{"meta":{"query_hash":"970805d9bc07","filters":{"venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference"},"cohort_total":30,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":30,"exported":30,"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/970805d9bc07","api":"https://metacan.xera.ac/api/v1/cohort?venue=The+Supreme+Court+Law+Review%3A+Osgoode%E2%80%99s+Annual+Constitutional+Cases+Conference"},"results":[{"id":"W1513405201","doi":"","title":"Charter Remedies in 2001: Proceeding Cautiously","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","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":"Charter; Law; Supreme court; Political science; Constitution; Jurisprudence; Legislature; Sanctions","score_opus":0.09502493034315738,"score_gpt":0.27535970193876486,"score_spread":0.18033477159560746,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1513405201","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":[0.016229568,0.012010557,0.05107106,0.26647225,0.020689571,0.0032418997,0.00082386786,0.0011385358,0.62832266],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.17061895,0.008669548,0.048572488,0.29918438,0.004698722,0.0015076464,0.00091951067,0.0004465005,0.4653823],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.93994176,0.010230915,0.00524963,0.00796808,0.029212074,0.0073975404],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.97110623,0.012563956,0.0017639273,0.00414997,0.009000929,0.0014149413],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0372561,0.0011294737,0.0014660787,0.0038848491,0.016434943,0.023160607,0.005536272,0.052806165,0.008225176],"category_scores_gemma":[0.094992265,0.0023181492,0.002201843,0.0025512509,0.012229006,0.01135006,0.008245724,0.040744077,0.0026688385],"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":[0.000021498021,0.00013240664,0.0003974213,0.00009708338,0.00002197369,0.000782523,0.0018401328,0.0012600746,0.0007708843,0.7779719,0.18900962,0.027694453],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007693049,0.0000626796,0.001074753,0.00045508513,0.000032826712,0.0002982302,0.0010969638,0.0009573739,0.0010979471,0.07051117,0.9241474,0.00018866055],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.31326538,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3822828,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.31326538,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03324036,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.110870846,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6228839},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1524631000","doi":"","title":"The Greening Garden: Equality Rights Under the Canadian Constitution","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Discrimination and Equality 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":"Jurisprudence; Supreme court; Criticism; Law; Constitution; Immigration; Political science; Section (typography); Term (time); Sociology","score_opus":0.09879287598793027,"score_gpt":0.3556795435095479,"score_spread":0.2568866675216176,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1524631000","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":[0.03377495,0.013246105,0.00371201,0.08463484,0.0013943004,0.00011196072,0.0005516264,0.00006113962,0.86251295],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7252159,0.008412442,0.0038627195,0.053899735,0.00046429102,0.0001080048,0.00023768118,0.00007849203,0.2077207],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99031454,0.00082924415,0.0001879222,0.0007989157,0.004741866,0.0031274536],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99838614,0.00066158694,0.00007813049,0.00011220467,0.000510428,0.00025150963],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004207089,0.00053484197,0.0005267921,0.0018670806,0.02644424,0.011225439,0.00239551,0.009852656,0.0073973224],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006937225,0.00053546886,0.0005342677,0.0027906601,0.022820547,0.0034631898,0.0038087887,0.007534162,0.0005220648],"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":[0.000008308039,0.0000056255976,0.00034425635,0.000026388441,0.0000035540309,0.00016721869,0.0029248914,0.00009113876,0.00017289013,0.97292376,0.016304005,0.0070278374],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046475816,0.00002024595,0.0061316034,0.0003294897,0.000038914226,0.00017704436,0.006227078,0.00036381473,0.00060002133,0.15227814,0.8336763,0.00011095764],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98615205,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9943258,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9330753,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.066924706,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13400455,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.48557502},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1529430945","doi":"","title":"In Harm’s Way: The Limits to Legislating Criminal Law","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Harm principle; Law; Constitutionality; Supreme court; Harm; Charter; Political science; Legislature; Criminal law; Discretion; Sociology","score_opus":0.11598880782107583,"score_gpt":0.37274322908642266,"score_spread":0.2567544212653468,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1529430945","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":[0.04793309,0.015382305,0.08109795,0.2786516,0.0018950922,0.00017801138,0.00017250412,0.00017254493,0.57451695],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89846486,0.0038100467,0.019626549,0.054766078,0.0017647535,0.0005613477,0.00009696855,0.00012808958,0.020781264],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9389838,0.029984483,0.0030831322,0.006839948,0.017219387,0.0038892464],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94126296,0.044085253,0.0028209782,0.0054699266,0.005025512,0.0013353664],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.05008745,0.00052154553,0.0010674517,0.0023813874,0.01050273,0.019665917,0.003752086,0.015038935,0.0026668124],"category_scores_gemma":[0.077478096,0.0010918701,0.0013080891,0.001450264,0.070291504,0.017997604,0.008348547,0.02170849,0.00066919863],"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":[0.000007697471,0.000013117662,0.00020583546,0.000024741003,0.0000061218193,0.0000291276,0.0018691936,0.00023547333,0.00009488638,0.989262,0.0029283548,0.005323451],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002028282,0.000030209438,0.000559037,0.00026555636,0.000017195824,0.000058639933,0.0019860284,0.0004300356,0.00037185845,0.9267438,0.06947749,0.000039858518],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019897347,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.021191249,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05008745,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0072819386,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.014743714,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2648909},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1704118755","doi":"","title":"Equality Rights And Social Benefit Programs","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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; Statute; Petitioner; Law; Statutory law; Political science; Premise; Discretion; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.0884142195885654,"score_gpt":0.350251721995125,"score_spread":0.2618375024065596,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1704118755","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":[0.035564918,0.0020266194,0.0101423105,0.043685835,0.00018600133,0.000090206544,0.00013470904,0.000035730205,0.9081337],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.93000096,0.00074896717,0.0029373616,0.014358649,0.00025894525,0.00023690063,0.0000682678,0.000022590442,0.05136734],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9812577,0.007217407,0.00043155055,0.0020109313,0.0046472554,0.0044351234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9955279,0.0021494182,0.0003491195,0.00070871576,0.0007881813,0.00047660785],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010696421,0.00036801136,0.0005690611,0.0010818853,0.008204481,0.0070919814,0.0015000533,0.00675674,0.008734821],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012572985,0.00034851555,0.00048061207,0.0010893921,0.03228532,0.0045266286,0.0069784056,0.0056907185,0.0005680299],"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":[0.000002273306,0.0000034768666,0.000086719556,0.0000043737627,0.0000013775432,0.000011242767,0.0002706537,0.000046966226,0.000015413907,0.9973997,0.00068405253,0.0014737354],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000046057696,0.00003613311,0.0019600207,0.00014299047,0.000017166212,0.000065749555,0.00088295277,0.00052117615,0.00029200307,0.8945523,0.10146162,0.000021780072],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.094169244,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.10192849,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.094169244,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012178416,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016169325,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.18724227},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1932747739","doi":"","title":"The