{"meta":{"query_hash":"9b844868a6fa","filters":{"venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process"},"cohort_total":11,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":11,"exported":11,"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/9b844868a6fa","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=The+Journal+of+Appellate+Practice+and+Process"},"results":[{"id":"W1813242488","doi":"","title":"The Language of Supreme Court Briefs: A Large-Scale Quantitative Investigation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"is_retracted":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; Skepticism; Political science; Scope (computer science); Majority opinion; Sociology; Psychology; Computer science","score_opus":0.025344717686607638,"score_gpt":0.3886354509415238,"score_spread":0.3632907332549162,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1813242488","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":[0.98679465,0.00088678376,0.0025857443,0.0011168892,0.00005005793,0.00081410544,0.0015202792,0.000026479647,0.0062048486],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.98885345,0.0010198494,0.0036237543,0.00061403133,0.00007846127,0.0028046381,0.0014773259,0.000038734317,0.0014898062],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.96730477,0.02059893,0.0037514393,0.0016902565,0.005849261,0.0008053821],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.77584255,0.16299891,0.034410648,0.0051287683,0.018497078,0.0031220845],"candidate_categories":["bibliometrics"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.028111517,0.00026416153,0.0004939095,0.008646303,0.0038181196,0.0057650907,0.001429145,0.0011107827,0.0037198456],"category_scores_gemma":[0.14019948,0.00055035425,0.00032871615,0.011995098,0.004559476,0.0068248794,0.0034533779,0.0015452227,0.0005799474],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.00029906834,0.0007696945,0.21506546,0.003676261,0.00009225545,0.0009291339,0.67424136,0.00027341102,0.0036193521,0.011128971,0.009229815,0.080675185],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002744084,0.0004511401,0.23701839,0.0015215355,0.000036834103,0.00035924558,0.71214706,0.0006094296,0.000845158,0.0018005294,0.045080844,0.00010235452],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0054908935,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008265975,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9913537,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004777394,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.003059195,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.14866972},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W208829756","doi":"","title":"The Supreme Court of Canada: Its History, Powers and Responsibilities","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":6,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Original jurisdiction; Certiorari; Court of record; Jurisdiction; Majority opinion; Political science; Constitution; Appeal; Court of equity; Sociology","score_opus":0.033611701399108226,"score_gpt":0.29595418695150155,"score_spread":0.2623424855523933,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W208829756","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":[0.029017491,0.17475146,0.0024220385,0.2248446,0.0027524687,0.000046210887,0.000577783,0.00012656164,0.56546146],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8014129,0.06838169,0.0022122492,0.02467886,0.0014221288,0.00004178069,0.0002750862,0.000099575285,0.10147567],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99188906,0.0009023042,0.00014382694,0.00063838804,0.004080681,0.0023458672],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936812,0.001229325,0.00025137313,0.00013960592,0.0032320872,0.0014664129],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002795804,0.00032191403,0.00039407282,0.0035744896,0.03017154,0.017181812,0.0019910517,0.0045846123,0.004547631],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010022669,0.0005176883,0.00022169924,0.008161867,0.02239058,0.0029615122,0.0027222808,0.006669096,0.0004207992],"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":[0.0000115456305,0.000009040672,0.00215451,0.00007517906,0.00000862389,0.00022800357,0.010204942,0.00025914708,0.000112786445,0.8330681,0.099972285,0.053895842],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000062431386,0.000007937938,0.008752447,0.0005346769,0.000013025426,0.00013274637,0.0063170656,0.00030159258,0.00010128943,0.04174214,0.94202954,0.000061336796],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98606354,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9927216,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83281565,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.16718434,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2177468,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9659481},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2293451274","doi":"","title":"Use of Electronic Appeal Transcripts in the Alberta Court of Appeal","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","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":"Appeal; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.03880758510275726,"score_gpt":0.3646939187647742,"score_spread":0.3258863336620169,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2293451274","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":[0.17573969,0.0011022487,0.04913664,0.056356113,0.0044329003,0.0047763935,0.002792439,0.004768538,0.700895],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.49459365,0.00084530335,0.053222135,0.013688719,0.00095214875,0.0019534589,0.0016664786,0.0005788108,0.4324993],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.97670376,0.006454484,0.0008221457,0.0012818993,0.012407136,0.0023305207],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9573368,0.025448194,0.0010708807,0.0039265193,0.010261964,0.001955586],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.023664968,0.00039195226,0.0003861963,0.0028991206,0.012082006,0.007957714,0.0027055924,0.003220339,0.03743024],"category_scores_gemma":[0.055681527,0.0010967039,0.00040638205,0.0033879846,0.0041100467,0.0026365747,0.004647547,0.004476184,0.008266049],"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":[0.00064326177,0.00056993286,0.009085828,0.00024889043,0.000026227275,0.0037637048,0.016644292,0.001587237,0.00972832,0.08151882,0.46679133,0.40939212],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00062346004,0.00068340445,0.052026063,0.0006468616,0.00008963213,0.0014777116,0.024751673,0.008508717,0.0110356705,0.021250319,0.8783834,0.0005230677],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.35351822,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.72871107,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.64648175,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.015269836,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.038366262,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70292103},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W234024414","doi":"","title":"Retired