{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":1880,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":5,"predictions_cover":1880,"direct_label_status":"direct model label, unvalidated","prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated (Codex and Gemma teacher distillation)","score_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline (scores rank; they never assert a category)","snapshot":{"source":"OpenAlex, pinned release, all 482 partitions","release":"2026-06-24","frame_built":"2026-07-12"},"query_hash":"fdf88847657d","filters":{"topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation"}},"results":[{"id":"W2086498757","doi":"10.1890/080023","title":"Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":2328,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"Nature Conservancy; World Wildlife Fund","keywords":"Ecosystem services; Biodiversity; Environmental resource management; Ecosystem valuation; Ecosystem; Ecosystem health; Ecosystem management; Valuation (finance); Business; Payment for ecosystem services; Environmental science; Ecology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04579206634981237,"gpt":0.1889357191763771,"spread":0.1431436528265648,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009817624,0.0002755678,0.001149044,0.0001385466,0.0003202226,0.0000227161,0.0001751359,0.0003082601,0.00004247982],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001735732,0.000249057,0.0001117914,0.00004435095,0.0002166789,0.0001286981,0.0001637781,0.0002344862,0.0001021635],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004072477,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000006398662,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004772766,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0003789146,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9983066,0.0001426097,0.0007020705,0.0005937211,0.00002861008,0.0002263634],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.99919,0.00006458792,0.0004023974,0.0002866406,0.000001665451,0.00005466523],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005610903,0.0001503905,0.9714191,0.001630904,0.0002953692,0.000002611484,0.0005726631,0.003292582,1.090141e-8,0.0007202203,0.002077131,0.01978291],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003488893,0.00009010674,0.0953877,0.0005485625,0.0003832686,0.00005015144,0.0004438322,0.07415877,2.028262e-7,0.007273311,0.8171464,0.001028831],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.06238688,0.9348997,0.0003318913,0.000571364,0.0005177283,0.000923734,0.00027884,0.00001174815,0.00007806898],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.03731151,0.9616883,0.0003396387,0.0001433438,0.00004416586,0.00007663154,0.000254353,0.00001236369,0.0001296983],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8760314,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999962,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2121619367","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013","title":"Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health—a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Value in Health","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":2033,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Conjoint analysis; Checklist; Task (project management); Preference; Preference elicitation; Pharmacoeconomics; Health care; Outcomes research; Research design; Management science; Computer science; Psychology; Applied psychology; Medical education; Medicine; Engineering; Political science; Statistics; Alternative medicine; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.355792075055,"gpt":0.3672210806558396,"spread":0.01142900560083965,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01095685,0.0001266728,0.0007849789,0.001025939,0.0001726462,0.00001856858,0.000291702,0.00009163425,0.0001384402],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004363007,0.0001259246,0.0002949955,0.002159534,0.0001179127,0.000164603,0.00008003815,0.0002474808,0.00001909143],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008398177,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002078293,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08587059,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005360855,"domain_scores_codex":[0.996545,0.0002134599,0.002120143,0.0006035649,0.00009109757,0.0004267804],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9958544,0.0003223162,0.002898634,0.0007798287,0.00003765334,0.0001071505],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001929734,0.0002970372,0.9214508,0.000175509,0.0003048861,5.270435e-7,0.00254526,0.01147403,0.000002770793,0.06349276,0.00005997741,0.0001771357],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004858143,0.0001329438,0.9267434,0.00002616864,0.00006599807,0.000001853339,0.001352209,0.0496846,0.00003869533,0.01578366,0.005536247,0.0001484222],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9656301,0.002914575,0.01571451,0.006146597,0.0001271258,0.003362891,0.0004349718,0.000016776,0.005652437],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9953163,0.0005446801,0.002586001,0.0002084169,0.00002402708,0.0004239217,0.0001013896,0.00001591291,0.0007793441],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.08050974,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9202167,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2159936838","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223","title":"Constructing Experimental Designs for Discrete-Choice Experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Value in Health","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1809,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control; University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Conjoint analysis; Management science; Task (project management); Computer science; Preference; Checklist; Preference elicitation; Health care; Operations research; Engineering; Systems engineering; Psychology; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.4394866308800806,"gpt":0.3964888750498891,"spread":0.0429977558301915,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004018093,0.0001902421,0.0005833947,0.0003292354,0.0002848687,0.0000733417,0.000326777,0.0001014352,0.0004116506],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005602387,0.0001856371,0.0002073203,0.0004462771,0.0002253553,0.0005400489,0.0001364279,0.0002075513,0.00004189297],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001185717,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000108268,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01509925,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003415302,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9968117,0.0003212461,0.001555233,0.000654264,0.0001350047,0.0005225453],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9965353,0.0007378698,0.002005773,0.0005667217,0.00003242178,0.0001219022],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009641454,0.001044141,0.9016362,0.0001455198,0.0005385486,0.000003129299,0.008396854,0.01752689,0.009232139,0.06024713,0.0008903146,0.0002426745],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.008386459,0.003034941,0.2220009,0.0003720961,0.0001176725,0.00009594384,0.1099555,0.3523383,0.280247,0.01890554,0.002569764,0.001975909],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9829261,0.002839063,0.008790081,0.0008826608,0.0003122472,0.002514867,0.00005754995,0.00001531309,0.001662094],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9875014,0.00003877006,0.01114218,0.0001207546,0.00006329965,0.0006797452,0.00003143418,0.00003147442,0.0003909244],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.6796353,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9914593,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2593137067","doi":"10.1086/691697","title":"Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1387,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Waterloo; University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Valuation (finance); Preference; Contingent valuation; Context (archaeology); Willingness to pay; Set (abstract data type); Business; Public relations; Public economics; Marketing; Economics; Political science; Computer science; Microeconomics; Geography","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1369058288583302,"gpt":0.2411723067482335,"spread":0.1042664778899033,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001020067,0.00009047636,0.00034619,0.00003416908,0.000239204,0.00004024798,0.0002732839,0.00006234489,0.0000352465],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002113156,0.00007703816,0.0001488908,0.000006221685,0.0001120981,0.0002724897,0.0001094421,0.00007956214,0.00001060032],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003280416,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000008617299,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000005252082,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000002900248,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989974,0.00002102297,0.0007134806,0.0001308955,0.00003597426,0.0001011652],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9959705,0.00009678958,0.003680916,0.0002059424,0.000007810353,0.00003799965],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004226385,0.00006622175,0.993759,0.00002670375,0.0002751125,1.720734e-7,0.0006325666,0.0001149562,0.0003734864,0.0006489985,0.00347647,0.0005840024],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001285532,0.00009391153,0.9735935,0.00003142342,0.00001649677,0.00000218694,0.0004413754,0.00009805494,0.0006400404,0.004615203,0.01908449,0.000097746],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9937268,0.002612927,0.00002179489,0.001132769,0.0002654649,0.0001536361,0.000158355,0.000001415556,0.001926868],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957225,0.0005500751,0.0001504989,0.00009935022,0.0000813959,0.000004791616,0.000002221496,0.000009118909,0.003379997],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.02016551,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3141525,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2367707061","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004","title":"Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Value in Health","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1312,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McMaster University; University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Conjoint analysis; Task force; Task (project management); Management science; Computer science; Econometrics; Economics; Microeconomics; Management; Preference; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3878825092848187,"gpt":0.4728920069229144,"spread":0.08500949763809568,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01165054,0.00008860297,0.000588841,0.0004011846,0.0001163235,0.00001370442,0.0002712941,0.00005370696,0.0002122544],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002644614,0.00005462096,0.0002422395,0.0009801174,0.0001952671,0.0001325268,0.00008939776,0.0001018357,0.000004397376],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003298413,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007248799,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01343386,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002916062,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9975178,0.0004079003,0.001336465,0.0003883595,0.00008570486,0.000263747],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9933419,0.003957665,0.001947439,0.0006670533,0.00003302042,0.00005298429],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004892892,0.0001476708,0.8925189,0.0000711832,0.002093462,3.142399e-7,0.001117323,0.009120056,0.0001704526,0.09167774,0.0001012953,0.002932664],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004615542,0.0001150714,0.8967655,0.00002306367,0.0003140211,7.066402e-7,0.0005370755,0.08938865,0.0003099803,0.008151196,0.003835399,0.00009774934],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5784411,0.002936676,0.4080064,0.007369265,0.0002151996,0.001325186,0.0008293185,0.000006161594,0.0008707147],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9864957,0.0004288829,0.01237256,0.00007329229,0.00002217521,0.0001162304,0.00002018685,0.00001061053,0.0004603654],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4080546,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9931358,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2038462691","doi":"10.1126/science.1257484","title":"A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Science","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1226,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Bedford Institute of Oceanography; University of British Columbia; Queen's University; Dalhousie University","funders":"Natural Environment Research Council; Sight Research UK","keywords":"Biodiversity; Convention on Biological Diversity; Baseline (sea); Environmental resource management; Convention; Environmental planning; Term (time); Diversity (politics); International community; Geography; Political science; Environmental science; Ecology; Biology; Politics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07589574896500595,"gpt":0.2312790851356984,"spread":0.1553833361706924,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006250025,0.00004128764,0.000133161,0.000318613,0.00005674904,0.00002593947,0.0003053907,0.0000176731,0.0004988164],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003592536,0.00004699634,0.0000629642,0.0003449003,0.0003042296,0.0002566389,0.00008730184,0.00002230522,0.0002197413],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008417029,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000006216414,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003312271,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000004411212,"domain_scores_codex":[0.999434,0.00000350473,0.0001842681,0.000232961,0.00004353722,0.0001017246],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996336,0.000007864965,0.0001739304,0.0001352881,0.0000120325,0.00003732258],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000001512645,0.00002393942,0.993751,0.000001600209,0.00003806286,5.863686e-8,0.0002382892,0.0001543345,0.0000872414,0.004572732,0.00001818967,0.001112964],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001031027,0.00001492884,0.9865732,9.425548e-7,0.00001382443,1.051754e-7,0.00002730404,0.01079206,0.0005698343,0.0009546165,0.0008922318,0.00005788253],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9929603,0.00008055259,0.001930068,0.0002765921,0.0002588159,0.00003701225,0.00005183129,0.000006149642,0.00439862],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.998919,0.0000194549,0.0009058556,0.00006288581,0.00001133378,0.000001771795,0.0000127371,0.000001032943,0.00006599598],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01063772,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.546169,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1594037671","doi":"10.1023/a:1021351721619","title":"Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Environmental and Resource Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1190,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Agriculture Food and Rural Development; University of Alberta","funders":"Canadian