First Years of the South African Constitutional Court","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Constitutional court; Constitution; Law; Jurisprudence; Political science; Dignity; Democracy; High Court; Human rights; Charter; Sociology","score_opus":0.05270734368583768,"score_gpt":0.30115180388678925,"score_spread":0.24844446020095157,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W1932747739","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":[0.05636469,0.09777337,0.0072987266,0.18912554,0.00344837,0.00020930704,0.00015405189,0.000042541516,0.64558333],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.86981046,0.029029807,0.0023808815,0.017127717,0.0010610276,0.00022765668,0.00007268369,0.000057101188,0.08023254],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9890848,0.0050380956,0.00053760037,0.0007719593,0.0029417402,0.001625983],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9890856,0.007695663,0.0006909504,0.0005234283,0.0014218125,0.0005825173],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.012236905,0.0004289784,0.00046636214,0.0028967836,0.011069628,0.011583705,0.0008352156,0.005058474,0.0045108376],"category_scores_gemma":[0.026540885,0.00088727847,0.0003948407,0.0025123705,0.018485537,0.009590547,0.0048419046,0.014290361,0.00052522],"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":[0.0000070467404,0.0000056919494,0.00011043475,0.000034486842,0.000002162201,0.000120657765,0.003985896,0.00007848746,0.000079625745,0.9863762,0.003732005,0.005467368],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000189657,0.00002719677,0.0016968058,0.00079067063,0.000007772271,0.00022975226,0.004543539,0.0002760478,0.00067581964,0.19220419,0.799488,0.000041118485],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.044746708,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.052508414,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.044746708,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.025253817,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.022655033,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1832301},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2159087817","doi":"","title":"A Corner Turned: Supreme Court of Canada Decisions of the Year Past","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Law; Assertion; Nova scotia; Heading (navigation); Political science; High Court; Articulation (sociology); Sociology; Engineering; Ethnology","score_opus":0.04762893357110932,"score_gpt":0.29714022181998734,"score_spread":0.24951128824887803,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W2159087817","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":[0.07031875,0.026965754,0.0013455447,0.39398187,0.0038679782,0.00012926947,0.0013931602,0.000087415225,0.50191027],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6120654,0.011273524,0.0016871194,0.14857669,0.00063259824,0.00008270019,0.00050217326,0.000081883234,0.22509798],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99177855,0.0007653274,0.00016443456,0.0007780149,0.0037752667,0.002738294],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9948716,0.0016828418,0.00019080382,0.00018159965,0.0021985245,0.00087462104],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0041948156,0.00037636783,0.00043410837,0.0017935315,0.029786404,0.013098666,0.0024640956,0.008875271,0.0049139764],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011900671,0.00057124026,0.00067713513,0.0031304907,0.01024439,0.002569279,0.0020714998,0.011368947,0.000433073],"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":[0.000040725565,0.000028636667,0.0033614957,0.00007881977,0.00003066306,0.0011237904,0.01104843,0.00027048463,0.00045683628,0.6665844,0.2970606,0.019915234],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000038075686,0.000027795786,0.014590539,0.0004569359,0.00007977373,0.00030434632,0.015284891,0.0004909335,0.00094916957,0.028252421,0.9393049,0.00022026274],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9855664,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9947413,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10051138,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.10051138,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.13770923,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7292645},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121131019","doi":"","title":"Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Unanimity; Constitutionality; Arbitrariness; Supreme court; Law; Political science; Notice; Disadvantage; Context (archaeology); Prejudice (legal term); Charter; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.11209152580254468,"score_gpt":0.32970343146166536,"score_spread":0.2176119056591207,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121131019","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":[0.21202138,0.004005971,0.008789261,0.20464312,0.002357675,0.0003450747,0.0007875123,0.00015510629,0.5668948],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8349525,0.00095174165,0.0036627757,0.08712434,0.0002576523,0.00014244743,0.0001286006,0.00006233117,0.07271763],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9885041,0.0011328137,0.0004374898,0.0012004196,0.004150601,0.0045745396],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9930058,0.0029651113,0.00031124565,0.00034315867,0.0023053319,0.0010693984],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005761842,0.00035021163,0.0006382406,0.0016715553,0.027347237,0.010207509,0.003538382,0.012181131,0.0034024282],"category_scores_gemma":[0.012134474,0.000714026,0.0008812908,0.0018656648,0.015279591,0.0027731194,0.0040497966,0.016715484,0.0004472498],"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":[0.000043573356,0.000029936706,0.0027670246,0.000046469577,0.000020289364,0.00078540616,0.010313583,0.00021026828,0.00082687975,0.94227946,0.03575655,0.006920455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00021726795,0.00013417454,0.032139577,0.0006826414,0.00026689874,0.001369547,0.027602231,0.0037152232,0.0056877695,0.27633587,0.65117764,0.00067112606],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8916906,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9634759,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.10830939,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.039552536,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.087751545,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2869751},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121192050","doi":"","title":"Judging the Limits of Cooperative Federalism","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Federalism; Adjudication; Appeal; Metaphor; Supreme court; Constitution; Political science; Law; Separation of powers; Commerce Clause; Law and economics; Constitutional law; Context (archaeology); Judicial