552,0.00037036004,0.00085771806,0.00624601,0.003982691],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9850344,0.0042537088,0.0006079379,0.0004494845,0.007670631,0.001983821],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0061015654,0.00055997266,0.0006866634,0.0035259272,0.025387062,0.012112197,0.0032093632,0.014812667,0.0128830355],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027060525,0.0007587742,0.000895468,0.0050102603,0.009794331,0.003924885,0.0027789727,0.011657203,0.0010982465],"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":[0.000030454634,0.000011800848,0.0013334267,0.00012997429,0.000022115728,0.0001692774,0.0017918525,0.00016778956,0.00014186869,0.47719052,0.5065558,0.012455151],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000287466,0.000014915886,0.006594341,0.0006047116,0.000094894865,0.00012679845,0.0039196042,0.00023478913,0.0003637612,0.03436525,0.95353913,0.000113023976],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98719496,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99492407,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07534687,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07534687,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.30179286,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.54668236},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021901947,0.0025191812,0.0008632575,0.83671755,0.0075200466,0.00024682246,0.00062554295,0.00008144962,0.12952413],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.15527663,0.0033102974,0.0010988025,0.5829281,0.0025686175,0.00019269463,0.00020731201,0.000117888296,0.25429964],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9895494,0.0012382637,0.00040221476,0.0010832201,0.0035965373,0.0041303434],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.987936,0.005358365,0.0005278972,0.0002734965,0.004335894,0.0015683828],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0066241105,0.00065586856,0.0007606438,0.0016883342,0.027742572,0.00950973,0.003195135,0.030159418,0.015449207],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025646025,0.0007108018,0.0015784408,0.0031191942,0.008149991,0.0034146297,0.0027833157,0.02090161,0.001350108],"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":[0.00010022003,0.00006202043,0.0028992714,0.00016144433,0.00003071804,0.0026133414,0.013906315,0.00052960304,0.00041995893,0.19423747,0.7792561,0.0057836175],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006211133,0.00002208245,0.006427779,0.00027605525,0.000071504845,0.00036911044,0.02719367,0.0004677702,0.00056624284,0.010308818,0.9540635,0.00017145417],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96786135,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97743,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.053535305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.053535305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08948138,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.38842762},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.6504959,0.011335866,0.0030704543,0.046048265,0.00033958076,0.00010485506,0.00007491531,0.000034378503,0.2884958],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99308044,0.0011121568,0.0002608627,0.0008664018,0.000019617857,0.000016169066,0.0000059011836,0.000008737994,0.0046298234],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9932509,0.0019250471,0.00018396812,0.00042324513,0.0023014324,0.001915318],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99336594,0.0026613246,0.00071561773,0.00028246318,0.0021119057,0.000862738],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0046999846,0.0002538077,0.0004935643,0.0024708032,0.02740337,0.011364489,0.0021428699,0.0022192579,0.0020375154],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011968927,0.00033433342,0.0002416725,0.0028084458,0.054523833,0.003429312,0.0050165113,0.0048481836,0.00007228825],"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":[0.000014443681,0.00001743138,0.0035289915,0.00008868431,0.000016120222,0.0005736537,0.35574853,0.00026257284,0.0004035344,0.6219825,0.0037022787,0.013661233],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003732401,0.000049478454,0.048724316,0.0008063637,0.00009633249,0.00052588683,0.6427222,0.0013776566,0.00073160796,0.10333103,0.20137624,0.00022156746],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9744869,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9862874,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09536637,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09536637,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11352497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6919347},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009907265,0.84119505,0.00034444762,0.06393963,0.020934936,0.000047191435,0.0015221406,0.00010060212,0.07092531],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.026028564,0.71397865,0.000878777,0.024087902,0.006892028,0.00007501479,0.0012175451,0.00012456471,0.22671694],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9974252,0.00031466095,0.00014148634,0.00016388444,0.0017070703,0.00024768358],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98479235,0.0028393595,0.00063275517,0.00020760513,0.010774743,0.00075310125],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0033193268,0.0007171172,0.0011171381,0.005844702,0.002339154,0.005799639,0.0014911594,0.0021746557,0.040285185],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012482837,0.00037042846,0.00060004834,0.00945401,0.0019135253,0.0015892257,0.00080365693,0.0021892835,0.0048063505],"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":[0.000022848753,0.000007894775,0.00037616087,0.0009578476,0.000028021374,0.00004944173,0.00014397403,0.000088506495,0.00006184704,0.005206042,0.9155826,0.07747483],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006185458,0.000007046252,0.001682349,0.001086487,0.000030462732,0.00006586122,0.00013484275,0.00002261582,0.00003954284,0.00030236758,0.99661213,0.000010027816],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8996224,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95103586,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10037762,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03499399,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.061206434,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.25390035},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012411857,0.0018010318,0.0007542854,0.90256315,0.0059254332,0.0001400276,0.00038947965,0.000071383896,0.07594336],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.10175389,0.0021875151,0.00079569255,0.7742432,0.0021881266,0.00010187156,0.00010032376,0.00010284969,0.11852657],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9898969,0.0011889602,0.00037697054,0.00097961,0.003484629,0.0040728855],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99040157,0.0036883058,0.0005351369,0.00020683355,0.003748275,0.0014198315],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0056032175,0.0007228777,0.00084836525,0.0014777755,0.028543178,0.0067823566,0.003810861,0.03436046,0.010976057],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023681007,0.00077780423,0.001282491,0.002011613,0.00704423,0.002920806,0.0024839337,0.031334084,0.0012293262],"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":[0.000080543825,0.000037873455,0.00276624,0.00015286749,0.000033018037,0.0038541874,0.013914224,0.00020979308,0.0006217244,0.09937735,0.87208426,0.0068678674],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043882275,0.000028050046,0.0048609055,0.00039395606,0.00010732754,0.001443388,0.025222031,0.00030589473,0.00068322103,0.009288036,0.9574458,0.0001774421],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93329245,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97184956,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06670755,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04599573,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07202115,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3337239},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16283254,0.12474899,0.00037205796,0.45197353,0.0013154319,0.0000350063,0.00036265084,0.000019137922,0.25834066],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9045803,0.039813988,0.00010988888,0.038957544,0.00052593055,0.000015808755,0.00009837871,0.000009005461,0.015889265],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99614346,0.00085532706,0.0000706711,0.00018132305,0.00093940465,0.001809828],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9957295,0.0016396554,0.0003936736,0.00010231817,0.001382929,0.0007517934],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0040423046,0.00013644791,0.0003530217,0.0016099236,0.012999636,0.0076049697,0.0011963323,0.0035591302,0.002723629],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008842025,0.00027083448,0.00025277506,0.0024312101,0.018738199,0.0020643128,0.0016003745,0.004710283,0.00022752574],"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":[0.000046248933,0.00006155757,0.03449769,0.00027116347,0.000032697157,0.000645811,0.03183987,0.00022549702,0.00015369835,0.78630173,0.08243068,0.06349335],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005842732,0.00004883811,0.1315054,0.0022329127,0.00016870235,0.00029084535,0.09990356,0.0003786816,0.00024690575,0.07442787,0.6906149,0.00012290281],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9658857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98637515,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.048692983,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.048692983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10099234,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.35329401},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.051820934,0.049097005,0.0018026966,0.15544854,0.0017603413,0.000073935014,0.0007281897,0.000069511916,0.73919874],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8776743,0.0169436,0.0014002679,0.019210763,0.0005771659,0.000039594634,0.0002530114,0.00004473031,0.083856635],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99296063,0.0009366371,0.00014269179,0.00050313224,0.002553201,0.0029036496],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.991863,0.0021071157,0.00041061512,0.00019748624,0.0039359666,0.0014857766],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003039001,0.00022251798,0.00045427846,0.0026095468,0.029821511,0.012510925,0.0018460207,0.0041143466,0.006764979],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015129343,0.0004036618,0.0003261188,0.006287354,0.016928501,0.002803183,0.0021829896,0.0058990833,0.0004046745],"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":[0.000010517012,0.000005818713,0.0015232508,0.00003296736,0.0000062608706,0.00012894717,0.0025193393,0.0002643494,0.000052948493,0.9422632,0.045017358,0.008174973],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003344536,0.000017043232,0.021028075,0.0006965791,0.000053416596,0.00016075866,0.009435142,0.0012271906,0.00022935784,0.14134954,0.8256663,0.0001031096],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99392843,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9973189,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.19121197,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.19121197,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3042435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9380795},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08837342,0.25192466,0.004116628,0.16017538,0.004041606,0.00010628936,0.0016326357,0.00015827466,0.48947117],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7013333,0.045042254,0.0028994933,0.016278261,0.00086730166,0.000080618775,0.0004423626,0.00010048903,0.23295595],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964653,0.00069258094,0.00006834368,0.00031638314,0.0017870578,0.00067033456],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966192,0.00081614684,0.00022122602,0.000114065864,0.0019299403,0.00029948613],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00215054,0.00039536276,0.00040610417,0.0029816693,0.009504966,0.0069384375,0.001031875,0.00252816,0.011516115],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0061154757,0.00030225934,0.00039955176,0.0044537424,0.0062191933,0.0018210298,0.00085138134,0.0031279484,0.00064393075],"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":[0.000058586316,0.00003274956,0.0076390384,0.00036559036,0.00004699908,0.0005359277,0.010619442,0.00070674554,0.0005867385,0.645174,0.2324533,0.10178089],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013132562,0.000021623808,0.036895502,0.00057323684,0.000027750828,0.00015869753,0.004989184,0.00049699843,0.00026664574,0.010661879,0.9458333,0.000062032566],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99269897,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9947962,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.083562694,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.083562694,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.086477876,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6062926},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.008923731,0.2748738,0.0021029147,0.6022468,0.006298759,0.000020329364,0.00007361063,0.000034243683,0.105425805],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49978665,0.29422733,0.0024914525,0.13585076,0.008991912,0.000059796996,0.00012476856,0.00012219475,0.05834507],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9769338,0.006708958,0.0005201614,0.0022746404,0.009656878,0.0039056423],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9823629,0.008740533,0.0011579738,0.0006671557,0.0056922124,0.0013792415],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.014063515,0.00054859347,0.00094339676,0.0028711108,0.011393547,0.016124329,0.0023787494,0.0051060882,0.0054152636],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022307225,0.00036623867,0.00042023158,0.0033242425,0.05172456,0.013654986,0.0044984547,0.011887003,0.00072224793],"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":[0.000023500228,0.000019658617,0.0011492661,0.00061328453,0.000017773142,0.0002623297,0.02849509,0.000094226736,0.00024538272,0.8215955,0.062217668,0.08526643],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000100360485,0.00001565449,0.0021816033,0.0016825061,0.000012398528,0.0002635161,0.02091833,0.000070770286,0.0001453234,0.03967307,0.93499327,0.000033568613],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6122523,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.669169,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3877477,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04877423,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07035981,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78006244},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.149712,0.048691798,0.0036682652,0.14443776,0.0013202586,0.00007376586,0.00047495536,0.000085051724,0.6515362],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9600841,0.011699106,0.0011969177,0.009255188,0.00019154463,0.000020042153,0.000064759326,0.000027912549,0.017460458],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99178165,0.0014991922,0.00018789177,0.0007858723,0.0031938981,0.0025516204],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99256635,0.0030733591,0.00035215545,0.0003313767,0.0030543176,0.0006225372],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007183405,0.00028346144,0.00041980337,0.0025243822,0.02282028,0.011275995,0.0020155772,0.0035377012,0.0026639819],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013136798,0.00034941875,0.0003091708,0.0032923378,0.033487033,0.0026831487,0.0025963145,0.0050567705,0.00013009408],"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":[0.0000075964963,0.0000039894135,0.0013740691,0.000049393486,0.0000060138645,0.00021894755,0.017458353,0.00027059735,0.00012763147,0.9522135,0.01393234,0.014337517],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000030283969,0.000018563009,0.02227178,0.0010916326,0.0001244057,0.0003243502,0.048636965,0.0009253312,0.0008553806,0.14156523,0.7839753,0.00018069394],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9927592,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99568826,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13228127,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13228127,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18174314,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9597723},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04709033,0.062537625,0.0027269553,0.22129735,0.0015003842,0.000040362524,0.0002944845,0.00006972096,0.6644427],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90587604,0.014721503,0.0014271605,0.026703736,0.0006860693,0.00004445246,0.0000758449,0.00013414599,0.050331],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9922246,0.0021181114,0.00014625439,0.0006707503,0.0023165338,0.0025238316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99140936,0.004464214,0.00036524306,0.00027137873,0.0025058826,0.0009839524],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.006401249,0.0004835699,0.00078630704,0.0042845327,0.032408755,0.0284443,0.0024330611,0.009357261,0.008817961],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021574777,0.00053081656,0.0005126472,0.008959428,0.03786812,0.0076058735,0.004716782,0.010142573,0.00036363132],"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":[0.000013145457,0.000006273204,0.0003573471,0.000039343304,0.000007640122,0.00007801654,0.007994706,0.00015450708,0.0000416216,0.95628005,0.02946868,0.0055587078],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000033474123,0.000013914782,0.0047722557,0.00065525,0.0000741484,0.00009923259,0.024982892,0.0008442995,0.00020273199,0.35758543,0.6106068,0.00012954533],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9726054,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9877336,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1095933,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1095933,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14751033,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7951588},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