{"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001212279,0.0001491292,0.001131791,0.00007809641,0.00006047015,0.0000183934,0.0002015985,0.00009150259,0.0001794082],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00003129517,0.0001436916,0.0001976607,0.00009301176,0.0003341511,0.0002656786,0.00005952763,0.00008702915,0.00004434638],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001123659,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0000198552,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005263361,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008348477,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9979746,0.00006260382,0.001419677,0.0003163219,0.00002993114,0.000196843],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9985871,0.0001320642,0.0008268789,0.0003776425,0.00002285132,0.00005342316],"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":[0.00002694081,0.00004899281,0.01057235,0.001064822,0.0000523455,0.00000305898,0.00009437838,0.0000441463,9.516547e-7,0.9861634,0.0012445,0.0006841545],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003376019,0.0001115588,0.01243753,0.001925997,0.0001014518,0.00008958994,0.00002932969,0.0016995,0.00006462329,0.08658667,0.8928924,0.0006853254],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.3509742,0.4946327,0.00006556263,0.0005348754,0.000378797,0.001524392,0.0004318077,0.00001998042,0.1514377],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9679996,0.03126709,0.00009420371,0.0003150238,0.0001921218,0.00003141245,0.00001587186,0.00001533641,0.00006932292],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.8995767,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7956662,"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005652988,0.0001396827,0.0004685957,0.00003768833,0.0002009968,0.000012436,0.0004861547,0.00006352567,0.00003270244],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005673642,0.0001058542,0.0001561715,0.0004567869,0.0002028925,0.00009291249,0.00005042183,0.0001009609,5.85294e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002269233,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004744998,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8488024,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9847426,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998266,0.0002064808,0.0006425499,0.0002216555,0.000341813,0.0003215251],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987554,0.0003710416,0.000274284,0.000328365,0.0002142006,0.00005669724],"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":[0.00007192813,0.0003940932,0.01518382,0.004281263,0.00009960865,8.287449e-7,0.001669402,0.0003510762,0.01014686,0.8481082,0.07435367,0.0453392],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0008727029,0.0002452714,0.1075274,0.03608116,0.000306088,0.000005636745,0.0003960826,0.00007524602,0.02323925,0.001843065,0.8284364,0.0009717189],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.6336562,0.06891356,0.0006224267,0.04409611,0.0007186785,0.01242055,0.001369348,0.00009820882,0.2381049],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.997812,0.0003970971,0.0004417049,0.0007469721,0.0000796589,0.00003274242,0.00001089406,0.00002194544,0.0004569358],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.8462652,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4316608,"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007268569,0.0001128233,0.0004259817,0.00001505526,0.0001747601,0.00001499725,0.000214312,0.00004178163,0.00006370547],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003709643,0.00007514492,0.00005308674,0.0003410429,0.0001924555,0.0001159961,0.00001712471,0.00009954337,0.000003604669],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000154005,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0005828696,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9569157,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9903797,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998355,0.0003881384,0.0004496742,0.0001595512,0.0004157141,0.0002319551],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992172,0.0001949887,0.0002217992,0.0001934184,0.0001161755,0.00005642664],"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":[0.00002137767,0.0001406011,0.03257565,0.003358239,0.00005505149,0.00001284293,0.001335812,0.00001537325,0.00007939366,0.9137709,0.04668638,0.001948379],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001492497,0.0000399847,0.0009505143,0.003693004,0.00003005078,7.996744e-7,0.000319746,1.915384e-7,0.0001706216,0.0005551857,0.9939896,0.0001010016],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1480505,0.2183817,0.00002562757,0.01132954,0.0007625907,0.003151824,0.0002540512,0.00002556145,0.6180186],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9851932,0.01218253,0.00002803938,0.002461418,0.00003817538,0.00001988833,0.000004168933,0.000006539618,0.00006603963],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9473033,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3064321,"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003104694,0.00009194906,0.0002402927,0.000008826752,0.0004595458,0.00002554931,0.000347443,0.00005559618,0.0007499778],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00006295068,0.00005159983,0.0001053231,0.0003008862,0.0005039627,0.0001200475,0.00004397288,0.00009502923,0.00001222816],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004354825,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00004056715,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.002402587,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.01427601,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9988282,0.0001260839,0.0003648376,0.0001535034,0.0003510264,0.000176297],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9991031,0.00009768426,0.0002490429,0.0003533604,0.0001333577,0.00006347987],"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":[0.000002456349,0.00003864717,0.00001352234,0.0004354603,0.00001413807,7.451995e-7,0.0002132936,3.403545e-7,0.0002044095,0.9844649,0.01120786,0.003404183],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006597499,0.00002340261,0.00003377283,0.000699335,0.00006102408,0.000001191212,0.00004236049,0.000005110379,0.0004398632,0.003289736,0.995268,0.00007024296],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.01015812,0.4298779,0.0001011058,0.03044657,0.0003316574,0.004140905,0.0007934854,0.0001187697,0.5240315],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9057135,0.09033274,0.0004185624,0.001779128,0.0001540837,0.00002257373,0.000006370222,0.000008708894,0.001564335],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9840601,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.8211731,"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003190575,0.0001646216,0.0004821336,0.00001868175,0.000772191,0.00008790315,0.000921869,0.00006030487,0.0001248116],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001008097,0.00008066926,0.0001639655,0.0008099555,0.000314913,0.0001275303,0.0001023007,0.0001822453,0.00002393666],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0000378829,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001607529,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.02216568,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0440602,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9975595,0.0006761398,0.0005070271,0.0002390229,0.0006738941,0.0003444495],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984139,0.0004069651,0.0002953396,0.0004946247,0.000285143,0.0001040104],"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":[0.000007485023,0.00004613856,0.001385052,0.001186764,0.00004849599,0.000001544515,0.003346859,0.00001003646,0.0001581872,0.9459134,0.03736676,0.01052931],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004057724,0.00003541966,0.0002453335,0.002725664,0.00007930098,0.000001988098,0.001091255,9.536599e-7,0.0001705177,0.0008273572,0.9946635,0.0001180811],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.03793263,0.4808814,0.001354968,0.05152636,0.001253089,0.01325105,0.000268935,0.0001537426,0.4133778],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9831193,0.009009254,0.0002312608,0.00680564,0.000280408,0.0002956516,0.000001394612,0.0000191795,0.0002379209],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9572968,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9843458,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}