{"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.81222177,0.000689777,0.00018107131,0.16954857,0.00039257284,0.00014491398,0.0000030328854,0.000006346627,0.016811922],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9965128,0.0010220853,0.0007780133,0.0009600342,0.00019842097,0.0000010830923,6.216725e-7,0.000005446254,0.00052149675],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987463,0.0004066479,0.00030963466,0.000049522805,0.00036142624,0.00012649843],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9949997,0.0028345345,0.00095948804,0.000101119804,0.0010415569,0.000063613545],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0068751345,0.000055815264,0.0000905132,0.000042066422,0.00068367925,0.00015817757,0.00024026817,0.000051440962,0.000055787754],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005223735,0.000032237527,0.000023245471,0.0003921475,0.00034990517,0.0013962118,0.000015531887,0.00066631066,0.000007597149],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005523244,0.00016815144,0.0013934671,0.000046088084,0.00012380932,0.0000022907395,0.91358536,0.000022450276,0.008357278,0.0647594,0.0058231656,0.00516622],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00031888482,0.00011816885,0.0007943502,0.000035183206,0.00016458772,0.00006803142,0.55618215,0.00010780583,0.0028312504,0.008738125,0.43055066,0.000090818714],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00079193624,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0018252371,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4247275,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000008448806,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006866975,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6253676},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.69075185,0.037929606,0.000012726586,0.16332193,0.00020959164,0.00024017935,0.000004790228,0.0000055520018,0.107523754],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9846417,0.011031775,0.0000169597,0.00028593733,0.000069810936,4.880093e-7,2.5230184e-8,0.000003432588,0.003949884],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99909425,0.00020443813,0.0002106294,0.00004612951,0.00031918543,0.00012535787],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997729,0.0013990809,0.00039435487,0.00007769122,0.00032964154,0.000070232534],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002355822,0.000048244838,0.00008844149,0.000014249447,0.00047492434,0.00003273829,0.00019394781,0.000024978392,0.000045639048],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008393072,0.000027034148,0.000014380658,0.000072611016,0.00025550314,0.00028873733,0.000020691934,0.00017796988,7.852302e-7],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0029128452,0.00032776373,0.0011347033,0.00035583324,0.00056896143,0.000034688397,0.63370156,0.00030247206,0.0021375425,0.1338865,0.20000273,0.024634391],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001199018,0.000050340583,0.00014048522,0.000017742579,0.000061091094,0.000041138133,0.042360783,0.00008755069,0.0001281019,0.0010243194,0.95592034,0.00004819438],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.020928504,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03903581,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7559176,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006636493,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005164253,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.98559123},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.772582,0.0018410569,0.00004433653,0.17582883,0.000093894094,0.0002997047,0.0000026526322,0.0000030943647,0.049304426],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99326676,0.004810366,0.00004453996,0.0012235575,0.00008499688,0.0000013877224,4.6818937e-7,0.000005290564,0.00056264154],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99806756,0.0007656849,0.00047959381,0.00006130848,0.00043738133,0.00018848195],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99652165,0.00228433,0.00067939266,0.00011303609,0.00036388444,0.000037715257],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0044009453,0.00007894201,0.00019022955,0.00007136502,0.00019031343,0.00007839679,0.00032346224,0.000057406458,0.00028437737],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000738603,0.000045233064,0.000054406617,0.0006379928,0.00021133952,0.0016579347,0.000004506863,0.0006189082,0.0000042435418],"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":[0.004628918,0.0018312712,0.0016685595,0.00024588945,0.0011949642,0.0000093186645,0.8822886,0.0019060584,0.0007673348,0.050899442,0.005921011,0.04863863],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005041053,0.00031823534,0.0007223277,0.000060636296,0.0010260693,0.00018475964,0.05942561,0.00006453542,0.0003150069,0.0042135096,0.9330376,0.00012759688],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006229106,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002150114,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9271166,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000016730663,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00077019504,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9416586},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.9607105,0.010976384,0.00039903197,0.009004275,0.00015176476,0.000056899236,0.0000021990752,0.00000414863,0.018694766],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99810237,0.0006849698,0.00042759842,0.00026368434,0.00020664118,1.6342133e-7,8.381515e-7,0.000005348615,0.00030837397],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9994767,0.000027058597,0.00031860638,0.00006061968,0.000045339188,0.000071679315],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988901,0.00030759358,0.00066047383,0.00004403357,0.00007475234,0.000023015247],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0011306577,0.000053884527,0.00011773553,0.000053477732,0.00012897437,0.000045887096,0.00005328248,0.00003606777,0.000015570757],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000099188226,0.000038470316,0.000015894637,0.00009368535,0.00003906014,0.00033226318,0.000015051106,0.00013271817,0.00000879067],"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":[0.0062727975,0.0004991252,0.3746462,0.000541255,0.0004459314,0.00004387927,0.013094143,0.004113015,0.0011412214,0.50184536,0.006514965,0.09084208],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0012093973,0.00021030294,0.20335506