.5244768,0.029254576,0.0018857499,0.06260497,0.0007071818,0.0005491623,0.00839354,0.00007536692,0.37205255],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95828867,0.009789035,0.0011014539,0.0036759502,0.0001412203,0.00006842859,0.001560768,0.00003061665,0.025343897],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9866122,0.0010610813,0.00037261785,0.0005746493,0.008159209,0.0032202739],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93754447,0.013804844,0.0037114187,0.0016386568,0.04031806,0.0029825214],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009842149,0.00034318073,0.000886148,0.0062950356,0.008609465,0.0067785643,0.0025441803,0.0015614786,0.00608049],"category_scores_gemma":[0.054460794,0.00038509446,0.00068006356,0.013503147,0.0046930504,0.0020858708,0.0020136924,0.0032095553,0.000313839],"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":[0.00044353906,0.00025866373,0.19795157,0.0006987938,0.00030603568,0.000758344,0.0075004282,0.004033968,0.00022370179,0.57310635,0.12836955,0.08634908],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00033916713,0.00024960056,0.53459114,0.0017597228,0.0010979767,0.0002728319,0.020619227,0.01036064,0.0014206509,0.028110696,0.40090892,0.00026943051],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9978137,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99831295,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16654,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16654,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.28029346,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9666955},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03497144,0.035461802,0.0037848444,0.27028736,0.0067308364,0.00036089035,0.0023510484,0.00060217234,0.6454496],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.36006856,0.032457996,0.01694442,0.17786203,0.0016805936,0.00019512183,0.001999797,0.00020130354,0.40859023],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9788938,0.00064645626,0.00037455253,0.0006153848,0.01644817,0.0030215676],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98247796,0.0014651257,0.00065208675,0.0004038881,0.013612538,0.0013883708],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00514113,0.00039319586,0.00037171415,0.003283746,0.010518798,0.009110201,0.0031334609,0.004696366,0.0045592943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0163485,0.0005555829,0.00071768946,0.0036086366,0.004692146,0.001475853,0.0015359803,0.0052640974,0.00065491913],"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":[0.00004044826,0.00007730807,0.0059126825,0.00040255557,0.000038157803,0.00048775677,0.0039686295,0.0009594632,0.0010928016,0.36467147,0.52826226,0.09408649],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015807846,0.000017844606,0.0106471265,0.0002095883,0.000031491974,0.00007748373,0.00077594054,0.00030608225,0.00038983976,0.0034281155,0.984046,0.000054689648],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99323374,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99601644,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88083065,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11916934,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31796256,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8646381},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08457458,0.012068681,0.0032411767,0.030828794,0.00041152822,0.000026398773,0.00018042592,0.0000791959,0.8685893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87272006,0.0036702729,0.0010985896,0.001669037,0.00022721932,0.000025604459,0.00005487456,0.00006749512,0.12046694],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99633384,0.0006558041,0.000074647425,0.00034307863,0.0013598261,0.0012328388],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99501747,0.0016673584,0.0004800994,0.0004479741,0.0016175488,0.0007695665],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030796374,0.00033936003,0.0005210375,0.0019707596,0.010185952,0.010436342,0.0012121374,0.0034069729,0.02443543],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013266496,0.00045750692,0.00050706515,0.0013984678,0.012525295,0.0047829016,0.0026224335,0.003886992,0.001874313],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003567572,0.0000134251095,0.002381056,0.00003613921,0.0000065869453,0.00033393354,0.00398329,0.0002854881,0.0001257522,0.96299577,0.014152285,0.015650606],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003218731,0.000043990596,0.019177083,0.00066773494,0.000043523185,0.0012184294,0.016168652,0.0015233068,0.00042958095,0.22009093,0.74052113,0.00008336905],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46816874,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5631508,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46816874,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.018700669,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.013462608,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9308874},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.049867835,0.07213955,0.013409611,0.34877437,0.0045014857,0.00011369073,0.0004866765,0.00013613385,0.5105707],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8350894,0.014583715,0.0034111568,0.032967657,0.0012952494,0.0001580421,0.0002076022,0.00011327833,0.112173915],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97274214,0.0072413487,0.0008205331,0.0028991497,0.011400892,0.0048958533],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9688816,0.011157289,0.0018536308,0.0027423105,0.013802913,0.0015622391],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01972737,0.00055706926,0.0011401371,0.0041916957,0.019555524,0.019098321,0.0036390217,0.009721835,0.010042039],"category_scores_gemma":[0.036342923,0.0006438019,0.00080442545,0.0052313353,0.032191373,0.009629563,0.00432855,0.011403337,0.0009181214],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000016633534,0.000008068867,0.00066985504,0.0001441222,0.000021461337,0.00007421166,0.008488505,0.00006678149,0.0001401961,0.93548447,0.037100405,0.017785396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003638967,0.000024786958,0.010043271,0.0014658361,0.000091453876,0.00019386134,0.015096778,0.0003815724,0.00043545407,0.10660487,0.8655329,0.000092842514],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8974311,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91726583,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.102568924,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06386478,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11839035,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4633736},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.088785,0.096163705,0.0010983901,0.13676213,0.0013492455,0.00013883463,0.001632858,0.00007904028,0.6739907],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7809081,0.031673748,0.000735515,0.027010234,0.00036083328,0.000055440138,0.00062056584,0.000058204136,0.15857737],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927981,0.0007507412,0.00024588464,0.00033640847,0.0039274422,0.0019412852],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99289423,0.0022340533,0.000453872,0.00021848576,0.0036469414,0.0005523545],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0040742084,0.0002996869,0.00042535088,0.0031765306,0.0107647665,0.008926789,0.0019507367,0.0072584236,0.0054084286],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013342306,0.00051974563,0.00034879227,0.005280009,0.004812885,0.002154282,0.0015236941,0.0062497943,0.0005914112],"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":[0.00010638195,0.000051830903,0.0075373976,0.00042284452,0.000028833856,0.00073775643,0.0055801803,0.0010419881,0.0006559383,0.54396087,0.38592193,0.053954057],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005252637,0.00004156692,0.05940172,0.0021483975,0.00014955168,0.000367088,0.008432688,0.0012933803,0.0011027496,0.050540287,0.8762052,0.00026478563],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9754321,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9893245,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05815235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05815235,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1193125,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4219268},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.013796954,0.12257281,0.00048366128,0.7278327,0.0044446094,0.00009913731,0.0019562969,0.00002079857,0.128793],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4301292,0.087452054,0.0017518274,0.43618897,0.004255662,0.00014935217,0.0010162623,0.000055619676,0.039001152],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98146826,0.0035545505,0.0018765181,0.0015796192,0.0087903,0.0027307018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95664114,0.017907076,0.0039147777,0.001050911,0.017781625,0.0027044832],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019662755,0.00045473728,0.0011664862,0.0038871677,0.008709486,0.008498046,0.0029002703,0.011223253,0.005462214],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08702158,0.0008067652,0.00088888843,0.005087183,0.012268438,0.0059906454,0.001743543,0.0070549045,0.0007343293],"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":[0.00025205204,0.000019205187,0.017961921,0.0063711,0.00032341198,0.0006646811,0.014784749,0.00010899069,0.00052647566,0.1703095,0.7301975,0.058480505],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014348981,0.000034692563,0.04570102,0.017163364,0.0011259805,0.00039516288,0.017635753,0.00013475804,0.00055688486,0.033430614,0.8835029,0.00017538975],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94309676,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9850493,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.056903243,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05156796,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14353356,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3741535},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.15722066,0.04918689,0.009570492,0.033976164,0.00088484277,0.00014501058,0.0004740176,0.000116720235,0.7484251],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9400078,0.010481888,0.002308185,0.0008821973,0.00019332545,0.000073494244,0.00016488964,0.00009009815,0.04579812],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9986773,0.0005652977,0.000030642088,0.00012794085,0.0003327359,0.00026602196],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975116,0.001521249,0.00026011455,0.0001117179,0.00044637453,0.00014894093],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0019343577,0.00044179143,0.0002743304,0.005898484,0.007442544,0.008831101,0.00069883815,0.0013093905,0.0059830183],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0037699763,0.00027591,0.00027413692,0.0047805007,0.02493795,0.002988525,0.001995454,0.0026737014,0.00042233474],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013281654,0.00001165183,0.002074675,0.00011154369,0.000008249095,0.00039312147,0.26252714,0.00012756647,0.00022340025,0.7031339,0.0075955866,0.023779925],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006291997,0.00002445048,0.0219093,0.0008639196,0.000018450735,0.00052004046,0.20572886,0.00034150164,0.00029494695,0.058315862,0.71194243,0.00003382843],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.48895317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.53226626,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5110468,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020720998,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010244038,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9722143},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.030400993,0.17404796,0.0043950123,0.14361984,0.0025991579,0.000051405437,0.00027042406,0.00011322606,0.644502],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77046484,0.050625782,0.0022961402,0.018309295,0.0019180762,0.000060808157,0.0001967246,0.00007193379,0.1560564],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99287695,0.0016398012,0.00010136613,0.00048804228,0.0035892462,0.0013045687],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99629384,0.0012608249,0.00019455225,0.00020485904,0.001713766,0.00033212543],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036170871,0.00038047184,0.0004886602,0.0029814637,0.008905026,0.010015608,0.0007959635,0.0038909416,0.0060009183],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009415649,0.00034234094,0.00036369564,0.0030912755,0.016502766,0.0025520993,0.0011594738,0.0057541816,0.00057860056],"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":[0.000008211504,0.0000048071493,0.000242928,0.000042843327,0.0000051325055,0.000058251528,0.0012537042,0.00020363372,0.00011233877,0.9593199,0.025466977,0.013281215],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002015219,0.000016380209,0.004577079,0.00030917212,0.000015051408,0.000091435395,0.0014554043,0.00039698408,0.00026499602,0.06884374,0.92398065,0.000029050942],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92486686,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9116853,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07601826,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07601826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07521762,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.55155367},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14452958,0.31527114,0.002113715,0.30725974,0.002003174,0.00009800077,0.00091577607,0.00009677759,0.22771211],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7822478,0.13723789,0.0019974832,0.015591296,0.00047271585,0.00007542708,0.00030689006,0.000042639516,0.062027913],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9933095,0.0012386603,0.00022235379,0.00036960037,0.0022398676,0.002619968],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9906274,0.0019482669,0.001048681,0.00023175616,0.0051819095,0.0009620897],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005305817,0.00041619127,0.00061143556,0.0032915822,0.01035431,0.0074705086,0.0021871491,0.003024831,0.0053298213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011218703,0.0003392921,0.0004373363,0.006817808,0.008963952,0.0028057203,0.001884259,0.0021041126,0.0003108146],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016086127,0.00006642778,0.04199439,0.0024846997,0.00013125534,0.0010424542,0.059794582,0.0011470047,0.00095917354,0.53145576,0.12095616,0.23980717],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040554813,0.0000785346,0.1366028,0.0033442364,0.00019381006,0.00028511774,0.077318184,0.00046777434,0.00054148684,0.009134237,0.7718459,0.0001474065],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9962102,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99841,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.13409914,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13409914,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.24488643,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9729619},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0049295523,0.16280968,0.0014256279,0.756367,0.0061143325,0.0000463051,0.00074353383,0.00013313637,0.06743081],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.19521654,0.33925566,0.013856368,0.3709982,0.006346077,0.00012420701,0.0015999358,0.00034853895,0.072254434],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9780594,0.0020801513,0.0012930146,0.0017446296,0.01268297,0.004139861],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.92553604,0.009994067,0.0020809777,0.0030820186,0.05227034,0.007036534],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.029189875,0.0007814003,0.0015723425,0.008800766,0.01350757,0.024976179,0.0056136553,0.013369752,0.011336135],"category_scores_gemma":[0.059317227,0.00057995657,0.0015258393,0.016609425,0.013497578,0.013885395,0.004644561,0.007861666,0.0014507116],"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":[0.000091832626,0.000051135466,0.0019974813,0.0006960428,0.00004725696,0.00045727228,0.0015814102,0.0005895403,0.00016850479,0.3313859,0.44944453,0.21348912],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029760326,0.000016365066,0.004549775,0.0015848743,0.000047104044,0.00014249512,0.0018553222,0.0002537168,0.00016419242,0.026918467,0.9643488,0.000089082765],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9723442,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.95926857,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10547305,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10547305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.27518576,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7652641},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04012593,0.062364254,0.0059466297,0.088281,0.0063464325,0.00022442153,0.0024743397,0.00032189325,0.79391503],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.35976678,0.014231099,0.0046833684,0.015748147,0.00080811145,0.00017133002,0.0007312105,0.00015235908,0.60370755],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9941486,0.0010309828,0.0001395672,0.0005829821,0.0029953136,0.0011025402],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99346113,0.0013623044,0.00036078045,0.00028740164,0.0040725176,0.00045584506],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002926448,0.00047533927,0.00044514332,0.0019316302,0.008388716,0.005003611,0.0012913832,0.0031115082,0.015793853],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008910659,0.00033755213,0.00050200714,0.0024383455,0.0038318755,0.00169252,0.000852096,0.0043100156,0.0012938337],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000066898414,0.000029562982,0.003662158,0.00018306922,0.000029506988,0.00026326068,0.0025397346,0.00039283227,0.000550703,0.72081447,0.2075202,0.063947655],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012194929,0.000012250181,0.0072850203,0.0001501275,0.000008909017,0.000070504604,0.0005144596,0.00020393501,0.0002159425,0.002248595,0.9892456,0.000032307293],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.97792417,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9763367,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.059913877,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.059913877,