Forest Service; Parks Canada","keywords":"Sample (material); Wilderness; Econometrics; Welfare; Logit; Economics; Welfare economics; Statistics; Mathematics; Ecology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.248982026049346,"gpt":0.1805710115312521,"spread":0.06841101451809387,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003747284,0.0002185569,0.0003894122,0.0001209432,0.0001399236,0.00005928239,0.0001442744,0.0001563616,0.000823598],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000002973698,0.0002505654,0.00009385148,0.00002773071,0.0001919741,0.000279428,0.0001203655,0.000181045,0.000221437],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000473502,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000001818878,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004636754,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001536143,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9984198,0.00002958405,0.0006058661,0.0006062773,0.00002622461,0.0003122491],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994141,0.00003410425,0.0002070867,0.0002323533,3.05898e-7,0.0001120534],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001286619,0.0009291235,0.8410317,0.00005356419,0.0001672196,0.000005615893,0.004636283,0.1226292,0.00002064922,0.02650218,0.0003050674,0.003590758],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003547926,0.0001042993,0.0684916,0.00001112644,0.00001326506,0.00002906962,0.001363578,0.8746239,0.00002447843,0.04502423,0.006073983,0.0006925663],"study_design_candidate":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9575259,0.002283812,0.0011604,0.0001265214,0.00006681436,0.0002884123,0.00008768238,0.0000177333,0.03844272],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9959209,0.003001139,0.0002087134,0.0001587982,0.00003902145,0.00003312329,0.00004168003,0.00002598372,0.0005706199],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7725401,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999946,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2123458876","doi":"10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x","title":"Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Social Science & Medicine","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":991,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McMaster University; Health Sciences Centre; McMaster University Medical Centre","funders":"","keywords":"Deliberation; Deliberative democracy; Public sector; Public health; Public relations; Public participation; Sociology; Health care; Political science; Democracy; Management science; Medicine; Politics; Economics; Law","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.5376585915125494,"gpt":0.4668430166389479,"spread":0.07081557487360146,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01912245,0.0001581447,0.0007088123,0.0002809043,0.0002709483,0.00005672821,0.0002408485,0.0001043125,0.0001669226],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001710893,0.0001189078,0.00004325557,0.000991923,0.0007314088,0.0004467445,0.00001978425,0.000129596,0.00001157463],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003087273,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002969119,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00005619158,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00002040333,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9977477,0.0005962247,0.0008846812,0.0003811072,0.0001778296,0.0002124514],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987105,0.0002866728,0.000709618,0.0001454733,0.0001070652,0.00004066009],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[6.189524e-7,0.0000608177,0.0005216916,0.000434725,0.00002123868,8.355656e-8,0.01639316,0.00003069176,7.616757e-7,0.03619258,0.0001676251,0.946176],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00199018,0.0004476476,0.01654657,0.002522135,0.001112296,0.0000105097,0.005666167,0.006397706,0.00001345277,0.164749,0.7993002,0.001244202],"study_design_candidate":"design_other","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009916644,0.9845169,0.009406531,0.0004439798,0.0001336608,0.001101175,0.000009330422,0.000004706947,0.003392095],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.008625789,0.9893921,0.001230366,0.0001164149,0.0001092383,0.0004417747,0.00003086534,0.00001156984,0.0000418997],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9449318,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6627499,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2162704335","doi":"10.1111/j.1530-9134.2011.00301.x","title":"Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Economics & Management Strategy","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":962,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"HEC Montréal","funders":"","keywords":"Porter hypothesis; Environmental policy; Incentive; Causality (physics); Test (biology); Environmental regulation; Industrial organization; Environmental compliance; Economics; Business; Public economics; Microeconomics; Environmental economics; Political science; Ecology; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1386879129996716,"gpt":0.1983566451688354,"spread":0.05966873216916371,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004322251,0.0001464441,0.0002307133,0.0003792106,0.00008922492,0.00005565214,0.0001982789,0.00005477522,0.0007004506],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000006175826,0.0001299309,0.00006491762,0.00007444306,0.00006033991,0.0004615809,0.00005265572,0.0001240744,0.0002393855],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002045806,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001414172,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00002406132,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00000224181,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988113,0.00001036775,0.000812861,0.0001884302,0.0000222839,0.0001547513],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998889,0.00002229381,0.0008358901,0.0001921108,0.000003450506,0.00005724603],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000838774,0.00015189,0.0703681,0.00001367753,0.0002907084,0.000003624874,0.0006559428,0.0006156689,0.00001295522,0.8920728,0.00102104,0.0347097],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007058141,0.0003663613,0.8288808,0.00001167085,0.00002112826,0.00001298662,0.0005909082,0.0005725299,0.0001902147,0.1642705,0.00417771,0.0001993171],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.948334,0.0001260446,0.0001020646,0.0003666219,0.0001455508,0.000140378,0.000006417963,0.000003232167,0.0507757],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9952171,0.00234426,0.0003893819,0.0007473818,0.0001615241,0.000004054232,0.000002570672,0.00001799439,0.001115735],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7585127,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7669443,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2122822397","doi":"10.1023/a:1020254301302","title":"Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Marketing Letters","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":775,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Manitoba; Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Computer science; Context (archaeology); Latent variable; Discrete choice; Process (computing); Perception; Segmentation; Econometrics; Artificial intelligence; Machine learning; Psychology; Economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1485257938604813,"gpt":0.1926207200486441,"spread":0.0440949261881628,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005929989,0.00009651588,0.0001476481,0.00006194117,0.0000736201,0.00003975021,0.00007962961,0.00002623926,0.0003345274],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003606675,0.0001210131,0.00003361271,0.00001767563,0.00006261942,0.000216544,0.00004432034,0.00006649991,0.0002178826],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005273127,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":3.357808e-7,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00001372329,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000001157176,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992397,0.00002299575,0.0002314558,0.0003041321,0.00001889573,0.0001827626],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996186,0.00006947826,0.0001234183,0.0001440642,0.000001556742,0.00004283693],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002373093,0.0001789447,0.776104,0.0002977093,0.000141965,0.00001231851,0.001427244,0.0008359055,0.00005902291,0.01393114,0.01407068,0.1929173],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009983695,0.00003677526,0.7678726,0.00005125774,0.0000106343,0.00001723881,0.00009313911,0.1619387,0.0000203452,0.003173278,0.06516173,0.0006258634],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9540184,0.01651546,0.0001538015,0.01149893,0.0001209148,0.0001054016,0.000009479214,0.00003608741,0.01754148],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9943382,0.00363495,0.0007263354,0.0009248229,0.00009266428,0.00002180319,0.000003258933,0.00001874485,0.0002392187],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1922914,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.493477,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W61562365","doi":"10.5751/es-01987-120105","title":"A Review of Tools for Incorporating Community Knowledge, Preferences, and Values into Decision Making in Natural Resources Management","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Ecology and Society","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":735,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit; International Tropical Timber Organization; World Bank Group","keywords":"Natural resource; Natural resource management; Natural (archaeology); Environmental resource management; Knowledge management; Ecology; Geography; Computer science; Economics; Biology; Archaeology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1849537434493046,"gpt":0.3442643141513472,"spread":0.1593105707020426,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00318045,0.0001701616,0.001059389,0.00008323459,0.0001774139,0.00002058869,0.0001478007,0.0002439463,0.00001661114],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001202033,0.0001723109,0.0001808596,0.00009488953,0.0001461162,0.0001259255,0.0002330176,0.0003172446,0.000005464778],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001652039,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001163717,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00001284229,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0001024032,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985951,0.00008998604,0.0008956212,0.0002675525,0.00001306734,0.0001386913],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9981983,0.0009420919,0.0006681976,0.000162222,0.000008167091,0.00002106773],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00000306444,0.00005583204,0.004966048,0.05667752,0.0001073406,1.50831e-7,0.001105463,5.83853e-7,5.547316e-9,0.003830079,0.0003805392,0.9328734],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001057077,0.0002500006,0.08384659,0.07609199,0.00030021,0.000008540204,0.001582092,0.0003170418,9.479253e-8,0.07835793,0.7574055,0.000782939],"study_design_candidate":"design_other","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.007910824,0.9895423,0.0001535506,0.000007709582,0.0001258701,0.0007589179,0.00002405394,0.000004918029,0.00147183],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.007096572,0.9855928,0.006916043,0.0001486509,0.00002469199,0.00009825181,0.00006214368,0.00001210088,0.00004878591],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9320905,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7026637,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2241616371","doi":"","title":"Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"book","venue":"RePEc: Research Papers in Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":708,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Natural capital; Ecosystem services; Natural (archaeology); Environmental resource management; Geography; Ecosystem; Environmental science; Ecology; Biology; Archaeology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06407710252332975,"gpt":0.2597836038880723,"spread":0.1957065013647425,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005647201,0.0003175105,0.0008557951,0.0006398815,0.0001030795,0.00006333926,0.0004569007,0.000429571,0.0004289609],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002639451,0.0004007677,0.0001500062,0.00004838493,0.0002640851,0.0004807228,0.0003696108,0.0007359878,0.0002289143],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001043076,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009951576,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00008166628,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000112575,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9971431,0.0001815005,0.001265758,0.0008580072,0.00006110335,0.0004905166],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9971147,0.001104203,0.000982083,0.000646307,0.0000348323,0.0001179139],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005534357,0.0003852747,0.02614417,0.002678847,0.001201571,0.00003988618,0.01093909,0.0003048369,0.00005325196,0.8840614,0.0003021058,0.07333614],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002859304,0.000468408,0.0406281,0.001206239,0.00006016032,0.0001418137,0.01039165,0.002847655,0.00006306876,0.2763352,0.6626869,0.002311588],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1064065,0.004815481,0.000003922303,0.00005210855,0.0003999878,0.000600417,0.000237067,0.00001764897,0.8874669],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7485762,0.03410787,0.0007036346,0.0001788989,0.0002711386,0.00010623,0.000193564,0.0001752267,0.2156872],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6717797,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998444,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2047902775","doi":"10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0","title":"MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Behavior Research Methods","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":645,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Saskatchewan","funders":"","keywords":"Statistics; Analysis of variance; Confidence interval; Bayesian probability; Statistical power; Computer science; Mixed-design analysis of variance; One-way analysis of variance; Calculator; Interpretation (philosophy); Sample size determination; Repeated measures