{"meta":{"page":1,"per_page":50,"max_per_page":100,"total":27,"total_is_capped":false,"direct_labels_cover":0,"predictions_cover":27,"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":"0fc5a2647482","filters":{"venue":"Legal Studies"}},"results":[{"id":"W1605381589","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2012.00243.x","title":"An inconvenient truth: barriers to truth recovery in the aftermath of institutional child abuse in Ireland","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Military, Security, and Education Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":80,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Queen's University; Queen's University Belfast","keywords":"Irish; Context (archaeology); Blame; Transitional justice; Economic Justice; Accountability; Child protection; Sociology; State (computer science); Criminology; Agency (philosophy); Law; Political science; Public administration; Social psychology; Social science; Psychology; History","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03085831281840725,"gpt":0.3312081396001303,"spread":0.3003498267817231,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001185363,0.0001025676,0.0002140162,0.0001199915,0.0004969101,0.00001955049,0.0001967297,0.00003996402,0.0000227058],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0008949604,0.00007472304,0.00004431992,0.0003878993,0.0003752424,0.000423132,0.00003794441,0.000118139,0.000009155243],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001401124,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009855307,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004231234,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01494727,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998715,0.0002536968,0.0002589618,0.000150333,0.0003098621,0.0003121412],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999388,0.000262292,0.00004694183,0.0001294544,0.00005853026,0.0001148208],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000522189,0.0002222479,0.2369163,0.00002320661,0.0000384465,0.000002033118,0.7231275,0.0000386199,0.000001568365,0.0376982,0.001380463,0.0004992035],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003233478,0.00007500053,0.6730056,0.00007385937,0.00001457044,0.000001252496,0.2457787,0.000001603645,0.000009573296,0.0008535589,0.07969851,0.0001643501],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9802728,0.007723747,0.000002115875,0.002734342,0.001400096,0.0002190091,0.00001564377,0.00001072537,0.007621557],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9976876,0.001198797,0.00004140544,0.000573018,0.0003808362,0.00007424389,0.000002237284,0.000003341431,0.00003855512],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4773488,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8340925,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1965454850","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2003.tb00208.x","title":"Confidence and the constructive trust","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":71,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Constructive; Constructive trust; Law; Declaration; Legitimacy; Supreme court; Context (archaeology); Political science; Commonwealth; Computer science; History; Process (computing)","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03741219411040349,"gpt":0.3505393579168602,"spread":0.3131271638064567,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003723152,0.00004401734,0.0000921503,0.000005969398,0.0009995062,0.00005965036,0.00007095364,0.00001639087,0.00002219425],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004772695,0.00002662503,0.00002098427,0.00009093554,0.0019698,0.00008301968,0.00002855069,0.0000648107,0.00001312345],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002002235,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004026357,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001514965,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001141937,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9995078,0.0001031308,0.00007091108,0.00009570016,0.0001063573,0.0001160773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995299,0.0002783679,0.00003120456,0.0000676324,0.00006606286,0.00002683291],"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":[0.000002815525,0.000002517227,0.0005600424,0.000001143286,0.00002009853,3.532991e-7,0.008187997,3.076721e-7,0.000002364865,0.9904658,0.0003872969,0.0003692344],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003436498,0.000005405,0.00083289,0.000004804893,0.00001785065,0.000002058852,0.05071006,0.000002516933,0.00004899586,0.1213842,0.8265831,0.00006441861],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.08778202,0.007499872,0.0002751311,0.02649375,0.0002656962,0.0004837381,0.000005488548,0.00005659465,0.8771377],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9954624,0.0009742328,0.0001346763,0.0003631344,0.00005702638,0.00003584006,5.338193e-8,0.000001759929,0.002970934],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9076803,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7687495,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2135616196","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00255.x","title":"The doctrine of informed consent: does it exist and has it crossed the Atlantic?","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare","field":"Medicine","cited_by":35,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Autonomy; Duty; Law; Informed consent; Context (archaeology); Bioethics; Duty of care; Legal doctrine; Value (mathematics); Political science; Medicine; History; Alternative medicine; Computer science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1150022491504285,"gpt":0.4203610046556388,"spread":0.3053587555052103,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005272973,0.000137613,0.0003158544,0.00002572955,0.0007434626,0.00006889743,0.0001113323,0.00007202048,0.000006044041],"category_scores_gemma":[0.002320074,0.00005601944,0.00006337468,0.0001530608,0.001389869,0.00005248606,0.0001312314,0.0003944988,0.000005856801],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00005226001,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003998387,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004978362,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01769563,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988363,0.00003535636,0.0003968168,0.000146492,0.000320479,0.0002645479],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9975765,0.001676362,0.0001217679,0.0002670246,0.0002887991,0.00006948947],"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":[0.002152047,0.0004638559,0.173602,0.009413177,0.003098427,0.0005614896,0.2408939,0.00003304908,0.0003594224,0.478503,0.08240938,0.0085102],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001968199,0.0003776107,0.01295176,0.0003730033,0.0001552126,0.00005123292,0.01809511,0.000002398985,0.0004729923,0.003437765,0.9619763,0.0001384413],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5164297,0.02078267,0.000004810816,0.4510409,0.0005041142,0.0005367456,0.00001142523,0.00003174561,0.01065783],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9697972,0.02482141,0.00008152694,0.002915725,0.0003497564,0.00001970648,0.000002611451,0.000008221969,0.002003849],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8795669,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9874576,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2771805912","doi":"10.1017/lst.2017.17","title":"Comparison in intersectional discrimination","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Discrimination and Equality Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":29,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Disadvantage; Race (biology); Selection (genetic algorithm); Racism; White (mutation); Sociology; Gender discrimination; Psychology; Social psychology; Computer science; Gender studies; Artificial intelligence; Economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1855808202657577,"gpt":0.4900491910479882,"spread":0.3044683707822305,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003665619,0.00004371082,0.00009163957,0.00005376358,0.000318617,0.00004205301,0.00007033434,0.00002411346,0.0001036097],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002573717,0.00004030124,0.00002163975,0.0001620426,0.0004501654,0.0002309307,0.00003177614,0.00005004343,0.0000901103],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001247401,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001943288,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002818767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.09274796,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993355,0.00009553795,0.0001329971,0.0001003494,0.0002018719,0.0001337219],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997396,0.00005235459,0.00003232204,0.00003770604,0.0001144222,0.0000236036],"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":[0.00001067546,0.00006470337,0.0208231,0.000005521061,0.00001188049,6.68374e-7,0.125264,7.463378e-7,0.00001107681,0.8439066,0.005261146,0.004639857],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003792021,0.0001304494,0.2317672,0.00006119002,0.00001405262,2.647896e-7,0.2114068,0.00006424046,0.0002750641,0.02790555,0.5277789,0.0002170506],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.4325973,0.00007816879,0.0001741862,0.006771764,0.001039893,0.00008975559,0.000001188171,0.00005441218,0.5591934],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957812,0.00002068894,0.00006759972,0.0002477732,0.0003056873,0.00000996716,0.000001294041,0.000002230691,0.00356351],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8160011,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.923807,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2018708350","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2007.00078.x","title":"The basis of the remoteness rule in contract","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":11,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Doctrine; Identification (biology); Action (physics); Economic Justice; Law and economics; Actuarial science; Business; Economics; Law; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05856460324819201,"gpt":0.342642214587948,"spread":0.284077611339756,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003066068,0.00003863475,0.00008658618,0.000006332392,0.001192033,0.00001286104,0.0002324122,0.00001951894,0.00000396583],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002853446,0.00001954743,0.00004614592,0.0002106804,0.0005855584,0.00005615512,0.00006987605,0.00007532896,0.000005276164],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004068052,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00006501712,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009875759,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01768701,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994282,0.00007472584,0.000121827,0.00006945233,0.0001713428,0.0001344353],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994867,0.0002533653,0.00005350322,0.0001271615,0.00006574039,0.00001347891],"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":[0.000023505,0.0001340786,0.1601839,0.00001322937,0.0001081826,0.000005867382,0.05240014,0.00008260396,0.0002929035,0.7639178,0.005015437,0.01782236],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001396512,0.000005117595,0.4329934,0.00001458013,0.000007320528,6.962063e-7,0.007038694,0.000009274996,0.0005195553,0.003383383,0.5558268,0.00006153557],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9167692,0.001950204,0.000003641293,0.02911362,0.0001625149,0.0001867052,0.000003356722,0.00001310685,0.05179765],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9957061,0.001455929,0.0000184649,0.0001319307,0.00007332153,0.0000147463,5.773067e-8,0.000002129609,0.00259734],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.7605344,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9967176,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2346217348","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00251.x","title":"Judges and politics: an essay from Canada","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Law; Supreme court; Government (linguistics); Political science; Sociology; Philosophy","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0292248815576903,"gpt":0.2996854901820406,"spread":0.2704606086243503,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00008002926,0.00008051368,0.000148007,0.00001099774,0.001391428,0.00003841917,0.00007918382,0.00002397879,0.000013788],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001737414,0.00006800862,0.00001541043,0.00006863385,0.0007269752,0.0001485926,0.00006184282,0.00005660118,0.000004811261],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003141156,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006837462,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9913533,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9948208,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992473,0.00003276494,0.00009103474,0.0001542718,0.0002477638,0.0002268871],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996716,0.00008050173,0.00002355729,0.00004943717,0.00009028342,0.00008462901],"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":[0.000003148705,0.00001973272,0.01878798,0.000002099968,0.0001170124,0.00002380029,0.01053774,0.000006411169,0.000006865264,0.9685246,0.0009874447,0.0009831731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003962892,0.00004667651,0.09701069,0.00003570807,0.0000569498,9.688081e-7,0.07162753,2.602528e-7,0.00008167233,0.3743743,0.456057,0.00031194],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9127507,0.01142029,0.000005856747,0.02104122,0.000467236,0.00007753419,0.00003878641,0.0000461454,0.05415224],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9971544,0.00068824,0.00008191349,0.001171114,0.0006726002,0.000007849034,0.000001974863,0.000002639035,0.0002193056],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5941503,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999086,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2147152902","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2012.00242.x","title":"Policy-based reasoning in duty of care cases","year":2012,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Duty; Welfare; Interpersonal communication; Economic Justice; Imperfect; Duty of care; Sample (material); Psychology; Political science; Sociology; Law; Law and economics; Social psychology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0574952330479269,"gpt":0.3888278032987518,"spread":0.3313325702508249,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003630958,0.00014658,0.0003623232,0.00006650119,0.0006068319,0.00001906013,0.0001432678,0.00006847669,0.00001480946],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00260264,0.000115045,0.0000977058,0.0004426982,0.0005874332,0.0002852982,0.0001041164,0.0001242293,0.00001171301],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0004910778,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009293419,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.07231317,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03649164,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9985154,0.0001857594,0.0002361043,0.0001501268,0.0003692968,0.0005433336],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991046,0.0003899584,0.0001083435,0.00009672485,0.0002168634,0.00008353945],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00004195413,0.0001074434,0.6261798,0.0001569509,0.0001250708,0.00001451636,0.3226782,0.00004415413,0.00006897002,0.04683323,0.00101009,0.002739709],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008027456,0.0001244129,0.3695045,0.0003232301,0.00006788273,0.000001276056,0.5283819,0.000003800393,0.001205442,0.0001325905,0.09893874,0.0005135],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9488454,0.02358266,0.000001824842,0.003819673,0.0003765308,0.0002992291,0.0000147348,0.00007520433,0.02298468],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9980338,0.0004650006,0.0004409683,0.0001464657,0.0004972414,0.00003834442,0.000001554384,0.000008078891,0.000368569],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2566753,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9810899,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2045372520","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00573.x","title":"History's