and Working","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Appeal; Law; Irish; High Court; Politics; Queen (butterfly); Commonwealth; Sociology; Courage; Political science","score_opus":0.023571023671303218,"score_gpt":0.2551711283137382,"score_spread":0.23160010464243502,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W234024414","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":[0.11113428,0.026079183,0.0022468935,0.25534463,0.04458767,0.00084435794,0.0066037793,0.00095835363,0.5522008],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14330746,0.010890132,0.0011521302,0.118380316,0.0027661438,0.00044010955,0.0023624026,0.00037627443,0.720325],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9959273,0.00050240115,0.00014561124,0.00044488208,0.0009600083,0.0020198515],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.992717,0.00023357198,0.00028838194,0.00028817132,0.0018473021,0.004625451],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0028969198,0.0006905076,0.0011168284,0.0013957117,0.011966176,0.007305098,0.001573814,0.002444355,0.14201432],"category_scores_gemma":[0.010887589,0.00046056724,0.0008011952,0.0011888434,0.0019785678,0.0057536634,0.0065726284,0.0065806787,0.07414453],"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":[0.000070498085,0.00018660698,0.010593957,0.0001797749,0.00001878233,0.0010769889,0.014766131,0.000028910728,0.0004035969,0.00879663,0.8446728,0.11920531],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000013448574,0.00012881955,0.01034846,0.00043831175,0.0000125693505,0.0007083603,0.01756808,0.000021960821,0.00007071693,0.0015508315,0.96909565,0.00004290688],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.023059618,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.049854737,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.14201432,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002212465,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008730168,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.47508526},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2529794700","doi":"","title":"A Practical Guide to Appellate Judging","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","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":"Appeal; Law; Trial court; Political science; Supreme court; Law of the case; Economic Justice; Court of record; Remand (court procedure); Sociology; Original jurisdiction","score_opus":0.05537421702774193,"score_gpt":0.4255470423250415,"score_spread":0.37017282529729956,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2529794700","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":[0.0012758423,0.014875956,0.071306065,0.056745224,0.012991823,0.0023462193,0.0044026156,0.0064352104,0.82962096],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0091727525,0.008512328,0.07949288,0.02660892,0.0026799897,0.0015596555,0.0032465535,0.0021928141,0.8665341],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99281436,0.00268184,0.0006707887,0.00069253636,0.002501291,0.0006391826],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98892003,0.0034284568,0.00033034646,0.0008217521,0.0055333916,0.0009659604],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0050659124,0.001362147,0.0012121727,0.0033215499,0.005649765,0.0059751193,0.0033477177,0.0059116073,0.20087682],"category_scores_gemma":[0.021174317,0.0011457419,0.00080608285,0.0035514054,0.0027324166,0.0051170685,0.0041491548,0.0068717916,0.19009066],"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":[0.000009978731,0.000037596863,0.00011533167,0.00011192571,9.225239e-7,0.00012713118,0.00056892895,0.000085596046,0.0001827835,0.010158092,0.9146025,0.073999204],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000028609406,0.000008778925,0.0001233982,0.00013964446,4.8001175e-7,0.00011261376,0.0003589437,0.00009466115,0.00004393965,0.0036432566,0.99546367,0.000007728608],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.013871722,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.035773993,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.20087682,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0032699488,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008746595,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.67199993},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W264846025","doi":"","title":"Written and Oral Persuasion in the United States Courts: A District Judge's Perspective on Their History, Function, and Future","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":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; Argument (complex analysis); Adversarial system; Persuasion; Sociology; Political