design; Factorial; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.5923435475429615,"gpt":0.5003782614832487,"spread":0.09196528605971277,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007058677,0.0000970536,0.0002799753,0.0003922204,0.0001552582,0.00005127522,0.0001065223,0.00007761156,0.001050009],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002173727,0.00009804245,0.00008592045,0.0003137477,0.0001835355,0.0003839789,0.00006714332,0.0001554215,0.00005166617],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001332759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001208451,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000122021,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001126157,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987342,0.0001359106,0.0003708248,0.0003330918,0.00006478443,0.000361203],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999046,0.0003734682,0.0001348216,0.0002618301,0.00003559515,0.0001482805],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001849436,0.00008043282,0.9192701,0.000007571068,0.00009760082,3.581985e-7,0.0004151597,0.00001814055,0.0001331264,0.07629962,0.00007352663,0.003585845],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003170554,0.0001010202,0.9888505,0.00000449428,0.00006095291,0.000004624929,0.0002425209,0.001574822,0.000373514,0.004664526,0.003654015,0.0001519766],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5562547,0.0007796054,0.4397695,0.0001682202,0.00006634447,0.0004445122,0.00005945637,0.00001038677,0.00244718],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8398661,0.00004053183,0.1586023,0.0000303616,0.00004721888,0.0002888998,0.00003333528,0.00001639168,0.001074883],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2836114,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998631,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2114044277","doi":"10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00309.x","title":"Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Conservation Letters","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":554,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"Agence Nationale de la Recherche; Natural Environment Research Council; Sight Research UK","keywords":"Payment; Ecosystem services; Corporate governance; Face (sociological concept); Business; Public economics; Policy development; Environmental resource management; Economics; Environmental planning; Ecosystem; Ecology; Finance; Sociology; Economic policy; Geography","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1079685930779388,"gpt":0.2138809802965544,"spread":0.1059123872186157,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006577767,0.00006398907,0.0001407966,0.00004494507,0.0001202698,0.00001879328,0.00005610096,0.0000343817,0.00004651847],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001584465,0.00006142147,0.00004884043,0.00003521589,0.0000543136,0.0004393223,0.00002042296,0.00003230858,0.00005190206],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005906827,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000002302577,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000147039,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00002329423,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993876,0.00001684445,0.0003364003,0.0001125928,0.00001799665,0.0001285341],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999456,0.00009374532,0.0003062818,0.000112803,0.000006529344,0.00002461265],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003931348,0.00004172468,0.9253355,0.00009453518,0.00007281525,1.87779e-8,0.0009790785,0.0001743549,0.001069365,0.0702899,0.001624842,0.0002785978],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001952137,0.00001673809,0.9669319,0.00001754177,0.00002630838,0.000002508844,0.0003828035,0.0119638,0.0003265358,0.001495398,0.01673697,0.0001473544],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9823942,0.000380556,0.00949873,0.006729705,0.000325925,0.0003276755,0.0001056881,0.000008607346,0.0002289447],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9972431,0.00004187638,0.0004070762,0.002019765,0.00008398891,0.00006912096,0.00006603658,0.000007808107,0.00006123677],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.0687945,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2504695,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1993842882","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2006.05.008","title":"Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Forest Policy and Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":542,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"University of Toronto; World Bank Group","keywords":"Poverty; Diversification (marketing strategy); Economics; Household income; Income distribution; Population; Distribution (mathematics); Socioeconomics; Net national income; Natural resource economics; Geography; Economic growth; Business; Gross income; Public economics; Inequality","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0201973944892819,"gpt":0.1776078402017113,"spread":0.1574104457124294,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003231059,0.0001705357,0.0002998094,0.0001025666,0.0002250746,0.00009988494,0.0001198355,0.00008730554,0.00006407745],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001526729,0.0001598913,0.00007674634,0.00002659782,0.0004510587,0.0003049393,0.0001313211,0.00008795303,0.000254192],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001384717,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000007678523,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003547969,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008813706,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989862,0.00001132937,0.0004633055,0.0002621052,0.00001141067,0.0002656574],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994457,0.00007656452,0.0002198019,0.0001907779,8.402719e-7,0.00006632649],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001745929,0.00001480277,0.4928456,0.000003615935,0.00001517777,1.380226e-7,0.00008246845,0.0008525368,8.606526e-7,0.5056344,0.0001291917,0.0004037711],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001431433,0.0000283492,0.6746657,0.000002154876,0.000007476881,0.00001619645,0.0001084841,0.01848508,0.000005068611,0.2876095,0.01744314,0.0001974114],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.985734,0.00110176,0.0001380036,0.002564277,0.0001060876,0.0002154655,0.0001451527,0.00001433225,0.009980875],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9958786,0.001386833,0.0001164818,0.000936107,0.0003701574,0.00003266962,0.00006562159,0.00002360369,0.001189866],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.218025,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6520178,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2111058671","doi":"10.2308/accr.2004.79.2.329","title":"The Market Valuation of Environmental Capital Expenditures by Pulp and Paper Companies","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Accounting Review","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":534,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Toronto; Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Valuation (finance); Capital expenditure; Business; Valuation effects; Environmental pollution; Capitalization; Natural resource economics; Economics; Finance; Environmental protection","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0403418328998393,"gpt":0.2084643480277102,"spread":0.1681225151278709,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001186425,0.00009169739,0.0002004441,0.0000118923,0.0001880311,0.00003563433,0.0001624055,0.00002516103,0.0005058877],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003787793,0.00006404443,0.00005534416,0.00002047733,0.0001318374,0.0002134741,0.00006476419,0.00006547924,0.00016667],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006335329,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000003213722,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00007279215,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00000736366,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992564,0.00002107918,0.0004130394,0.0001532221,0.00004004029,0.0001162585],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993351,0.00007356505,0.0003559566,0.000218902,0.000001649042,0.00001479382],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008054048,0.0007578305,0.5039917,0.002776612,0.0009409408,0.000001647072,0.007179407,0.0006028783,0.004127072,0.2540552,0.06510815,0.1603781],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008380003,0.00006445175,0.8109853,0.0004220455,0.00008228432,0.00001474623,0.0007997209,0.000194033,0.0002609572,0.0657299,0.1202095,0.0003990686],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7068189,0.2888449,0.0000528111,0.001724132,0.00009414852,0.0003270385,0.00004801832,0.000006378356,0.002083662],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8917401,0.107421,0.00004027618,0.000564012,0.00003065152,0.00002255074,0.00001478748,0.000009294161,0.000157331],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3069937,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5539115,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2177557676","doi":"10.1086/321952","title":"The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Consumer Research","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":528,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Task (project management); Context (archaeology); Aggregate (composite); Latent class model; Selection (genetic algorithm); Affect (linguistics); Class (philosophy); Interpretation (philosophy); Consumer choice; Computer science; Cognitive psychology; Psychology; Economics; Microeconomics; Artificial intelligence; Machine learning; Communication","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3663133884224562,"gpt":0.3660250847546243,"spread":0.0002883036678318907,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003720083,0.0001006622,0.0003768358,0.0002884954,0.0001671268,0.00004455529,0.0004076489,0.00007814589,0.0001190166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003493202,0.0000814269,0.0001321175,0.0001690693,0.0003352619,0.0002539903,0.00008554241,0.0004976799,0.00009224223],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000169643,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008870563,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002092899,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00004675848,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9980557,0.00008248289,0.001195379,0.0001664613,0.0002302046,0.0002697551],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9978034,0.0007905209,0.0008445949,0.0002923162,0.0001703415,0.00009885652],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005907895,0.0003834229,0.8088684,0.00003966571,0.0002275762,0.000006870021,0.0003295834,0.1292893,0.002902575,0.03908224,0.0007793732,0.01750017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001942299,0.0004909874,0.838216,0.000166525,0.00001550618,0.0000233445,0.0001860155,0.06584293,0.0004980027,0.08831225,0.004119599,0.0001865439],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9955174,0.001676963,0.0007022381,0.0003013123,0.0000559657,0.000155829,0.00002265786,0.000001636812,0.001566016],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9956154,0.003899227,0.0002769623,0.00003027826,0.00002138621,0.000003288111,9.030462e-7,0.00001193283,0.0001406256],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.06344641,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3320493,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2146244808","doi":"10.1111/cobi.12299","title":"Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Conservation Biology","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":436,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-Leipzig; Natural Environment Research Council; Akademie Věd České Republiky; DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology; Austrian Science Fund; Agence Nationale de la Recherche; Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst; Grantová Agentura České Republiky; Leverhulme Trust; Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; National Research Foundation; Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung; Biodiversa+; Univerzita Karlova v Praze; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Biodiversity; Stakeholder; Legislature; Ecology; Environmental resource management; Introduced species; Ecosystem; Scale (ratio); Geography; Political science; Biology; Environmental science; Cartography; Public relations","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08990773722564598,"gpt":0.254689492874453,"spread":0.164781755648807,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004260598,0.0000567469,0.0001535734,0.00004701829,0.00005007701,0.000006416948,0.00009073548,0.00004863118,0.0005325422],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001301067,0.00004523575,0.00006420628,0.00005383857,0.0001228327,0.00006075346,0.00002436704,0.0000423698,0.0002678246],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005055983,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000007565681,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0003560171,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001229896,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994879,0.00002202162,0.0002781978,0.0001217928,0.000005696643,0.00008436049],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994303,0.0001413208,0.0002722295,0.0001332439,0.00001003822,0.00001286857],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002556216,0.000006944113,0.6991425,9.280714e-7,0.00001560345,5.558426e-9,0.0001234016,0.0001316948,0.0001240282,0.299694,0.0004700968,0.0002883344],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001887763,0.0000815611,0.9572106,0.000001586582,0.000001449026,3.839849e-7,0.00003903557,0.008598828,0.000171469,0.03061901,0.003034539,0.00005279214],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9644211,0.0001790168,0.009137281,0.0006733459,0.0001015841,0.00007308432,0.00003954699,0.000005656879,0.02536937],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990577,0.00003822932,0.0002336661,0.0002912869,0.00002830085,0.000008841848,0.00004422153,0.000004470397,0.0002933243],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.269075,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5830963,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2029359129","doi":"10.1016/j.trd.2007.03.001","title":"Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":427,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McMaster University","funders":"Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Canada Research Chairs","keywords":"Willingness to pay; Incentive; Respondent; Discrete choice; Business; Occupancy; Metropolitan area; Nested logit; Environmental economics; Alternative fuel vehicle; Economics; Microeconomics; Engineering; Econometrics; Alternative fuels","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1720836460397265,"gpt":0.2808418010829752,"spread":0.1087581550432487,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001932846,0.0001518679,0.0002513296,0.0001354356,0.0002471546,0.00002262794,0.00008172444,0.00009673074,0.0001321518],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000004135833,0.0001565896,0.00005523785,0.00007290613,0.0001390269,0.0001756416,0.000004971771,0.0001379393,0.00004734632],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006404047,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000005137798,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001498145,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002614864,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998374,0.000008913522,0.0005666181,0.0005240464,0.00009590862,0.0004305328],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994131,0.00007845766,0.0000737888,0.0001642289,0.000006112752,0.0002643238],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001075363,0.00008809381,0.9830341,0.00006541894,0.00003091403,0.000003872324,0.001248076,0.0008430731,0.0001649211,0.009863052,0.0001131107,0.004437787],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007505448,0.0001642048,0.9423268,0.00001385319,0.00001080474,4.15823e-7,0.000313662,0.00008865989,0.00045044,0.003856391,0.05182001,0.0002042019],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9628891,0.0003974768,0.0347507,0.0006683447,0.00006193493,0.0007116487,0.000278973,0.00001973589,0.000222117],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9959301,0.001583655,0.001432288,0.0001378134,0.00007090737,0.0001178962,0.0001602223,0.00003284505,0.0005342162],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.0517069,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.638554,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2070024519","doi":"10.1007/s11116-006-9109-1","title":"Influences