review; Sociology; Politics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.09536380529066056,"score_gpt":0.3499702702630056,"score_spread":0.254606464972345,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121192050","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":[0.1371068,0.0055222097,0.02008917,0.065755814,0.00054833933,0.00014187842,0.00019907358,0.000076783675,0.7705599],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9888735,0.0006114766,0.0021628877,0.0040862723,0.00014329112,0.00009047287,0.00004042421,0.000024436633,0.00396707],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9750743,0.007900866,0.0010376973,0.0025217256,0.00926657,0.004198852],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9437304,0.03635689,0.0022277844,0.0031048558,0.012072324,0.0025078165],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.027704006,0.00029313323,0.0008403591,0.0039091767,0.013711527,0.010475376,0.002678032,0.0061324774,0.0037588086],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07931246,0.0004235786,0.0005198058,0.0020569877,0.038925387,0.009524752,0.0062545785,0.0077002696,0.0003414205],"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":[0.000011176141,0.0000046204177,0.00088657305,0.000021836937,0.000005877691,0.00007604009,0.0025795666,0.00015738393,0.000093528586,0.99100304,0.0022508309,0.0029094878],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004524487,0.000026854186,0.0059185377,0.00047423877,0.000037592537,0.00012811305,0.011347732,0.0013665581,0.0005112266,0.879513,0.10057535,0.00005560057],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3750116,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4775226,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.62498844,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02554275,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.03366061,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.74565756},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121255575","doi":"","title":"The Increasing Irrelevance of Section 1 of the Charter","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Supreme court; Charter; Deference; Adjudication; Law; Political science; Section (typography); Standard of review; Context (archaeology); Law and economics; Sociology; History; Computer science","score_opus":0.0486803144265786,"score_gpt":0.30907395060998705,"score_spread":0.26039363618340844,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121255575","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":[0.40550584,0.006002789,0.015904745,0.074519046,0.0012449418,0.00008963982,0.00019814134,0.00019764819,0.49633726],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9738931,0.0010421557,0.0012278862,0.0070464117,0.0003570311,0.000016665268,0.00005647409,0.000031625696,0.016328584],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9769936,0.0030631225,0.00059150567,0.0032735763,0.012755547,0.0033225694],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.94592196,0.028489783,0.008267806,0.0031585789,0.012905382,0.0012566],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01917345,0.00028310766,0.0006673104,0.0018883556,0.008068675,0.01097276,0.0021481416,0.0037789447,0.0035455478],"category_scores_gemma":[0.055774476,0.00043145995,0.0005476622,0.00168686,0.024265042,0.0048364648,0.003699981,0.009636955,0.00028107283],"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":[0.000020781868,0.000013117651,0.0043266774,0.00004865291,0.000010704405,0.00020763435,0.0066674394,0.00043636275,0.0005710906,0.96432334,0.0052261786,0.01814818],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006646477,0.00036834323,0.08169075,0.000867421,0.00013762143,0.00096893485,0.013284428,0.0026433624,0.006700753,0.42215672,0.47075245,0.00036271315],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.35309708,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.45339328,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9718561,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02814387,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.02728364,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.70208365},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121410435","doi":"","title":"The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis","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 Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Arbitrariness; Charter; Discretion; Political science; Supreme court; Law; Conviction; Legislature; Judicial review; Punishment (psychology); Deference; Judicial discretion; Government (linguistics); Law and economics; Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.08761686101070983,"score_gpt":0.3486745590541459,"score_spread":0.2610576980434361,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121410435","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":[0.022210056,0.005924918,0.0059961597,0.24191245,0.0023677049,0.00007203507,0.00017053036,0.0000761075,0.72126997],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8561097,0.0047676717,0.0038344099,0.062376965,0.005383027,0.0002650416,0.00020801509,0.00014936282,0.06690574],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98651475,0.0063244803,0.000391777,0.0013230775,0.0031231644,0.0023228573],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.991672,0.0039412477,0.0008636311,0.0009882668,0.0015335587,0.00100134],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010072836,0.0005571667,0.00066567824,0.0027840235,0.009573156,0.015368768,0.002139398,0.013231455,0.010638208],"category_scores_gemma":[0.015320778,0.00046498986,0.0007986918,0.0023040518,0.021673637,0.011512887,0.005238827,0.013562756,0.0009147204],"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":[0.000007466917,0.00001071747,0.0000752448,0.000009102028,0.0000017890546,0.000027180171,0.00039224513,0.00010381138,0.00002064582,0.989431,0.0072110323,0.002709748],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006189781,0.00007368416,0.0021592213,0.0003194904,0.000026368605,0.00008100899,0.0019049038,0.0008050059,0.00024039533,0.6709596,0.3233157,0.0000526844],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02418556,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03806954,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.02418556,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.011790626,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.017774636,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08554733},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121498883","doi":"","title":"Reflecting Culture: Polygamy and the Charter","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal 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 Ottawa","funders":"","keywords":"Law; Supreme court; Political science; Charter; Politics; Sociology; Fundamental rights; Human rights; Dignity; Constitutionality","score_opus":0.08995414543215899,"score_gpt":0.3667065384014886,"score_spread":0.27675239296932963,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121498883","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":[0.100310855,0.037389457,0.0030246777,0.30280143,0.0024429336,0.000070265654,0.00009265961,0.000025962492,0.55384177],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9244491,0.011842237,0.0006374814,0.029977687,0.00046386142,0.000046953814,0.00003020807,0.00002686705,0.032525573],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99078584,0.004646809,0.00015826881,0.00049733464,0.0024515926,0.0014601245],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99592614,0.0022629942,0.0003148239,0.00025389163,0.00082410156,0.00041803461],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0074059544,0.00023543328,0.00028002565,0.0011878959,0.013862879,0.011263095,0.0012805802,0.0033517422,0.0026295858],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009937638,0.00025319934,0.00018231463,0.0018161166,0.04240775,0.005614928,0.0043331576,0.0074781952,0.00021756269],"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":[0.0000035623511,0.000007581953,0.00049143384,0.000025105623,0.0000021929036,0.0001251103,0.018496962,0.000056429828,0.000045042758,0.9533953,0.016437223,0.0109139485],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000024057086,0.000040233823,0.0073696235,0.00075452914,0.000018531711,0.00028542257,0.08245754,0.0002583166,0.00035623525,0.251014,0.65735227,0.000069318674],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.56935805,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.64114517,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.43064195,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01539747,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.027460163,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.86635613},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121617990","doi":"","title":"Justice Bertha Wilson and the Politics of Feminism","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Canadian Identity and History","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":"Feminism; Solidarity; Politics; Economic Justice; Gender studies; Sociology; Law; Political