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10746151,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.43470764},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.00032615566,0.44841817,0.00036663917,0.26099992,0.08802106,0.00009373103,0.0012312297,0.00012520692,0.20041795],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.010335487,0.31239817,0.00071114267,0.13857186,0.043388147,0.00018092067,0.0009979486,0.00026086724,0.49315548],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9956593,0.0003104613,0.00012148046,0.00026435038,0.0031840908,0.0004602678],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98656076,0.0020222098,0.00030773695,0.00026783987,0.010107029,0.0007343493],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003200925,0.0010471357,0.001549523,0.009301252,0.005791051,0.008825288,0.0029991544,0.0067998143,0.03469987],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012987539,0.0007543406,0.0007058709,0.015527216,0.003880482,0.0033359209,0.0015158412,0.0049801613,0.009573572],"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":[0.0000013146832,0.0000012744777,0.000013327357,0.00006391296,0.0000015438338,0.000004366059,0.000022057016,0.000012858457,0.0000074163413,0.0020830901,0.9938764,0.0039124694],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000018705015,0.000001128747,0.00020807853,0.00025970236,0.000004905458,0.000008344369,0.000051237377,0.000008830759,0.000009328368,0.0006465708,0.99879384,0.0000061220994],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.801548,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9352576,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.198452,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05145625,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.066218846,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3992414},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.056415543,0.0041297595,0.011703869,0.06817209,0.0006278994,0.00005197118,0.0003243611,0.00007861444,0.85849595],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9692227,0.0015004721,0.0025551543,0.008095825,0.0007300004,0.000044299908,0.000062530344,0.000038308877,0.017750662],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.98814666,0.0038311803,0.00039722963,0.0017070897,0.0039812583,0.0019365714],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9871459,0.008131888,0.0008434459,0.0017153873,0.0017988965,0.00036455336],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012519918,0.00031256277,0.00049192744,0.002089654,0.003678065,0.008452066,0.0016688466,0.0035582697,0.010338764],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024809098,0.0004399872,0.0007680243,0.0012348637,0.033518933,0.00950243,0.0027356213,0.0058357683,0.0006438105],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000009724785,0.000011012564,0.00035038887,0.000017289774,0.000008279293,0.00002792759,0.0007859963,0.00016411154,0.00014630222,0.9908693,0.0019852198,0.005624539],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046485504,0.000030305777,0.006643334,0.00019431328,0.00007091512,0.000041243224,0.0017108509,0.0007125364,0.0009961633,0.8933721,0.096133575,0.000048139456],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.074953094,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09337478,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9250469,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012216082,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009275004,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1490336},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02085981,0.08984522,0.0042202217,0.043596033,0.009212082,0.0001545656,0.0039053962,0.00045113105,0.8277556],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.26167792,0.031768758,0.005008209,0.015916493,0.0012780253,0.00023698177,0.0039769276,0.00037392622,0.67976284],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.995314,0.00083618064,0.00015847564,0.00067878485,0.0022704117,0.0007421143],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9956371,0.0008002018,0.00021255025,0.00033898657,0.0026872319,0.00032392924],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0024694158,0.0009383686,0.00056558073,0.0023961666,0.0047662477,0.0068551176,0.0014112163,0.0034982187,0.027897961],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0059562335,0.0002844591,0.0005630015,0.002672016,0.0032744545,0.0016441052,0.0011941992,0.004084055,0.0042980164],"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":[0.00008682533,0.00003063358,0.0024473106,0.00032009697,0.000031022122,0.00042484098,0.0016052066,0.0008435559,0.00074583717,0.43317467,0.44611073,0.11417931],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007154103,0.0000040724112,0.003562595,0.000113541624,0.00000422293,0.00006921709,0.0002970565,0.0001144173,0.00009301377,0.001167808,0.99455476,0.0000120653385],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.90363604,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.820909,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09636396,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04800831,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045247987,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34832627},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05239244,0.031932157,0.004327752,0.023254279,0.0010558203,0.0000731922,0.0011675825,0.00014992777,0.88564694],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6341193,0.023919972,0.004429684,0.006459708,0.0005860967,0.000112138034,0.00097446033,0.00013341535,0.32926524],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98823,0.0012950979,0.0005276576,0.0008588146,0.0070263627,0.0020621766],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99260336,0.0021434738,0.0005215904,0.0004804724,0.0037564433,0.0004946789],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004934767,0.00056568126,0.00048630475,0.004130742,0.006500151,0.011117179,0.0018782878,0.0027728335,0.0083485665],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010492942,0.00068601384,0.00077059894,0.0037791634,0.0069090417,0.002522535,0.0023483804,0.004498312,0.0014854373],"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":[0.000050755105,0.00002977431,0.005791575,0.0002788168,0.0000360851,0.00052151375,0.010565791,0.0011825009,0.001668625,0.87628007,0.048118223,0.055476375],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015022342,0.00002873153,0.029405113,0.000581524,0.00005157092,0.0004407518,0.0036184585,0.000500137,0.0011227687,0.022431547,0.94169533,0.0001090699],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.93906295,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9362545,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.060937047,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.033984948,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.061491728,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.24657917},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.056608688,0.084315374,0.13985084,0.6124078,0.013030919,0.0066812634,0.00017282905,0.00024426848,0.08668796],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5573624,0.034645934,0.16753021,0.21719606,0.008378937,0.0070700417,0.00011351597,0.00015535885,0.0075475434],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.5100317,0.41104385,0.029293751,0.009920077,0.03225229,0.0074582854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.26928166,0.62125,0.03571429,0.031128373,0.032180093,0.010445568],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.6001658,0.00070670084,0.002128725,0.003960306,0.0112756705,0.017781131,0.008517531,0.018649586,0.0020748293],"category_scores_gemma":[0.6991891,0.0013877202,0.0017101925,0.0024915377,0.02600483,0.025121426,0.019004159,0.019927265,0.0007265668],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00074476516,0.00021774662,0.0109243635,0.005938553,0.000556704,0.0035854108,0.081369184,0.00297723,0.0011229387,0.5408497,0.07058313,0.28113034],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006094711,0.0007905294,0.005740687,0.032828968,0.0006291987,0.0020627012,0.01989775,0.0041866233,0.001968614,0.4250812,0.505772,0.00043228775],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013832866,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.037728965,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98616713,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01124048,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06351578,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4930668},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.009227418,0.013233503,0.0014604033,0.8491283,0.006984605,0.00008170472,0.00090244255,0.00010408389,0.118877575],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17906319,0.0063844016,0.002632195,0.7239763,0.0028778648,0.00007416432,0.00032203132,0.00014786053,0.08452202],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9765113,0.0021869317,0.00073041633,0.0025574763,0.01286336,0.0051505407],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98002553,0.0074690296,0.00057949655,0.00053106126,0.009556506,0.00183834],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013684605,0.0006389411,0.0011861242,0.001993828,0.027348455,0.014784983,0.0056281113,0.029871128,0.0048848656],"category_scores_gemma":[0.033809718,0.0008608482,0.0012501279,0.0029093095,0.015171598,0.003561717,0.002307762,0.03130097,0.0009950437],"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":[0.00003388548,0.00002351624,0.0011597413,0.0000954115,0.000041659507,0.0005270501,0.004072741,0.00019389912,0.00044110094,0.43895072,0.54185534,0.012605031],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000054652,0.0000262388,0.0040636174,0.00065780303,0.00015636667,0.00016557485,0.0034957621,0.00058947934,0.00089720945,0.034637805,0.9549768,0.00027865783],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9809528,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9900152,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10522926,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10522926,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2258726,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.76349527},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.007998484,0.35266224,0.0071298513,0.33395663,0.0040914365,0.0001142096,0.00008518101,0.00006362483,0.2938984],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6777624,0.17593811,0.0063416995,0.09716153,0.0026229194,0.00014646939,0.00012231513,0.00008712197,0.039817315],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.94428027,0.022474708,0.0019405336,0.002702293,0.021446202,0.0071560964],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96855515,0.01308191,0.0030300904,0.0015625112,0.011956962,0.0018133521],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.033861455,0.0003929632,0.0008643929,0.0043881866,0.009799414,0.010274148,0.0032998715,0.0063704816,0.0038358364],"category_scores_gemma":[0.047008228,0.000311786,0.00063531415,0.0032158485,0.036185198,0.0053445078,0.0067029046,0.008533859,0.00043371788],"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":[0.000008282398,0.000008651187,0.00038602602,0.00064260623,0.000020283202,0.0001413231,0.006572153,0.0002448616,0.00007157399,0.910434,0.032820832,0.048649326],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000147894425,0.000019078532,0.0022509387,0.0030264293,0.00003976046,0.00031216157,0.0063521764,0.0001550134,0.00026832207,0.1189238,0.8685876,0.000049910283],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.53838557,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6232406,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.46161443,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04303965,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12694624,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92866594},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.072198234,0.7922442,0.00077669584,0.037945155,0.001617963,0.0015384028,0.005405542,0.000033656404,0.08824015],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.33664382,0.644526,0.0026870705,0.007158643,0.000271048,0.0005671387,0.0022492763,0.000034512508,0.0058625625],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9861959,0.002381593,0.0011805266,0.00049223454,0.0086686555,0.0010809643],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94616467,0.010573137,0.0053846342,0.0004977691,0.035163213,0.0022165244],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01601621,0.0006742946,0.000938872,0.019748298,0.00593099,0.00489071,0.0030855264,0.0015813983,0.00296977],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045392547,0.00057103724,0.00113805,0.022686986,0.0031698563,0.0017144367,0.0020145483,0.0020004124,0.00024496787],"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":[0.00021710136,0.0001461263,0.105854645,0.063449584,0.0010762389,0.0008251771,0.053100083,0.0007001725,0.00043961286,0.03179945,0.13407107,0.6083208],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055732784,0.00023776316,0.24634108,0.07354046,0.0019918547,0.0009012896,0.059192713,0.00032543976,0.0004878262,0.0012161504,0.6154591,0.00025069987],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9851752,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9933942,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10276135,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10276135,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.22070108,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.74558926},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.14019366,0.024230653,0.0044366946,0.19443427,0.000990628,0.000043746026,0.00022209689,0.000044974062,0.63540334],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95663947,0.005617899,0.00081733667,0.0075472645,0.00035220876,0.000016869591,0.00005856268,0.000032035274,0.028918298],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9952171,0.00088443817,0.000104324194,0.0005308378,0.0010292551,0.0022340305],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.995773,0.00094497023,0.0004937749,0.0003727511,0.001183196,0.0012322443],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029515463,0.0002761042,0.00057427253,0.0022604698,0.017754976,0.014587349,0.001791762,0.0025481042,0.006313667],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007160286,0.0003335305,0.00046120095,0.0035842152,0.04527092,0.007654004,0.0061598513,0.005907484,0.00049200625],"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":[0.00001723579,0.000010659797,0.0016527915,0.0000267883,0.0000069994644,0.00009167834,0.0051555797,0.00008874243,0.00007381202,0.9790647,0.004790358,0.009020658],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011541507,0.00006696282,0.044967018,0.0007546124,0.00009172629,0.00041396893,0.05905843,0.00068664586,0.00055412174,0.37713805,0.5159699,0.00018315967],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7385897,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8335337,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2614103,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0345151,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.053079136,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5258995},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.038402338,0.014723153,0.0041359314,0.6136292,0.0015693429,0.00012952229,0.00048083757,0.00011137932,0.32681826],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7018789,0.010838929,0.005560569,0.21974164,0.00083674275,0.00010235959,0.00018922609,0.00010595476,0.06074572],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99020386,0.0010025889,0.0002553714,0.00097257824,0.0048575494,0.0027081019],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9935283,0.0026816693,0.0001966803,0.00025072182,0.0023218195,0.0010207626],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0070475265,0.00049207895,0.00085643464,0.0015668396,0.023429211,0.01214309,0.0034175033,0.012001836,0.004729422],"category_scores_gemma":[0.014982131,0.0006390215,0.00069468113,0.0024659846,0.019624522,0.0047932835,0.0044146213,0.017923128,0.00029550205],"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":[0.00002752968,0.000016322372,0.0007590573,0.000055057233,0.000014664486,0.0005984534,0.0032185856,0.00040776643,0.00028881815,0.9075449,0.07556352,0.01150519],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001559328,0.000044593846,0.008561231,0.0009973485,0.00015369868,0.0003967118,0.011512501,0.002728243,0.0014542694,0.3733143,0.60022706,0.00045409985],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.984599,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99377006,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.092140816,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.092140816,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19801731,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66853154},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07631194,0.47366622,0.0010327696,0.25436315,0.0038058276,0.000120667995,0.0017675709,0.00006042846,0.18887143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6878428,0.21935686,0.0012124003,0.015439731,0.0016858223,0.00009373494,0.0006456359,0.000035725872,0.07368732],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964349,0.0005580398,0.0001450577,0.000226114,0.0016628499,0.000972976],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98875004,0.002423596,0.001162613,0.00017642652,0.005948586,0.0015386661],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004335794,0.00030637303,0.0003815121,0.00246122,0.009492445,0.003982633,0.0014180561,0.0019903516,0.006244241],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011589718,0.0003101956,0.00030009807,0.0037854484,0.007998278,0.0015140041,0.0011541998,0.0021845722,0.00032545478],"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":[0.0001245965,0.00005016474,0.03766377,0.0026922023,0.00008130212,0.0014715862,0.044178322,0.0006703406,0.00055560365,0.38072488,0.34980318,0.18198402],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022857965,0.000028284614,0.07226999,0.0019868638,0.00003755019,0.0003736549,0.01172716,0.00014143994,0.00011538136,0.0030308638,0.9102011,0.000064871754],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.991954,