on bicycle use","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Transportation","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":407,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Calgary","funders":"University of Calgary","keywords":"Cycling; Work (physics); Credence; Transport engineering; Logit; Travel behavior; Pedestrian; Discrete choice; Preference; Geography; Engineering; Econometrics; Statistics; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08342971261101793,"gpt":0.2027921433880477,"spread":0.1193624307770298,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00007904821,0.00005966147,0.00008747932,0.00005989449,0.00004156964,0.00002186177,0.00003772952,0.00003651608,0.0003770162],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000002733933,0.00007210053,0.00003742797,0.00004692972,0.00001984756,0.000302476,5.283192e-7,0.00003296791,0.001050562],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003817126,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000001798543,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008998268,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000157971,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994615,0.000002576134,0.0002700709,0.0001624884,0.00001708108,0.00008623915],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997782,0.00001406029,0.0001043429,0.00008476518,0.000002476302,0.00001617984],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004706512,0.00003335319,0.8842701,0.000002420552,0.000003457345,4.44987e-7,0.00006839373,0.005903359,0.00006335933,0.1093498,0.0001459341,0.0001546952],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001977879,0.00002405724,0.9797915,0.000002832003,0.000002189911,7.578642e-8,0.00001171772,0.0002532521,0.0002383179,0.01685535,0.002536907,0.00008607919],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9928834,0.00005200935,0.0009048401,0.0001115574,0.00009020993,0.00007437935,0.00007128141,0.00002612554,0.005786169],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.99854,0.00001601468,0.0003195931,0.0001530803,0.00003786525,0.00001112846,0.000170195,0.000008527762,0.0007435969],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.09552137,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997272,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1800519929","doi":"10.1111/1467-842x.00128","title":"Practical Maximum Pseudolikelihood for Spatial Point Patterns","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":395,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of New Brunswick","funders":"","keywords":"Mathematics; Point process; Exponential family; Covariate; Poisson point process; Poisson distribution; Quasi-likelihood; Applied mathematics; Spatial analysis; Cox process; Computation; Spatial dependence; Exponential function; Generalized linear model; Statistics; Algorithm; Count data; Poisson process; Mathematical analysis","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09017917241294637,"gpt":0.2752519146079772,"spread":0.1850727421950308,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003788669,0.0001319687,0.000333736,0.00007594573,0.00005154949,0.00006294456,0.0001107418,0.00008211967,0.00604844],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005907698,0.0001406549,0.0001031657,0.0000294359,0.00002971574,0.0002456308,0.000009083074,0.0001688832,0.0003607314],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009738345,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004154581,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0003009466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003522906,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9986528,0.00001301737,0.0008701574,0.0001645423,0.00005120954,0.0002483283],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990255,0.00008562912,0.0005476175,0.0001211315,0.00002069707,0.0001994394],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003294208,0.0004241406,0.2805901,0.00004825579,0.0002620797,0.00005709903,0.0006821565,0.0005134603,0.00002080823,0.01699281,0.6371957,0.06288396],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004979368,0.001564482,0.5116731,0.00004866046,0.0001045782,0.0003133603,0.0001433433,0.0009155104,0.0001315731,0.1912776,0.2883654,0.0004829928],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5023835,0.00008399586,0.4760328,0.01556582,0.001265257,0.000467636,0.002960445,0.0000156162,0.001224979],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.906279,0.0005882821,0.07437784,0.0003862939,0.0009056489,0.000004019401,0.00009256622,0.00004014463,0.01732622],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4038956,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9948602,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2044503699","doi":"10.1257/mic.4.4.145","title":"Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"American Economic Journal Microeconomics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":373,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria; Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Public good; Incentive; Complement (music); Economics; Microeconomics; Discrete choice; Preference; Field (mathematics); Experimental economics; Econometrics; Mathematical economics; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08805616320464946,"gpt":0.2897761088673393,"spread":0.2017199456626899,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002145354,0.0002933576,0.0006446466,0.0003050249,0.0001431564,0.0001532708,0.000289648,0.00008779836,0.001012073],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002065371,0.0003590003,0.0001435581,0.00004556747,0.0002983073,0.001114306,0.0001126835,0.0003726546,0.001142458],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001085868,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003745907,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004565481,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00003984517,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9976684,0.0001156625,0.001102802,0.0004827954,0.00001900836,0.0006112651],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976133,0.0008112986,0.0009395121,0.0003484808,0.000003777409,0.0002836552],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001506555,0.00008528031,0.9254482,0.000007720421,0.0001065072,0.000001793216,0.00079273,0.0001846592,0.0001388793,0.06720731,0.0004322233,0.005444042],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003540211,0.000933509,0.9256107,0.0001652726,0.00005193397,0.0003152009,0.004521973,0.0006309898,0.004121161,0.036598,0.02153549,0.001975562],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9909144,0.002756061,0.0005920088,0.0006364255,0.001080624,0.0001905164,0.00004710587,0.00001439714,0.003768449],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9944228,0.002316328,0.0004884831,0.002117057,0.0003948159,0.00002314722,0.000005695463,0.00004650386,0.0001851681],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.03060932,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999011,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2766316242","doi":"10.1038/nature24295","title":"Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending","year":2017,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Nature","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":370,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Yukon University; Yukon Department of Environment; Simon Fraser University","funders":"Medical Research Council; Natural Environment Research Council; Sight Research UK","keywords":"Convention on Biological Diversity; Biodiversity; Sustainable development; Natural resource economics; Business; Biodiversity conservation; Environmental resource management; Convention; Economics; Measurement of biodiversity; Environmental planning; Public economics; Geography; Ecology; Political science; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06610942169022485,"gpt":0.2353131824231201,"spread":0.1692037607328953,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001351058,0.00006337703,0.0001204635,0.00003843301,0.0001958131,0.00006216167,0.0001753061,0.0004027272,0.0005412539],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007901343,0.00008347492,0.00003534813,0.00003462474,0.00005787563,0.000396731,0.00005914523,0.0003434376,0.0004981072],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002768318,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000005305437,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001707171,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0003156782,"domain_scores_codex":[0.999474,0.000005284251,0.0001708576,0.0002315307,0.00001817924,0.0001001575],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995036,0.000008311427,0.0002070835,0.0002483889,0.000003851335,0.00002874271],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000006611206,0.00002097319,0.9911509,0.000001322009,0.00001149636,0.000001547853,0.0000503005,0.0000249834,0.000006097757,0.006174159,0.002431814,0.0001198664],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004395173,0.000005997682,0.9800589,0.000005295925,0.000003137836,7.71756e-7,0.00004150244,0.0003861374,0.00002855865,0.01485329,0.004093983,0.00008288901],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9870478,0.0002543181,0.00005384364,0.002671871,0.000730778,0.00008632524,0.001450449,0.00001397748,0.007690647],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.999007,0.00008312921,0.0002620457,0.0002159925,0.00006928742,0.000002404239,0.0002431177,0.00000199901,0.0001150213],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01195921,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6402327,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1590210216","doi":"10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000","title":"Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health – How are Studies being Designed and Reported?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Patient","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":360,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McMaster University; University of Calgary","funders":"","keywords":"Conjoint analysis; Respondent; Descriptive statistics; Sample size determination; Data extraction; Popularity; Computer science; Sample (material); Inclusion (mineral); Psychology; Applied psychology; MEDLINE; Statistics; Preference; Mathematics; Social psychology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1151296845816888,"gpt":0.2535190435303806,"spread":0.1383893589486918,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003583177,0.00006923347,0.0002661555,0.0001710533,0.00007825243,0.00001934248,0.00003238563,0.00002952442,0.00003795565],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004735021,0.00007749782,0.00004041781,0.0001431704,0.00003962803,0.00007775309,0.00003135712,0.00006887872,0.00001670209],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000976355,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000004385422,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001378773,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0004202298,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992149,0.000009198224,0.0003924885,0.0002549245,0.00001551916,0.0001128983],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993172,0.00003140528,0.0004250107,0.0001750686,0.000006344063,0.00004492962],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[8.340443e-7,0.00003672507,0.9891636,0.0000120828,0.00008867778,2.869514e-7,0.0009981714,0.0001646624,0.0000150431,0.008329129,0.00002899908,0.001161815],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001647609,0.00003549551,0.988785,0.00000470433,0.00001477891,6.060881e-7,0.001206093,0.001419395,0.00005524702,0.006077609,0.002122886,0.0001134654],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9955025,0.0009258196,0.001922515,0.0008730922,0.00006381318,0.0002435629,0.00001801555,0.000009172897,0.0004415391],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9982549,0.0003191703,0.001083505,0.0001389242,0.00001164132,0.00008998477,0.00002180546,0.000005822893,0.00007423944],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.002752437,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3160269,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2117835647","doi":"10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00902.x","title":"Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Applied Ecology","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":352,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Foothills Medical Centre; University of Alberta","funders":"National Science Foundation","keywords":"Global Positioning System; Statistics; Sampling (signal processing); Terrain; Weighting; Sampling bias; Environmental science; Collar; Range (aeronautics); Sample size determination; Mathematics; Computer science; Geography; Cartography; Physics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1257415600662107,"gpt":0.2499682802939554,"spread":0.1242267202277447,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009476417,0.00008484664,0.000389364,0.000275295,0.0000533444,0.00001157588,0.00008608702,0.00009168417,0.0000923655],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007927007,0.00009587307,0.00006182047,0.0001207624,0.00004591338,0.0001421374,0.0000275396,0.0001626244,0.0002169566],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008844006,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002789044,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00001074792,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002644231,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998875,0.000008472658,0.000786536,0.000142667,0.00002088972,0.000166432],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991647,0.00006160155,0.0006652207,0.00006045486,0.00001307637,0.00003492186],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00008687812,0.0002023459,0.8238736,0.00002241741,0.0001462831,0.00001210382,0.001322638,0.07455306,0.0004155292,0.09825826,0.0004261173,0.000680722],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002393876,0.0003140813,0.7832152,0.00001298763,0.00001159374,0.00005357954,0.001001034,0.0001794271,0.0005410858,0.210203,0.001901112,0.0001729501],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9933704,0.0004626886,0.0003133575,0.0006368959,0.0003970407,0.000100587,0.000001638703,0.000004368298,0.004713077],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9964331,0.0006471312,0.002422572,0.0003297667,0.0001066378,0.000006451516,9.032649e-7,0.00001076433,0.00004262725],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1119448,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3909591,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2793184339","doi":"10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x","title":"From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Nature