science; Psychology; Medicine","score_opus":0.018343817006556705,"score_gpt":0.3047617679055159,"score_spread":0.2864179508989592,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W264846025","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":[0.073212065,0.16434368,0.0017350294,0.2525697,0.0028255093,0.000041202762,0.000117033036,0.00005923332,0.50509655],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93240064,0.01559976,0.0009690795,0.016281534,0.0010581762,0.000061559,0.000038571274,0.000026696378,0.033564024],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9922255,0.004270407,0.00036460493,0.0005921688,0.0013938686,0.0011535527],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9879865,0.006747902,0.0011032842,0.00039333163,0.00226101,0.0015079948],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005234308,0.00022732386,0.0004200263,0.002673572,0.010153327,0.026462177,0.0014506542,0.0066380524,0.0042446535],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012264653,0.00039591943,0.0002811004,0.0026460222,0.013529171,0.006928431,0.0043413946,0.008350154,0.00037553255],"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":[0.00004445478,0.00011975179,0.002358525,0.00018086155,0.000009152842,0.00032280886,0.048582043,0.00013503442,0.00016274242,0.8445568,0.028399933,0.07512789],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000041903964,0.00014064055,0.015556293,0.0017324185,0.000030457506,0.00043031818,0.07860679,0.00047094643,0.0007667535,0.11038069,0.7917289,0.00011373613],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.039899494,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.073488586,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.039899494,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.013214569,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009835873,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09587884},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125875054","doi":"","title":"Calling on U.S. Courts to Adopt Canada's Unified Approach to Statutory Interpretation","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","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":"Statutory interpretation; Statute; Legislative history; Statutory law; Legislative intent; Law; Legislature; Meaning (existential); Supreme court; Interpretation (philosophy); Political science; Sociology; Epistemology; Computer science","score_opus":0.02019172881396807,"score_gpt":0.32368522083580364,"score_spread":0.30349349202183556,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125875054","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":[0.02730623,0.014714954,0.028864184,0.4229881,0.005069771,0.0005256222,0.001928359,0.0008327485,0.49777004],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5961803,0.007768533,0.042060856,0.18161833,0.001380944,0.00031351586,0.00074431294,0.00021672643,0.16971639],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9808977,0.0025052624,0.0008077335,0.0018578774,0.010978567,0.0029527945],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98541945,0.0022241853,0.0006194006,0.00067801937,0.009976714,0.0010821796],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.008163044,0.0005602292,0.0004848708,0.0025198297,0.013302328,0.014888653,0.00370325,0.010128886,0.0050209784],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012097809,0.00056813547,0.0010537449,0.0040659434,0.015858298,0.003950785,0.0034285919,0.01142836,0.000799864],"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":[0.000007206952,0.000011960612,0.0011073648,0.0000682514,0.000007881731,0.00015463082,0.0018842786,0.00041631458,0.0002584834,0.92039776,0.061534878,0.014151125],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000040166986,0.00004826036,0.0073384987,0.0010221328,0.0000714237,0.00020740448,0.0038332432,0.0034689766,0.0011647153,0.18008104,0.8024398,0.00028434672],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9579326,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9727897,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.09143256,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09143256,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2249801,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6633927},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3148845190","doi":"","title":"Comparing \"Appels\" and Oranges: Evaluating the Link between Appeal Processes and Judiciary Structures in Canada and France","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","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":"Appeal; Nothing; Simple (philosophy); Law; Jurisdiction; Sociology; Epistemology; Political science; Law and economics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.10820533125378311,"score_gpt":0.37221740506654694,"score_spread":0.2640120738127638,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3148845190","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":[0.92990375,0.0019859283,0.0011172483,0.007354263,0.00009025871,0.00021739397,0.0009837248,0.000034796834,0.05831266],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99033666,0.00035835008,0.0005345454,0.0008243915,0.000032625238,0.00006897903,0.00041534466,0.000014254909,0.0074149864],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9858627,0.003624742,0.00039561384,0.00082958466,0.006800006,0.0024873768],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.95895755,0.015969118,0.0047838823,0.0006746596,0.016527861,0.003086872],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009474313,0.00041290477,0.00067452405,0.0050602215,0.007967899,0.008559686,0.0027859148,0.002674439,0.0074077523],"category_scores_gemma":[0.045925193,0.00024530914,0.0006926978,0.0054701488,0.0065689525,0.0023315307,0.0030641379,0.0025187607,0.000371461],"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":[0.0012852761,0.0006855581,0.657968,0.0004729929,0.0005744113,0.00088910497,0.06813768,0.010332882,0.0008777776,0.16328803,0.039566558,0.055921827],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011371206,0.00045899313,0.76426893,0.00076211797,0.00033765272,0.00010186464,0.13190104,0.01175033,0.00080264785,0.011274605,0.07793171,0.0002964353],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.99091583,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930131,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12566338,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.12566338,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06451037,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9117559},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W322187415","doi":"","title":"The Oral Judgment Practice in the Canadian Appellate Courts","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Appeal; Supreme court; Law; Argument (complex analysis); Common law; Psychology; Political