living legacy: an outline of ‘modern’ historiography of the common law","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Victoria","funders":"","keywords":"Historiography; Interpretation (philosophy); Politics; Principal (computer security); Law; Legal history; Sociology; Period (music); History; Social science; Political science; Aesthetics; Philosophy","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05606189682910321,"gpt":0.3080389669174809,"spread":0.2519770700883777,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003432976,0.00009962668,0.0002989082,0.0000375806,0.0007207481,0.000006953165,0.0002649293,0.00003909583,0.00002142551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001320395,0.00007167941,0.0001494155,0.0002403784,0.002489251,0.0002516498,0.0001269937,0.00009437702,0.000001584924],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002126613,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00009252885,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.05164276,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1003607,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988914,0.0001323385,0.0002473216,0.0001388738,0.0004026364,0.0001874689],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999286,0.0001433523,0.0001640961,0.0001440376,0.0002279034,0.00003461415],"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":[0.00002384612,0.0002004571,0.1367951,0.000014722,0.0002041627,0.000002871623,0.03289116,0.000008104403,0.000175651,0.8254702,0.00231374,0.001899994],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001257266,0.00009078864,0.06690717,0.0001101033,0.00009105901,7.119393e-7,0.009120413,0.00000194366,0.00004105869,0.01413432,0.909214,0.0001627247],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6812415,0.05075821,0.00001478229,0.003032694,0.002425787,0.0002202395,0.00000705441,0.0000630833,0.2622367],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9977488,0.0009431714,0.00002666323,0.0002453855,0.0003474182,0.000008803173,2.647725e-7,0.000004309344,0.0006752218],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9069002,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9546725,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2087436012","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00240.x","title":"Supreme Courts, independence and democratic agency","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Judicial and Constitutional Studies","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":7,"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":"Supreme court; Law; Independence (probability theory); Judicial independence; Argument (complex analysis); Principal (computer security); Democracy; Agency (philosophy); Political science; Sociology; Medicine; Politics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.0433774336429216,"gpt":0.3255763760675642,"spread":0.2821989424246426,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002474603,0.00009389762,0.0001656823,0.00002355538,0.001541832,0.00004115169,0.000095757,0.00004177225,0.00001370711],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003385887,0.00007889307,0.0000315211,0.0001264942,0.001074221,0.0002173123,0.00009749016,0.00009709343,0.00003266545],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00009716225,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001444251,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009753676,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0128045,"domain_scores_codex":[0.999063,0.00003560847,0.0001268716,0.0001738689,0.0003549818,0.0002456898],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996568,0.00006882501,0.00003572494,0.00004998975,0.0001268768,0.00006176724],"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":[0.000006400858,0.00003096953,0.006318063,0.000009235849,0.0001039795,0.00003151467,0.01847063,0.000006673274,0.00004178,0.9712228,0.0007416619,0.003016324],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0004333643,0.00007465517,0.04081202,0.00009699192,0.00006333946,0.000006303289,0.01383266,7.552487e-7,0.00008625013,0.8768113,0.06746995,0.0003123853],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7877491,0.04141944,0.0001742007,0.02525702,0.0008562196,0.0003408352,0.000006841088,0.0001666942,0.1440297],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9937376,0.004849975,0.0001391376,0.0004489049,0.0002514037,0.00001734017,2.683033e-7,0.000002807374,0.0005525296],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2059885,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.999758,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1972815280","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2009.00138.x","title":"The common law and international law – a dynamic contemporary dialogue","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"International Law and Human Rights","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":"Law; Commonwealth; Common law; Political science; Municipal law; Human rights; Comparative law; International law; Skepticism; Public law","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03236490220847146,"gpt":0.3410430943313223,"spread":0.3086781921228509,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002851165,0.00006200502,0.00008370479,0.00001002777,0.00169779,0.0001858566,0.0002098117,0.00003371711,0.00001702387],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003323564,0.00003918838,0.00003096176,0.00001309695,0.001394323,0.0002056853,0.00008041744,0.0001510173,0.00001856874],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002760043,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000230652,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.007414734,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.4121141,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994342,0.00004486835,0.0001082345,0.0001038073,0.0001918417,0.000117038],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9994943,0.0002596897,0.00004338159,0.00006377234,0.0001081673,0.00003065842],"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":[0.000009277497,0.0000103392,0.0001263493,0.000001000635,0.00005814925,0.000005734747,0.002120188,5.083302e-8,0.00001913002,0.9968839,0.0006286171,0.0001372076],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009361088,0.000009765028,0.0005054926,0.000004574862,0.0000030583,0.000001323467,0.0003695156,0.000006100614,0.000009721516,0.3741005,0.6248471,0.00004920995],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.2555724,0.0005419629,0.000001398825,0.01337717,0.002225875,0.000110946,0.00001393799,0.00004238663,0.7281139],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.982022,0.00006640471,0.00001911219,0.001048047,0.0003653921,0.00001414773,0.000004288547,0.000003864546,0.0164567],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7264497,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996018,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2781337439","doi":"10.1017/lst.2019.3","title":"UK