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9954822,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8687947,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.13120535,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.23088124,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9519659},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.02822013,0.055814262,0.0039606695,0.16445822,0.0027474945,0.00008334741,0.00065788237,0.00009332946,0.7439647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7570267,0.025666436,0.0036391253,0.045100905,0.0011061479,0.00009521,0.00033104006,0.00007478645,0.16695979],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.988907,0.0013389279,0.0002901972,0.0007981325,0.005876889,0.002788817],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99497235,0.001156101,0.0003090358,0.00024049837,0.0027772577,0.0005447931],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005417015,0.00028273108,0.0004665002,0.0016591406,0.013021269,0.008502234,0.0017122339,0.003971517,0.004983059],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012339662,0.00031839847,0.00043195154,0.0023122786,0.0161651,0.0025068352,0.0025114228,0.0049814614,0.00064112124],"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":[0.000011891408,0.0000058894366,0.0010206524,0.000110876965,0.0000064871474,0.000103884675,0.004379742,0.00013096433,0.00013165936,0.9195918,0.057633653,0.016872555],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010842017,0.000012935372,0.008101701,0.00056295295,0.000024430648,0.0001435506,0.0048190216,0.00020176786,0.0002133432,0.03669939,0.9491548,0.000055324428],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9555473,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97376823,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.06385161,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.06385161,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13836285,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.463278},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021268276,0.081168115,0.0033795245,0.1437501,0.0038310536,0.00008484588,0.00022919882,0.000080617196,0.7462083],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.51157135,0.01932362,0.0030759035,0.023491783,0.001422919,0.00008415888,0.000118565156,0.00007987472,0.44083184],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99234664,0.0011349776,0.0002327594,0.00071714155,0.0034797268,0.0020887344],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9953393,0.0016327592,0.0002282007,0.00022689822,0.0019726811,0.0006001873],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005550862,0.00049580575,0.00060708827,0.0017598289,0.010342442,0.014101603,0.0013094884,0.006060951,0.00901768],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0092402,0.00043732548,0.00060357276,0.0015228239,0.009218124,0.0027575884,0.0022167386,0.0076101357,0.0008523648],"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":[0.000015368738,0.0000113399365,0.0009339211,0.00007113131,0.000010692418,0.00021468963,0.0027966155,0.00015778883,0.00024458097,0.9154145,0.063828155,0.016301293],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013482226,0.000019217596,0.004815466,0.0003317499,0.000021178623,0.00012993267,0.0020017175,0.0002160063,0.00039859393,0.022698931,0.96930885,0.00004498093],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92244583,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9519273,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07755417,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.040391766,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07917225,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.29306412},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.054219496,0.44083056,0.00057797635,0.39223555,0.0048531005,0.000082008104,0.0004936311,0.000028204166,0.106679454],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.47313303,0.37190816,0.0007573073,0.13150477,0.0024689306,0.000037115173,0.00029316128,0.000026119116,0.01987142],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9964818,0.00049930176,0.00016332317,0.00029248136,0.0016188914,0.0009441771],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9897439,0.002938785,0.0008641845,0.00021908054,0.004615822,0.0016182798],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038871088,0.0002589982,0.00056726055,0.0022098226,0.00881502,0.0067193448,0.0020144333,0.005574031,0.0025029345],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0120042395,0.00034530094,0.00043599718,0.002348041,0.010121603,0.002504079,0.0015156788,0.006764418,0.00037089203],"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":[0.00020981336,0.000094501775,0.023139363,0.0049961368,0.0001397509,0.0033184953,0.02297814,0.00022458484,0.0008493723,0.22808702,0.46235874,0.25360405],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000055574656,0.00008251117,0.042979036,0.009069131,0.00033893134,0.0011163225,0.024286095,0.00012224728,0.0005378332,0.010964961,0.91032606,0.000121384015],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95637447,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9881742,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.043625534,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03623406,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13414197,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26289773},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10862947,0.003955688,0.03517944,0.03537773,0.00019586856,0.0002445897,0.0012185213,0.00016731746,0.8150314],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9690633,0.0012514176,0.011044264,0.001039819,0.000055853045,0.00007749481,0.0002834375,0.00005351644,0.017131027],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98679996,0.0020247374,0.00027990234,0.0011532117,0.007730525,0.0020116924],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98617965,0.0043160054,0.0009732834,0.0015367253,0.0062087444,0.0007855579],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0059539946,0.00027919817,0.000461984,0.0055042394,0.012417444,0.010635318,0.0018479966,0.001275579,0.0036260034],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025240881,0.00031966862,0.00039100493,0.0064760684,0.021818835,0.0026815876,0.0020364919,0.003247803,0.0001752125],"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":[0.0000021309268,0.0000019046677,0.00065712637,0.000011074599,0.000003589465,0.000017985774,0.0014666227,0.000493375,0.000046009038,0.99132955,0.0013688972,0.0046018497],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028930797,0.000016166085,0.01950611,0.0003176227,0.000057436417,0.00006302336,0.0051712357,0.0057803327,0.0006375291,0.7482641,0.22003655,0.00012094572],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.96826875,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9802742,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88300264,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11699739,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19086695,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84887946},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012630503,0.027890667,0.0012377633,0.42691752,0.002655171,0.00009529899,0.00027424376,0.0000779587,0.52822095],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.54020405,0.030584754,0.0032017017,0.21698655,0.0026403335,0.00016777139,0.00021751583,0.000100904326,0.20589648],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99361986,0.00089958665,0.0001546245,0.00067979685,0.002629676,0.002016448],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958468,0.0016803471,0.00019152365,0.00020274102,0.0016504443,0.00042812616],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004696562,0.00037339816,0.0004511446,0.0020730984,0.014484202,0.014022694,0.0026488288,0.010225378,0.005351879],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0106356535,0.00038306476,0.0006035716,0.002332722,0.026045877,0.004671222,0.0020348674,0.010851893,0.0009795869],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000005873305,0.0000087338985,0.00031056497,0.000057673096,0.0000031601812,0.00009287869,0.0029590363,0.00007135654,0.00009048348,0.9321964,0.057314966,0.006888815],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000019956702,0.000020643203,0.0047033927,0.00093721173,0.00004132223,0.0001068379,0.009044084,0.00044580668,0.00038072746,0.106999144,0.8772054,0.00009554592],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92741644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9389783,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.072583556,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04629893,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.10298533,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3359238},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.30011746,0.022563111,0.0019900526,0.033321265,0.0002490893,0.00008917648,0.00050053996,0.0000478023,0.6411215],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97729194,0.005763534,0.00051236636,0.0016297512,0.000036302812,0.000011302168,0.00011581556,0.000014863902,0.014624106],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942311,0.0006757695,0.000105114304,0.00024893077,0.0024619412,0.0022771046],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9916865,0.0019437128,0.00059698755,0.00022888395,0.0045777075,0.0009660639],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003095125,0.00026429907,0.0004898375,0.011213917,0.018198857,0.0076897433,0.0019419879,0.0023485995,0.010027723],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012841738,0.00027059368,0.0005980383,0.01067666,0.010561261,0.0028685466,0.0023182186,0.0020415015,0.00029642278],"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":[0.00004777641,0.000055341225,0.026392685,0.00023903817,0.000036754518,0.0012711863,0.04500875,0.0013834614,0.00040720205,0.85066617,0.02680064,0.04769094],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003258905,0.00005497103,0.32265812,0.0012415015,0.00015205995,0.0013706594,0.1233488,0.0027637586,0.0004014461,0.055650294,0.49207255,0.00025329055],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.994361,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9980726,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1660013,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1660013,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13694093,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.96732026},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04284261,0.01778566,0.0105816815,0.13362084,0.0011661164,0.00012755353,0.00028947208,0.00012899483,0.7934571],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9192016,0.0041014072,0.004994948,0.0094514815,0.0003154921,0.0000826378,0.0001133644,0.000048383754,0.061690792],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9800514,0.0072492575,0.00041247037,0.0017044791,0.006675171,0.003907326],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98844236,0.0066752783,0.0005637216,0.00057868945,0.0024773395,0.0012626952],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011420126,0.00046736235,0.00048532904,0.003218535,0.03533587,0.01777825,0.002234,0.0058565647,0.006978835],"category_scores_gemma":[0.024260763,0.0006080556,0.0005332901,0.0039560273,0.042894688,0.0063819434,0.004083768,0.007452738,0.00040860908],"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":[0.0000070234732,0.000005321077,0.00023319604,0.000021935894,0.000003855224,0.00009625669,0.015208904,0.00019156208,0.00010019933,0.9666341,0.0095434785,0.007954196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025957024,0.000019950798,0.0059414804,0.00042361254,0.000039668805,0.00013890475,0.03163824,0.0011704335,0.0005189509,0.29656664,0.6633678,0.00014840314],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.95309925,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.97435343,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14236744,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14236744,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16823469,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9947322},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.12903515,0.0055873916,0.03503628,0.11378649,0.00083005166,0.00020323065,0.000070720576,0.00024200627,0.71520865],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9747161,0.0011484419,0.0076545742,0.0028279228,0.00011650391,0.000050133516,0.000023323411,0.00006440341,0.013398499],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97495884,0.015763568,0.0005423826,0.0013924045,0.003931375,0.0034114015],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94526833,0.03567916,0.003963513,0.0033516516,0.007179277,0.00455815],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.026327709,0.00045478236,0.00054947,0.0025815915,0.017532721,0.020294406,0.0031737718,0.0045044376,0.010299504],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06410196,0.0006180701,0.0005074769,0.0020199749,0.05289658,0.012557692,0.008576817,0.007780293,0.0006043147],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000032665168,0.00003953198,0.0026863192,0.0001219401,0.000007813255,0.00040095721,0.16477418,0.0005597275,0.0006581743,0.77963793,0.00792264,0.04315821],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058593327,0.000054947304,0.015522145,0.0010588113,0.000046090845,0.00026053813,0.20785323,0.002067977,0.0008736277,0.42727154,0.34473985,0.00019258753],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.39291468,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5997738,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.39291468,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.035137717,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06341338,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.78125536},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.15326945,0.035865024,0.0072750775,0.17850712,0.0031897817,0.00034611247,0.00081728405,0.00017660872,0.6205536],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8311731,0.01226069,0.0052781655,0.013552646,0.0003105862,0.000060329778,0.0002210403,0.000074896045,0.13706845],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9881486,0.0011081973,0.00037933394,0.0008490039,0.006203894,0.0033110178],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98731077,0.0018370246,0.0005656667,0.00038146504,0.00849389,0.0014111315],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009360598,0.00020540527,0.00042110198,0.0018243464,0.01481095,0.010545433,0.0015709926,0.00264627,0.0028868017],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0167953,0.00051654794,0.0004295439,0.003118118,0.006311861,0.0019621705,0.0023326434,0.0042713503,0.00020181572],"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":[0.000052849802,0.000029600116,0.005840441,0.00016469581,0.00003719881,0.00049971254,0.00692039,0.0014824872,0.00079133303,0.85376126,0.07263442,0.05778556],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003308145,0.000037523467,0.031131115,0.00026082442,0.000056876972,0.0001253884,0.003942264,0.0021763444,0.001194173,0.015703406,0.94514287,0.00019611379],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99609286,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99816656,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17062607,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17062607,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.27766517,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9619562},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0548836,0.0088216355,0.09809331,0.12249658,0.0017608509,0.00041062574,0.0000983134,0.0006234619,0.7128116],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86843634,0.0050957734,0.038319197,0.013964464,0.0004914825,0.00045487663,0.000073954296,0.0002311181,0.072932854],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9886947,0.0049874913,0.00022964457,0.0010395052,0.0031343477,0.0019144514],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9854935,0.005397769,0.0005704618,0.0015588457,0.0015917666,0.005387671],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009648481,0.00044808103,0.00050104747,0.004166832,0.0125713935,0.013615873,0.003666571,0.0035475753,0.017753802],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017823828,0.00042544838,0.00058488705,0.0024833381,0.03479052,0.0122793745,0.021844462,0.007371852,0.0009945527],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000031251802,0.0001373948,0.0023792286,0.00023774923,0.000007087964,0.00019765124,0.04858189,0.0003461343,0.00033165366,0.7559408,0.015187961,0.17662117],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000032522184,0.00014625475,0.0073696002,0.0010786885,0.000022532275,0.00043533422,0.06699548,0.0009985839,0.0003921677,0.26631182,0.65614736,0.00006961123],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.20609562,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.34318566,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9709054,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.029094603,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.059607614,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40979207},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.022518825,0.008761942,0.14079483,0.15614572,0.0019188775,0.0012685739,0.0003551317,0.00027564022,0.66796046],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75924814,0.005373003,0.10231648,0.037926424,0.0015469062,0.0009032925,0.0001624884,0.00011835394,0.09240488],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.952633,0.009769972,0.003132663,0.004181641,0.021838771,0.008443994],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.979054,0.008669384,0.0017463411,0.0015682438,0.007737349,0.001224739],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.036735483,0.0006775693,0.0009942675,0.00295983,0.017532919,0.011485167,0.005002892,0.012042807,0.0022546153],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045735892,0.001561782,0.000983678,0.0020186028,0.049365126,0.003817008,0.004233157,0.014602881,0.000993352],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002186257,0.0000064067967,0.0001814264,0.00002295452,0.0000032471473,0.000047205252,0.0025144555,0.00016276659,0.00010948504,0.98811954,0.004492437,0.004337846],