science; Medicine","score_opus":0.01983593079110275,"score_gpt":0.34168180213300475,"score_spread":0.321845871341902,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W322187415","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":[0.2850886,0.018368002,0.0027491022,0.079436414,0.0014951419,0.00025375537,0.0012982413,0.00028904915,0.61102176],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.90466595,0.0046025557,0.0021411988,0.005543827,0.00020509423,0.00003530694,0.00019099972,0.000047744652,0.08256734],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9899188,0.00073144876,0.00029145787,0.00070061686,0.0061617517,0.0021958181],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98780185,0.0017709784,0.00070178317,0.00048048957,0.006341477,0.0029033686],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0035423639,0.00029282848,0.00025211077,0.002871549,0.023168214,0.009739755,0.0025877452,0.003036846,0.012878875],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013018726,0.00058758276,0.00028266723,0.004729159,0.011391619,0.0014705377,0.0028967063,0.0028522494,0.00084984914],"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":[0.000105327556,0.00016683537,0.03968587,0.00046339177,0.000030111538,0.0035020458,0.10330151,0.0011522009,0.0028820767,0.40089133,0.19793098,0.24988832],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000017672051,0.00006266279,0.066810854,0.0004940122,0.00003067656,0.0005999519,0.027631735,0.0008069425,0.0007500708,0.0062647606,0.8963157,0.00021502537],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9922133,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9966994,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.11748795,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.11748795,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1439348,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.85243875},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W338120031","doi":"","title":"Selecting the Supremes: The Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"is_retracted":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; Politics; Political science; Democracy; Economic Justice; Sociology","score_opus":0.016412687180974404,"score_gpt":0.3103397535646305,"score_spread":0.2939270663836561,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W338120031","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":[0.23257647,0.011850959,0.002480172,0.13037068,0.0033124732,0.00050882646,0.002158758,0.00023716623,0.6165045],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8958052,0.0026669274,0.0015493409,0.010544296,0.0003166393,0.00006973889,0.00036548125,0.00006577787,0.08861664],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9879618,0.001341741,0.000220288,0.0013623348,0.0035613324,0.0055524507],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98725593,0.0024789718,0.0004185248,0.00024228526,0.005641347,0.0039629517],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0048673917,0.00032807497,0.00044152557,0.0029223866,0.040762432,0.012189108,0.002921085,0.004755789,0.012076878],"category_scores_gemma":[0.022401275,0.0006043026,0.00034312234,0.0044870744,0.0077323616,0.0017869471,0.0028039692,0.0050824042,0.0008093652],"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":[0.00019857251,0.00008998837,0.041067623,0.00020200489,0.000052673488,0.0028683261,0.028620498,0.0017903128,0.0013148075,0.4284286,0.4169259,0.07844075],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006653827,0.000049322753,0.07186033,0.0005350502,0.00009760272,0.00029858403,0.044932317,0.002224485,0.0010578649,0.029473115,0.8491219,0.00028300792],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9929234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.99783283,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.188552,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.188552,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2389032,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9411647},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W345341298","doi":"","title":"Planning and Conduct of the National Conference","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process","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":true,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":false,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"York University","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Economic Justice; Political science; State (computer science); Sociology","score_opus":0.0903722199174186,"score_gpt":0.4345304889674785,"score_spread":0.34415826905005986,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W345341298","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":[0.012304415,0.0051787957,0.084081426,0.102281004,0.038980924,0.104530044,0.007256375,0.0020979894,0.643289],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07767996,0.0062308796,0.23840547,0.037005454,0.012061873,0.15500793,0.0112537285,0.0016323425,0.46072236],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9639443,0.015479817,0.002561479,0.0030609886,0.008007288,0.0069461423],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8830344,0.011664593,0.0029322307,0.003965112,0.046479702,0.051924],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06609624,0.0016189173,0.0010480303,0.007554327,0.014127799,0.015391197,0.006191922,0.0059498,0.12378462],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06772975,0.0016871915,0.0014231448,0.003951605,0.0031531367,0.006901576,0.011692498,0.01453644,0.041089687],"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":[0.00041762486,0.0013585069,0.0022103717,0.0018094874,0.000026304768,0.001580192,0.006932631,0.0018522566,0.0024458207,0.054469526,0.7312103,0.195687],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000067887224,0.00018460736,0.0026752013,0.0009577775,0.0000066601374,0.00018246376,0.009353256,0.00054754794,0.0005369551,0.007915304,0.9775109,0.00006122469],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.010003289,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.020190487,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.12378462,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017242309,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.07667099,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.41410083},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}