{"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":"bee526e7a9cc","filters":{"venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law"}},"results":[{"id":"W2217361879","doi":"","title":"Rights-vetting in New Zealand and Canada: Similar Idea, Different Outcomes","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":15,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true},"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Vetting; Charter; Legislation; Project commissioning; Law; Political science; Politics; Bureaucracy; Publishing; Obligation; Bill of rights; Public administration; Human rights; Law and economics; Sociology","authors":[{"name":"Janet L. Hiebert","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03275547374255387,"gpt":0.3047101050061511,"spread":0.2719546312635972,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005148686,0.0001030131,0.0002124416,0.00008890784,0.0001464541,0.0002165106,0.0002062936,0.00005250505,0.0002146308],"category_scores_gemma":[0.000163326,0.00007231107,0.0000423095,0.00004509696,0.00008055726,0.0006251403,0.00003894725,0.0001889292,9.301938e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001686079,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000565796,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.6234475,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9493472,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987664,0.00006509433,0.0003546505,0.0001150545,0.0004742416,0.0002245623],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990803,0.0002084599,0.0001802091,0.00004123741,0.0001093183,0.0003804666],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00005073483,0.00007283463,0.5984774,0.000004339809,0.00008386264,0.00003850922,0.002546124,0.00001039898,0.00002066736,0.2297558,0.1438401,0.02509925],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0007040197,0.00003933717,0.1118828,0.00004062374,0.00001128191,0.00002937088,0.0002242964,0.00002376618,0.000007746998,0.006580982,0.880367,0.00008868084],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.7364498,0.000433166,0.00002633687,0.252978,0.0004599582,0.00005293206,0.000004656082,0.00000568604,0.009589422],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9687377,0.0003319312,0.0001855743,0.001132955,0.0008720566,2.88784e-7,0.000001612045,0.000004276933,0.02873363],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.736527,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.37906,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2272968454","doi":"","title":"Judicial Review of the Executive - Principled Exasperation","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","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":"Cabinet (room); Project commissioning; Statutory law; Law; Management; Publishing; Queen (butterfly); Judicial review; Political science; Operations research; Engineering; Economics","authors":[{"name":"David Mullan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.03056853756616095,"gpt":0.3255545468062269,"spread":0.294986009240066,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0007586696,0.00004093722,0.00009719069,0.00002635334,0.0001544442,0.00006119665,0.000280878,0.00003819256,0.0003083026],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003194802,0.00002587936,0.00006804382,0.00008778855,0.0001633106,0.0002995537,0.00003924663,0.0001835825,0.000001510588],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00001982636,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0003242012,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0005190096,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001388017,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9992206,0.00005411558,0.0002730972,0.00005348463,0.0003240354,0.00007468595],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9990673,0.00005287536,0.0003102682,0.00005896057,0.0004170033,0.00009356452],"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":[0.000003627292,0.00003283239,0.002007126,0.000007645092,0.00001848578,1.771161e-7,0.0003708684,1.934147e-7,0.0003920745,0.9845284,0.009364641,0.003273941],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0002185791,0.0000195322,0.005628991,0.0001198304,0.00001240584,0.00001033623,0.00005842965,0.000005839109,0.00009665701,0.01032489,0.9834723,0.00003225246],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1577097,0.001745583,0.0004147668,0.326077,0.002791493,0.0004179823,0.00002920052,0.00001391059,0.5108004],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9867261,0.002639,0.0002325688,0.001325855,0.001033786,0.000001361115,0.000002177176,0.000003059938,0.008036075],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9742035,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3375697,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2211073227","doi":"","title":"Indigenous Autonomy and Justice in North America","year":2004,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights","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":"Indigenous; Autonomy; Project commissioning; Economic Justice; Publishing; Sociology; Environmental ethics; Self-determination; Political science; Indigenous rights; Public administration; Social science; Law; Ecology","authors":[{"name":"Mark