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000045205514,0.0000256572,0.0016941912,0.0003756751,0.000026896952,0.00015630157,0.001675648,0.0006254198,0.0005353597,0.82160944,0.17315336,0.00007674384],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.42365235,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5827932,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.42365235,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.022232521,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08720089,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.84237283},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.27502033,0.005744394,0.0051086335,0.4905746,0.0035289817,0.0014464753,0.00027776617,0.0005274123,0.21777143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8987445,0.0011186211,0.007711599,0.05714817,0.00079113,0.0005985358,0.00017268228,0.000040348958,0.033674408],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944899,0.0012485747,0.00024625033,0.000371592,0.0016789691,0.001964749],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96805745,0.010460958,0.0024648022,0.0014076502,0.0064259004,0.011183139],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007964895,0.00018031095,0.00032599387,0.0009840337,0.0047349758,0.0025017252,0.0016045674,0.0060054855,0.013895334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.043605223,0.00024084785,0.00037389525,0.000676505,0.0020384204,0.0024100281,0.0046874187,0.0034280561,0.0012968032],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00028042457,0.0027317477,0.023966312,0.001483937,0.000033460557,0.0011100118,0.021509802,0.00039389814,0.0036442638,0.08963465,0.30740553,0.547806],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00069182424,0.00094710663,0.24330945,0.003395446,0.00013242304,0.0017215825,0.018138373,0.0014563979,0.0036742052,0.04544043,0.6809168,0.00017600764],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.118470155,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4628266,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.118470155,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008958324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.063018054,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.23556119},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.40903303,0.008013618,0.006197939,0.37105778,0.0020643428,0.00043433334,0.00015021379,0.00012988309,0.20291893],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9159181,0.0033922207,0.0049265265,0.038394697,0.00045754467,0.00027528044,0.000092768,0.00004836593,0.036494546],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.99322426,0.0022505412,0.000086110056,0.00038455235,0.001558454,0.0024962449],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99193585,0.0013060478,0.00058374123,0.00024266333,0.00093652925,0.004995173],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005466565,0.00020685022,0.0003459545,0.0012303963,0.014991691,0.0053072264,0.002090764,0.0026713246,0.007840198],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011810688,0.00019151712,0.00025440418,0.0013023242,0.005898347,0.0033374478,0.006544682,0.0038155974,0.00068702403],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00011176458,0.0008502743,0.06734047,0.0006769771,0.000028944205,0.0014031385,0.09090534,0.00031220776,0.0021221463,0.21393326,0.102171086,0.5201444],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000097634984,0.00051211595,0.14455046,0.001576589,0.000048134378,0.0007651386,0.14170161,0.0007639432,0.0007815332,0.018027315,0.6910996,0.00007602834],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.41639584,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.795931,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.58360416,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017102366,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09144887,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8279443},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.7223202,0.0023688718,0.0022334007,0.06759319,0.0002658049,0.00010649553,0.0003205687,0.000048256177,0.20474319],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9831799,0.0006915268,0.000504625,0.004130601,0.00002859983,0.000013347336,0.000048859183,0.000013040831,0.011389608],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99404186,0.00085239345,0.00016843874,0.0004810258,0.0014317689,0.0030245243],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9938019,0.0013091138,0.000750746,0.00037672304,0.0015713522,0.002190114],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029870067,0.00018824919,0.0003261042,0.0011024226,0.034219597,0.007560847,0.0022113621,0.0024762836,0.0033692408],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009632078,0.0003429701,0.00034436054,0.0013969942,0.013142505,0.0017761278,0.004650351,0.0037627725,0.00018202246],"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":[0.00013289413,0.00010909451,0.16844098,0.00016853982,0.000071160575,0.0036569836,0.1692287,0.0014611628,0.0014461457,0.5265043,0.050307274,0.07847284],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000061512925,0.00011075906,0.3203694,0.0011448343,0.00022011339,0.00181207,0.21635826,0.0032153896,0.0019825941,0.044643726,0.40976018,0.00032120277],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9919962,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9957366,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.087159365,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.087159365,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.155464,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6323884},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.16384639,0.021008704,0.0044262735,0.35365623,0.0014970013,0.00035882147,0.00052623614,0.00020730525,0.454473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8488569,0.009497701,0.0025847484,0.06260355,0.00024246152,0.00005735764,0.00022973292,0.000042792188,0.07588476],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9882669,0.0010153694,0.00026078563,0.0010450293,0.0048544533,0.0045573628],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9771115,0.0034047829,0.0014998507,0.0007035916,0.013151086,0.0041292333],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0061875135,0.00022567419,0.00025224805,0.0016102777,0.017606905,0.008188549,0.0020524901,0.004615288,0.0038370793],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01878956,0.00037142457,0.00030482624,0.002625692,0.00888747,0.0018247041,0.0021517272,0.00481831,0.00032138996],"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":[0.000025625208,0.00006982755,0.017307794,0.0002753319,0.00002816747,0.000555955,0.012647163,0.0012105451,0.0019562815,0.737756,0.13628162,0.091885746],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000029653254,0.00003818291,0.0447199,0.00043915436,0.00005584036,0.00012565962,0.0102926465,0.0009579708,0.0013159988,0.017045492,0.9248779,0.000101642094],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98782504,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930676,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8702138,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12978618,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.38833365,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94166905},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.015193434,0.05781159,0.19296949,0.20683715,0.003283701,0.0002885002,0.00024445122,0.00019367231,0.523178],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8100904,0.040423904,0.09164301,0.02559071,0.003267073,0.00066125806,0.00028028697,0.0004442812,0.027599068],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9789504,0.010846682,0.0009265452,0.0017219372,0.0058737122,0.0016806904],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9862531,0.008652225,0.0008468514,0.0012299068,0.00233741,0.00068050995],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.017528286,0.0013144072,0.0023051822,0.014081941,0.016421545,0.032784145,0.0071503986,0.011661394,0.003783545],"category_scores_gemma":[0.020958962,0.0012478449,0.0013062137,0.007865498,0.100658976,0.022685131,0.017612258,0.019103942,0.00056169095],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000012416957,0.0000027103108,0.00008556608,0.000029951763,0.000002416299,0.00004076848,0.0037439708,0.00010449647,0.00003115741,0.9918867,0.0007878347,0.0032830609],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006425565,0.0000072738453,0.00041548017,0.0006530532,0.000016933824,0.00008426466,0.012166372,0.00030040636,0.00011679761,0.85089743,0.13530649,0.000029038805],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1416769,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.21155906,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8583231,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03709069,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03777527,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2817045},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.24600706,0.01051663,0.0014546794,0.13429007,0.00035976598,0.000036898786,0.0002619673,0.000061503815,0.60701144],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95314074,0.0012107836,0.00030075462,0.008912481,0.000048069734,0.000008150019,0.000032661756,0.000011927575,0.036334407],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99827385,0.0002248855,0.00003528738,0.00013694698,0.00037176136,0.0009571589],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9980862,0.0006343153,0.00016471703,0.00009893918,0.0004899199,0.00052595284],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0010783091,0.00011024894,0.0001775207,0.00069324364,0.019187346,0.0073216897,0.0009509103,0.0028145674,0.0058902367],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003942466,0.00022210632,0.00021009851,0.0010015367,0.014752895,0.0013136395,0.0020622704,0.0033330591,0.00025030223],"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":[0.00002384417,0.000022618502,0.009299956,0.000027481821,0.000007276105,0.0005171887,0.011902002,0.00034482733,0.00019224056,0.9338747,0.03019729,0.013590588],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006702577,0.000052868556,0.08631755,0.0007043361,0.00007033833,0.0006475126,0.04515686,0.0024193865,0.00089038594,0.20562716,0.65791726,0.00012936928],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.972748,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9878249,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07185169,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07185169,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07376728,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.52132297},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.005183764,0.0022936123,0.00028320306,0.94450426,0.0019321237,0.000050724255,0.0004522006,0.000049257822,0.04525093],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.03837232,0.0011570553,0.0002776382,0.92922515,0.0015545103,0.00004925372,0.00008372062,0.000044645712,0.029235696],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98703176,0.0011600305,0.00044437035,0.0014476622,0.0057964395,0.004119758],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97052604,0.01604582,0.001034076,0.0005363803,0.009138783,0.0027188316],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009681283,0.0007776331,0.0013871811,0.0018188728,0.0316507,0.010082788,0.006932598,0.07354774,0.009503566],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04182881,0.0014635922,0.0016914095,0.0037608,0.013952109,0.0039911256,0.002798922,0.04088419,0.0023827609],"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":[0.000056705943,0.000017063829,0.0016801778,0.000068581554,0.000028091217,0.00036473584,0.004154007,0.00010169779,0.0001908207,0.07930653,0.91039956,0.003631895],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00024435978,0.000058891776,0.015943106,0.00093037396,0.00028878995,0.00030004955,0.011425052,0.00084483484,0.00125208,0.030647576,0.9377052,0.00035971453],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94609636,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9815166,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07354774,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0506903,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.12187399,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.36778557},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.54311955,0.017212845,0.00088793656,0.18137528,0.0007098108,0.00013314799,0.0006644099,0.000060944363,0.2558361],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9347512,0.0102392165,0.000505694,0.019050885,0.00010618058,0.00002471419,0.00015512772,0.00003870714,0.035128273],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9919453,0.0006062951,0.00017888588,0.0004922373,0.0031088493,0.003668371],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99082315,0.001861506,0.0012785039,0.00031501503,0.0029332447,0.0027885786],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0029417146,0.00033095095,0.0004909753,0.0027380185,0.04105491,0.0100286845,0.002294841,0.0033971984,0.0062213717],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01194807,0.00051317277,0.00038985797,0.0055884384,0.021467071,0.0032759083,0.004922709,0.0053119278,0.0003303177],"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":[0.000095167125,0.000118472766,0.13682869,0.0004112112,0.000041839307,0.00412687,0.35264844,0.00044819506,0.0007389353,0.20563988,0.13763176,0.16127053],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000020679516,0.000047657395,0.14587688,0.0012699559,0.000049476,0.0012109512,0.42150348,0.000531442,0.00054847053,0.011144108,0.41760844,0.00018850321],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99531174,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99780494,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11281178,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11281178,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2094529,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8185106},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.042178746,0.04783619,0.0008072199,0.7800544,0.0023582897,0.000101342,0.000308267,0.000046540004,0.12630907],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6825305,0.09128301,0.0041240337,0.16063574,0.0009037468,0.00011530157,0.0002793375,0.00010560617,0.060022753],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9901776,0.0018029049,0.00030177156,0.00058553414,0.003459236,0.0036728976],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.962127,0.00808578,0.00095632847,0.0005767561,0.020471796,0.007782414],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010661505,0.00042844733,0.0008748677,0.0024226245,0.02778649,0.013536077,0.0030738877,0.0073367604,0.00726285],"category_scores_gemma":[0.028934117,0.0004397291,0.0007416727,0.0046513267,0.008620107,0.0045078234,0.0042160503,0.0092870435,0.0005279117],"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":[0.00022943495,0.00019915603,0.012939238,0.0009115215,0.000077999925,0.0017526158,0.033713676,0.0009957403,0.00055016176,0.38051143,0.3825146,0.18560447],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00014089954,0.000105859,0.024683416,0.0034712001,0.00023734062,0.00035083594,0.06587111,0.0009836061,0.00052436924,0.038821165,0.86452365,0.0002865051],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9965239,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9990289,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8202346,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17976539,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.5411554,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9513559},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17587267,0.024659988,0.006580259,0.49346188,0.0016719496,0.0000968101,0.00033554086,0.000059960355,0.297261],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.95901686,0.003982088,0.0017269718,0.023268286,0.00025575532,0.000026321726,0.00006480138,0.00002841658,0.011630443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.986896,0.0021947746,0.0003068294,0.0011823492,0.0049056667,0.0045143585],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9843203,0.006189411,0.0007799879,0.0006023588,0.0060015433,0.002106325],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009084908,0.00034485466,0.000881282,0.0032438566,0.030235592,0.022296239,0.004994703,0.009122645,0.0032208734],"category_scores_gemma":[0.028870666,0.00040037133,0.00068654364,0.004787661,0.04054738,0.008077515,0.005804675,0.013282921,0.00023223799],"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":[0.000021335882,0.000012990996,0.002609651,0.000061938044,0.000018881356,0.00046022632,0.02640536,0.00046667832,0.00012116905,0.93779385,0.019691853,0.012336098],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000059281905,0.000032944037,0.017355725,0.0014712025,0.00013918536,0.00035220355,0.12013952,0.0035571572,0.000594481,0.4458426,0.4102173,0.000238378],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98596746,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99289215,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17498094,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.17498094,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.20832823,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9569052},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.10963913,0.07775141,0.0165141,0.50487006,0.0022468988,0.00054313225,0.00031937566,0.00008330593,0.2880326],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9288793,0.009289075,0.009468781,0.043020975,0.0007216681,0.00019906607,0.000064359,0.000040658902,0.0083161425],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.8910566,0.05622416,0.005399698,0.0040863836,0.030668013,0.0125651555],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8959773,0.0664456,0.005632505,0.0034209522,0.023202442,0.005321318],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.080847494,0.00043349116,0.0010615956,0.0074074133,0.013853542,0.031946693,0.0031696802,0.010174517,0.001752838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1621341,0.0005665079,0.0011872324,0.0044562486,0.028727163,0.014657854,0.009590447,0.008444389,0.00023778487],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000034070916,0.000