Sustainability","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":338,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Waterloo","funders":"","keywords":"Conditionality; Ecosystem services; Payment; Incentive; Equity (law); Public economics; Payment for ecosystem services; Environmental economics; Business; Context (archaeology); Social Welfare; Risk analysis (engineering); Environmental resource management; Economics; Microeconomics; Ecosystem; Political science; Ecology; Finance","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0268148349307911,"gpt":0.2838783584876213,"spread":0.2570635235568302,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001238919,0.0001393351,0.0002540571,0.0001159448,0.00009995701,0.00007373546,0.0002362341,0.0004493325,0.0001118861],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001721467,0.0001606349,0.00006824715,0.0001631181,0.00004163492,0.0006470085,0.0001108636,0.0004121556,0.00008750385],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001137958,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003336503,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008953213,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0006436079,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985827,0.00002697113,0.0004474176,0.0006155058,0.00003042826,0.0002969508],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989607,0.0002684995,0.0002045765,0.0004017935,0.00009215294,0.00007228687],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003601452,0.0003578368,0.7862344,0.0001953329,0.00005562442,0.000002717795,0.007256466,0.0004568147,0.00001645355,0.1983706,0.0007872315,0.005906389],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004727994,0.00008155703,0.4234255,0.000007979175,0.000005420834,3.646094e-7,0.00259456,0.0007041341,0.0001173164,0.162359,0.4100162,0.0002151015],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9850892,0.001294132,0.001105989,0.007211408,0.0006946767,0.0009067452,0.0001359221,0.00002786669,0.003534007],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9903552,0.00001643164,0.005694698,0.002848617,0.0003726041,0.0001042893,0.0000484311,0.00001853247,0.0005411825],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.409229,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6550503,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2135085926","doi":"10.1007/s10530-005-0236-y","title":"Characterised and Projected Costs of Nonindigenous Species in Canada","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Biological Invasions","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":305,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Windsor","funders":"Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada","keywords":"Nuisance; Ecosystem services; Economic impact analysis; Goods and services; Economic cost; Yield (engineering); Natural resource economics; Resource (disambiguation); Agriculture; Agricultural economics; Biology; Ecosystem; Economics; Ecology; Economy","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3145581078164222,"gpt":0.2066294221072898,"spread":0.1079286857091324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001103951,0.00005739353,0.0001765388,0.00004157219,0.00002984037,0.000004437439,0.00005788289,0.00004522277,0.00046958],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003981092,0.00005308834,0.00001675235,0.00004889672,0.00004214975,0.00004645597,0.00003449745,0.00005130558,0.00003782278],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003224585,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003894269,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1755627,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3437404,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994103,0.000009947437,0.0003002278,0.0001519829,0.000009770519,0.0001178122],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997407,0.0000399197,0.0001086327,0.00007404453,0.000002546636,0.00003420898],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004495767,0.00004119767,0.9921326,0.000001604236,0.000004359374,6.821195e-7,0.00009559391,0.00001574034,0.0008596764,0.005781651,0.00004641369,0.001015975],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001907862,0.00003253534,0.9966739,0.000004485486,5.2502e-7,0.000001083239,0.0001258577,0.0001577914,0.0003087206,0.0001821439,0.002251762,0.0000704234],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9961507,0.0002800829,0.00001398072,0.0002722527,0.00003802719,0.0001332816,0.0001046498,0.000003981002,0.003003025],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9989509,0.0005275647,0.0002049691,0.0001566941,0.00002029154,0.00001122021,0.00002802926,0.000002931876,0.00009742809],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1681777,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8299273,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2155094271","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398649.013.0021","title":"Economic Value of Weather and Climate Forecasts","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"book-chapter","venue":"Oxford University Press eBooks","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":302,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Impact","funders":"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration","keywords":"Valuation (finance); Value (mathematics); Section (typography); Willingness to pay; Climate change; Contingent valuation; Economics; Revealed preference; Climatology; Environmental science; Meteorology; Econometrics; Geography; Computer science; Mathematics; Statistics; Microeconomics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05662208308465443,"gpt":0.177748158299808,"spread":0.1211260752151536,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001761479,0.0002097708,0.0004376916,0.0001318254,0.00006757419,0.00001295141,0.0001642001,0.0002517753,0.0003718188],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000001085427,0.0002925875,0.0001372645,0.000001586029,0.0001443869,0.0001459435,0.0002203281,0.0001280843,0.00003067926],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002178016,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000008782502,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00007922963,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001345548,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991301,0.000005528501,0.00031592,0.0003270637,0.0000186893,0.0002027234],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990957,0.00002235889,0.0005210735,0.0002727551,0.000004150519,0.00008389638],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002177664,0.000006541675,0.004070897,0.00004622205,0.00009844571,0.000001089384,0.0001284975,0.00002593314,0.000001305548,0.9928156,0.0001064615,0.002677244],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005087561,0.00004572696,0.003027301,0.00003466856,0.0000614186,0.000003364472,0.00001843776,0.0003368777,0.00002504696,0.006593828,0.9890148,0.0003297662],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.02032518,0.0007381885,0.00007763084,0.000008360822,0.0001574652,0.0002123685,0.0006606025,0.00001588953,0.9778043],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.146688,0.00539903,0.0004492744,0.00003147762,0.0001093428,0.000001202294,0.00006081794,0.00007013984,0.8471907],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9889084,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999526,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2179807004","doi":"10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2411:damcfa]2.0.co;2","title":"DECONSTRUCTING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: CRITERIA FOR APPLICATIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ecological Applications","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":299,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"Ohio State University; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Adaptive management; Stakeholder; Environmental resource management; Computer science; Scale (ratio); Management science; Temporal scales; Ecosystem management; Risk analysis (engineering); Business; Ecology; Environmental planning; Environmental science; Geography; Economics; Ecosystem","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0691492816429312,"gpt":0.2385145938375123,"spread":0.1693653121945811,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002319285,0.0001566763,0.0002106874,0.0001218912,0.0003324061,0.00004700118,0.0002477441,0.00007578627,0.001003379],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000001698433,0.0001911908,0.0001023213,0.0001288586,0.00006987046,0.0001022827,0.0001311559,0.00005589908,0.002990854],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000284752,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000001493352,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000008324405,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000007060227,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985155,0.0000073854,0.000544468,0.000609407,0.00002849848,0.0002947636],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993737,0.00004897905,0.0001814504,0.0003089735,0.000003791327,0.00008311625],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000007434243,0.0003450255,0.01862651,0.00001710086,0.0000455847,3.618517e-7,0.00001522332,0.000450697,0.00003737455,0.9693961,0.001483396,0.009575187],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006006077,0.00006458327,0.4327522,0.000002925644,0.00002725682,0.000002571248,0.0002433898,0.0008276463,0.00005226899,0.2906958,0.2743734,0.0003572431],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05950323,0.0002054056,0.8011715,0.0005762551,0.00008942206,0.005101002,0.0006405596,0.0001127871,0.1325998],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8724662,0.00003936467,0.1108541,0.0003737608,0.0001521785,0.01329186,0.0002425645,0.00002171594,0.002558231],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8129629,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999098,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2119454559","doi":"10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.11.010","title":"A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best–worst scaling","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Business Research","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":291,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Guelph","funders":"","keywords":"Willingness to pay; Scaling; Constant (computer programming); Econometrics; Context (archaeology); Conjoint analysis; Mathematics; Computer science; Statistics; Economics; Microeconomics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.2420162740871008,"gpt":0.3466171255031557,"spread":0.1046008514160549,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002703274,0.000124007,0.0005810294,0.0004111307,0.000146683,0.00007558083,0.0001581653,0.00009599989,0.00007175447],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004149737,0.0001112915,0.0000515245,0.0002710674,0.0003433174,0.0002464979,0.00006224904,0.0002795873,0.0000114353],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001401899,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005369762,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004265382,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0003105282,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981662,0.00003956494,0.00109981,0.0002477786,0.0001690181,0.0002776024],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983224,0.0004820033,0.0006374684,0.0001553514,0.000222185,0.0001806149],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001418502,0.000139517,0.9931729,0.00004458009,0.00004073551,0.000005375504,0.0002403127,0.0003695095,0.003011862,0.0004330552,0.00003436141,0.002365912],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001062316,0.0001179421,0.9895753,0.000172113,0.000009649842,0.000005228074,0.0003746407,0.001875494,0.003781155,0.002255498,0.0006340438,0.0001365872],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9818103,0.005478012,0.01153896,0.0005873854,0.0001327104,0.0001587799,0.00003621142,0.000002780307,0.0002548146],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.996601,0.0005963604,0.002590941,0.00003543997,0.0001358512,0.000002047229,0.000005079998,0.0000169455,0.00001630933],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01479068,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4538334,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1995907847","doi":"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.02.001","title":"Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Resource and Energy Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":290,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Simon Fraser University; McMaster University","funders":"Natural Resources Canada","keywords":"Multicollinearity; Willingness to pay; Econometrics; Electric vehicle; Revealed preference; Popularity; Economics; Intuition; Market share; Computer science; Statistics; Microeconomics; Mathematics; Regression analysis","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05532968487035284,"gpt":0.2518678721631368,"spread":0.1965381872927839,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001547376,0.0001396236,0.000303855,0.0001511601,0.000356801,0.00009043826,0.0001724672,0.00005243828,0.00001767789],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000912516,0.0001130032,0.00004801897,0.0001417592,0.0001057148,0.0001075248,0.00007744932,0.0001644323,0.00001514942],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008502627,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000007381182,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0009068141,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0001015903,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987931,0.00008793223,0.0004557102,0.0003461485,0.00001793672,0.0002991417],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987231,0.0006573581,0.0001866693,0.0003270636,0.00001015398,0.0000956181],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005557061,0.0002962056,0.2343936,0.0001061736,0.0004899622,0.00007170913,0.00566793,0.08313049,0.001257846,0.3311166,0.003068674,0.3398451],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.005097084,0.002796995,0.2940328,0.00008479163,0.0000910085,0.0005570776,0.001936312,0.3652778,0.00532289,0.06914046,0.2542907,0.001372148],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9924174,0.00178666,0.00005909124,0.001493843,0.00002770124,0.0001439739,0.00002111634,0.00000973891,0.004040473],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9979299,0.000930436,0.00002268038,0.000586403,0.00006498826,0.00001462382,0.000007005674,0.0000177553,0.0004262479],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3384729,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4608137,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2020438811","doi":"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004","title":"Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Health Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":261,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Centre