science","score_opus":0.060520118295243605,"score_gpt":0.297520579817034,"score_spread":0.23700046152179038,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121617990","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":[0.022767475,0.038400803,0.00067595294,0.5923612,0.0019308922,0.000030249132,0.00005966462,0.000025170159,0.3437486],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7063398,0.010668193,0.0009948317,0.121838436,0.001463297,0.000044372104,0.000024813398,0.00006218688,0.15856412],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9923422,0.0019869548,0.00007602406,0.00058753986,0.0026165156,0.002390779],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958324,0.0021193556,0.00019777025,0.0001128473,0.00097436586,0.0007632387],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0048275883,0.00031778164,0.00037904657,0.0017726861,0.038153313,0.008546379,0.0015853688,0.006717069,0.003426346],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007673982,0.00035387845,0.0002833993,0.0015057292,0.037339482,0.0025855263,0.0028682726,0.0064453413,0.00032406492],"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":[0.000015496968,0.000013646323,0.0009826645,0.000034444343,0.000007200103,0.00033425714,0.017212782,0.00012254162,0.0002471566,0.78213626,0.18224621,0.016647384],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000011968443,0.000009249307,0.0033298365,0.00024533318,0.000010644406,0.0001343273,0.016729124,0.00010423449,0.0002755797,0.085443616,0.8936625,0.00004369941],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.89226055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9465012,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9499152,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.050084826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.05654087,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3633926},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121620811","doi":"","title":"“Detention” under the Charter after R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Charter; Supreme court; Law; CLARITY; Political science; Scope (computer science); Meaning (existential); Remand (court procedure); Sociology; Psychology","score_opus":0.0501916679819801,"score_gpt":0.3192826819509025,"score_spread":0.2690910139689224,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121620811","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":[0.4847525,0.010078718,0.022798141,0.21374165,0.005998849,0.00068266096,0.0007588576,0.0005298968,0.26065877],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9277338,0.0015083476,0.004240887,0.026027557,0.0004067095,0.00012228485,0.0000978694,0.000047821806,0.039814774],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.98115313,0.0038769194,0.0005868168,0.0014986751,0.0077780453,0.0051065157],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9878016,0.006768096,0.0010276565,0.0005666986,0.0029139493,0.0009219038],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010620566,0.0004930917,0.00047338367,0.0010834592,0.00923402,0.0033288973,0.002286041,0.0074237967,0.001475178],"category_scores_gemma":[0.027646177,0.00045596086,0.0009998732,0.00085954694,0.0074952627,0.002312855,0.0026770285,0.012547454,0.00024858938],"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":[0.00016305129,0.00013011538,0.008721724,0.00012868317,0.000045728408,0.0026935798,0.020227142,0.0012143324,0.0023558,0.8278767,0.08226077,0.05418238],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00023976126,0.00089679094,0.061083972,0.00072892284,0.00040745243,0.0030730388,0.025906904,0.0043144207,0.013174068,0.12038599,0.76868004,0.0011086803],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4949117,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6776172,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4949117,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0155866975,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.045809276,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.984062},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3121686399","doi":"","title":"Courting Constitutional Danger: Constitutional Conventions and the Legacy of the Patriation Reference","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Legal and Social Philosophy","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":"Justiciability; Supreme court; Law; Political question; Political science; Politics; Veto; Constitutional court; Constitution; Constitutional law; Power (physics); Convention; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.09414513468919772,"score_gpt":0.31369605536750367,"score_spread":0.21955092067830595,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3121686399","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":[0.13516939,0.014766987,0.013774044,0.27439997,0.0013808602,0.00005398722,0.00007912226,0.00007493446,0.56030065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9716393,0.0017312198,0.0010360943,0.010429904,0.0006164498,0.000025656456,0.00002189258,0.000028995739,0.0144705195],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","domain_scores_codex":[0.9854994,0.0074830004,0.00042929797,0.0013711058,0.0035223472,0.0016949573],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9852328,0.009930039,0.001066709,0.0014159862,0.0017563846,0.00059816276],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015019847,0.00022876347,0.00048951845,0.0019039531,0.015055874,0.016372964,0.0017501268,0.010932547,0.0028232276],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02810676,0.00040348733,0.000379215,0.00192445,0.061600905,0.013143222,0.006084811,0.01712273,0.0002642255],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","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":[0.0000029272232,0.0000028731088,0.00014572655,0.000005689239,0.0000016459634,0.000084164814,0.0044679907,0.000058812908,0.000044184053,0.9910574,0.0017675427,0.0023610438],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000026409407,0.000023624592,0.0012924509,0.00015634681,0.000010011049,0.00018424197,0.00641976,0.0004259978,0.00032514203,0.8586347,0.13244912,0.000052204126],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.078563035,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.07718217,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9857486,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.014251422,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015284047,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1562115},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122457892","doi":"","title":"Police Questioning in the Charter Era: Adjudicative versus Regulatory Rule-making and the Problem of False Confes-sions","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Charter; Legislature; Parliament; Law; Doctrine; Political science; Common law; Criminal procedure; Silence; Politics","score_opus":0.07814882466621065,"score_gpt":0.36307306211005885,"score_spread":0.2849242374438482,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122457892","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":[0.062735215,0.017523102,0.10533818,0.6836873,0.0030171375,0.00023791686,0.0001524687,0.00023130339,0.12707742],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.866746,0.0063125007,0.033535197,0.07949006,0.0043760017,0.00047519145,0.00006803127,0.0001558865,0.008841165],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.7874682,0.14269488,0.008259969,0.014180294,0.04004373,0.0073530125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.6042333,0.33671427,0.020908011,0.016889058,0.018789168,0.002466231],"candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.21232656,0.0005940064,0.0021662896,0.004156104,0.009100174,0.036694285,0.006800465,0.029290082,0.0018365872],"category_scores_gemma":[0.3013863,0.0016043397,0.0016131151,0.00311651,0.07278355,0.024480172,0.006833379,0.030307235,0.0007440148],"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":[0.000028260944,0.000027718292,0.00072891806,0.000056928402,0.000013129155,0.00021035274,0.0043296665,0.00040858483,0.00021126891,0.97288734,0.0076584644,0.013439396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00013664513,0.00010713234,0.0026092352,0.00097262487,0.00008016056,0.00033751878,0.0039452906,0.0043740557,0.0019933807,0.9006423,0.08457533,0.0002263277],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01616187,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.012528634,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98383814,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.012135874,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.018552363,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9713416},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122749857","doi":"","title":"Section 15(1) at the