018403349,0.0042001014,0.00041091788,0.000030748357,0.00020413485,0.012287373,0.00032932422,0.00027059598,0.9564125,0.010125754,0.01567624],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000058293113,0.00022581968,0.02665102,0.0068734176,0.00028325105,0.0007098596,0.06690498,0.0024128312,0.0009843702,0.3949256,0.49967095,0.00029958758],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.30451557,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5610562,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6954844,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.048572764,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.100461364,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.60548615},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.04953013,0.06800252,0.0028409334,0.82943255,0.0049745655,0.0000515622,0.00009285819,0.000031394273,0.045043435],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7834118,0.02474644,0.0019423881,0.14195931,0.0033209785,0.000055964523,0.000065890774,0.000085399864,0.04441198],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.971817,0.009635216,0.0010169058,0.002938772,0.010238876,0.0043531945],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94725573,0.0305279,0.0024423683,0.0019066131,0.014894714,0.002972675],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.032312784,0.0002918588,0.0008376278,0.0015398851,0.022304298,0.013322948,0.0021673,0.007789977,0.0023308261],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07488594,0.0003962608,0.00076502975,0.0014541806,0.031013438,0.0074027446,0.0059704855,0.019434748,0.00033171254],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001548412,0.00003849776,0.011524279,0.0004538767,0.00009664648,0.0020386388,0.0983272,0.0005364927,0.0005144233,0.5778169,0.18708433,0.121413976],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000023067354,0.000079768724,0.012328687,0.0015665201,0.00008321431,0.00046580343,0.07422546,0.0003370781,0.0008119605,0.10537456,0.804542,0.00016194946],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5509191,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.72313106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.44908088,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.036958676,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0716256,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9034512},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.045817286,0.010937149,0.0069745705,0.5697071,0.0008189994,0.00008408185,0.00023850774,0.00008560376,0.3653368],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8907815,0.005047462,0.0042681606,0.063945495,0.0011128307,0.00008722152,0.000075260235,0.000087721695,0.03459429],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9865714,0.002748591,0.00030834365,0.0015508257,0.0032777358,0.0055430788],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9787275,0.011214885,0.0008430417,0.00081823237,0.0041901246,0.0042061755],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010271423,0.00043304634,0.0011552068,0.0023482107,0.03887106,0.03150517,0.0054527544,0.017810669,0.010672842],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019986367,0.0005622212,0.0011530047,0.0032008155,0.07693644,0.014252801,0.008094006,0.017008575,0.00070199574],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004515364,0.0000122441015,0.0003968756,0.000015050279,0.0000029230914,0.00016245438,0.0037644152,0.00012067773,0.00004622899,0.9876587,0.0057319324,0.002084028],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041391515,0.000016529286,0.0049111727,0.000396552,0.00003957365,0.00019612689,0.022257593,0.0012180316,0.00021810226,0.8158846,0.15468639,0.0001339085],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8977099,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9244717,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8766158,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12338418,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.14536767,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8952191},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17565742,0.014058692,0.010327851,0.07636216,0.0005467491,0.000110354486,0.00025449702,0.000091435795,0.7225908],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.96477026,0.0036551084,0.0015020568,0.0065487,0.00010354796,0.000023465967,0.000033106142,0.000022796263,0.023340994],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.98263794,0.0030112304,0.00038695175,0.0013357075,0.008985245,0.0036430627],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9893329,0.00426911,0.00092492107,0.00054070906,0.004325563,0.00060679595],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00865258,0.0003035343,0.00034015294,0.002955204,0.01957131,0.012661796,0.0020855654,0.003268695,0.0035625787],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021465048,0.00043133003,0.00039574888,0.0036429446,0.02245494,0.0033902314,0.0036148247,0.0053932955,0.0001658913],"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":[0.00001547141,0.0000066424154,0.0019558393,0.000043193868,0.00000789513,0.00013340324,0.0077145174,0.000384815,0.00015489783,0.9615791,0.009646182,0.01835809],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005112359,0.00005764679,0.03725128,0.0006433721,0.00011449179,0.00030622826,0.031042451,0.0028086524,0.0016714946,0.13135909,0.7944136,0.00028053904],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9737325,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9854011,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11348915,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11348915,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.106574535,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8234253},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0047765295,0.71663743,0.00031602816,0.14910868,0.014508696,0.00008363482,0.003161462,0.00004423343,0.11136333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1619912,0.58852696,0.0018936407,0.07451083,0.006579501,0.00027633118,0.0025124012,0.00006763123,0.16364145],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99371946,0.00079716154,0.0002834671,0.0003520067,0.003597122,0.0012506719],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98919326,0.0016435281,0.00050473196,0.00028086148,0.007070904,0.0013067919],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0058506485,0.00061308494,0.00090475706,0.00578638,0.005246513,0.0048725656,0.0019070912,0.0037802337,0.012013349],"category_scores_gemma":[0.019387059,0.0006410161,0.0007327697,0.008379459,0.0030503743,0.0013167697,0.0014939806,0.0041166684,0.00093107077],"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":[0.00013465191,0.00003346411,0.0028686142,0.001487867,0.000084910134,0.00012652695,0.00089617615,0.0003420436,0.000100944984,0.08844691,0.7707372,0.13474064],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000022532526,0.000010968237,0.013363386,0.0021713383,0.00005201884,0.00003920579,0.0004900852,0.000034915134,0.000047700676,0.0011494926,0.9825965,0.00002181028],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98360175,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.991742,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.086904794,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.086904794,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1955634,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6305413},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.056975663,0.047454536,0.0036451053,0.12986386,0.0043004346,0.0002502967,0.0009601247,0.00019680236,0.75635314],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.41749692,0.01229789,0.0026921935,0.051241614,0.0011884599,0.00020170955,0.00029923907,0.00011291047,0.5144691],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99237,0.0012338299,0.00027767543,0.0007210482,0.0028791528,0.0025182972],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9948059,0.0021129996,0.00030672987,0.000301895,0.00194074,0.00053183886],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009208391,0.0005006579,0.000542308,0.0015502645,0.0110200085,0.008782964,0.0019541485,0.008381147,0.010332091],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011961165,0.0005486518,0.0009064919,0.0015985995,0.0068136957,0.002258061,0.0021633378,0.009862206,0.0008997302],"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":[0.00005617762,0.00003493221,0.0023127515,0.00018701513,0.000031778458,0.00058837666,0.0045314287,0.00020585893,0.00061850547,0.8760428,0.09692307,0.0184674],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040613744,0.000049647657,0.009626791,0.00031293684,0.00007338113,0.00022304287,0.002031621,0.00021417261,0.0009927766,0.011729885,0.97462636,0.00007882322],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9000341,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.93238133,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09996587,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032915857,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.075031094,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2388224},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0092219105,0.9364376,0.00010933152,0.012216819,0.0013488526,0.000019602792,0.00046319523,0.000011510849,0.04017122],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.21241951,0.7271048,0.0002660932,0.007321064,0.0007767352,0.00006299513,0.0003865011,0.000022928227,0.05163931],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9990742,0.00018514096,0.000041255335,0.00007145618,0.00042822695,0.00019967642],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978229,0.00043695178,0.00019236268,0.000030614767,0.001320396,0.00019688743],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013247512,0.0004908038,0.00044983183,0.0035958742,0.006326691,0.004424631,0.0011906656,0.0015416141,0.007706776],"category_scores_gemma":[0.003533884,0.00030949523,0.00028087432,0.008193507,0.0069424207,0.0015640835,0.00090895203,0.0015221257,0.0005547096],"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":[0.0001142968,0.0000589601,0.010738493,0.0038308965,0.000110935995,0.00071066746,0.046669293,0.0008799972,0.00027132174,0.06849665,0.5835195,0.284599],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000078344965,0.000019403127,0.049781673,0.0038085848,0.000041099654,0.00027204325,0.021027127,0.00006473029,0.00007676626,0.0013855819,0.9234752,0.000039825354],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98680824,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99330705,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09234419,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09234419,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.08298185,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6700071},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.006211391,0.023080243,0.004543053,0.89279187,0.0018244825,0.0001630891,0.000100678386,0.000027898168,0.0712573],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7427168,0.020443091,0.010994325,0.20307423,0.0023587374,0.0007882045,0.00011763992,0.000094063114,0.019412898],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.88451487,0.050773554,0.0034338643,0.0067231315,0.02539106,0.029163552],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8068388,0.11192353,0.006827754,0.0035882385,0.054237884,0.016583856],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.116277464,0.0013590177,0.0020639747,0.009987836,0.053544786,0.05057756,0.011137972,0.024557194,0.0035498906],"category_scores_gemma":[0.14287227,0.0011568387,0.0016177131,0.014385939,0.079168946,0.023645395,0.013564389,0.023268245,0.00022382807],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010372771,0.000014071775,0.0007023526,0.0001387467,0.000016758302,0.00017217417,0.02016623,0.00029240758,0.000046309826,0.9428305,0.030012874,0.0055972673],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005544472,0.00003710987,0.0044332985,0.0041971244,0.00007041665,0.00011814847,0.11590556,0.0016697149,0.00026486133,0.287267,0.5857555,0.00022584628],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9638155,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9563968,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6909616,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.3090384,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.49886876,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8014175},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.021397598,0.03771255,0.0070091807,0.40034726,0.0022900347,0.00007899855,0.00036419302,0.000099538054,0.5307007],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.72066385,0.022615826,0.0053201085,0.16046764,0.0018658887,0.00011509169,0.00021361113,0.00011111377,0.08862693],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.97669923,0.005810995,0.000985989,0.0017467559,0.010787005,0.00397007],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9866479,0.0078015025,0.00080671615,0.0008172193,0.0034988206,0.00042787535],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01565527,0.0005655624,0.0010389596,0.002683672,0.012236836,0.020455858,0.003681897,0.015465964,0.003476965],"category_scores_gemma":[0.029836915,0.0006256835,0.00078543276,0.0025676775,0.0388421,0.0073565017,0.0035421667,0.01645881,0.0010130734],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001685517,0.0000076210504,0.00037674123,0.0000846312,0.0000084966605,0.00025516763,0.0049737934,0.00005966207,0.00018004465,0.9641124,0.021891559,0.008033082],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004354802,0.00002905952,0.00503484,0.0017379601,0.00008310465,0.00042870155,0.010192999,0.0004417611,0.0010760097,0.29049972,0.690297,0.00013539894],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7499767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8006419,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.2500233,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.031476784,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.051993918,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.50299144},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.018927364,0.07268125,0.019001726,0.5811934,0.0041310675,0.00022388018,0.00011894804,0.000092292554,0.3036302],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.75611985,0.028684312,0.016793594,0.16126016,0.005286241,0.00025323418,0.000064883956,0.00011583031,0.03142194],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9051734,0.045315005,0.0055244025,0.008160311,0.030016415,0.00581041],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.87119764,0.09375836,0.0045230202,0.0067537697,0.020065682,0.0037015213],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06236711,0.00038400994,0.0012929381,0.003917234,0.01645586,0.02356669,0.0049312557,0.020670556,0.0021967501],"category_scores_gemma":[0.12459717,0.001267545,0.0008179644,0.0025864756,0.0782378,0.010927083,0.007120067,0.021022411,0.0007244977],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000010157627,0.00001255955,0.00042753425,0.00015740702,0.000015624799,0.00026992252,0.0043708226,0.00009218812,0.0002162661,0.95594656,0.021663152,0.01681775],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008363015,0.00007960138,0.0029655911,0.0019630084,0.00008322978,0.00052849686,0.0048505594,0.0005002782,0.00071299355,0.4858055,0.5022825,0.00014470128],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.10920338,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.19976394,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8907966,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01731866,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.058388423,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.32983273},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025730801,0.018220212,0.0065033985,0.02395451,0.0009480919,0.000048907117,0.0006060123,0.000120879,0.9470249],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2580996,0.027140962,0.008617724,0.0119191585,0.00051989296,0.00019695319,0.00062314194,0.00020492298,0.6926776],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984446,0.00047300896,0.000030210578,0.0001847006,0.00063538965,0.0002320543],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991019,0.0002801355,0.000047936002,0.00004888663,0.00045203022,0.00006925024],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0013272334,0.0005082948,0.00022952378,0.0022621287,0.0055716815,0.0058246716,0.0011196764,0.0030523587,0.01977876],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001587473,0.00028038843,0.0003938154,0.0015540741,0.006574388,0.0022281108,0.0010078158,0.003285068,0.0049045654],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000013270688,0.0000044001126,0.00020281703,0.00010135751,0.0000033084743,0.00019980522,0.0020613407,0.00031504253,0.00018402355,0.9043324,0.07905431,0.013527959],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000024441294,0.0000061274304,0.0008833612,0.00017325341,0.0000027581668,0.00013411489,0.0009795519,0.00016393655,0.0000903547,0.013981163,0.983575,0.000007942887],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6137766,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6385774,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6137766,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.020475816,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012692562,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.77699584},"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":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.014452439,0.010333862,0.0012228049,0.24702151,0.0036375832,0.000121831166,0.0010622225,0.0002178636,0.7219299],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.28068292,0.0117598865,0.0022961865,0.17780125,0.0014972724,0.000094086194,0.0009762581,0.00023175825,0.5246604],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9935974,0.00028426354,0.00016028131,0.0004575833,0.003336608,0.0021638277],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9954632,0.00061169144,0.00013627378,0.00013585854,0.0032073762,0.000445604],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0036849056,0.00062363496,0.00038230667,0.0021908195,0.017415455,0.013055846,0.002441457,0.010869201,0.010676166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0101610