,0.00023610375,0.000101639074,0.0008462285,0.0010925672,0.0024494787,0.00046128774,0.6237359,0.16598552,0.00031652115],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000033421802,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0000017870381,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17129114,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000071021846,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000012530746,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15687738},"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":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.24611926,0.00639745,0.010162352,0.3166722,0.0016237883,0.0009783468,0.000002553646,0.000081564394,0.41796246],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9937088,0.0010806127,0.0010966253,0.0021207815,0.001154019,0.0000011770256,9.726562e-8,0.000015514383,0.00082240446],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99767953,0.0005277579,0.0004924377,0.00012097414,0.00085031515,0.00032900862],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9966387,0.0008926511,0.0006803095,0.00011382581,0.0012125819,0.00046192994],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.009060234,0.0001251598,0.00025535992,0.0000829031,0.00043683397,0.0002701514,0.00031032716,0.00008730861,0.000021125225],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005713218,0.0000812691,0.00003869744,0.0004918131,0.00014641813,0.0014753735,0.000064272666,0.00040971398,0.00008107166],"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":[0.007548728,0.00069118437,0.002266789,0.00047086418,0.0007302668,0.0005839176,0.6594687,0.002055286,0.0009957,0.022371689,0.2418598,0.060957063],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00041081358,0.00028770845,0.000020309757,0.00012503132,0.00018089302,0.00049688685,0.07849803,0.00003044591,0.0003504063,0.00406051,0.9153735,0.00016546532],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0017956273,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00017469522,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7475895,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005661286,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010233264,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6839668},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.83131266,0.02204424,0.00003515898,0.13403045,0.00019169267,0.0002885819,0.0000028259285,0.0000113234555,0.012083083],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.97992915,0.016940266,0.0000049572554,0.0026014661,0.0004726717,6.5389855e-7,6.6489605e-7,0.00000467378,0.000045520213],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.998718,0.00049213064,0.000204934,0.00010543592,0.00032378384,0.00015566389],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985473,0.0005835798,0.0003667628,0.000059417376,0.00037496263,0.0000679563],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0025866977,0.00011070969,0.00016629379,0.00008712415,0.00045080474,0.00013702449,0.00014574606,0.00006815801,0.000008551542],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00027660112,0.000055372406,0.000019197307,0.00028267133,0.00018074423,0.00063191855,0.000010286737,0.00041323696,6.421395e-7],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.005119448,0.00045705223,0.0011284155,0.0001046417,0.00014533808,0.00004651144,0.9211416,0.00007029025,0.00006579212,0.023099165,0.01042614,0.038195606],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006107968,0.000933697,0.0040273294,0.00008364337,0.00013971164,0.00012193224,0.5415093,0.00004271468,0.0000054657107,0.018377693,0.43402097,0.00012674819],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0022184183,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002224749,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.42359483,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008560594,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001327056,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3467271},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.7929613,0.00047317878,0.016465582,0.07119099,0.000551533,0.00042489026,0.0000021215124,0.000015209211,0.117915176],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951571,0.00019078385,0.00044920403,0.003792549,0.00020291442,8.344979e-7,1.7080423e-7,0.000006008082,0.00020043124],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99870515,0.00030858812,0.00021346145,0.00008748597,0.00050714496,0.00017817334],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99821156,0.00089495524,0.0002494728,0.00007826091,0.00035847322,0.00020729192],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0031346998,0.000075829805,0.00012533269,0.000043463562,0.00031327255,0.00009679585,0.00024360635,0.000031386888,0.0000054121547],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0013504074,0.000052238214,0.000015277012,0.00014229253,0.00004036043,0.00032855116,0.000019055813,0.00023366143,0.000005575724],"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":[0.012780074,0.0004354297,0.00031086997,0.00053103984,0.00023437741,0.00004369,0.54512393,0.11631514,0.00078268186,0.030630602,0.03333609,0.25947607],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00029417846,0.0007224729,0.00039992566,0.0003969004,0.0002452387,0.0000744492,0.07727876,0.0011987109,0.0005635911,0.0016022319,0.91691774,0.00030578594],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.055793278,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.034939513,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.88358164,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007045555,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00046783825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9826703},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.97574633,0.0154816145,0.000015519912,0.0072587375,0.00004170499,0.00013752883,8.128224e-7,0.0000027519302,0.0013150172],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99257237,0.006817162,0.00011524856,0.00023965142,0.00023864178,7.7108825e-7,8.329149e-8,0.0000056071153,0.000010496755],"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","domain_scores_codex":[0.9987302,0.0002975132,0.00027833658,0.000112147114,0.00038188387,0.00019991961],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9977377,0.0014698892,0.00042146863,0.000059728594,0.00021531568,0.000095877316],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030661803,0.00010418853,0.00021084181,0.000029474571