for Advancing Health Outcomes; University of British Columbia; St. Paul's Hospital","funders":"","keywords":"Time-trade-off; Valuation (finance); Scale (ratio); EQ-5D; Econometrics; Discrete choice; Task (project management); Value (mathematics); Actuarial science; Sample (material); Psychology; Economics; Medicine; Statistics; Mathematics; Quality of life (healthcare); Health related quality of life; Geography; Finance; Nursing","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3610376684492279,"gpt":0.363796566299062,"spread":0.00275889784983413,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002812931,0.0001937044,0.0008174549,0.0002413736,0.0001940903,0.00004367018,0.0002518718,0.00004913168,0.0003143631],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000437302,0.0002246434,0.000163353,0.00006310407,0.00004678453,0.0005089652,0.00007910391,0.0001764334,0.0001521224],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001332035,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002089429,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001188579,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00007626108,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9968282,0.00006096994,0.002294218,0.0003204143,0.00003059226,0.0004656248],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9967926,0.00003316683,0.002455507,0.0002946417,0.00001719013,0.0004068548],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002294542,0.000674384,0.9169338,0.0002345924,0.0003144801,0.000003789655,0.02008576,0.01764622,0.00001638565,0.01314317,0.001963702,0.02875427],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002214544,0.001778664,0.906747,0.0001461393,0.00001272865,0.00006843016,0.000975948,0.01965904,0.0003239922,0.03904911,0.02826389,0.0007605431],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9690312,0.002706125,0.0245768,0.001433804,0.0009062356,0.0003410279,0.00007209317,0.00001084486,0.0009218619],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9533975,0.000927525,0.04360499,0.001812891,0.0001249697,0.000005698024,0.000004628784,0.00003982495,0.00008197533],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.02799373,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.916069,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2790455749","doi":"10.1111/ele.12928","title":"Quantifying effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning across times and places","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Ecology Letters","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":251,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"McGill University","funders":"H2020 European Research Council; Agence Nationale de la Recherche; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Biodiversity; Ecosystem; Ecosystem services; Ecology; Ecosystem health; Ecosystem diversity; Beta diversity; Global biodiversity; Geography; Environmental resource management; Environmental science; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05301025492571401,"gpt":0.2135385502770226,"spread":0.1605282953513086,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002461872,0.00007097518,0.0001817248,0.00006348799,0.0001572663,0.00001272777,0.0000566292,0.00005938925,0.0001787112],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002799925,0.00008510298,0.00003281412,0.00003137071,0.0001152735,0.0001035628,0.00004391607,0.00004980552,0.0009109435],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007752108,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000001532351,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004207967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00009095931,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994235,0.00001588635,0.0001872472,0.0002194994,0.00001059563,0.000143297],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995896,0.0001060489,0.0001828987,0.00009517657,0.000002856158,0.00002347238],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001325616,0.00001832614,0.9970701,0.00002641753,0.00004598452,9.520619e-7,0.0004184497,0.00005040268,0.0002870826,0.0008947654,0.00107497,0.00009928285],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005101325,0.0001857962,0.9965602,0.000009263336,0.000006276679,0.000001686266,0.0001009069,0.0004114737,0.001347833,0.00008953676,0.000681254,0.00009571387],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9978193,0.00005872044,0.0001584839,0.000603125,0.0006349329,0.0001015201,0.00002522644,0.0000124881,0.0005862206],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9989671,0.00002008611,0.0001121491,0.0007871439,0.00005079487,0.000003802551,0.000005434533,0.000004269517,0.00004920132],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.001147836,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999867,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1968467946","doi":"10.1093/erae/jbq051","title":"Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"European Review of Agricultural Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":249,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Iowa State University; U.S. Department of Agriculture","keywords":"Geographical indication; Promotion (chess); Empirical evidence; Business; Country of origin; Value (mathematics); Agriculture; Economic geography; Geography; Agricultural economics; Marketing; Regional science; Economics; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1666926090719294,"gpt":0.2214725070520627,"spread":0.0547798979801333,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001234704,0.0002044433,0.0004578511,0.00004112612,0.0001638837,0.00004676142,0.0005597011,0.00005487086,0.001789524],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001621104,0.0001480109,0.0002387344,0.00007665549,0.0001566142,0.0003209619,0.00006853392,0.0001306887,0.0006201332],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001623208,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003641471,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02174487,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02338973,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9983252,0.00009009872,0.0008801094,0.0004202901,0.00002052309,0.0002638018],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9986531,0.0001936801,0.0006411546,0.0003346699,0.0000326331,0.0001447288],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005014586,0.0001474324,0.8453338,0.002189896,0.0007891791,0.000001756962,0.002099524,0.00002965332,0.00001288262,0.05511693,0.07480689,0.01942194],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002401844,0.00006216299,0.9332103,0.001210623,0.00005232257,0.000002746249,0.0001172661,0.00003066946,0.00002085923,0.001116464,0.06362677,0.0003096574],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8068574,0.09092171,0.00001608812,0.001190047,0.0004874198,0.0005628629,0.001011373,0.00002022139,0.09893285],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7004533,0.2942273,0.00203634,0.001791165,0.0001668773,0.00005992147,0.0001848367,0.00002856335,0.001051664],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2033056,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999123,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2132095645","doi":"10.1086/586913","title":"Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Consumer Research","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":248,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Guelph","funders":"","keywords":"Economics; Discrete choice; Econometrics; Computer science; Microeconomics; Management science; Mathematical economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.4150813394674372,"gpt":0.3643871523787727,"spread":0.05069418708866452,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.002467765,0.0001268358,0.0003770815,0.0004123629,0.0003653361,0.00006454087,0.0003429778,0.00008577981,0.001904636],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002508672,0.0001314632,0.0001428368,0.0001776892,0.0002642436,0.0005199081,0.0001470385,0.000410816,0.001160992],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0006423598,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006037468,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004820725,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000001507959,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981981,0.0001137864,0.0008414715,0.0002417758,0.0001817135,0.0004231773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987061,0.0003091011,0.0004742742,0.0002343991,0.00006816257,0.000207954],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001445381,0.0001810931,0.9851255,0.00001714773,0.0002050179,0.00006297657,0.001743577,0.0005978488,0.003366085,0.001438461,0.006807311,0.0003103812],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.007169408,0.0014103,0.8188431,0.0001590416,0.00002989892,0.0008687443,0.001358845,0.001895799,0.01610686,0.003232773,0.1479361,0.0009891737],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.981196,0.007755588,0.004945349,0.0002366959,0.0001674787,0.0001899409,0.000011116,0.00000586179,0.005491932],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9917412,0.001701526,0.004505956,0.00005090559,0.0001221968,0.00001421651,0.000002612784,0.00002703085,0.001834312],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1662825,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996167,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1985136372","doi":"10.1016/s1755-5345(13)70025-3","title":"Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Choice Modelling","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":241,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria; University of Guelph","funders":"","keywords":"Discrete choice; Preference; Computer science; Aggregate (composite); Variance (accounting); Limit (mathematics); Econometrics; Choice set; Revealed preference; Mathematical optimization; Economics; Microeconomics; Mathematics; Machine learning","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1841817718579511,"gpt":0.2408156124094176,"spread":0.05663384055146645,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009304473,0.0001538816,0.0003428613,0.0001722957,0.0002029946,0.00006183329,0.0003529166,0.00007043663,0.00004414789],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005749979,0.0001235198,0.00009933247,0.000116667,0.00007029621,0.0008550612,0.00004070682,0.0002385719,0.00001438855],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001520695,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004333146,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001225655,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000002558937,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9982583,0.00002122808,0.001181143,0.000146129,0.0001961113,0.0001971193],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982747,0.0002542977,0.001149803,0.0001834257,0.00006075553,0.00007701523],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003749329,0.00007256381,0.01019925,0.000008206003,0.00005904555,2.811081e-7,0.002530383,0.9862509,0.00004117174,0.0003018956,0.00005191176,0.0004468919],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001182021,0.000187102,0.002411619,0.00009643012,0.00002389112,0.00001693407,0.0005946173,0.9939686,0.000451735,0.0003839809,0.0005092244,0.0001738141],"study_design_candidate":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_consensus":"simulation_or_modeling","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5842622,0.001026455,0.4142228,0.00003333671,0.00008302288,0.00009787566,0.0000100386,0.000003388429,0.0002609276],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9919516,0.0004303669,0.007436424,0.0000837148,0.00005572792,0.000007032711,0.000006683229,0.00001381699,0.0000145854],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4076895,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5036992,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2083725906","doi":"10.1093/qje/qjt018","title":"Fungibility and Consumer Choice: Evidence from Commodity Price Shocks*","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Quarterly Journal of Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":240,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Booth University College","funders":"Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development","keywords":"Economics; Microdata (statistics); Econometrics; Fungibility; Microeconomics; Commodity; Salience (neuroscience); Gasoline; Consumer Expenditure Survey; Computer science; Macroeconomics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1051238136878463,"gpt":0.2325488549737859,"spread":0.1274250412859396,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001084189,0.0001507493,0.0004187641,0.0000647441,0.0001177517,0.0001551815,0.0003533172,0.00008106769,0.001231218],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006985783,0.0001339333,0.0001216761,0.00003195906,0.0001669947,0.001138847,0.00003950989,0.0002383732,0.0006855592],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001908627,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001973046,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008094662,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00005923258,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985049,0.00004324823,0.001003888,0.0002347295,0.00001907038,0.0001941252],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9979361,0.00052302,0.001019742,0.0003744148,0.00002507503,0.0001215943],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003371183,0.00009292387,0.9821643,0.00001303767,0.000202327,5.956543e-7,0.003117043,0.0003486904,0.00007647941,0.00393025,0.001622484,0.008398131],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000607594,0.0002401445,0.9219869,0.00002262318,0.00002370286,0.00001718996,0.0004735473,0.005017572,0.00003665747,0.0688718,0.002494817,0.0002074772],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9927902,0.003373212,0.0006660523,0.00196472,0.0004188682,0.0001977406,0.00005392726,0.000005312204,0.0005300103],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.997849,0.0008753039,0.0005821866,0.0003713713,0.0002035134,0.000007197244,0.000003422669,0.0000147325,0.00009328067],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.06494156,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996818,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1484613242","doi":"10.1023/a:1020242907259","title":"Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Environmental and Resource Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":236,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Contingent valuation; Economics; Valuation (finance); Willingness to pay; Public good; Microeconomics; External validity; Public economics; Econometrics; Actuarial science; Social