795,0.00049139553,0.0007931443,0.003302512,0.0042699124,0.003082499,0.002333538,0.0091649145,0.001525763],"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":[0.000029745303,0.000024279561,0.0022955497,0.00008298326,0.00001884816,0.00030334623,0.0028596562,0.00019878002,0.00036114827,0.25350994,0.71261644,0.027699266],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000998381,0.000008752734,0.0050263023,0.00015849542,0.00003203786,0.000092784314,0.0024500282,0.00016154148,0.00034213762,0.0065924325,0.98505116,0.00007434095],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9775097,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9929208,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.056314506,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.056314506,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17466433,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40859222},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0025892088,0.0008848125,0.04533438,0.010928357,0.00089939527,0.0005016608,0.00026810696,0.0005556021,0.93803835],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14107147,0.002095439,0.04693144,0.020527288,0.0010058361,0.0011882895,0.0005626389,0.0007569875,0.78586066],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9548712,0.0077857412,0.001958533,0.004390084,0.026015982,0.004978545],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9786511,0.006795147,0.0010053064,0.00500816,0.0074497648,0.0010905283],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019786544,0.0007219844,0.00069954013,0.002023088,0.010274123,0.012701899,0.0036525596,0.0133509,0.059997316],"category_scores_gemma":[0.063746005,0.0011703778,0.0015763876,0.0019591239,0.008628269,0.009984465,0.010637892,0.010994489,0.021557083],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001615872,0.000022025206,0.00020103573,0.000061425744,0.00000972653,0.00018430244,0.0011357995,0.00012701555,0.00027841554,0.87999576,0.0919777,0.02599061],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002611496,0.000026195275,0.00043866425,0.00018843141,0.00001982164,0.000334817,0.0005040383,0.0004183808,0.0006211161,0.15819634,0.8391736,0.00005243186],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07603167,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.099619746,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07603167,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0068099983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.035596695,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.20071101},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.012168478,0.2873809,0.0025081383,0.5179958,0.010818216,0.00003850915,0.00024722988,0.000091237554,0.16875152],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.52273613,0.18178545,0.0034682448,0.19882205,0.0076456647,0.00014556342,0.0004195854,0.00042493924,0.08455229],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97239166,0.012399724,0.0010615452,0.0017492676,0.00991626,0.0024815428],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9586614,0.016649893,0.0025419225,0.0028790792,0.017213512,0.0020542492],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019041339,0.0006426463,0.000881688,0.0034229644,0.011180603,0.017802939,0.0017386897,0.0036319103,0.0082644895],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04610605,0.00026641716,0.0006171974,0.0053007533,0.022888444,0.010489478,0.0041927625,0.008546181,0.0021162895],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006017965,0.000031130377,0.0016977964,0.0018009203,0.000059558795,0.00042778457,0.061291274,0.00008031238,0.00044838668,0.5100071,0.2628197,0.16127592],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000006563471,0.000013049286,0.0023366562,0.00287872,0.00002491064,0.00022306948,0.031982973,0.000033398686,0.00026339764,0.010956654,0.9512479,0.000032777974],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3837088,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.35717988,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.3837088,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024628364,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0321324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7629508},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.95339054,0.00143844,0.001387317,0.0019894587,0.00006225094,0.00021200762,0.00055903994,0.00003149127,0.04092935],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9974841,0.00032734039,0.00036104294,0.00013020415,0.000021372283,0.00006817107,0.00012761263,0.00000945283,0.0014706687],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.94575834,0.019789612,0.005620178,0.0016798757,0.023661256,0.0034907246],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.79674894,0.09575785,0.06606721,0.0082545215,0.025990507,0.007180977],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027061557,0.00020518622,0.0005417836,0.007834343,0.0023486307,0.0031737655,0.0017093226,0.0010464152,0.0037021926],"category_scores_gemma":[0.16494729,0.00021265872,0.00059654284,0.0030979307,0.004210429,0.0026095468,0.0032437795,0.001545919,0.00054629677],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00016477075,0.0001870034,0.8712905,0.00056184846,0.00022022182,0.0006967581,0.053306777,0.0003137257,0.0007496555,0.011388804,0.0038844093,0.05723557],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000008752832,0.00032741055,0.89026135,0.000619001,0.000096131014,0.0023053552,0.08413172,0.0006919783,0.001010631,0.0021610046,0.018249061,0.00013767742],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010482639,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.015544415,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98951733,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0038483234,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004405518,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14311689},"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":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.17392902,0.041551735,0.0012119326,0.5959113,0.0027770966,0.00018899768,0.00028240986,0.00007586743,0.18407165],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9206383,0.019778032,0.0012114487,0.031858236,0.00047286352,0.00003156869,0.00008945343,0.00003885578,0.025881272],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98738235,0.0016280562,0.00034875813,0.00077715446,0.0050010616,0.004862562],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9726158,0.0055375467,0.0014005097,0.0003182315,0.011783637,0.008344387],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007670334,0.00026252502,0.00051223766,0.0027703478,0.030318167,0.010092178,0.0032866767,0.0044140616,0.006041503],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026651356,0.0006161606,0.00036953576,0.0041260016,0.012818787,0.001824171,0.004065633,0.0070729484,0.00028224013],"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":[0.00013242566,0.00023451452,0.045448862,0.0010549637,0.00007404416,0.0034921358,0.07546132,0.0019479026,0.001931282,0.33131754,0.25988868,0.27901638],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000076191165,0.000095308555,0.1422652,0.0013519794,0.00007987103,0.0005549719,0.08368374,0.0014835113,0.0010048016,0.016838258,0.75223994,0.0003262818],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9949639,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9986785,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20350978,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20350978,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.40199593,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9238158},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.07431561,0.03305311,0.0011034199,0.54451543,0.0020909857,0.00013016668,0.0005653773,0.00005444011,0.34417143],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7568837,0.043889876,0.0013063857,0.15330936,0.0011206173,0.00006291064,0.00021471502,0.00007901592,0.043133505],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98567617,0.0014569939,0.0002707887,0.0006229729,0.006456052,0.0055170218],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9813534,0.0059255324,0.0009971967,0.00026674697,0.008163116,0.003294057],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0060781557,0.00030448698,0.0005812772,0.0026283893,0.025659245,0.010313556,0.0027753555,0.005911274,0.0055827205],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017958445,0.00052470213,0.0009545357,0.0039345287,0.012374417,0.002122233,0.002653713,0.011043627,0.00028455348],"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":[0.000082642655,0.000075840915,0.0077935434,0.00027961674,0.000043253796,0.0021150566,0.011418301,0.00083785283,0.00071060937,0.7985313,0.14051351,0.03759844],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00015617789,0.00015809588,0.05321273,0.0020254306,0.00020923399,0.00085873436,0.028438848,0.0021140794,0.0013193367,0.06599742,0.84504825,0.00046176094],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9931718,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9965963,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20499814,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20499814,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.25534552,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.92208946},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05095286,0.002831694,0.1164731,0.14112173,0.004034481,0.0013723176,0.0009600816,0.00037756655,0.6818763],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7339212,0.0016978757,0.0959828,0.09278459,0.0028372607,0.0019852875,0.0005437691,0.0002519801,0.069995314],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9721929,0.007127374,0.0023965894,0.00349945,0.011687159,0.0030965467],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.965841,0.02257103,0.0018012414,0.0033041113,0.0055889944,0.0008936397],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023819236,0.00089882227,0.0018745806,0.0023504794,0.0041085263,0.008737893,0.0037993074,0.019999558,0.009333249],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06124728,0.00067326304,0.001530479,0.0010623717,0.018883208,0.012389851,0.008175083,0.017333526,0.0034579113],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000043990818,0.000045115357,0.0010193125,0.00006745615,0.0000089669265,0.00041342914,0.0007006648,0.00035491292,0.0007247739,0.9746174,0.010052558,0.01195148],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019943711,0.0003153962,0.0043717967,0.0009752756,0.00007526552,0.0017124498,0.0014318312,0.005039832,0.0062640808,0.71220845,0.26714933,0.00025682128],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009053343,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008133263,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.99094665,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004570188,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01428715,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.12596965},"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":"methods","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.084730156,0.011927091,0.5561396,0.05063893,0.00086162204,0.0008003972,0.000115881565,0.00084284414,0.2939435],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.82923645,0.007255768,0.15192698,0.0038217383,0.0004648709,0.00034913284,0.000098950586,0.0001061921,0.0067398697],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9656455,0.019016942,0.0011667473,0.0014648812,0.011241948,0.0014639671],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9278993,0.05378877,0.0038843206,0.006577651,0.007138107,0.000711786],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03269189,0.00042535533,0.0004473007,0.006543374,0.0032542124,0.01055388,0.0031332045,0.0036757942,0.00226927],"category_scores_gemma":[0.08998306,0.00047014203,0.00059064705,0.0048791156,0.017555067,0.012213044,0.0051331515,0.004019992,0.00037670214],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.000026678706,0.000043116812,0.0024929598,0.00018203877,0.000014672457,0.00016620515,0.003099141,0.008106067,0.00061429065,0.8211778,0.0033464686,0.16073062],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003407359,0.00014993882,0.0042009675,0.0011035391,0.000042606982,0.00050360506,0.003846899,0.043042026,0.00343656,0.827872,0.11563482,0.00013295744],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019370807,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01949522,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.03269189,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.010605666,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.012239459,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.17289329},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.03456836,0.06957972,0.0036556034,0.34932974,0.0048458073,0.000073536976,0.00032021545,0.00014560667,0.5374814],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5842443,0.024252726,0.0017187423,0.054779273,0.0028381166,0.00007845828,0.00019433213,0.00020127198,0.33169267],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9943171,0.0015915232,0.000112450165,0.00082622113,0.0020910522,0.0010616734],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9944131,0.0018432915,0.00064509676,0.0005273745,0.0020358127,0.00053529895],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00468469,0.0002973152,0.00036409474,0.0014224917,0.012709508,0.008627702,0.0014107091,0.005414154,0.009182034],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017647363,0.00029803062,0.00033388173,0.001412748,0.018458338,0.0059497408,0.0026122376,0.006489425,0.0014923754],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003998042,0.000016592765,0.0014330156,0.00028348702,0.00002030326,0.00043063998,0.050670397,0.00008282216,0.00061946135,0.71884865,0.18985529,0.03769927],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000005091649,0.000007975462,0.0017986235,0.00032730418,0.00000930115,0.00012712528,0.0066661094,0.000028634808,0.00029026344,0.0078008175,0.982919,0.000019785462],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5133441,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.58829373,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5133441,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016654665,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.028073486,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.97904384},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9323341,0.001609255,0.00028840618,0.0026744544,0.00003598048,0.00034125158,0.0076124133,0.000030448535,0.05507361],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98234105,0.0021038877,0.0005946978,0.00054268824,0.000031246353,0.00014832607,0.0033590144,0.000019287587,0.010859729],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9946405,0.0003906218,0.00018444825,0.000408426,0.0030319965,0.0013439835],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97642744,0.0045320867,0.0045044897,0.0006026653,0.011302509,0.0026308142],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0026726325,0.0003896343,0.00063700206,0.0095860455,0.011737939,0.0035458747,0.002014672,0.0009731014,0.0073053334],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015924316,0.00047258046,0.00042535996,0.024700044,0.002918302,0.0012612573,0.0020443196,0.0016413117,0.00065678114],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00023283719,0.0005019058,0.8230786,0.00049355987,0.00007359433,0.0012765285,0.06496842,0.0007159146,0.00050606625,0.013116262,0.03599371,0.059042532],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000015433823,0.00004477473,0.9088377,0.00013598205,0.000029693918,0.00021758943,0.05085659,0.00050367205,0.00017732831,0.00021802336,0.03890474,0.000058588485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99532,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99729246,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9168295,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08317047,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.084899746,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.60344684},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"other","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.19103669,0.28982896,0.010392528,0.17945632,0.0018633516,0.00007845399,0.0003508723,0.000054510834,0.3269383],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93079555,0.042149235,0.0021785588,0.0056923702,0.00033078552,0.000014717213,0.00005593639,0.00001977926,0.018763032],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9912403,0.0013696991,0.00029778964,0.00078171445,0.004768589,0.0015419516],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98656344,0.004570377,0.0012664794,0.0003185409,0.0062085437,0.0010725724],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0054280525,0.0003553275,0.00056474656,0.0063662995,0.011869546,0.013223924,0.0019967936,0.0031863584,0.002420862],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0134525085,0.00043198923,0.00038748773,0.0065927473,0.02826951,0.00367394,0.0024245107,0.0043564937,0.00013819095],"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":[0.000021063739,0.000015446167,0.007267666,0.00024389352,0.000013621567,0.00025041128,0.014474454,0.0005496058,0.00027370112,0.9359883,0.008481182,0.032420795],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000025356721,0.00006355794,0.09597269,0.002332302,0.00012580068,0.0008223844,0.04686699,0.0020640069,0.00080259034,0.108656526,0.74202394,0.00024387494],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99060035,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99313027,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14035872,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.14035872,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.17736864,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.997062},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035414405,0.0042218766,0.0028424275,0.56976837,0.0065856255,0.00048586106,0.0013614626,0.00020463193,0.37911534],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17477658,0.0020354507,0.0016717465,0.56162405,0.0010918906,0.0002105161,0.0002266898,0.00013335013,0.2582297],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9946407,0.00054139976,0.00016788952,0.0006639223,0.0021234837