{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":5,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":5,"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":"6d0cf2dcf3a2","filters":{"venue":"月刊税務事例"}},"results":[{"id":"W216271840","doi":"","title":"欧米諸国における主要租税判例の紹介(第82回)カナダにおける包括的租税回避否認規定と同規定創設後における租税回避事例--Canada Trustco対Canada事案[2005 SCC 54]","year":2009,"lang":"ja","type":"article","venue":"月刊税務事例","topic":"Diverse Scientific and Economic Studies","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Geography","authors":[{"name":"ホワイト ケース外国法事務弁護士事務所","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.02151858546990882,"gpt":0.1756448099655449,"spread":0.1541262244956361,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001722006,0.0003587288,0.0003122697,0.001428765,0.005021017,0.003421769,0.0006821982,0.001689002,0.01266905],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004494981,0.0003521336,0.0004208855,0.001680827,0.009562722,0.002636958,0.0008441512,0.002507104,0.002678214],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.009380978,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01221719,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3601183,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3807965,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987546,0.0001350019,0.00005918592,0.0002056284,0.0006509617,0.0001947085],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9973674,0.0005818646,0.0001843225,0.0001637589,0.001556067,0.0001465606],"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":[0.00005892611,0.00004512941,0.004768318,0.0001310136,0.00003007987,0.0006208925,0.007508893,0.0004011183,0.001169975,0.8656831,0.060283,0.05929951],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002456703,0.00003354176,0.03130061,0.0003074194,0.00008434329,0.000925239,0.006004645,0.000647226,0.005302745,0.3448318,0.6104314,0.0001064135],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05151103,0.009751158,0.01375177,0.02392542,0.0009518412,0.0001187977,0.0006186833,0.0001027044,0.8992686],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6541893,0.007351376,0.01767998,0.007317644,0.0005104428,0.0000915521,0.0005560523,0.0001062398,0.3121974],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.6398817,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7160444,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W579123392","doi":"","title":"欧米諸国における主要租税判例の紹介(第93回)包括的租税回避否認規定の適用が認められた事例--Mathew(Kaulius)対Canada事案[]","year":2010,"lang":"ja","type":"article","venue":"月刊税務事例","topic":"Military Technology and Strategies","field":"Engineering","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Geography","authors":[{"name":"ホワイト ケース外国法事務弁護士事務所","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.005285511910626518,"gpt":0.1907053095479471,"spread":0.1854197976373206,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007673366,0.0003002503,0.0001523012,0.0008040396,0.002535927,0.002353386,0.0003802404,0.0009321883,0.01294294],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001776614,0.0002001365,0.000224651,0.000633123,0.003678332,0.001177058,0.0005297703,0.001112211,0.003270614],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003539589,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004199294,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04474333,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0458123,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994345,0.0000612301,0.00002668282,0.00008180118,0.0003193953,0.00007626854],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991251,0.0001856786,0.00007323332,0.00005491485,0.0004807311,0.00008038736],"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":[0.0001554604,0.000103305,0.004926963,0.0002116997,0.00004321935,0.0009726557,0.008015901,0.0007193803,0.01334503,0.7453989,0.04292821,0.1831792],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003240716,0.000128339,0.01523898,0.0001918764,0.00008029866,0.001448524,0.005215431,0.0008934722,0.02748476,0.1427924,0.8064041,0.00008953171],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1012274,0.005075932,0.01226673,0.009039332,0.001203498,0.0001301182,0.0002524568,0.000142259,0.8706623],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7043043,0.004492003,0.01235098,0.002120058,0.0004454749,0.00008910425,0.0002457193,0.00005645249,0.2758959],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9552567,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.08896577,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3211998322","doi":"","title":"海外重要租税判例 親会社による債務保証料の徴収金額が独立企業間価格として適正であるとされた事例 : G.E Capital Canada Inc. v. The Queen(2009 TCC 563 2010 FCA 344)","year":2020,"lang":"ja","type":"article","venue":"月刊税務事例","topic":"International Arbitration and Investment Law","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Queen (butterfly); Business","authors":[{"name":"剛 