,0.0005573696,0.00010126947,0.00019180098,0.000043497883,0.0000054145326],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00078859413,0.000060928833,0.0000070415936,0.00017329247,0.00031325943,0.00066345435,0.000057637353,0.00041754087,1.6262416e-7],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"study_design_scores_codex":[0.0009551994,0.000014703828,0.57386327,0.0008549717,0.00010825449,0.00003799396,0.25121006,0.00007045249,0.0000643364,0.00038250096,0.0000648251,0.17237344],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0015697518,0.00078452186,0.58518445,0.0017233074,0.001236872,0.000725854,0.345518,0.0005527862,0.0004339303,0.053110287,0.008461209,0.0006990185],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.47202134,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.42539006,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17167443,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000019866167,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006588176,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.58509505},"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.075566165,0.029106315,0.000058619513,0.2602692,0.0010187852,0.0010256121,0.0000022449735,0.0000129270275,0.6329402],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.986212,0.009816175,0.00003232877,0.003322052,0.00028000516,0.0000026973119,1.1095849e-7,0.000010403906,0.00032421082],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99606794,0.002021051,0.00047509663,0.00011040025,0.0008620453,0.00046344273],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99486786,0.0033412518,0.00081895926,0.00015908999,0.0006322474,0.00018060055],"candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.019985221,0.00013641962,0.00018959117,0.00006156661,0.0023944306,0.00067755504,0.00058094005,0.000099392055,0.00002021467],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004889758,0.00006444092,0.000041245436,0.00049647153,0.00030889962,0.0011807285,0.00001620912,0.00074102904,0.000021230364],"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":[0.0020411753,0.00057210773,0.0020931866,0.000216451,0.00065467565,0.0006034914,0.7581272,0.0012775601,0.000054977136,0.14623974,0.026265437,0.06185395],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00025351992,0.00008925123,0.00007923482,0.000051474355,0.0001331259,0.00036162115,0.106432915,0.000007175919,0.000036686215,0.008267919,0.8841837,0.00010335261],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.14880371,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2705648,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.91064584,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009884517,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0016547306,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9989043},"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":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.4481244,0.0034367375,0.0002626588,0.4524549,0.0001941761,0.0004197285,0.000012054932,0.0000040952373,0.09509125],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957416,0.00070240744,0.000073769574,0.002792657,0.0003528645,9.146335e-7,9.94156e-8,0.0000037871075,0.00033189918],"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9984052,0.00042934343,0.00032338078,0.000049541733,0.00059631333,0.00019619045],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9961228,0.0025218148,0.00063112815,0.00012006298,0.00054005743,0.000064158885],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0038681305,0.000073924544,0.0001361628,0.000014659351,0.00074072956,0.000034303055,0.0004874029,0.00002148567,0.000037133865],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00091217895,0.000029508026,0.00003385085,0.00022433673,0.00046754567,0.00018111081,0.00003808257,0.00026003135,0.000001096557],"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":[0.002121444,0.00043281622,0.0048779384,0.00025951085,0.0017396937,0.000013698277,0.41293925,0.04325476,0.0008401878,0.402044,0.09197757,0.039499152],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00012193245,0.00010905606,0.00015518483,0.000045272678,0.00022369712,0.000125159,0.10122615,0.000050303584,0.0011181628,0.0006132928,0.8961425,0.00006931996],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05798074,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.080926575,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8041649,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000052348987,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0026834505,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.94829226},"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":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated","genre_scores_codex":[0.64409655,0.0013866602,0.0001173755,0.1756154,0.00024080976,0.0001269919,0.0000023301038,0.000004234641,0.17840965],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99821913,0.00023075972,0.00012284725,0.000778812,0.00016711601,3.0969636e-7,1.4344292e-7,0.000002165705,0.0004787171],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9991035,0.00024553554,0.00021254913,0.00003620215,0.00033469932,0.0000675271],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99727434,0.0010844348,0.0006718611,0.000032372533,0.000914336,0.000022683676],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002499713,0.000039801365,0.00006694955,0.000032491214,0.00036815007,0.00009883045,0.00013630543,0.000030320845,0.00004013268],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0014481128,0.000022403026,0.000012046168,0.00023941832,0.000234914,0.0009536681,0.000014260394,0.00028771095,0.0000010165265],"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":[0.0011460133,0.00065316487,0.023339555,0.00025982547,0.00034196765,0.0000056284507,0.39756468,0.0015480338,0.008402109,0.5137383,0.040496193,0.012504526],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00064585515,0.00009722718,0.011506929,0.00016316188,0.00025337524,0.00038411203,0.11529443,0.000105869556,0.0026276342,0.076034434,0.79271066,0.00017632438],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00044584041,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003824655,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.75221443,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000009978373,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00062228966,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.283155},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}