post-Brexit trade agreements and devolution","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"European Union Policy and Governance","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":4,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"Queen's University; Queen's University Belfast","keywords":"Brexit; Devolution (biology); Negotiation; Perspective (graphical); International trade; Business; Political science; Public administration; European union; Law; Sociology; Computer science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03053778490965283,"gpt":0.3196914709308446,"spread":0.2891536860211918,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001468641,0.00005680101,0.00008557845,0.00001400697,0.0002712366,0.00002587863,0.00007209936,0.00001991789,0.00003284642],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001189902,0.00004944985,0.00002080689,0.00007450576,0.0001588561,0.000145853,0.00004774126,0.00005367041,0.0001026485],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006208154,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00002708846,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003425814,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002821404,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994207,0.00004873285,0.00007709667,0.000119334,0.000169056,0.000165082],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9998037,0.00003613263,0.00004332186,0.00005746686,0.00002497645,0.00003438845],"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":[0.00002228201,0.00002924803,0.03440468,0.00003058636,0.00008105052,0.000006307765,0.03282615,0.000003794855,0.0003356761,0.9248837,0.004904806,0.002471692],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003857402,0.00008233475,0.5105569,0.00004992902,0.0000108174,8.739964e-7,0.006675978,8.504012e-7,0.00007933526,0.001746265,0.480276,0.0001348966],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.801488,0.002953043,0.000004294668,0.005624656,0.0003375423,0.0001389673,0.000009016198,0.00003285725,0.1894116],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9870518,0.0008427202,0.00003926316,0.001126089,0.0001266218,0.000001862846,5.0022e-7,0.000003446498,0.01080772],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9231374,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5178828,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2796386265","doi":"10.1017/lst.2017.11","title":"Autonomy and prenuptial agreements in Ireland: a relational analysis","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Religious Freedom and Discrimination","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":"Autonomy; Irish; Commission; Common law; Law; Equity (law); Injustice; Sociology; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04825470394405566,"gpt":0.3693254662490878,"spread":0.3210707623050321,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002505533,0.00004909844,0.0001103277,0.0001110773,0.0003210814,0.00003212829,0.00004361679,0.00003260435,0.00003073078],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001320164,0.00004303932,0.00002902536,0.0003362504,0.00033503,0.0001553451,0.0000359118,0.00003464567,0.00001575355],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008628468,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004645404,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0104423,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06958288,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993901,0.00005481876,0.0001160003,0.0001313585,0.0001817181,0.000125958],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.999764,0.00005445325,0.00003873793,0.00004244725,0.00007294941,0.00002737861],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0000328874,0.0000590171,0.6075492,0.00000749732,0.0005242285,0.000004829999,0.1123228,0.00002519041,0.00001095056,0.2687945,0.003815733,0.006853111],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0009138294,0.0001218331,0.888194,0.00002473741,0.0003587957,3.596064e-7,0.01402473,0.000485871,0.00001676333,0.03068774,0.06492013,0.00025117],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7391748,0.001371205,0.0002389683,0.002032795,0.0002485339,0.0001525345,0.000002814894,0.00003093725,0.2567474],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9967987,0.0001801899,0.0002348205,0.00006138154,0.0002191944,0.00001178881,0.000002480563,0.000001611276,0.002489812],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2806448,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9961473,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1507354143","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2010.00167.x","title":"The case of ‘losses in any event’: a question of duty, cause or damages?","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Trinity College","funders":"","keywords":"Causation; Damages; Plaintiff; Scrutiny; Tort; Argument (complex analysis); Duty; Event (particle physics); Relevance (law); Appeal; Scope (computer science); Law; Law and economics; Duty of care; Raising (metalworking); Political science; Business; Liability; Economics; Engineering; Computer science; Medicine","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05253551868424276,"gpt":0.4218381476761031,"spread":0.3693026289918603,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000579518,0.00004927424,0.0001135663,0.00002076138,0.000382882,0.00002073196,0.000130381,0.00002703396,0.00001111901],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0007619013,0.00003001288,0.00002960556,0.0002280712,0.0005077014,0.000107682,0.00007512973,0.0001124808,0.000002392364],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002106336,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007731959,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.03458256,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.5067804,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994195,0.00006970928,0.0001891815,0.00008576658,0.0001076425,0.0001282128],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992776,0.0003316685,0.0001017469,0.0001352328,0.0001295918,0.00002414724],"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":[0.00003012039,0.0001388345,0.01139412,0.00003675835,0.00005944736,0.00007171823,0.01360877,0.00001044206,0.0008947377,0.9659374,0.0009195614,0.006898074],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001145134,0.0002456824,0.09241339,0.0001862095,0.0001498629,0.00006577813,0.1129153,0.0001230211,0.007922121,0.03094739,0.7533907,0.0004954584],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.990975,0.0004583549,0.000009969131,0.004452711,0.0001315716,0.0001834071,0.00001057957,0.00001249589,0.003765909],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9980824,0.0003432914,0.00009368864,0.00001510311,0.00007883837,0.00002996157,2.35681e-7,0.000002909932,0.00135359],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.93499,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9718462,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1995581034","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00182.x","title":"Is breach of confidence a fiduciary wrong? Preserving the reach of judge-made law","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Fiduciary; Duty; Law; Doctrine; Conflation; Hacker; Independence (probability theory); Political science; Computer security; Philosophy; Computer