psychology; Psychology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06595991746903236,"gpt":0.1815941260963064,"spread":0.1156342086272741,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0004086635,0.0001449401,0.0002714597,0.00007040469,0.0001022717,0.00002636894,0.00007152276,0.0001111923,0.000807579],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001707127,0.0001670299,0.00005656853,0.00001394415,0.00009668211,0.0001803279,0.0001187596,0.00009106641,0.0001455027],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008793324,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000001060294,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003088644,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000004167512,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989365,0.00001779574,0.000492974,0.0003713791,0.00002439697,0.0001569351],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993616,0.00005850403,0.0003204805,0.0001767066,9.036332e-7,0.0000817844],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007028145,0.0007362423,0.8793861,0.0001129623,0.0001639264,0.000002483659,0.004557764,0.0008332781,0.005366502,0.05962199,0.001186544,0.04796198],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003380935,0.00128548,0.8336368,0.00004112468,0.00005942425,0.00004354851,0.001486649,0.04672908,0.00765818,0.07482475,0.02975322,0.001100783],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9940659,0.001029415,0.0005169688,0.0005311308,0.000077308,0.0002329504,0.00005570838,0.00001015275,0.003480449],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9964693,0.001659737,0.0008663693,0.0002577224,0.0000376891,0.00001181745,0.00002062841,0.0000178238,0.0006589757],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.04686119,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8842424,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2201761680","doi":"10.2193/0022-541x(2005)069<0014:wcwdmb>2.0.co;2","title":"RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT VIEWPOINT: WHY COMPENSATING WILDLIFE DAMAGES MAY BE BAD FOR CONSERVATION","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Wildlife Management","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":236,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Wildlife; Damages; Subsidy; Natural resource economics; Wildlife conservation; Human–wildlife conflict; Incentive; Business; Population; Agriculture; Wildlife management; Livestock; Environmental resource management; Geography; Ecology; Economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1790888247722988,"gpt":0.3040580216224322,"spread":0.1249691968501334,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003479295,0.0001504356,0.0003537169,0.0004773689,0.0002227034,0.0001290096,0.0002422686,0.00005499758,0.0001515423],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003688119,0.0001672482,0.00009974701,0.000140515,0.00009852178,0.0004936542,0.000171967,0.0001657044,0.00007230376],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003126787,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000005276494,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00001919656,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001208313,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981825,0.00003934695,0.001045205,0.0002954286,0.0001355023,0.0003020593],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988242,0.0001345548,0.0006648944,0.0002254142,0.00004672656,0.0001041517],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001232665,0.0004062328,0.09436663,0.0004631261,0.000624424,0.00001339306,0.0005903592,0.002698099,0.000007321714,0.4954474,0.3888533,0.0164065],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001971463,0.0002506478,0.1315238,0.0001126807,0.00003857222,0.000009660954,0.0009829524,0.003812361,0.00001183288,0.01095218,0.8501199,0.0002140044],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6819283,0.002436067,0.03349596,0.234018,0.0009381509,0.002138476,0.00006839856,0.00003414575,0.04494251],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8754213,0.01003614,0.07321139,0.03501375,0.0007826272,0.0001103593,0.00003626276,0.00007442263,0.005313679],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4844952,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6820185,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2061501071","doi":"10.1002/pam.20047","title":"“Just give me a number!” Practical values for the social discount rate","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":233,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia; Simon Fraser University","funders":"","keywords":"Social discount rate; Shadow price; Economics; Discounting; Investment (military); Consumption (sociology); Crowding out; Time preference; Shadow (psychology); Microeconomics; Capital budgeting; Actuarial science; Cost–benefit analysis; Monetary economics; Project appraisal; Finance","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09826553524678891,"gpt":0.3264688340080899,"spread":0.228203298761301,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001073557,0.00008455627,0.0002885716,0.0002018999,0.000197195,0.00008821928,0.000094298,0.00002986885,0.00008856469],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004105908,0.00006577843,0.0002866461,0.0001819675,0.00006201236,0.0002086647,0.00004664671,0.00006518773,0.00002898341],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002022885,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000113664,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002197564,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00002888563,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991767,0.00001388774,0.0005026737,0.0001301176,0.00003917881,0.0001374244],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992188,0.00005934946,0.0005758713,0.00009118592,0.00001282099,0.0000419974],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005310079,0.000179989,0.0132958,0.00003938879,0.004904897,0.00000449497,0.001932582,0.005431318,0.000005865504,0.9706078,0.002345759,0.001199055],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.002933962,0.0001657965,0.724589,0.00001464643,0.002950549,0.00001479808,0.006014768,0.004207777,0.0000363941,0.2242079,0.03452338,0.0003409429],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5891328,0.0007044413,0.323705,0.07768589,0.0002567912,0.0004801612,0.00007870865,0.00000715093,0.007949013],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9943902,0.002111963,0.00177973,0.0007723133,0.0003233872,0.00001188621,0.000003441347,0.000007102024,0.0006000018],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7463998,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2682366,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2105634659","doi":"10.1890/08-0439.1","title":"Diversity has stronger top‐down than bottom‐up effects on decomposition","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Ecology","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":233,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Detritivore; Trophic level; Ecology; Detritus; Herbivore; Diversity (politics); Biodiversity; Resource consumption; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1029920656915209,"gpt":0.2646175422980822,"spread":0.1616254766065612,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003888845,0.0003423881,0.001398127,0.0002776449,0.0004658701,0.00003577189,0.0003030873,0.0005264325,0.00106537],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002817126,0.0003939553,0.0004153743,0.00007853763,0.00006103311,0.0001287771,0.000279201,0.0003830584,0.007549623],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0008638849,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003231808,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004987178,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00002790384,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9982479,0.00008544508,0.0006166978,0.0006638751,0.00002723015,0.0003588929],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987288,0.0001882577,0.0006153017,0.0003725455,0.000004048287,0.000091038],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002790722,0.0004754755,0.04247284,0.002320914,0.0006061822,0.0000326852,0.0003704008,0.0000485605,1.843371e-7,0.02638436,0.01429102,0.9129695],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005973491,0.0005228603,0.08206586,0.0003457556,0.0001666769,0.00001163117,0.000004885894,0.00002943191,0.000001931861,0.004773368,0.9108886,0.0005916826],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.01913844,0.9666191,0.0001080043,0.000223959,0.002479694,0.001005407,0.0001307648,0.00005721278,0.01023738],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0212696,0.975342,0.0001265082,0.0003548389,0.0003504765,0.00007007858,0.0003480089,0.00003757878,0.002100922],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9123778,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998512,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1977720604","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.01115","title":"Measuring Preferences for Health Care Interventions Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to HIV Testing","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Health Services Research","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":226,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Institute of Health Services and Policy Research","funders":"National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health","keywords":"Conjoint analysis; Willingness to pay; Preference; Test (biology); Consistency (knowledge bases); Ordered probit; Actuarial science; Psychology; Statistics; Medicine; Applied psychology; Econometrics; Computer science; Economics; Mathematics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.6193771472628452,"gpt":0.4312965545459327,"spread":0.1880805927169125,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.002300255,0.0001029804,0.0003536927,0.0006059073,0.0006288505,0.0001064933,0.0002571222,0.00004885064,0.0001253113],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002444545,0.0001275784,0.00009758282,0.0007044692,0.00002334579,0.0002698384,0.00008318696,0.0001372354,0.0003163265],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000872413,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003512892,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005034489,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003733115,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9979669,0.00009803345,0.0007967616,0.0005454003,0.00008730148,0.0005055958],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987841,0.00007460894,0.0004302277,0.0003545168,0.00008167505,0.0002748681],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003018342,0.0004417179,0.8728901,0.004342125,0.0002350849,1.819732e-7,0.03571063,0.04670827,0.00003543305,0.00442719,0.0001680888,0.03501105],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004498692,0.0005566838,0.3821357,0.0002282005,0.00001410419,7.248431e-7,0.009097773,0.6042091,0.00001571443,0.001304294,0.001742003,0.0002458822],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9387171,0.005409073,0.05116718,0.001629441,0.00007312526,0.001855089,0.000317279,0.00004994038,0.000781784],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.986866,0.0001007179,0.01186079,0.0005528759,0.00008528669,0.0002800141,0.0001747149,0.00001933029,0.00006024613],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5575008,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7610675,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2047095435","doi":"10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01670.x","title":"Mixed conditional logistic regression for habitat selection studies","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Animal Ecology","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":214,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Université Laval","funders":"Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Russian Science Foundation; Parks Canada","keywords":"Logistic regression; Selection (genetic algorithm); Habitat; Statistics; Ecology; Econometrics; Regression; Mathematics; Biology; Computer science; Machine learning","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1855952846042831,"gpt":0.3005015262383795,"spread":0.1149062416340964,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006637939,0.00007737333,0.0003016774,0.0001311277,0.0000989636,0.00001163795,0.0000791764,0.0001026905,0.0003189809],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003711164,0.00007470939,0.0001127548,0.00003254661,0.00009467973,0.0001879231,0.00001857697,0.0001723298,0.00008350622],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001256366,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002117057,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000001516999,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00005545768,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991395,0.00001164297,0.0005723231,0.0001260973,0.0000187913,0.0001316017],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989508,0.0001798826,0.0007266646,0.00004509932,0.00005483384,0.00004271413],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0003481579,0.0002291106,0.7567575,0.000035312,0.0002457784,0.000004372611,0.0001718394,0.0003039382,0.009621003,0.2169932,0.01481046,0.000479297],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001035698,0.001524976,0.9010422,0.000005091687,0.00002031475,0.0001000211,0.0001737553,0.001173505,0.0004838969,0.08859962,0.005729761,0.0001111802],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9959456,0.0002477571,0.001061024,0.0009708417,0.001287296,0.0000917112,0.00002633182,0.00000425281,0.0003651709],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9946608,0.0000887303,0.004517341,0.0001691264,0.0003650845,0.000009734091,0.000008157638,0.000009069436,0.0001719377],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1442847,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3492617,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1978117619","doi":"10.1139/f10-046","title":"Diversity and complexity of angler behaviour drive socially optimal input and output regulations in a bioeconomic recreational-fisheries model","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":210,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Fishing; Sustainability; Fisheries management; Fishery; Pike; Population; Recreational fishing; Recreation; Welfare; Business; Environmental resource management; Fish <Actinopterygii>; Natural resource