Supreme Court 2001-2002: Caution and Conflict in Defining “The Most Difficult Right”","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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; Section (typography); Law; Political science; High Court; Theme (computing); Sociology","score_opus":0.06232311638796742,"score_gpt":0.30792491247418763,"score_spread":0.2456017960862202,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122749857","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":[0.035876922,0.012283309,0.0054411027,0.7317673,0.0047532017,0.00016228957,0.00051597087,0.0001001064,0.20909974],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.32175943,0.003067715,0.005937452,0.62236196,0.0029091379,0.00029278806,0.00020007734,0.00012896828,0.043342553],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.953804,0.015862059,0.0034769583,0.0060970313,0.015076847,0.0056832447],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.96123475,0.028779434,0.001273138,0.0011515904,0.0059565683,0.0016044872],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.03662193,0.00067481084,0.0016620258,0.002332052,0.025348859,0.025622956,0.007901126,0.037902534,0.0024595344],"category_scores_gemma":[0.06401545,0.0016504838,0.0012764989,0.003197151,0.02294869,0.008649949,0.0051517403,0.042971592,0.00096177036],"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":[0.000029031806,0.00002571048,0.0010739875,0.00011530838,0.000025161788,0.0005009393,0.013381128,0.00019445184,0.00028021983,0.813913,0.16144896,0.009012094],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00011183404,0.000057225778,0.006082452,0.002035628,0.00012902562,0.00062716735,0.017916264,0.0009597852,0.0015509151,0.26311055,0.7071316,0.00028751272],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4285059,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6145292,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4285059,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.028734826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.047253523,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8520234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3122760032","doi":"","title":"Accommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Compromise; Law; Duty; Constitutionality; Supreme court; Charter; Political science; Ambivalence; Accommodation; Sociology","score_opus":0.04245859910319512,"score_gpt":0.3342816058467091,"score_spread":0.29182300674351397,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3122760032","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":[0.043286547,0.0075620343,0.0008474679,0.60397017,0.004419102,0.0001972713,0.0004540625,0.00016151581,0.33910182],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.14186467,0.0025020281,0.0005357702,0.71474713,0.0015905793,0.00012141617,0.00015653147,0.00007918745,0.13840275],"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9927562,0.00072289136,0.00019873506,0.0008021207,0.002847306,0.0026727745],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9947448,0.0027359128,0.00018287779,0.00020183162,0.001320339,0.0008143105],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005949289,0.00070910895,0.0007404728,0.0011563005,0.02951908,0.007896283,0.007587585,0.036172166,0.008407943],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013305132,0.0013867174,0.0011087032,0.0019083141,0.009577443,0.0027052755,0.0033539522,0.0286076,0.0012958267],"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":[0.00008838685,0.00008287188,0.0031629973,0.0001108796,0.000032604916,0.0035006066,0.011512049,0.00041066422,0.0008544757,0.24213229,0.72665054,0.0114616295],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000095140174,0.000049123842,0.01038795,0.0003793519,0.00008126432,0.00047469258,0.014166724,0.00048883306,0.0007717703,0.0147913825,0.95808333,0.0002303751],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.92701215,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9657597,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.072987854,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.04089177,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.06683683,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2966919},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123119869","doi":"","title":"Furthering Substantive Equality Through Administrative Law: Charter Values in Education","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Charter; Obligation; Law; Administrative law; Political science; Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Realm; Context (archaeology); Sociology","score_opus":0.14175817991856662,"score_gpt":0.394159776083472,"score_spread":0.25240159616490543,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123119869","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":[0.033717263,0.007060407,0.11867658,0.1643942,0.0010007919,0.00015997872,0.000043666736,0.00013734041,0.6748097],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94112885,0.0029299161,0.026258353,0.009438976,0.00036045304,0.00011041044,0.000024378112,0.00006259787,0.019686127],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9790509,0.012291062,0.0005163069,0.00081278005,0.0044335504,0.0028953298],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9815555,0.012081751,0.0012265178,0.0013631867,0.0023252156,0.0014478633],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.022026347,0.00047082998,0.0005174986,0.002549195,0.015364633,0.021798724,0.0023516817,0.0052679987,0.0034090134],"category_scores_gemma":[0.023589402,0.0003467949,0.00049063895,0.0026387363,0.092846476,0.015722131,0.011010092,0.011309061,0.00046900712],"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":[0.000001794548,0.000005670738,0.00009029813,0.000011146722,5.999295e-7,0.000025103956,0.005604665,0.00009557251,0.000017901235,0.9883454,0.00091228157,0.0048896596],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000010935988,0.00002298548,0.00071864773,0.0003192519,0.000006369617,0.00005504089,0.011704336,0.000709217,0.00032948627,0.8581143,0.12797134,0.000038033577],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.13187376,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18782638,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8681263,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.032521397,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.047382258,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.26221234},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123173533","doi":"","title":"The Digitization of Section 8 of the Charter: Reform or Revolution?","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Data Privacy and Cybersecurity","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":"Indeterminacy (philosophy); Supreme court; Jurisprudence; Law; Section (typography); Charter; Political science; Sociology; Statute; Law and economics; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy","score_opus":0.07413033378678249,"score_gpt":0.32985123064925426,"score_spread":0.2557208968624718,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123173533","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":[0.09088039,0.011817718,0.018346922,0.29407033,0.0024441318,0.00009855569,0.00018370268,0.00021183428,0.5819464],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.89923614,0.0074447184,0.0067568272,0.040657092,0.0013230953,0.000087000066,0.00013814628,0.00008267567,0.044274285],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99456453,0.0014582716,0.00019304988,0.0007461147,0.0019107448,0.0011272809],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.993895,0.0025904262,0.0006866728,0.0012964965,0.0012115978,0.00031974027],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0069727013,0.00020696188,0.0003612441,0.0009808728,0.003929218,0.010156736,0.0018735967,0.0036932547,0.0040294304],"category_scores_gemma":[0.016002208,0.000269548,0.00038016512,0.0014995207,0.030158218,0.009859575,0.0028784205,0.0064308657,0.0004805065],"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":[0.0000044613807,0.0000052424125,0.00012400876,0.000010619192,9.194453e-7,0.000019138386,0.0014441673,0.0001390449,0.00007475622,0.9854423,0.004146485,0.008588886],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000028766133,0.000047005018,0.0021478627,0.00045053865,0.000016818405,0.000100874066,0.00648126,0.0008183803,0.0010355503,0.3492863,0.6395238,0.000063005806],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.21506071,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.18219104,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7849393,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.02870742,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.035322998,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42761785},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123816104","doi":"","title":"What