science; Epistemology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09780596430543234,"gpt":0.3982202761272676,"spread":0.3004143118218352,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005417048,0.00007866502,0.0001947323,0.00001501824,0.0005719351,0.0000260976,0.0004370972,0.00004093093,0.0000607381],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001334338,0.00005492359,0.00007675387,0.0002673701,0.0007915139,0.0001785662,0.0001979708,0.0001149783,0.000008533001],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00003148351,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005863029,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04414713,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01011722,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989708,0.00008825769,0.0002433159,0.0001605839,0.0003318916,0.0002051467],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990476,0.0003030815,0.0001411592,0.0002774132,0.0001980525,0.00003272398],"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":[0.000009095296,0.00005974513,0.003020302,0.00002948704,0.00008780334,0.000001224432,0.03860793,0.00000911161,0.0006365759,0.9502165,0.006652224,0.0006699551],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001959153,0.00004791215,0.01134396,0.00009627427,0.00007274486,0.000002223209,0.03632562,0.00003185981,0.003242858,0.02140428,0.927061,0.0001753892],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3192023,0.008518755,0.0001472944,0.04703071,0.0001929851,0.0006271969,0.00003774594,0.00006789197,0.6241751],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9934726,0.001024096,0.00008893783,0.0004084036,0.000142521,0.00003257056,6.084583e-7,0.000005084362,0.004825158],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9288123,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.962218,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3123047564","doi":"10.1111/lest.12110","title":"Obligations in the shade: the application of fiduciary directors' duties to shadow directors","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Fiduciary; Shadow (psychology); Discretion; Law; Test (biology); Power (physics); Business; Law and economics; Accounting; Economics; Political science; Psychology; Duty","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04584346994252859,"gpt":0.3634581018970603,"spread":0.3176146319545318,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000729199,0.00008477976,0.0001332735,0.00004084228,0.0006915754,0.00003841717,0.000452885,0.00003265869,0.00001646551],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0004553189,0.00003882057,0.00005707788,0.0006204177,0.0004026436,0.0001429713,0.0000952083,0.00007306579,0.00003698743],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008179165,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005043548,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01029688,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.03067499,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9989627,0.0001506702,0.0002134156,0.0001737041,0.0002973919,0.0002021152],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987538,0.0007688046,0.00007811913,0.0002640565,0.0001051642,0.00003004741],"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":[0.000006960508,0.00008152601,0.0293781,0.000008758325,0.00004443839,3.188065e-7,0.0505805,0.00001353521,0.0008919332,0.8834566,0.008570538,0.02696677],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00009435448,0.0000195332,0.1838541,0.00003393319,0.00002008577,2.104343e-7,0.01561283,0.000004398895,0.000468959,0.009731733,0.790039,0.0001208386],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6708511,0.001945571,0.0005965441,0.2602209,0.0002983354,0.001744133,0.00006756096,0.0001208412,0.06415506],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9972918,0.0002983697,0.00006695554,0.0004729248,0.0002163665,0.0004651413,9.04387e-7,0.000005313185,0.001182248],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8737249,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9962937,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2162797822","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00138.x","title":"Illegal transactions: chaos or discretion?","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Commission; Statutory law; Discretion; Commonwealth; Law; Law reform; Judicial discretion; Political science; Common law; Judicial review","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05893827733802574,"gpt":0.3834800210036837,"spread":0.324541743665658,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001769718,0.00009778856,0.0001457014,0.00002203828,0.0014885,0.00008564046,0.0001633106,0.00004693102,0.004321347],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0000309266,0.00007264144,0.00007682047,0.0002872587,0.0003485502,0.0003082265,0.000007032168,0.0001203513,0.0004018873],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008224155,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007396145,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003192193,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0092585,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9990662,0.00005535138,0.0001649701,0.00019699,0.0002496771,0.0002667944],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996195,0.00008009398,0.00002795058,0.000131405,0.000062987,0.00007805442],"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":[0.0002480049,0.0006289996,0.0003043366,0.00006132328,0.0005821328,0.00003819134,0.09656201,0.0005300576,0.00007478039,0.4210752,0.0198594,0.4600356],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001444348,0.00002617114,0.0003210765,0.00001110901,0.00002228152,0.00000134698,0.007333382,0.00002028708,0.00002783298,0.0006100895,0.9913593,0.0001227046],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0687123,0.003806153,0.003766721,0.0913259,0.0007619698,0.001289751,0.00009824963,0.0007722088,0.8294668],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.8416401,0.002751781,0.0002616003,0.0003961783,0.0003320423,0.0001319087,0.00000141965,0.000008272552,0.1544767],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9714999,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9998114,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2027430988","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2005.tb00270.x","title":"Revisiting pure economic loss: lessons to be learnt from the Supreme Court of Canada?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Supreme court; CLARITY; Law; Transparency (behavior); Common law; Position (finance); Test (biology); Convergence (economics); Political science; High Court; Law and economics; Economics","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05625833674962344,"gpt":0.3372516722005559,"spread":0.2809933354509324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003066022,0.00007160673,0.0001560783,0.000007262016,0.0008001767,0.00004378449,0.0002765867,0.00002247961,0.00007571367],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001472714,0.00005323659,0.00004109999,0.00007234022,0.0001372686,0.00008431061,0.0001191316,0.0000947924,0.00001862553],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003001332,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003487528,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6996727,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9677231,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992232,0.00004856328,0.0001778031,0.0001520812,0.0001802757,0.0002180563],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993925,0.0002553671,0.00007289678,0.0001554502,0.00006291563,0.00006084101],"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":[0.00001055018,0.00002559081,0.007876256,0.00001127078,0.0002423329,0.000002645815,0.04383329,0.001774678,0.0001259244,0.7093555,0.2248002,0.01194178],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004742361,0.000003910258,0.005315822,0.00001559002,0.00001484653,1.038471e-7,0.01406808,0.00001664259,0.00008745895,0.0002720371,0.9800866,0.0000714494],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3490145,0.001554354,0.00001620098,0.6197709,0.0001092695,0.0002059332,0.0001254589,0.00002170636,0.02918169],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9948218,0.0002637971,0.0001570325,0.001874004,0.0009081327,0.00002103629,0.000001810471,0.00000537058,0.001946949],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.7552865,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.6154393,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2919726698","doi":"10.1017/lst.2019.6","title":"Revisiting