Bennett","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.01867803837209676,"gpt":0.2951108024766191,"spread":0.2764327641045224,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.000417351,0.00006174577,0.0001181579,0.0001556183,0.0007217025,0.0001302293,0.0001509922,0.00005088446,0.00005400933],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00001207711,0.00004815474,0.00002298303,0.0001240914,0.0001520656,0.0005249666,0.000002013752,0.0001572621,0.00000354967],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0002152998,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.007688712,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0575999,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.49155,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991601,0.00005767492,0.0002676087,0.00008522078,0.0002251932,0.0002042319],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9992817,0.00005755849,0.0001945044,0.00003191061,0.0001891457,0.0002451765],"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":[0.00002414271,0.0002195152,0.01952489,0.000009559222,0.00004014005,0.00001497659,0.3305917,0.00002543681,6.835782e-7,0.6391288,0.0002329141,0.01018724],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005998692,0.0001019175,0.0147835,0.00001343154,0.00000968333,0.00003846009,0.001750542,0.000001627768,0.000001285004,0.007751211,0.9748864,0.00006208129],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9051812,0.0005637361,0.0001680448,0.008629072,0.001001154,0.0001097911,0.000004506257,0.000007379678,0.08433514],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9787578,0.009429771,0.0007411003,0.0004532099,0.00141669,3.400661e-7,0.000006646529,0.000005547372,0.009188881],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9746535,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9979368,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2398323668","doi":"","title":"Review and appeal in civil aviation de-licensing regimes: A comparative study of New Zealand, Australia and Canada","year":2013,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"International Law and Aviation","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":"Appeal; Civil aviation; Tribunal; Project commissioning; Publishing; Aviation; Political science; Law; High Court; Engineering; Management; Public administration; Economics","authors":[{"name":"J. R. Parnell","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.05168192377283623,"gpt":0.3332089948969639,"spread":0.2815270711241277,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0005595919,0.0000814717,0.0002244555,0.00008939407,0.00007423353,0.0001171847,0.000111229,0.00003946536,0.0001180666],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009530214,0.00006854918,0.00001929796,0.00007666066,0.00005926495,0.0006396245,0.00002355325,0.0001338156,5.444034e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001235909,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000410997,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.7806538,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.8201025,"domain_scores_codex":[0.998909,0.0001298525,0.0003959435,0.0001015459,0.0003317414,0.0001319253],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989743,0.00009525695,0.0003673355,0.00003204568,0.0003473257,0.0001837372],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00007719608,0.0003291065,0.5403507,0.00006240482,0.0002996637,0.00001076894,0.01737971,0.00001275326,0.00007741078,0.239563,0.195931,0.005906288],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.004350012,0.0005723239,0.6006399,0.000856064,0.0001131202,0.0001111193,0.005597295,0.0001156624,0.00001962339,0.01773061,0.3695863,0.0003080233],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9779303,0.0007275945,0.00002719663,0.0176999,0.0001779828,0.0002202052,0.000004822216,0.000002647171,0.003209325],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9904857,0.001037644,0.00009571069,0.0005041575,0.0002162978,0.000001306213,0.000004919592,0.000003157582,0.007651149],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2218324,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.2795354,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null},{"id":"W2220102439","doi":"","title":"A Comparison of the Impact of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Judicial Review of Administrative Action","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"New Zealand journal of public and international law","topic":"Criminal Law and Evidence","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":"Charter; Project commissioning; Law; Bill of rights; Publishing; Political science; Judicial review; Sociology; Public administration; Human rights","authors":[{"name":"David Mullan","is_ca":false}],"retraction":null,"screen_n_in":null,"score":{"opus":0.08819755292381076,"gpt":0.3964468918595072,"spread":0.3082493389356964,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline"},"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0009026323,0.00008509508,0.0003470295,0.00006266568,0.0001479148,0.0000284901,0.0002406241,0.00005619857,0.0001117803],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0002263047,0.00003465825,0.0001412779,0.0001231064,0.0007556439,0.0002187431,0.00001693614,0.0001534863,7.704829e-8],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00004469203,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006884983,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.2838054,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.2371046,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9986144,0.0002594201,0.0004978675,0.00007494056,0.0004469892,0.0001064255],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9982415,0.000244413,0.000921802,0.00008525092,0.0003653011,0.0001416759],"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":[0.0008522183,0.0003602963,0.1426286,0.0001654369,0.000711647,0.000001634808,0.01862564,0.000008271922,0.0004443462,0.7600497,0.0728891,0.003263146],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00723595,0.003057727,0.4259647,0.007444619,0.000604126,0.0001583226,0.001525032,0.00006702536,0.005889366,0.2008155,0.3468674,0.0003702484],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9512373,0.002307232,0.000005472441,0.02645343,0.0004004449,0.0003063351,0.00004980404,0.000001096468,0.0192389],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9984312,0.0007578999,0.00001277616,0.00007895514,0.0001130456,3.72082e-7,7.80375e-7,0.000002183657,0.0006027652],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.5592342,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.7768163,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"labels":[],"label_agreement":null}]}