Butler Did","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Saskatchewan","funders":"","keywords":"Harm; Objectification; Supreme court; Criminal law; Criminal code; Law; Context (archaeology); Criminology; Psychology; Political science; Sociology; History","score_opus":0.10494825153257663,"score_gpt":0.3652403799615271,"score_spread":0.26029212842895044,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3123816104","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":[0.0055214004,0.011826495,0.0038597872,0.34851044,0.015354888,0.00011436794,0.00046291508,0.00015466014,0.614195],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.08171605,0.004548454,0.002394509,0.18670346,0.0027103717,0.00012470718,0.0002783322,0.00020351316,0.72132057],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99406236,0.001803744,0.00016893739,0.0017301465,0.0013802022,0.00085461285],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9959111,0.00098985,0.00021387753,0.00058031804,0.0013573734,0.00094743405],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0030362022,0.00047914463,0.00037285834,0.0008137705,0.006607088,0.011973772,0.0013391491,0.0074646943,0.047422696],"category_scores_gemma":[0.011757586,0.00040346733,0.0004267303,0.0006424512,0.0064797113,0.0073701954,0.004936458,0.007525318,0.017061727],"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":[0.000047012683,0.000038992912,0.00096831756,0.00016381848,0.000013724753,0.00025835237,0.00591132,0.000050433016,0.00031217618,0.55565387,0.3985175,0.0380644],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000007840482,0.000008947822,0.00019516598,0.00010106121,0.0000064008386,0.00010648569,0.0013337422,0.000021167849,0.00015657577,0.014252827,0.98380023,0.0000095962505],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.035661705,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.059932724,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.047422696,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0073108333,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.008812229,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.15864474},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124017427","doi":"","title":"Extradition, Assurances and Human Rights: Guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada in India v. Badesha","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"International Law and Aviation","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; Deference; Human rights; Surrender; Supreme court; Political science; Charter; State (computer science); International human rights law; Economic Justice","score_opus":0.02740522701087773,"score_gpt":0.2852340960617914,"score_spread":0.2578288690509137,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124017427","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":[0.066850826,0.030522441,0.0032620344,0.40424824,0.0023982758,0.00036067076,0.0007949599,0.00018386543,0.4913787],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.77281743,0.014146953,0.003908947,0.12930545,0.000734845,0.00018040964,0.00030346806,0.00014243284,0.07846003],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9769199,0.0031710316,0.0010247736,0.0016256938,0.0086835865,0.00857495],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9713317,0.016096346,0.00093516684,0.00070646807,0.007779599,0.0031507313],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015695442,0.00093621766,0.0011639211,0.0040564253,0.041546546,0.025271056,0.006544282,0.022171937,0.004579378],"category_scores_gemma":[0.039272044,0.0016300102,0.0010822214,0.0051803445,0.026710598,0.0053677266,0.006046754,0.02368054,0.00047413827],"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":[0.00003215045,0.000042271487,0.002788111,0.00013661159,0.000034425913,0.0013331464,0.011578562,0.0007101954,0.00028207278,0.8865528,0.08531644,0.011193185],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00019091151,0.000074238465,0.016353793,0.0021778953,0.00027273077,0.00062028586,0.021758236,0.0022626917,0.0015146467,0.1500604,0.8040095,0.00070468785],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98669726,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9930456,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1440997,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1440997,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.31636363,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.99272305},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124702976","doi":"","title":"Structure, Substance and Spirit: Lessons in Constitutional Architecture from the Senate Reform Reference","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Constitution; Law; Interpretation (philosophy); Constitutional law; Political science; Architecture; Meaning (existential); Constitutional theory; Law and economics; Sociology; Computer science; Epistemology; Philosophy; History","score_opus":0.0988614719397214,"score_gpt":0.3319382043452743,"score_spread":0.23307673240555293,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124702976","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":[0.13236934,0.015870139,0.048528954,0.14657463,0.00078916503,0.00006820903,0.00018778292,0.00013766847,0.65547407],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9746627,0.0037434842,0.0048467065,0.003628809,0.00020352086,0.000036620324,0.000051087343,0.000060011207,0.0127669545],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.9928847,0.0046122167,0.00017044108,0.00045326594,0.0013192295,0.00056010816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928093,0.004553533,0.00027222783,0.0008696009,0.0012718868,0.00022341742],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007586936,0.00028928302,0.00048249547,0.0021168413,0.006457169,0.008423386,0.0014272192,0.002637396,0.0034820258],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013862853,0.00035672451,0.00037490923,0.003052491,0.04497818,0.009518205,0.003957867,0.006447171,0.00025829463],"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":[0.000002222703,0.0000014718333,0.00011047319,0.000011396319,0.00000185069,0.00004141101,0.004771686,0.00017880101,0.00002288943,0.99007905,0.00071251043,0.0040662815],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000012370054,0.000022172608,0.0012382979,0.00023314195,0.000014018096,0.00008617356,0.010227071,0.0007042265,0.00032924753,0.82055926,0.166538,0.00003589211],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.16196203,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2033693,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.83803797,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.017211309,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.015178845,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3220386},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124858383","doi":"","title":"A False Start in Constitutionalizing Lawyer Loyalty in Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Law; Duty; Supreme court; Constitutionality; Principle of legality; Political science; Charter; Economic Justice; Common law; Sociology","score_opus":0.06657278010876357,"score_gpt":0.3278317341651744,"score_spread":0.26125895405641086,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124858383","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":[0.121936515,0.012672413,0.010178315,0.4117637,0.0020925836,0.0003239657,0.00063629035,0.00025374047,0.44014254],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.85350335,0.0020604297,0.0035726312,0.09852711,0.00055754744,0.00014451938,0.000116511284,0.00009950676,0.041418333],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.97395384,0.004080169,0.00076703297,0.0027310166,0.008850632,0.009617291],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98746526,0.004897602,0.0004453463,0.0007358856,0.004053944,0.0024019603],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.015820017,0.0006242147,0.0012047464,0.00177136,0.039261077,0.02273227,0.0055745966,0.025577974,0.003469607],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025052112,0.0011566586,0.0013063574,0.0021531712,0.03262641,0.007384606,0.0068680467,0.029362205,0.00033165593],"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":[0.000018148889,0.000015579273,0.00070758717,0.000025835838,0.000018753484,0.00013235613,0.0044913497,0.00019112452,0.00015582847,0.9784177,0.0124314865,0.0033942163],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00026637854,0.00017547674,0.012982146,0.0011428333,0.00031919946,0.00023380962,0.019617038,0.0035909563,0.0021220737,0.46048263,0.49821562,0.0008518684],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.98201066,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9904755,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1416803,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1416803,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.22310351,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9955292},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3124991181","doi":"","title":"“Please, Draw