川田","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01239733177198347,"gpt":0.1881838146345376,"spread":0.1757864828625541,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003752935,0.0004408525,0.0002808422,0.0009706634,0.005572596,0.007941446,0.001208926,0.005681746,0.01182233],"category_scores_gemma":[0.006189581,0.0005018746,0.000470039,0.0006780605,0.007775086,0.003203283,0.001565722,0.006078718,0.004418299],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006876274,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009750325,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1055455,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1763217,"domain_scores_codex":[0.99598,0.0004368287,0.0002279507,0.0006456135,0.002001482,0.000708076],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.997148,0.0009312055,0.0002396977,0.0002221169,0.001292471,0.0001666526],"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":[0.00005447993,0.00003320197,0.0015281,0.0001134188,0.00001917727,0.0003956386,0.004057588,0.0001372651,0.001859683,0.8871568,0.08444913,0.02019545],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004173539,0.00007915094,0.006653429,0.0003287051,0.00008421869,0.0005887102,0.003325857,0.0004823036,0.008471999,0.1734399,0.8063774,0.0001266657],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.01796564,0.002839576,0.004542444,0.02761947,0.0008627858,0.0001015195,0.0004556263,0.0001081798,0.9455047],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6232796,0.00332717,0.007573952,0.04150346,0.0008869937,0.0001718499,0.0003266089,0.0001010987,0.3228292],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8944545,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2098622,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W604886128","doi":"","title":"海外重要租税判例 法の濫用か否かが問題となった事例(VAT) : Halifax and others V. Customs & Excise C-255/02 ECJ","year":2013,"lang":"ja","type":"article","venue":"月刊税務事例","topic":"Taxation and Legal Issues","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Excise; Business; International trade; Political science; Law","authors":[{"name":"剛 川田","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01201525311597952,"gpt":0.2132454349043097,"spread":0.2012301817883302,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001550176,0.0004495404,0.0003090544,0.001253955,0.009588767,0.009492709,0.001435593,0.01233226,0.01505345],"category_scores_gemma":[0.004778951,0.000552386,0.0004761828,0.001271182,0.004093525,0.002422589,0.001635,0.004808974,0.002352571],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.01227958,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.009837753,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.3180514,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4955131,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981164,0.0002601881,0.00007840283,0.0002330043,0.0006455175,0.0006665219],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983348,0.0006512493,0.0001292691,0.0001036381,0.000646013,0.0001350427],"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":[0.0001046314,0.00005533538,0.003417736,0.00008385217,0.00002451197,0.0007174941,0.003731292,0.0002516993,0.0009241419,0.6582807,0.3205575,0.01185121],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00008415397,0.00007483554,0.0210558,0.0003789373,0.00008828373,0.0006889896,0.005546287,0.0006169917,0.004282179,0.06333096,0.9036933,0.0001593796],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.04441029,0.003280505,0.001164453,0.07209481,0.001112778,0.0001168726,0.001308207,0.0001290276,0.8763831],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5216108,0.001581646,0.001494561,0.04755849,0.0004221808,0.0001485901,0.0003373164,0.00005819976,0.4267882],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3180514,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6324003,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W360894783","doi":"","title":"欧米諸国における主要租税判例の紹介(第91回)カナダにおける包括的租税回避否認規定の適用--Lipson対Canada事案[2009 SCC 1]","year":2010,"lang":"ja","type":"article","venue":"月刊税務事例","topic":"Military Technology and Strategies","field":"Engineering","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"History","authors":[{"name":"ホワイト ケース外国法事務弁護士事務所","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.005603003923065911,"gpt":0.192660512098563,"spread":0.1870575081754971,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007598433,0.0002983009,0.0001638594,0.0007956537,0.003063905,0.002575351,0.000427135,0.00110874,0.01918618],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00195672,0.0002211868,0.000233766,0.0008361632,0.00328671,0.001101505,0.0005748253,0.001152488,0.004765789],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004308974,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0062837,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1169699,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1494263,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992871,0.00006414555,0.00002842996,0.0001124834,0.0004079468,0.00009982468],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988132,0.0002195098,0.0001006847,0.00007526418,0.0006972549,0.00009407844],"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":[0.0002236972,0.0001470208,0.009296191,0.0002979838,0.00003894035,0.001381909,0.01127715,0.0006298978,0.01423239,0.60855,0.115311,0.2386139],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00002206675,0.00008977997,0.0181032,0.0001819634,0.00004987924,0.001159209,0.005059398,0.0003511848,0.0170526,0.04364966,0.9142144,0.00006661836],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.07421092,0.00465601,0.005817139,0.008033614,0.0009212972,0.0001162817,0.0003402194,0.00008819644,0.9058164],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.5594381,0.005546307,0.009540233,0.002432836,0.0003230905,0.0000754201,0.0005250747,0.00006942196,0.4220495],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":"other","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8830302,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.232578,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}