,0.0018625115],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978618,0.00081385364,0.00010841121,0.000059049667,0.00084489974,0.00031195654],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0034812186,0.00055894646,0.00061745715,0.0011894652,0.020889916,0.0053763893,0.0025726098,0.021299431,0.010475386],"category_scores_gemma":[0.008966697,0.00063162134,0.0011477377,0.0014659397,0.0057481965,0.0019922925,0.002310827,0.016028237,0.0015311948],"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":[0.000096853546,0.00004006228,0.002889611,0.00013745698,0.000029309102,0.0038629305,0.010739136,0.00031603096,0.0010730448,0.2682551,0.7052412,0.007319258],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000043301763,0.00003213075,0.0050142338,0.0003016564,0.00007698891,0.0011463517,0.010810507,0.00040551508,0.0011814529,0.010029562,0.9708266,0.00013169259],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9302911,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9614897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.069708884,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03158885,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.040636405,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.22919422},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.05592517,0.123799376,0.003919274,0.32308966,0.002377781,0.00010061837,0.00040601694,0.00006522185,0.4903169],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8252617,0.042905413,0.002958628,0.026410166,0.0007702395,0.00005095978,0.00015597261,0.000044574408,0.10144238],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9898191,0.0023503893,0.00025624756,0.0005640501,0.00474158,0.0022686056],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99330854,0.0018591163,0.00048884307,0.0002390067,0.0029863517,0.0011182101],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0070862253,0.00024127075,0.00039129148,0.0014537057,0.010199533,0.007695498,0.0015145902,0.0033871506,0.003434363],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0136204185,0.00029802124,0.00032585338,0.0017623461,0.016733913,0.0023919973,0.0027202491,0.0040309727,0.00037328943],"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":[0.000034535213,0.00002044626,0.0049075866,0.00033092947,0.000018006303,0.00035844833,0.020644765,0.00045228013,0.0003620659,0.7967678,0.107436106,0.068667054],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014280386,0.00003381497,0.025108088,0.0011270621,0.000029333463,0.00029048356,0.019069599,0.00030828506,0.00030608295,0.033930775,0.9197038,0.00007825399],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.94324046,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9713538,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.94204164,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.057958376,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.16916656,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42051947},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.0049985964,0.005585215,0.0010775063,0.95302606,0.0006997343,0.000016528129,0.00008654077,0.000030807456,0.034479003],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4104517,0.007181811,0.0015430872,0.5330904,0.0025391446,0.00005992215,0.00007648221,0.00006671527,0.044990666],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9944108,0.0010594577,0.00012352907,0.0010894801,0.0018884289,0.0014283179],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9868253,0.00577605,0.001119386,0.00057730847,0.0039749397,0.001727133],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0065038935,0.00035354003,0.0007587825,0.0013703371,0.00856388,0.010702443,0.0030504076,0.01339704,0.022969846],"category_scores_gemma":[0.030698383,0.00029561477,0.00052283815,0.0012765828,0.027013669,0.015599119,0.0029077688,0.012181492,0.0035873945],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004061591,0.000036600803,0.0022140732,0.00023703944,0.0000306032,0.00026520438,0.011476594,0.00007713575,0.00022128267,0.7234979,0.23561753,0.026285436],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000072195144,0.00003694971,0.0066240616,0.0011621466,0.000058301383,0.00043765755,0.026934119,0.00040299646,0.0004957229,0.24075031,0.72294927,0.000076307035],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.49848777,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4536574,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.49848777,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.024831126,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.030347893,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9911725},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.010839777,0.17688394,0.0019980876,0.72555536,0.0031979873,0.000022234626,0.0001055122,0.000051962397,0.081345096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6458591,0.24414761,0.007043937,0.07103459,0.0026535757,0.00007790168,0.00012262925,0.00012221455,0.028938457],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9744776,0.0080524385,0.00063738244,0.0014957726,0.010281458,0.0050553004],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.93098897,0.02256236,0.0029447295,0.0018624243,0.032289773,0.009351703],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023954364,0.0006232181,0.0012356562,0.0068375804,0.031727575,0.028040498,0.0030172134,0.005311583,0.006381236],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04977613,0.0004660344,0.00057180953,0.011090481,0.052507866,0.012809601,0.0072989766,0.01021828,0.0006341061],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":true,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003880162,0.0000249361,0.0021509368,0.00088687026,0.000022407323,0.00013231667,0.03624713,0.00030395153,0.00015877046,0.7771453,0.08809962,0.094788894],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014409468,0.000025984034,0.005969117,0.0035670074,0.00003912136,0.00011342186,0.07414534,0.00040955635,0.00018917468,0.17110303,0.7443001,0.00012373128],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9657876,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98333424,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.79285353,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.20714648,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.40991977,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9195977},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.36309847,0.049784563,0.012545037,0.3936665,0.002252552,0.0016384874,0.011941858,0.00021862026,0.16485395],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9387831,0.009963275,0.007282745,0.028550746,0.0008130888,0.0005137897,0.0013588556,0.00021942606,0.012515076],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.93568045,0.012605588,0.0043423716,0.005361321,0.02876092,0.013249379],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.68340755,0.15867628,0.029642906,0.011405945,0.0800786,0.036788765],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04806219,0.00047810966,0.002027611,0.005206801,0.014761749,0.01013452,0.0073564393,0.0035183828,0.00915924],"category_scores_gemma":[0.2555263,0.00076720247,0.0021500508,0.012424189,0.011650808,0.006307083,0.0056512603,0.00988812,0.00044420548],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.003185475,0.00044009576,0.29043168,0.0027253595,0.0012494555,0.0023147867,0.025049832,0.0059448285,0.0005404122,0.27172935,0.11813008,0.27825853],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011152826,0.0007487261,0.57604945,0.008639686,0.002276702,0.0009847794,0.036868695,0.011149243,0.0010925321,0.1005866,0.25944784,0.001040486],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9936027,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99574065,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.16953176,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16953176,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.3927631,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9632254},"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":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.035337258,0.035001196,0.0065886206,0.8034641,0.0034075568,0.000084861975,0.00010640544,0.000085918575,0.11592408],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.78659576,0.0064863977,0.0042886254,0.17307374,0.0014036056,0.000049218263,0.000043558997,0.00006830099,0.027990798],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9480956,0.018556273,0.0014908162,0.003324309,0.019880535,0.008652346],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.965647,0.018415682,0.0017465897,0.0015625982,0.009093999,0.0035341268],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.029525777,0.00027388928,0.0005559347,0.0023508766,0.024083694,0.025115412,0.0025710342,0.010373638,0.0013372736],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07458233,0.00042109916,0.00059421203,0.002411129,0.042114623,0.006285439,0.005307974,0.01242664,0.00023622204],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000136092185,0.0000071674795,0.0013970612,0.00006899294,0.0000148812915,0.00023493207,0.0067207757,0.00020786987,0.00018759233,0.93771994,0.03966922,0.013757934],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041091836,0.00005280001,0.01002787,0.0011014016,0.0000798186,0.00042940784,0.01900519,0.0012202606,0.00088214956,0.27961284,0.687284,0.0002630699],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82474214,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.91368145,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.82474214,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.08317429,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13850208,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6034745},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.23351203,0.09337712,0.0023124693,0.49769014,0.0019871874,0.00006873417,0.00040612163,0.00006189519,0.17058437],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8657773,0.048236806,0.0014495272,0.044575155,0.0005829042,0.000019671797,0.00009773336,0.000035788216,0.03922513],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9971631,0.00035816702,0.00007485147,0.00024174266,0.0013407388,0.00082127826],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9956905,0.001548502,0.0005158359,0.000115147406,0.0014798304,0.0006502262],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0017025709,0.00024927768,0.000359424,0.0011019143,0.01021129,0.0044737007,0.0011390158,0.003682368,0.004559073],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009700045,0.0002794506,0.00039034183,0.0015057729,0.010106989,0.0019099077,0.0016506441,0.0042760596,0.00022196976],"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":[0.0002339637,0.000113757014,0.07740566,0.00075249805,0.00012247755,0.0032265785,0.040029243,0.0012933031,0.0017009344,0.5152308,0.09114514,0.26874563],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007545773,0.00015144062,0.11788734,0.0018018567,0.00022941048,0.0027588198,0.047522202,0.0019671011,0.0022817606,0.042879213,0.7821694,0.00027596447],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98925227,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.993309,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.056353807,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.056353807,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.11179081,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.40887743},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"commentary","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.08226578,0.05695605,0.009178721,0.33326825,0.0025427085,0.0001857115,0.0003012714,0.0000681214,0.51523334],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93009996,0.014760128,0.0032034141,0.037681144,0.0008411214,0.0000680728,0.00006686504,0.000031473555,0.013247786],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95082414,0.014080324,0.0015019069,0.0028805758,0.024322934,0.006390084],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94725573,0.025028873,0.006202545,0.0024860855,0.016230974,0.002795658],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.035358224,0.00039452218,0.0008298118,0.0055371993,0.01526279,0.012281718,0.0025245263,0.0038406167,0.0030147142],"category_scores_gemma":[0.078585975,0.00065235194,0.0005263566,0.0040337364,0.021912144,0.0072086207,0.005566429,0.0071766307,0.00021992339],"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":[0.000027073742,0.0000140561515,0.0051219556,0.00023236964,0.000028839147,0.0001445733,0.0038789152,0.00016635416,0.00019009877,0.9401002,0.010772793,0.039322753],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009930416,0.000095820724,0.060762193,0.0051727253,0.0003564799,0.0004817459,0.012950064,0.0010746164,0.0016614599,0.39261195,0.52453536,0.00019822163],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.69024944,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.85601884,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.30975056,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032150596,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.09823519,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.62314945},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.016910367,0.13186903,0.0034078078,0.2764524,0.004863467,0.00021632019,0.00058779615,0.00020533297,0.56548756],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.4195434,0.085017875,0.0039322157,0.25401092,0.0051109935,0.00030931967,0.00044425647,0.00038665716,0.23124443],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98103255,0.003179271,0.00063881243,0.0013337174,0.010272017,0.0035436936],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97038794,0.013346874,0.0015464515,0.0011211799,0.011436569,0.002161102],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.013288148,0.00065129274,0.00083420303,0.005856131,0.015247146,0.020794952,0.0028200748,0.018274985,0.0051745162],"category_scores_gemma":[0.044214487,0.0010387116,0.00074670505,0.007994425,0.031680893,0.0054220706,0.0031064954,0.018967053,0.00088300713],"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":[0.000018909881,0.000036170164,0.00081004325,0.00010792415,0.000014037589,0.00014769826,0.002906284,0.00030009667,0.00017295576,0.7988267,0.16265285,0.034006268],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000014905477,0.000016310933,0.0064120833,0.0005369338,0.000019095434,0.000054305518,0.00077220006,0.00023860544,0.00021012485,0.021167785,0.9704681,0.0000896101],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92791563,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.94821954,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.07526609,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07526609,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1390556,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5460963},"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":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.28855208,0.07446308,0.00053511444,0.1044237,0.0031006483,0.00008383882,0.00041789052,0.00002820703,0.5283955],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9017665,0.016358906,0.00028021188,0.0287994,0.0002652851,0.0000234852,0.00012592062,0.000024557532,0.052355763],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9963259,0.0006485679,0.00009882084,0.00027765095,0.001302011,0.0013471168],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99695325,0.0010264934,0.00033463817,0.00013090337,0.0010128927,0.00054177607],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030579052,0.00019149721,0.00036469175,0.0014013228,0.014392972,0.004984291,0.0012881106,0.0028247624,0.0030145696],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005365741,0.00022201317,0.00018647009,0.0018588533,0.0093488395,0.0014085626,0.0015893764,0.0041306065,0.00030248592],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00011517036,0.000056967157,0.016877532,0.0007080505,0.00002890812,0.0030516905,0.16761586,0.00009085935,0.0011534936,0.49452886,0.19166024,0.12411243],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001707641,0.000032895812,0.047159947,0.0012931521,0.000066306784,0.00069894706,0.13730755,0.000041249183,0.0006702939,0.0065732016,0.8060826,0.000056800072],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9350736,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.98015106,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9350736,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.023090243,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05959357,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1675322},"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":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.39256284,0.39346743,0.0059941537,0.08037479,0.0007382926,0.00034221308,0.0016270056,0.00008361157,0.12480978],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.83180106,0.14767638,0.0018956488,0.012612856,0.0004841057,0.000091580514,0.0005986037,0.00007880471,0.004761029],"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.95106214,0.0124124875,0.0046066293,0.0033282894,0.025220392,0.0033699702],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.63138396,0.24083576,0.037157908,0.007983682,0.079933114,0.0027055778],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.07225352,0.00023499821,0.0009771325,0.019929586,0.004961685,0.008640538,0.0023426954,0.0024691042,0.0038125648],"category_scores_gemma":[0.18045965,0.00063279364,0.0004704543,0.023591748,0.011109433,0.004972771,0.0027076155,0.0037427687,0.0005037078],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001556505,0.000107138534,0.14329514,0.004083655,0.00013605693,0.0020054923,0.10376348,0.00042406336,0.0014210881,0.17374834,0.07075317,0.5001067],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000018982297,0.00013515602,0.32961628,0.015910659,0.00016050419,0.0022032515,0.068467796,0.0006297108,0.0019002818,0.017348986,0.5633766,0.00023174359],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.26786897,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.45594296,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.732131,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.027686436,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.026576782,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5326196},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}