{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":4,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":4,"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","author_layer_release":"2026-06-26"},"query_hash":"fb02a62005e9","filters":{"venue":"˜The œReview of litigation"}},"results":[{"id":"W222040118","doi":"","title":"Sociotechnical Arguments in Scientific Discourse: Expert Depositions in Tobacco Litigation","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":5,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Rhetorical question; Context (archaeology); Sociology; Epistemology; Naturalism; Rhetoric; Representation (politics); Law; Politics; Political science; Linguistics; Philosophy; History","authors":[{"name":"David S. Caudill","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02111745951855497,"gpt":0.3517583836578035,"spread":0.3306409241392486,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04486348,0.0008581966,0.0009563873,0.009359745,0.0320245,0.03252871,0.004465363,0.02818991,0.009391294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.09338421,0.0007782769,0.0008199138,0.008515263,0.07120509,0.02251084,0.01395824,0.0135908,0.000706617],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0396005,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01805534,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02575598,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01839663,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9372645,0.04194672,0.002069087,0.003063601,0.01256534,0.003090732],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.7779528,0.2024351,0.009126146,0.002557826,0.005819588,0.002108528],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002841685,0.00005114034,0.0007135278,0.0002165735,0.00001515883,0.000917323,0.1580235,0.0002630626,0.0001470155,0.8278367,0.006598275,0.005189483],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007155314,0.0000468374,0.002725722,0.0024813,0.00005028956,0.0004485972,0.1937688,0.00234536,0.0007797517,0.5717521,0.2254372,0.00009257503],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1303405,0.02482969,0.01031206,0.315906,0.00211758,0.0001669215,0.0001608605,0.00008356687,0.5160829],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9789591,0.003037597,0.001255814,0.008040277,0.001176738,0.00009542835,0.00003343416,0.00003003817,0.007371636],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9679755,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2873231,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W208274694","doi":"","title":"The Act of God Defense: Why Hurricane Katrina & Noah's Flood Don't Qualify","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Storm surge; Storm; Hurricane katrina; Tropical cyclone; Flood myth; Atlantic hurricane; History; Natural disaster; Oceanography; Archaeology; Geology","authors":[{"name":"Casey P. Kaplan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01908386068942609,"gpt":0.3253921845488619,"spread":0.3063083238594358,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004336833,0.0003696264,0.0003568398,0.000497731,0.01169066,0.007043004,0.00134857,0.007658555,0.02931597],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0230732,0.0003637931,0.000267028,0.0004963869,0.01051169,0.007110029,0.003419067,0.0174033,0.006403737],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006506217,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0102199,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03421591,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06244105,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9959828,0.001763,0.0001105168,0.0003310063,0.0008722537,0.0009404237],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9909388,0.002537214,0.0006143854,0.0002424705,0.00199676,0.003670379],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"not_applicable","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001143389,0.0000168314,0.001144249,0.00004130969,0.000003957866,0.0001815894,0.007561428,0.00001320188,0.00003841541,0.01401378,0.9586564,0.01831741],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001162431,0.00002755589,0.002691558,0.0005512441,0.000006700986,0.0006445118,0.04630081,0.00008520917,0.00006710032,0.01391404,0.9356667,0.00003290173],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.004488379,0.01083039,0.0003438175,0.9428215,0.01104717,0.00001878073,0.0000501921,0.00006761284,0.03033212],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.1648713,0.01723545,0.0008016996,0.7357681,0.008159233,0.00009420618,0.0001328357,0.0003566186,0.07258055],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.03421591,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09807169,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W98103576","doi":"","title":"The Problem of Partisan Experts and the Potential for Reform through Concurrent Evidence","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Adversarial system; Law; Contempt; Jury; Political science; German; Civil procedure; Competence (human resources); Ex parte; Psychology","authors":[{"name":"David A. Sonenshein","is_ca":false},{"name":"Charles Fitzpatrick","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05576304141928773,"gpt":0.3963926964728035,"spread":0.3406296550535158,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.04712515,0.0004527817,0.0007998267,0.002626403,0.004998612,0.008131694,0.002708064,0.0057699,0.01023019],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1163628,0.0007649755,0.001149577,0.002142052,0.0161787,0.01413509,0.006484936,0.005984634,0.001171605],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00617759,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00775254,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005618486,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005104539,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9593791,0.02603011,0.001495161,0.003068735,0.008027115,0.001999967],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8734125,0.10146,0.00418097,0.01205287,0.007626041,0.001267567],"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":[0.00001278493,0.000009954461,0.0002103993,0.00007760638,0.000007237129,0.00005254196,0.0005406893,0.0004049682,0.00004135775,0.9803859,0.004047836,0.01420875],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001752822,0.00003341233,0.000322188,0.0003307501,0.00001604955,0.000104747,0.0002918808,0.001925797,0.0002508302,0.9492672,0.04742638,0.00001323551],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03356141,0.03162415,0.1630333,0.2165759,0.002000827,0.0006115977,0.0002562299,0.0002342475,0.5521023],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.826274,0.01194998,0.07320081,0.02416451,0.00354054,0.0009442794,0.000160107,0.0001175837,0.05964819],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.04712515,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2492245,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2597373951","doi":"","title":"The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley V. California on Border Law Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"˜The œReview of litigation","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Probable cause; Search and seizure; Law; Warrant; Notice; Expectation of privacy; Reasonable suspicion; Ratification; Law enforcement; Doctrine; Political science; Business; Politics; Supreme court","authors":[{"name":"Jared Janes","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04864636658012418,"gpt":0.3796490781041791,"spread":0.331002711524055,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.004323693,0.000314197,0.0003694684,0.001662117,0.01081061,0.01346054,0.003065468,0.008246156,0.009353614],"category_scores_gemma":[0.009469602,0.0006231726,0.0005303677,0.001468392,0.01338608,0.005532139,0.00409982,0.007166519,0.0008378269],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01547623,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01761251,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.4054082,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.480226,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9957477,0.0006494644,0.000238867,0.000733491,0.001463727,0.001166749],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9931335,0.003615627,0.0006762722,0.0005290135,0.001448647,0.0005969909],"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":[0.00004790795,0.00006141103,0.002696104,0.00007108291,0.000005901695,0.0007371465,0.005571028,0.0003823153,0.0002042351,0.9274534,0.05353631,0.009233349],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002558787,0.0002052241,0.02254063,0.001699904,0.0001569799,0.0006387119,0.02016828,0.002800459,0.001261892,0.1082028,0.8418469,0.0002223539],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.07934113,0.006062381,0.001257487,0.06491258,0.0004682603,0.00009613601,0.0002097402,0.00009905818,0.8475532],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8725483,0.003037398,0.001097969,0.0372909,0.0004848098,0.0001357526,0.0001422428,0.00003839485,0.08522422],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.4054082,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.806097,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}