{"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":"e881a0a4dab4","filters":{"venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review"}},"results":[{"id":"W1599027253","doi":"","title":"Civil Rights in Ordinary Tort Cases: Race, Gender, and the Calculation of Economic Loss","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review","topic":"Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":21,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Plaintiff; Damages; Race (biology); Tort; Personal injury; Civil rights; Compensation (psychology); Political science; Law; Tort reform; Critical race theory; Sociology; Racism; Gender studies; Psychology; Liability; Social psychology","authors":[{"name":"Martha Chamallas","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03129577137770614,"gpt":0.2499593743369526,"spread":0.2186636029592465,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01053131,0.0003216806,0.0005373028,0.003174187,0.001655277,0.00449658,0.000895654,0.001098388,0.002723844],"category_scores_gemma":[0.04731441,0.0002415186,0.0004646475,0.001877134,0.009633183,0.00451507,0.002813708,0.001731995,0.0002956187],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.003278826,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001777066,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005916148,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008687341,"domain_scores_codex":[0.991652,0.004466816,0.000276272,0.0003201854,0.002706019,0.0005786811],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9861568,0.009658688,0.001678176,0.0008495921,0.00131009,0.0003466984],"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":[0.0001296837,0.00008491859,0.08400748,0.00006381038,0.00006027685,0.0005090079,0.002957663,0.004086155,0.0002985997,0.8323269,0.003476121,0.07199935],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00003116099,0.0001589235,0.09879962,0.0004245765,0.00007340086,0.0009329736,0.005259082,0.01754112,0.001336313,0.8497218,0.02565483,0.00006627099],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7033315,0.009325566,0.07431999,0.02666026,0.0004639117,0.0001487265,0.0001424589,0.00006004396,0.1855475],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9923228,0.0007496594,0.003769612,0.0005317493,0.000155748,0.00002926144,0.00002168403,0.00001482894,0.002404536],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01053131,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05569553,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2118329406","doi":"","title":"Supreme Court of Canada's Appraisal of the 1980 Ban on Advertising to Children in Quebec: Implications for Misleading Advertising Elsewhere","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review","topic":"Intellectual Property Law","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":14,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Supreme court; Advertising; Political science; Law; Business","authors":[{"name":"Bill Jeffrey","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01945506792847664,"gpt":0.2972866898282507,"spread":0.2778316218997741,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01042263,0.001099885,0.001581633,0.004217456,0.02730554,0.01416847,0.006822275,0.0446144,0.008691222],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0331307,0.001923797,0.002266673,0.003906274,0.009862598,0.003226957,0.002558912,0.03053234,0.0009046428],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.1384933,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2202895,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9938225,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9972704,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9820317,0.001730098,0.0006821671,0.001296125,0.008473876,0.005785966],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9649323,0.01408385,0.001094623,0.0007741289,0.0161953,0.002919905],"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":[0.0001343814,0.00009818932,0.007883845,0.0002306456,0.0001020287,0.001685511,0.008230667,0.0009702622,0.0008874504,0.4558464,0.5117905,0.01214017],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003840824,0.00008862797,0.04739172,0.002019845,0.000939463,0.0004870129,0.01053855,0.003254489,0.002706256,0.03345254,0.898111,0.0006264287],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.06959445,0.009122761,0.00162057,0.5655756,0.004086521,0.0002614761,0.002090913,0.000212714,0.3474349],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.3575871,0.005618727,0.00238149,0.4263193,0.001918343,0.000265312,0.0003590155,0.0001868426,0.205364],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1384933,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9992257,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1572505345","doi":"","title":"Mr. Garland Goes to Ottawa: Comments on Restitution in Canada through the Lens of Garland v. Consumers' Gas","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","field":"Social Sciences","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":"Restitution; Lens (geology); Political science; Law; Physics; Optics","authors":[{"name":"Jeff