the fraud exception: a critique of United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada 40 years on","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"Argument (complex analysis); Law; Doctrine; Supreme court; Political science; Presentation (obstetrics); Underpinning; Sociology; Law and economics; Engineering","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04464865428380113,"gpt":0.337203370805331,"spread":0.2925547165215299,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003785436,0.00005370796,0.0001444198,0.00001800563,0.0002558858,0.00001093926,0.0001632667,0.00002551723,0.0000853438],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002076295,0.00003990374,0.00003687613,0.0002316902,0.0001576448,0.00003514281,0.00006209245,0.0001036274,0.000004095654],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007265733,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001596048,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.5448939,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3079357,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992211,0.00009257875,0.0001565761,0.0001014935,0.0002848268,0.0001434463],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993523,0.0002396884,0.00009281694,0.0001294943,0.0001598451,0.00002586132],"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":[0.00006025629,0.0000776448,0.02688961,0.000179178,0.0002960499,0.00000569827,0.03562921,0.000498984,0.0004824458,0.9073044,0.01912337,0.009453112],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002836998,0.00006347639,0.1504005,0.0002340821,0.00003678059,2.75039e-7,0.03125692,0.00007567294,0.0004756722,0.001713476,0.8152476,0.0002118547],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9510738,0.0002781055,0.000007671619,0.009916727,0.0001053802,0.0001903821,0.00002377536,0.00001036588,0.03839374],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9963482,0.00008334695,0.00002143919,0.0003017088,0.0001755867,0.00001012892,0.000001093427,0.000003368169,0.003055105],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.905591,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7046926,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2088623055","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2005.tb00685.x","title":"Citizenship and family life in Ireland: asking the question ‘Who belongs’?","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"European and International Law Studies","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":"Citizenship; Deportation; De facto; Immigration; Naturalization; Residence; Political science; Vulnerability (computing); Politics; Law; Subject (documents); Sociology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04424618320583968,"gpt":0.3414596082103564,"spread":0.2972134250045167,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006291565,0.0000743476,0.0001239529,0.00002799634,0.0006284124,0.00006882372,0.0001008438,0.00002053033,0.00000513539],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0006860676,0.00005024682,0.00002365155,0.00009491629,0.0003567863,0.0001203415,0.00008003136,0.0001126109,0.00002231609],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006629089,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001836952,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001188707,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007953582,"domain_scores_codex":[0.999184,0.0001610156,0.0001427609,0.0001288802,0.0002160843,0.0001672663],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995725,0.0002414432,0.00004186276,0.00004544251,0.00006973826,0.00002900845],"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":[0.00002100379,0.00002005254,0.06131386,0.000008888099,0.0001264604,0.000009713364,0.02970115,0.00002213957,0.0000117944,0.8700638,0.02782734,0.01087385],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003648851,0.00004174067,0.4607609,0.000129534,0.00001827365,0.000001151768,0.0156565,0.00003943115,0.000007892902,0.006365264,0.5164261,0.0001882902],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5962825,0.01772156,0.000005877564,0.02493935,0.0002084924,0.0001155293,0.000001761275,0.00004325356,0.3606816],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9857417,0.005521549,0.00004787548,0.001787736,0.0005423221,0.000009968237,3.079754e-7,0.000004926534,0.006343598],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8636985,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4833304,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4404977473","doi":"10.1017/lst.2024.28","title":"Bringing the idea of the environment to law: a comparative study of early environmental law textbooks","year":2024,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Environmental law and policy","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":"Australian Research Council","keywords":"Law; Environmental law; Political science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04635622544898436,"gpt":0.3370933741913001,"spread":0.2907371487423158,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002915635,0.0001193891,0.0002059144,0.00001407002,0.0006936365,0.00003790965,0.0002856218,0.00002263609,0.00004154883],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00000520955,0.00007007671,0.00008769624,0.00007188148,0.001151063,0.00009863139,0.0003587985,0.0001245935,0.00004787038],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001267,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000009129956,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01554203,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.007747329,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987395,0.0002038023,0.0002186336,0.0001844686,0.0004506376,0.0002029878],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995239,0.0001817017,0.00005751586,0.0001964508,0.000002661596,0.00003777189],"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":[0.00001967588,0.0003133038,0.006268568,0.00002204835,0.0004915007,0.000004887012,0.4828591,0.0001958396,0.001897473,0.5067101,0.0005471895,0.0006703242],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000461882,0.0009480885,0.05974096,0.0001696268,0.0002686528,0.000001351539,0.2580552,0.000008990348,0.008009233,0.002594246,0.669344,0.0003978162],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.947445,0.001543476,0.000001747368,0.001043203,0.0001489339,0.0005821189,0.00003028996,0.00001357714,0.0491917],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9965785,0.00004738048,0.00001211425,0.0002229475,0.00008099653,0.0000422543,2.525969e-7,0.000007937415,0.003007601],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.6687968,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9910136,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2003922734","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2008.00081.x","title":"Rights-based justifications for the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Western University","funders":"","keywords":"Tort; Plaintiff; Law; Law and economics; Political science; Strict