economics; Economics; Ecology; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1312845002311372,"gpt":0.2197455294761223,"spread":0.08846102924498511,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005273323,0.00006687046,0.000208095,0.0001763654,0.0005150987,0.00005836945,0.00009224146,0.00004898639,0.00007411612],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006222687,0.00007288613,0.0000248235,0.00005685902,0.001245598,0.0005010616,0.00005930119,0.00008058197,5.454564e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004292243,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001368143,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008111693,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03929676,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993742,0.000008829902,0.0003412164,0.000135362,0.00002569749,0.000114718],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994912,0.00003600275,0.0002848512,0.00004621144,0.000009863961,0.0001318693],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000002558058,0.000005963616,0.9787372,0.000003178928,0.000006553911,4.919278e-7,0.003601294,0.0001102848,0.000005535437,0.01695876,0.00003781736,0.0005303385],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002198966,0.00006200049,0.9377856,0.000009298494,0.000006045772,0.00000774857,0.001002886,0.01615763,0.000005413653,0.04460594,0.00005811267,0.00007943555],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9965811,0.000221328,0.0001909703,0.002107453,0.00008549447,0.00005753331,0.00003409059,8.225662e-7,0.0007211409],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9950256,0.00009677382,0.004706088,0.0000740021,0.00001673676,8.883397e-7,0.0000016348,0.000002826494,0.00007544391],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.04095163,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9984934,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2095551648","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00469.x","title":"Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement*","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":205,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation","keywords":"Respondent; Status quo; Choice set; Preference; Welfare; Set (abstract data type); Task (project management); Status quo bias; Function (biology); Economics; Order (exchange); Econometrics; Psychology; Public economics; Microeconomics; Computer science; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1993201830507977,"gpt":0.2727111289171409,"spread":0.0733909458663432,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002758857,0.0001127643,0.0002864694,0.0000563473,0.0001002827,0.00003473406,0.0001448569,0.00005702141,0.00001557336],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00004930124,0.00008203485,0.00009055617,0.00004662873,0.00008958662,0.0002394579,0.00002587686,0.0001141067,8.376153e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002001127,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000007121055,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0001224343,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00007119388,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989705,0.00001587877,0.0006496283,0.0001612496,0.00002093139,0.0001818189],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990208,0.00002987959,0.0007396773,0.00009090723,0.00002959668,0.00008916588],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003757136,0.0001728704,0.9623446,0.00002742047,0.0001324649,8.901984e-8,0.001484335,0.002557598,0.0007676407,0.02902407,0.0008491155,0.002602186],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009231034,0.0001227824,0.987661,0.00002174105,0.00001087112,0.00000839783,0.000682253,0.00002078201,0.0003289421,0.004170102,0.005941271,0.000108776],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9914358,0.000600405,0.00001342746,0.007218343,0.00008758412,0.0002060503,0.00008583875,0.000001547774,0.000351011],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9991413,0.0002645958,0.0002688976,0.000106821,0.00009230393,0.000003952106,0.000005801802,0.000004407395,0.0001119407],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.02531634,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3345284,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2034251277","doi":"10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.04018.x","title":"Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta‐Analysis","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":203,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","keywords":"Willingness to pay; Meta-analysis; Context (archaeology); Econometrics; Salient; Variance (accounting); Resource (disambiguation); Preference; Economics; Variation (astronomy); Reliability (semiconductor); Welfare; Estimation; Public economics; Computer science; Microeconomics; Geography","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.06914133737491117,"gpt":0.1889391616143712,"spread":0.1197978242394601,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001125049,0.0002736067,0.001375605,0.0006607258,0.0001847653,0.000154913,0.0003264589,0.000128586,0.00006970274],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009089218,0.0002529369,0.0006342602,0.0001906864,0.00002834538,0.0005703423,0.00001114019,0.000107892,0.00001573834],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001923353,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000921626,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.008798821,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5738612,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9971284,0.00001617561,0.001818589,0.0004832799,0.000005483059,0.0005480641],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998043,0.0002231776,0.0007106603,0.0002407901,0.00004745821,0.0007349045],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001305968,0.0001768705,0.07680055,0.002441925,0.05522764,0.000002957565,0.01282764,0.3930379,0.0001243879,0.45699,0.0005381852,0.00170135],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003836841,0.0008995754,0.9114392,0.0001818647,0.01721363,0.00009668237,0.001649179,0.0124976,0.00005661264,0.04348564,0.006930917,0.001712198],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9831275,0.00126985,0.003604125,0.009072915,0.0001897371,0.001546946,0.00110071,0.000004318779,0.00008393385],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9963868,0.00006341757,0.001778968,0.0006498232,0.0002072452,0.0004158662,0.00008965802,0.00002766263,0.0003806117],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8346387,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999923,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123259148","doi":"10.1162/rest_a_00229","title":"The Value of a Statistical Life: Evidence from Panel Data","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Review of Economics and Statistics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":198,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Abbott (Canada)","funders":"","keywords":"Econometrics; Endogeneity; Estimator; Panel data; Economics; Econometric model; Sample (material); Estimation; Wage; Value (mathematics); Statistics; Mathematics; Labour economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.352645424749451,"gpt":0.2804075525508539,"spread":0.07223787219859712,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001572506,0.0001113511,0.0004434432,0.00001619246,0.00008808115,0.00001685069,0.0005550367,0.00003280088,0.000314524],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006108703,0.00008246674,0.00003473464,0.00002828462,0.0003188947,0.0001293407,0.0002465101,0.00007913051,0.00006605418],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002379523,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00003465099,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.000793234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00004511493,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985473,0.00004605159,0.0009942505,0.0002624168,0.00001836728,0.000131682],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975081,0.0008643613,0.0007549232,0.0008009739,0.0000131667,0.0000584864],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001617883,0.00003053629,0.01112086,0.000396539,0.0001117618,1.89416e-7,0.0002265926,0.00001589921,7.466904e-7,0.971904,0.00202299,0.01415372],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004867874,0.0002012985,0.4058249,0.001112388,0.000246342,0.000004146003,0.0002268685,0.06401948,0.00002390421,0.5025743,0.0248491,0.0004304497],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.2167816,0.6388549,0.1065607,0.00183936,0.0007877335,0.001295252,0.02870585,0.00001206882,0.005162592],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.2422248,0.7384542,0.01878931,0.000301023,0.00003603898,0.00001014377,0.0001250148,0.00001490741,0.00004452996],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4693297,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3443817,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2124709009","doi":"10.1177/0739456x13513614","title":"Measuring and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Plan Quality Evaluation Research","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Planning Education and Research","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":191,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Quality (philosophy); Plan (archaeology); Reliability (semiconductor); Criticism; Measure (data warehouse); Computer science; Subject (documents); Management science; Relation (database); Risk analysis (engineering); Data mining; Medicine; Engineering; Political science; Epistemology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.7623761767969867,"gpt":0.4977789461398229,"spread":0.2645972306571637,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.06755305,0.00005154194,0.0002156222,0.0005845291,0.0001493233,0.00008840125,0.00008481526,0.00006756689,0.00005174886],"category_scores_gemma":[0.007318701,0.00005155413,0.00002352121,0.0001532396,0.0001029436,0.00027069,0.00005380989,0.0005322152,0.0000112519],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003128284,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001017911,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0002635851,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001274029,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9977338,0.0004985328,0.001176992,0.0002122136,0.0001936116,0.0001848927],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998471,0.0004306734,0.0006971232,0.0001318217,0.0001825581,0.00008688124],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001970527,0.00008377381,0.9848282,0.00004128185,0.000004729996,2.971846e-7,0.004074712,0.0002298837,0.00009942159,0.002188846,0.000278331,0.008150798],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002944391,0.00007194006,0.9634073,0.0001115578,0.000001198938,0.00001410734,0.002814168,0.003371679,0.00004418938,0.02830388,0.0015103,0.00005527127],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9915243,0.00131733,0.0001361535,0.0009407045,0.0001931734,0.0001346192,8.354561e-7,0.000001728639,0.00575118],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9989672,0.0001171234,0.0005604628,0.00002397424,0.0001427607,0.00000939791,0.000002740437,0.000006217058,0.0001701546],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.06023435,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9601504,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2101495086","doi":"10.1017/s1355770x0400186x","title":"Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Environment and Development Economics","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":189,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Biodiversity; Tourism; Revenue; Protected area; Nature reserve; Willingness to pay; Geography; Natural resource economics; Ecotourism; Agriculture; Value (mathematics); Environmental resource management; Business; Nature tourism; Agroforestry; Environmental protection; Ecology; Economics; Environmental science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03911117301221007,"gpt":0.1687823732576189,"spread":0.1296712002454089,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003741384,0.0001768284,0.0002546766,0.000145283,0.0001537131,0.00004003573,0.00009354422,0.0001607924,0.0005054745],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000005915767,0.0002245018,0.00002843424,0.00001841559,0.00009490307,0.000277319,0.0001823818,0.0001294003,0.0006619085],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0005849756,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001002802,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003143407,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0002395691,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988108,0.000008398554,0.0004486215,0.0004732214,0.00001922174,0.0002396927],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995478,0.0000311588,0.0001622319,0.0001577682,8.135061e-7,0.0001001627],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001955834,0.00004708307,0.9955491,0.000006778758,0.00001730121,9.190913e-7,0.0002587131,0.001300503,0.000003625895,0.001000154,0.0001899852,0.00160623],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0011147,0.00002072349,0.8951938,0.000003644212,0.00000232859,0.000001306833,0.00005112045,0.001536797,0.0002887275,0.00058121,0.1009312,0.0002745281],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9957769,0.001395072,0.0000974047,0.0009813542,0.0000678458,0.0001791102,0.00002906416,0.00001087325,0.001462405],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9927772,0.001655596,0.004368208,0.0004674227,0.00003400143,0.00001834425,0.00007789007,0.00001205465,0.0005892674],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1007412,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9154917,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1982079183","doi":"10.1073/pnas.0405176101","title":"Linking economic activities to the distribution of exotic plants","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","topic":"Economic and Environmental Valuation","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":189,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"University of Wyoming; National Science Foundation","keywords":"Population; Ecology; Population size; Distribution (mathematics); Geography; Biology; Demography; Mathematics; Sociology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1229393371347135,"gpt":0.2566234894321647,"spread":0.1336841522974511,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001042475,0.00005399192,0.0001308571,0.00007074481,0.0001184929,0.00001401671,0.0004119785,0.0000395714,0.00001814],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00007009166,0.0000404482,0.0000556173,0.0001110816,0.0002780268,0.0003261896,0.00008171336,0.00006116219,0.00001598163],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001420639,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001174677,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00002552081,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":3.715884e-7,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993087,0.000001407815,0.00035903,0.0001506676,0.0000907699,0.00008942146],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994162,0.00004073047,0.0005096722,0.000008901601,0.00000944744,0.00001506677],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001061756,0.00004462178,0.1173368,0.00003546218,0.00002263081,1.480982e-9,0.0006862837,0.02038851,0.004281885,0.8566546,0.000204045,0.000334481],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001930042,0.00004374947,0.6891111,0.00005768678,0.000003868099,0.000003455921,0.0003347576,0.0009640904,0.04432421,0.2645009,0.0003794853,0.00008365051],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9942373,0.00009169449,0.00001696213,0.002256568,0.00003732719,0.0001195951,0.0001182063,0.000002560355,0.003119783],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9995298,0.000045832,0.0002116478,0.0001105835,0.00004710294,0.000006574631,6.42566e-7,0.000002350283,0.00004550175],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5921537,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.164943,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}