Berryman","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03335572446463545,"gpt":0.3034290228093618,"spread":0.2700732983447263,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005879221,0.0009387214,0.001008784,0.002273037,0.0436849,0.009451121,0.00660598,0.0448214,0.0125204],"category_scores_gemma":[0.02340752,0.001047631,0.001196621,0.004050462,0.01276734,0.002944356,0.002573082,0.0231413,0.001354453],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.09971341,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.1496577,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9913204,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9964947,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9917664,0.000884105,0.0003897769,0.0007244663,0.003094551,0.003140816],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9805833,0.008782056,0.0006455822,0.0002956672,0.007547638,0.00214567],"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":[0.00003762052,0.00001038965,0.001278532,0.00008925773,0.00001591734,0.000559441,0.005651908,0.000144835,0.0001329603,0.02685419,0.9624602,0.002764837],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004496716,0.00002294382,0.009061169,0.0007213323,0.00009851985,0.0001587901,0.0256585,0.0002775483,0.0004752195,0.005168382,0.958048,0.0002647312],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":"not_applicable","genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"commentary","genre_scores_codex":[0.005934772,0.01034094,0.0001611039,0.9314373,0.003144831,0.00006000519,0.000461472,0.000046854,0.04841268],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.07998486,0.008338088,0.0004260269,0.7914245,0.001595391,0.000089209,0.0001577827,0.0001061309,0.117878],"genre_candidate":"commentary","genre_consensus":"commentary","teacher_disagreement_score":0.09971341,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7234748,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1493288650","doi":"","title":"The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Law: Is Restitution a Right or a Remedy","year":2002,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review","topic":"Legal principles and applications","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":"McGill University","funders":"","keywords":"Restitution; Unjust enrichment; Law; Damages; Harm; Duty; Trespass; Order (exchange); Breach of contract; Political science; Law and economics; Economics","authors":[{"name":"Stephen A. Smith","is_ca":true}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.04212962585686394,"gpt":0.3288795368211298,"spread":0.2867499109642659,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.007340342,0.0004213764,0.0009565622,0.002162153,0.004704128,0.008564896,0.00178526,0.007995045,0.007759483],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01266267,0.0004983746,0.0007455425,0.001379895,0.04920951,0.01326878,0.004473185,0.007751457,0.0009674523],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.007853886,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007756141,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005119055,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.003889024,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9937406,0.002136397,0.0002504389,0.001251077,0.001642433,0.0009789895],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9936557,0.003270659,0.0007952098,0.001201277,0.0006692986,0.0004080185],"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":[0.000001738846,0.000003350179,0.00002560528,0.000004090396,8.608536e-7,0.000008268708,0.00008313847,0.00006065041,0.00001244759,0.9988908,0.000310444,0.0005985952],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000009178832,0.000005412722,0.00006049368,0.00002092423,0.000002357496,0.00001305412,0.0000696057,0.0002789163,0.00004126964,0.9925646,0.006930551,0.000003620733],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.04253375,0.004754127,0.1067233,0.1223327,0.0006208764,0.0001887946,0.0001876176,0.0001840616,0.7224748],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9368024,0.001659852,0.01320658,0.01141312,0.000768236,0.0002995018,0.00008222605,0.0000827978,0.03568537],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.008564896,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05698419,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W1576082661","doi":"","title":"Deference to the Majority: Why Isn't the Supreme Court Applying the Reasoning of Atkins v. Virginia to Juveniles","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Loyola of Los Angeles law review","topic":"Legal Systems and Judicial Processes","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":"Deference; Supreme court; Law; Political science","authors":[{"name":"Sharon Ongerth","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03123024354250688,"gpt":0.3086106831929167,"spread":0.2773804396504098,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01131751,0.0001973824,0.0005081948,0.001083348,0.01178321,0.006046605,0.002649784,0.007392177,0.003539833],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0381869,0.000381263,0.0004238601,0.0008197403,0.009671796,0.004612803,0.0030184,0.01020478,0.0007450127],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006990804,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01158298,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.1034744,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.1632405,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9884683,0.004305534,0.0003106922,0.001401283,0.003495275,0.002018773],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9904643,0.004027531,0.0005992252,0.0004297474,0.002853103,0.001626065],"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":[0.00003728533,0.00004536294,0.002626753,0.00007966456,0.00002379174,0.0007403648,0.007905528,0.0001664079,0.0003992702,0.757178,0.1879087,0.04288882],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001162873,0.0001482137,0.007219669,0.001088768,0.00006380456,0.0003720535,0.01474087,0.000452504,0.0007877165,0.2909872,0.6839085,0.0001144344],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"commentary","genre_gemma":"other","genre_scores_codex":[0.07241479,0.02256025,0.004350429,0.7189209,0.006032395,0.00008226918,0.00009906953,0.00007534039,0.1754646],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.782892,0.005633771,0.001415025,0.176257,0.003391176,0.00008536615,0.00004607451,0.00006123559,0.03021842],"genre_candidate":"other","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.1034744,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2057443,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}