Me a Field of Jurisdiction”: Regulating Securities, Securing Federalism","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Law, logistics, and international trade","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"route_ca_aff":false,"route_ca_fund":false,"route_ca_venue":false,"route_about_ca":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Jurisdiction; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Federalism; Law and economics; Private placement; Law; Intervention (counseling); State (computer science); Economics; Political science; Business; Politics; Finance; Commission; Investment banking","score_opus":0.0324370615143844,"score_gpt":0.27525912165672084,"score_spread":0.24282206014233643,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3124991181","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":[0.04514976,0.013722167,0.011660405,0.34228298,0.0009630459,0.0001350171,0.0001722518,0.00010789424,0.5858065],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8690352,0.00482626,0.0046251835,0.06965583,0.0004467191,0.00008265924,0.000052589832,0.000035002828,0.051240567],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9945532,0.0015629655,0.0001278396,0.0005283532,0.0016158723,0.0016117891],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979467,0.00097180076,0.00010986261,0.00016748869,0.00056201586,0.00024221544],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005457388,0.00026939233,0.0002939936,0.0010389343,0.01728099,0.009150619,0.0014418612,0.006436892,0.002114371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007815471,0.00046001244,0.0004001334,0.0011476508,0.043623473,0.0043239077,0.0027956127,0.006594999,0.00033068034],"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":[0.0000029708037,0.0000036173421,0.00022834537,0.000009743101,0.0000020975383,0.00007669246,0.0026072762,0.00007936605,0.000114021386,0.9839023,0.01046354,0.002509996],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000047291385,0.00003015395,0.0034745436,0.00032246308,0.000041000883,0.00023226545,0.008212774,0.00057077414,0.0008591868,0.42986414,0.55627733,0.00006793781],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.82994616,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8875893,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.17005384,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.03860831,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.076242626,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.34211057},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125233476","doi":"","title":"Freedom of Expression and Location: Are There Constitutional Dead Zones?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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; Charter; Law; Commonwealth; Political science; Freedom of expression; Government (linguistics); Constitutional right; Expression (computer science); Philosophy; Human rights","score_opus":0.041088998735953425,"score_gpt":0.3126134903062507,"score_spread":0.27152449157029723,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125233476","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":[0.052119944,0.011377086,0.04314224,0.15407626,0.0012174646,0.0001309339,0.0006007952,0.00013684876,0.73719835],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9401081,0.0029331218,0.0063596847,0.016794557,0.00089155626,0.00031878002,0.00019717925,0.000094121315,0.032302983],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9887611,0.0040619713,0.0006149549,0.001832154,0.002110277,0.0026195238],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9928965,0.003597809,0.00058670365,0.0014350613,0.00079893955,0.00068502006],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.010613348,0.0006810065,0.001310008,0.0013540179,0.008733648,0.018570043,0.004029809,0.0113320155,0.010423649],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01728815,0.00069882517,0.0010983758,0.0016582855,0.064161055,0.021408502,0.009351515,0.013231853,0.001693392],"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":[0.0000043671866,0.000003996926,0.00005632203,0.000008533738,0.0000017138983,0.0000129954815,0.00033406113,0.000045083412,0.000029404206,0.9971955,0.0008939274,0.0014140959],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003623671,0.000022151606,0.0003746764,0.00014639426,0.00001407882,0.00006686712,0.0020964032,0.000146856,0.00022273124,0.93676263,0.060078397,0.000032636268],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.019396815,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.017851414,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.98060316,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007917589,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.010357316,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05744636},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125352381","doi":"","title":"\"Chartering\" in the Shadow of Lochner: Guindon, Goodwin and the Criminal-Administrative Distinction at the Supreme Court of Canada","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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; Law; Political science; Shadow (psychology); Psychology","score_opus":0.06865969122698284,"score_gpt":0.32342380307887975,"score_spread":0.2547641118518969,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125352381","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":[0.027000265,0.037015088,0.002633642,0.8119639,0.0034244028,0.000065924236,0.0002856257,0.00005969645,0.11755144],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.69077444,0.012083056,0.0021663024,0.20786655,0.0022547108,0.000072080045,0.000094414325,0.00022500742,0.08446337],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9897378,0.0027342848,0.00022399086,0.0014150976,0.0029971974,0.0028916125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.987901,0.005133069,0.0004731651,0.00047487026,0.0046169497,0.0014009955],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.011397216,0.0005383531,0.0010528017,0.0022237126,0.04173919,0.023329291,0.004130489,0.016498834,0.005469119],"category_scores_gemma":[0.025140995,0.0007988487,0.0005644215,0.0036875287,0.053697966,0.009586267,0.0039548306,0.022395238,0.0004289508],"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":[0.000021059686,0.000018932122,0.0009829778,0.00003624615,0.000013330857,0.000115787436,0.0120621,0.00017981458,0.00008845818,0.8033575,0.1738826,0.009241196],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000692743,0.000017067581,0.008130263,0.0009336387,0.00008921544,0.00012645124,0.03541718,0.0006094462,0.00065200025,0.2656064,0.6881005,0.00024842672],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9783679,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9923948,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.087282196,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.087282196,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.19207707,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6332796},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125451397","doi":"","title":"Does Canada Need a Political Questions Doctrine","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Supreme court; Politics; Doctrine; Political question; Constitution; Political science; Jurisdiction; Law; Judicial review; Law and