liability; Liability; Sociology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.09846264614462974,"gpt":0.362582794066692,"spread":0.2641201479220623,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001414596,0.00005740787,0.00009998326,0.00001836452,0.001666173,0.00001547774,0.0001899681,0.00002162611,0.00002527583],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005761952,0.00003537722,0.0000463285,0.0001052559,0.0007227788,0.00009794289,0.00001927806,0.0000526392,0.00001842485],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00007454017,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001939271,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002786909,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01517526,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9995101,0.00001947711,0.0001509584,0.0001223158,0.00008178597,0.0001153569],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991292,0.0004457604,0.00008662643,0.0001735754,0.0001395988,0.00002520254],"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":[0.00001576748,0.00004220987,0.002250527,0.000006260782,0.00008471184,1.90134e-7,0.005365643,0.0008848448,0.00001577084,0.9829971,0.00808911,0.0002479076],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002244342,0.0000573338,0.009088185,0.00001635152,0.00007742734,5.069937e-7,0.00266102,0.0004162669,0.0001841949,0.003206986,0.9839558,0.000111476],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3586507,0.004796237,0.1368606,0.2099449,0.001157875,0.005634817,0.0005397751,0.0004526367,0.2819625],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951851,0.00008538375,0.001021,0.0000754639,0.0001022237,0.0002416112,0.000002835211,0.000003808589,0.003282516],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9797901,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9996336,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2562963395","doi":"10.1111/lest.12145","title":"Exercising discretion in the context of dependent employment: assessing the impact of workload on the rule of law","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":1,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"University of Regina","funders":"","keywords":"Discretion; Context (archaeology); Work (physics); Workload; Rule of law; Public law; Law; Government (linguistics); Accountability; Private law; Political science; Economics; Engineering","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07023885008892738,"gpt":0.3025441416311244,"spread":0.232305291542197,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001278944,0.00009987324,0.000474027,0.00004724135,0.0001295659,0.00003598181,0.0002640932,0.00003869894,0.00002118103],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000113175,0.00004891157,0.0001734191,0.00009005183,0.0003920678,0.0001736856,0.00005060865,0.00007332539,0.00001057453],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001250112,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00001121312,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009275687,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008302652,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988534,0.00006437913,0.0007085773,0.0001567703,0.0000524111,0.000164451],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984925,0.0005233024,0.0006507844,0.0002878573,0.00003446131,0.00001103462],"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":[0.00008120625,0.000195444,0.1506476,0.00004035034,0.0004345764,0.000001072781,0.01572094,0.000124037,0.000259925,0.8262861,0.0002025642,0.006006262],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003828846,0.00106297,0.6325154,0.002772775,0.00009428008,0.000006783202,0.04166788,0.0002772586,0.01055046,0.3020582,0.004285469,0.0008796419],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9743446,0.004261794,0.0001248646,0.001687006,0.0002214747,0.0002802443,0.00006356311,0.000003627564,0.01901279],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990907,0.0006603462,0.000003548138,0.00009621056,0.00006773492,0.00001906446,3.818248e-7,0.000008641443,0.00005337229],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5242279,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9973216,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2039722319","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00142.x","title":"Environmental monitoring of government — the case for an environmental auditor","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Regulation and Compliance Studies","field":"Business, Management and Accounting","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":"Audit; Accountability; Accounting; Government (linguistics); Argument (complex analysis); House of Commons; Business; Environmental audit; Chief audit executive; Joint audit; Value (mathematics); Audit committee; Internal audit; Public administration; Political science; Law; Medicine; Computer science","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03086616862597272,"gpt":0.2507681898323116,"spread":0.2199020212063389,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0001024638,0.0001351511,0.0001611685,0.00001118522,0.0004973128,0.00005021099,0.0001154616,0.00001715557,0.0001239654],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000008395981,0.00009400777,0.00007559548,0.00003843936,0.0001591343,0.0004315734,0.00009320062,0.0000416086,0.00004214286],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00006086843,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00000100728,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00005635176,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00002668925,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992467,0.000005956827,0.0001894535,0.0001812335,0.0002127225,0.0001639881],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996957,0.00003694618,0.00009737679,0.0001584781,0.000005293238,0.000006222089],"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":[0.0007127228,0.001292487,0.2887333,0.0004366246,0.00167116,0.000163548,0.003555262,0.001673054,0.006980973,0.007000667,0.04052253,0.6472576],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001264477,0.0001213762,0.2496061,0.00004524308,0.0002197322,0.00003058873,0.03628457,0.00102451,0.0008623328,0.0008398222,0.709235,0.0004661916],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9954011,0.001043415,0.00001293609,0.0005245575,0.0004149075,0.0002829065,0.00002333294,0.0000223406,0.002274546],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9963493,0.0001578159,0.00009040619,0.000161457,0.0017109,0.00008478757,0.000002478337,0.00001265757,0.001430227],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.6687125,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3833526,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W4322770748","doi":"10.1017/lst.2023.1","title":"Security interests and knowing receipt","year":2023,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Receipt; Property (philosophy); Liability; Context (archaeology); Doctrine; Security interest; Law and economics; Business; Point (geometry); Law; Political science; Sociology; Accounting; Epistemology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.07946423820398954,"gpt":0.4071622339799165,"spread":0.327697995775927,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002835494,0.00004718475,0.00008366721,0.00002372143,0.0006748571,0.00006118147,0.00007963704,0.00002358957,0.00001024371],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002057137,0.0000411789,0.00002189061,0.0002574298,0.0001905826,0.0001261937,0.0001492,0.00007151853,0.0000993571],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000030614,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000179909,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00136098,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.006124136,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994851,0.00003558464,0.00007664291,0.0001259803,0.0001066351,0.0001700581],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9997242,0.0001101806,0.00001898949,0.00006354931,0.00003976162,0.00004331374],"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":[0.000005020295,0.00002397686,0.0110491,0.00003440436,0.00008722618,0.00001126747,0.08202881,0.00000342728,0.00009171216,0.8395264,0.04819459,0.01894407],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00005189138,0.00000773912,0.007470686,0.00001464212,0.000005993945,2.165734e-7,0.01456795,0.00001420755,0.00002600007,0.009899303,0.9678755,0.00006583411],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8539159,0.001577024,0.000006943957,0.02841425,0.0003085035,0.0001810579,0.000006569562,0.0003056522,0.1152841],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.993874,0.001132541,0.00002434931,0.0001345176,0.0002068392,0.00002416843,8.015792e-7,0.00000367822,0.004599152],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.919681,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5190523,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W3108774314","doi":"10.1017/lst.2020.38","title":"An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada","year":2020,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal principles and applications","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Reputation; Welsh; Disadvantage; Law; Corporate law; English law; Political science; Business; Corporate governance; History; Finance","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.3751401205529468,"gpt":0.3464764557087454,"spread":0.02866366484420146,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000144017,0.00006479228,0.0001789076,0.00002820621,0.0002859149,0.00005937357,0.00005659519,0.00001981696,0.000002619117],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001293227,0.00005772721,0.00001374979,0.0003804298,0.0000640197,0.000113072,0.00004307963,0.00003641632,2.534028e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000601309,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00005837362,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8771877,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9829423,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9993499,0.00004833529,0.0001444791,0.0002022587,0.0001613815,0.00009362359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9996147,0.00005150813,0.00009660716,0.00006398506,0.00005844771,0.0001147403],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00009904276,0.00004608662,0.8438053,0.00008072409,0.001042856,0.000005428225,0.1041053,0.01333591,0.001986403,0.02377053,0.0001178278,0.01160464],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002305541,0.0001135019,0.9635745,0.00002291098,0.0006669413,1.538168e-7,0.01407406,0.0121382,0.0003592768,0.001534271,0.006993643,0.0002920238],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9935248,0.00007625719,0.002501728,0.00341353,0.00001312865,0.0003299521,0.00008011675,0.00001144047,0.00004902747],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9980425,0.000004519045,0.001769007,0.00006632279,0.00006650897,0.00002293088,0.00001290731,0.000002937731,0.00001243184],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1197692,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2354047,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2091752406","doi":"10.1111/j.1748-121x.2001.tb00167.x","title":"Casaubon's ghosts: the haunting of legal scholarship","year":2001,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Legal Education and Practice Innovations","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"York University","funders":"","keywords":"Scholarship; Legal formalism; Mainstream; Legal realism; Law; Pride; Political science; Sociology; Legal profession; Comparative law; Black letter law","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.1363713756447243,"gpt":0.456736296431363,"spread":0.3203649207866387,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001427889,0.00007683028,0.0001260059,0.00005157732,0.001329248,0.0002071608,0.0002327225,0.00004034592,0.0001565764],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00454518,0.00005511525,0.0000505697,0.0007946512,0.0004304987,0.00109131,0.0000535728,0.000349201,0.00005383428],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00008047815,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002881961,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0123967,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01030494,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988624,0.0002119451,0.000227606,0.000123851,0.0003479369,0.0002262272],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985639,0.000614856,0.0001657257,0.0001539087,0.0004675357,0.00003404336],"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":[0.00001723058,0.00008966422,0.03770791,0.00001173909,0.0001267481,0.000007646163,0.04058701,0.000004189243,0.0001036676,0.8916153,0.02218315,0.007545743],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00007445167,0.00001236586,0.008601683,0.00001541679,0.00001942973,0.000003238255,0.04285315,0.000001013447,0.00007163928,0.00130654,0.9469714,0.00006968394],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3367737,0.002278281,0.00002202209,0.2693507,0.001236844,0.0002122091,0.000002648717,0.00006710397,0.3900565],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9811022,0.0004696041,0.0001724799,0.00185188,0.0005083884,0.00001871234,8.612895e-7,0.000005855893,0.01586999],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9247882,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999709,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2067349740","doi":"10.1111/lest.12086","title":"Stanley Fish on Philosophy, Politics and Law, by Michael Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, vii + 355pp (£60 hardback). ISBN: 9781107074743.","year":2015,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Legal Studies","topic":"Law in Society and Culture","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":0,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false},"ca_institutions":"Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation","funders":"","keywords":"Politics; Fish <Actinopterygii>; Sociology; Philosophy; Law; Media studies; Political science; Fishery; Biology","retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03129358302620201,"gpt":0.271008895156151,"spread":0.239715312129949,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003741,0.0002780544,0.0003893497,0.000008251135,0.001525234,0.000143094,0.0003356574,0.0002308199,0.000009093535],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001351183,0.0002544449,0.0001177009,0.000154122,0.001471948,0.0005043293,0.0002485251,0.0003456938,0.0000267352],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0003975615,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001169398,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.01609995,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002442808,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9979124,0.0002303237,0.0001836407,0.0004562713,0.0006273232,0.0005900587],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9988534,0.0001078987,0.0001117393,0.0002327808,0.0003602743,0.0003338379],"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":[0.00002233528,0.00005889809,0.0001418635,0.00002168544,0.0001121959,0.00002115272,0.005085859,0.000002239667,0.000008631187,0.3691484,0.625358,0.00001868542],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0006399423,0.000119976,0.0001408858,0.00004359741,0.00007691045,0.000002055067,0.01894404,0.000004475601,0.00009960431,0.0004828367,0.9791164,0.000329232],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.05183924,0.0246779,0.00001617773,0.06051097,0.00175401,0.0007920855,0.001390174,0.0003930097,0.8586264],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6401758,0.03402157,0.0002736443,0.01051628,0.002260888,0.00001626214,0.000069544,0.00006053042,0.3126055],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.5883366,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999908,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}