economics; Sociology","score_opus":0.04879384909013636,"score_gpt":0.30121665232459816,"score_spread":0.2524228032344618,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125451397","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":[0.023313219,0.003216375,0.0029897967,0.3856679,0.0009532544,0.00005879059,0.00035496638,0.000067982095,0.5833776],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7797576,0.0033004729,0.0024991592,0.0828488,0.0005117543,0.000063725085,0.0001679554,0.00012164055,0.130729],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99125457,0.0010816267,0.00018024017,0.0010486597,0.0033872167,0.0030477133],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9893512,0.003551783,0.00048999506,0.0006705638,0.0041082595,0.0018280728],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0060291286,0.00032946633,0.0006768439,0.001186289,0.023187991,0.01660454,0.0019542677,0.008991673,0.015758809],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017635439,0.00039130845,0.00064179127,0.0019379118,0.0313378,0.008224285,0.0035641512,0.009779881,0.0014793919],"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":[0.0000067125347,0.0000053140543,0.0003874753,0.000016593573,0.0000031897325,0.00006964808,0.0022060073,0.00006148408,0.00006102325,0.97951746,0.013920952,0.0037442264],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000039136674,0.000015860342,0.0028789695,0.00023466692,0.000030192074,0.00011707186,0.010348073,0.00037044886,0.00039878197,0.2538058,0.7316801,0.000080926664],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9655656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9758933,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.091988124,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.091988124,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.18648502,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.66742367},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3125528295","doi":"","title":"Religious Commitment And Identity: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","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":"Conscience; Charter; Law; Freedom of religion; Plaintiff; Identity (music); Sociology; Political science; Human rights; Philosophy","score_opus":0.039356001422564596,"score_gpt":0.3339593780839302,"score_spread":0.2946033766613656,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3125528295","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":[0.37093848,0.0030736036,0.0005927643,0.12507911,0.000982541,0.00017403171,0.00012174657,0.000038788312,0.4989989],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8202499,0.0008941342,0.00026479954,0.06174553,0.00038925686,0.000116592775,0.00005174079,0.00001463818,0.11627339],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.99555725,0.000615282,0.00008804557,0.00045228773,0.0013496542,0.001937531],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99733174,0.00091971544,0.00020374727,0.00015554797,0.00038067068,0.0010084879],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0043269265,0.0002889302,0.0005144459,0.00077461445,0.02294237,0.006190892,0.0025157412,0.011493687,0.00898213],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0064767194,0.00047733486,0.000585584,0.00063457404,0.007742418,0.002471981,0.0058703036,0.014912162,0.00059036317],"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":[0.00017284552,0.0004003779,0.016428443,0.00013324228,0.00005197956,0.012000838,0.043482047,0.00035295627,0.0019019954,0.8033191,0.09657585,0.025180303],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000449296,0.0005517604,0.06736954,0.0011250819,0.00013656252,0.003110165,0.06219024,0.002068786,0.002980363,0.06317366,0.79654866,0.00029586194],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.46536365,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.6821637,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5346364,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.016038295,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.016211135,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9253099},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3126007625","doi":"","title":"Judging in Secular Times: Max Weber and the Rise of Proportionality","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","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 Toronto","funders":"","keywords":"Proportionality (law); Jurisprudence; Churning; Bureaucracy; Law; Sociology; Metaphysics; Political science; Law and economics; Epistemology; Economics; Philosophy","score_opus":0.03660460054409996,"score_gpt":0.3008139629620157,"score_spread":0.2642093624179157,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3126007625","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":[0.035940584,0.029888224,0.011372974,0.15757947,0.0018224068,0.00003364545,0.00004678234,0.000053710803,0.7632623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.94876206,0.0054316414,0.003572963,0.00731374,0.0014520903,0.000035725247,0.000015949596,0.000052904034,0.033362832],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","domain_scores_codex":[0.99579775,0.0023266103,0.00012560851,0.00050044205,0.00088656764,0.00036315157],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99418986,0.0042744684,0.00028740382,0.0003676196,0.0005404158,0.00034021348],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00806312,0.00035185248,0.00036170622,0.0023012112,0.007457911,0.008226526,0.0007178105,0.0028219728,0.0030669721],"category_scores_gemma":[0.013189192,0.0003242967,0.00022304006,0.0017302987,0.044895217,0.011524032,0.0026072108,0.0042287433,0.0003524734],"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":[0.0000019792296,0.0000017259722,0.000041006817,0.0000036933595,4.785663e-7,0.000013980196,0.0012633981,0.000033335506,0.000008464986,0.9944594,0.0021970833,0.001975476],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00000483128,0.0000033389904,0.00013514099,0.00004141157,0.000001155315,0.000018673847,0.0008923816,0.00014732,0.000048007943,0.9411395,0.05756091,0.0000073941037],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.018383443,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02010396,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.018383443,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.008357486,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0034317202,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.06063807},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3126119881","doi":"","title":"Loyola High School v. Attorney General of Quebec: On Non-triviality and the Charter Value of Religious Freedom","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference","topic":"American Constitutional Law and Politics","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":"Charter; Triviality; Law; Value (mathematics); Political science; Mathematics; Statistics","score_opus":0.03807678599711746,"score_gpt":0.3088288371846386,"score_spread":0.27075205118752116,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","prediction":{"id":"W3126119881","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":[0.1289684,0.011104076,0.0007449483,0.23062204,0.0007593042,0.00014765239,0.0013143283,0.00005234205,0.626287],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.87590384,0.003365989,0.00040415293,0.036949266,0.00022626838,0.000058091635,0.0002460171,0.000033133187,0.082813315],"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","domain_scores_codex":[0.9942152,0.0012245714,0.00015200432,0.00029610074,0.0017983183,0.0023137508],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.98388296,0.006450095,0.00075423025,0.00068925234,0.006338419,0.0018848701],"candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0060536126,0.00029518473,0.00048645775,0.0014727687,0.015684469,0.0059870263,0.002667028,0.007871764,0.011969858],"category_scores_gemma":[0.017860293,0.0003406985,0.00051234674,0.0018504286,0.009849903,0.0025690882,0.0018345384,0.008424709,0.0005916198],"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":[0.00019052328,0.000084216364,0.019719815,0.00018790054,0.000057162815,0.00078095915,0.00810735,0.0005180128,0.0005661905,0.6401787,0.3021221,0.02748705],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00040235696,0.00013054561,0.21439713,0.0026727326,0.0004455402,0.00037355407,0.030409431,0.001936084,0.0021486324,0.08886933,0.6577852,0.00042942006],"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9850236,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9961055,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.05921816,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.05921816,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.098230235,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.42965984},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}